| 04:18 | <Doctor> | Are there any existing proposals on giving the ability to disable ArrayBuffer's transferable-ness? |
| 04:22 | <Doctor> | From my understanding the buffer for WebAssembly.Memory is special in that it can't be transferred. |
| 04:23 | <Doctor> | So arguable there are use cases for the ability to disable its transferable-ness |
| 14:37 | <Luke Warlow> | Is https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/ the latest SVG spec that's published? It's wildly out of date and just wondering if there's some other document I'm meant to be looking at. |
| 14:37 | <sideshowbarker> | That’s unfortunately the latest published spec |
| 14:38 | <sideshowbarker> | The owner of the svgwg.org domain is the only one who can get that updated |
| 14:40 | <sideshowbarker> | I hope what we can manage to get done is, he sets up a permanent redirect to from svgwg.org to https://w3c.github.io/svgwg/, and then that becomes the canonical URL for the spec instead |
| 14:43 | <sideshowbarker> | But in the meantime, I guess I should at least get the https://w3c.github.io/svg2-draft/ URL working. I suppose it’s just a matter of fiddling with the spec build (which I think is an ad-hoc thing that doesn’t use Bikeshed or Respec) |
| 14:47 | <sideshowbarker> | That said, if there’s somebody here who’s looking for opportunities to contribute, messing around with getting that build working again would be a nice way. The build seems to be some combination of Python and Node-based JavaScript stuff |
| 14:51 | <Ms2ger> | I wonder if it'd cost more time to get the build system working or to convert everything to bs |
| 14:51 | <Luke Warlow> | If someones got time could they finish speccing SVG while they're at it ;) |
| 14:52 | <Ms2ger> | Just don't tell me if it's using anolis |
| 14:52 | <sideshowbarker> | heh |
| 14:54 | <sideshowbarker> | Anyway, yeah, 100% agreed on both counts: It ideally should at least be using the same build tooling we use for other specs — but really, the bigger problem is that nobody’s actually been working on the spec itself for literally years now |
| 14:55 | <Ms2ger> | At least moving it to bs would be a finite amount of work :) |
| 14:56 | <Ms2ger> | I might do it if you have budget |
| 14:56 | <Luke Warlow> | The thing is there are changes to the source that just aren't reflected in the published form, so if someone was looking to make changes it would be confusing. |
| 14:58 | <Luke Warlow> | Admittedly very few changes considering but there are some. Even some from before the last published date that don't show up. |
| 15:08 | <sideshowbarker> | Yeah, especially for anyone trying to work on a new completely implementation from the spec, it’s not workable |
| 15:11 | <sideshowbarker> | I may be able to get a budget for it. About the general problem of finding ways to get not-actively-being-edited specs edited, I’m planning a breakout for TPAC about it. And I have some ideas about how we can get some funding mechanisms set up |
| 15:13 | <sideshowbarker> | But maybe in the meantime, this migrate-the-SVG-spec-build-to-Bikeshed thing would be also be a good concrete way to investigate some alternative funding ideas |
| 15:14 | <sideshowbarker> | What I have been wondering about is, getting something set up similar to what Polar.sh used to provide |
| 15:16 | <sideshowbarker> | …which is, basically, enabling a way to set bounties in particular GitHub issues — and anybody who cares enough about a particular issue can directly offer some amount of money bounty on the issue |
| 15:16 | <sideshowbarker> | And then whoever puts together a patch/PR which resolves that issue would end up getting the money from the bounty on the issue |
| 15:18 | <sideshowbarker> | And ideally the bounty could come from multiple people — so we could potentially “crowd-source” a bounty from multiple individual small contributions |
| 15:18 | <Ms2ger> | Ideally it would come from the companies with big pockets :) |
| 15:18 | <sideshowbarker> | well |
| 15:19 | <sideshowbarker> | That’s what we’ve always done in the past — but more behind the scenes, not publicly |
| 15:20 | <sideshowbarker> | But it seems to be getting harder to get money that way these days |
| 15:21 | <sideshowbarker> | And there’s something to be said about exposing the funding pain points more publicly, and making them into problems that the community collectively has more of a direct stake in helping with |
| 15:36 | <AtkinsSJ> | Reviving the SVG spec in some way would be greatly appreciated. It's a really widely used format, with a lot of holes in the spec and an assortment of interop issues. |
| 15:46 | <Ms2ger> | (No way I'm touching the contents, just to be clear) |
| 19:03 | <bkardell> | hey I'd like to add something to the xslt issue... |
| 19:04 | <bkardell> | can someone unlock it or add me as a collaborator somehow? |
| 19:04 | <bkardell> | not sure who can do that really |
| 19:22 | <bkardell> | oh well, I sent it to mfreed - I guess he can include it for me worst case |
| 20:06 | <sideshowbarker> | The associated PR isn't locked (yet). So you could post your comment directly yourself there |
| 20:24 | <Luke Warlow> | That's locked too |
| 20:24 | <sideshowbarker> | Yeah, I just now noticed that |
| 20:26 | <sideshowbarker> | Too bad we can't have an actual technical discussion about this anywhere in the issue tracker without the trolls showing up |
| 22:17 | <sadlyascii> | also i wanted to ask, the issue mentions a pollyfill in js, so could browsers, instead of using libxslt, have that pollyfill built-in to render xslt in js, similarly to how they use pdf.js to render pdf? |