| 00:30 | <TabAtkins> | sideshowbarker: Is the https://github.com/w3c/mdn-spec-links project dead? It looks like it hasn't updated in two years, and now there are three specs listed in https://w3c.github.io/mdn-spec-links/SPECMAP.json whose files no longer exist in the repo. |
| 00:31 | <sideshowbarker> | Dead |
| 00:31 | <sideshowbarker> | Essentially, yes |
| 00:31 | <TabAtkins> | is there a replacement? otherwise I need to just remove the MDN-panel feature from bikeshed |
| 00:32 | <sideshowbarker> | Please go ahead and remove it. |
| 00:32 | <sideshowbarker> | There's no replacement |
| 00:32 | <sideshowbarker> | If I could get somebody to take over maintenance on it, that would be great |
| 00:33 | <sideshowbarker> | Or to make a replacement |
| 00:33 | <sideshowbarker> | But in the meantime, let's just rip it out |
| 00:37 | <TabAtkins> | kk, i'm just gonna check with our internal mdn people first |
| 05:45 | <annevk> | sideshowbarker: Encoding standard is failing over "This document appears to be written in Kinyarwanda but the “html” start tag has “lang="en"”. Consider using “lang="rw"” (or variant) instead." for many files. I guess I'll try to suppress that warning. |
| 05:57 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: thanks for all the fixes! |
| 06:06 | <annevk> | sideshowbarker: is there a new charter for the Wasm WG somewhere? |
| 06:08 | <annevk> | Ah, found https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/533 |
| 08:21 | <Ms2ger> | 🤯 |
| 09:59 | <Noam Rosenthal> | annevk: I've updated the out-of-order streaming explainer after the discussion about prepend last WHATNOT... https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates/blob/main/patching-explainer.md#interleaved-patching In short, I think we still need append/replace-children as methods to allow multiple patches to the same element accumulate, and doing that with comments would be messy |
| 11:22 | <Noam Rosenthal> | zcorpan: ping re. merging https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/11692 when you get a chance, it's been approved and all the boxes are ticked :) |
| 11:38 | <zcorpan> | Noam Rosenthal: Thanks for pinging here, and apologies for the delay |
| 11:39 | <Noam Rosenthal> | No worries! |
| 12:50 | <annevk> | Dominic Farolino: any chance I can convince you to tackle these issues: https://github.com/domenic/jake-diagram-generator/issues? |
| 12:56 | <annevk> | Oh, maybe the checker is wrong? /me finds https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/10532 |
| 12:56 | <sideshowbarker> | from what I recall of that, I maintain that the checker is in fact not wrong |
| 12:57 | <sideshowbarker> | that is, the checker is flagging an actual “table integrity” error |
| 12:59 | <sideshowbarker> | but that said, the message is just a warning; and if the table-integrity “error” isn’t causing any known actual problems for anybody trying to use the information in the — in particular, not for AT users especially, but also, not resulting in an visual breakage — then the right (pragmatic) thing to do it, just ignore it |
| 13:00 | <sideshowbarker> | and also in general, it may be time for us to no longer be treating all checker warnings as errors — as far as the spec builds go |
| 13:03 | <sideshowbarker> | Sorry about that. I was aware of it and at https://github.com/validator/validator/blob/main/build/build.py#L1281 — in the whatwg-spec-build-check thing I added to the checker CI — I am filtering that warning out. But it should have occurred to me that would not fix it for the actual upstream whatwg builds. I guess that was because I had been (wrongly) assuming the builds were only failing on checker errors, but not on warnings. |
| 13:06 | <annevk> | We don't fail on "info warnings" it seems, which is why HTML is still going strong. I think I agree with you that this Jake diagram pattern is suspicious. At least the HTML standard makes no mention of a "missing cell" concept. |
| 13:06 | <sideshowbarker> | The language guesser that the checker uses — and I think that in general, all other such language guessers, as a class — do not operate predictably on non-prose text content. |
| 13:07 | <sideshowbarker> | One mitigation I already have the language guesser in the checker tuned to do, is to just not try to operate on any text content that is less than about ~200 words (1024 characters). |
| 13:09 | <sideshowbarker> | …but that doesn’t help for the case where there is more than 1024 characters of completely no-prose text content. Which under normal real-world cases is a highly exceptional case. But those Encoding spec legacy-coverage files are highly exceptional in a lot of ways… |
| 13:11 | <sideshowbarker> | So one thing I want to suggest considering is: For the Encoding spec, we change the build to only running the HTML checker on the spec index.html file itself — and not on any of those (dozens) of other legacy-coverage files (which are anyway just big tables of characters, or whatever they are) |
| 13:13 | <sideshowbarker> | Alternatively, I am fairly certain I could tune the language guesser further such that we could make it end up just completely not trying to do any language-guessing at all on content of those Encoding legacy-coverage files. |
| 13:14 | <sideshowbarker> | And lastly I will say that I personally have zero love for maintaining that language-guessing (mis)feature of the HTML checker anyway, and my life would be somewhat easier if I could just rip that feature out entirely. |
| 13:17 | <sideshowbarker> | …but what stops me from doing that is the fact it’s an accessibility-related use case — specifically, trying to make sure that people aren’t just cargo-cult-copying lang=en into every document, despite the actual language of the document’s content) |
| 13:18 | <sideshowbarker> | In other words, it’s not something I added to the checker myself on a whim. And I don’t have any replacement for it at hand that would do the job any better. |
| 14:00 | <annevk> | FWIW, I think it's fine. Suppressing it was not too much work. |
| 14:00 | <sideshowbarker> | Yeah, that said, I don’t exactly strongly disagree the standard necessarily shouldn’t have such a “missing cell” concept. But as currently written, it doesn’t. I don’t personally care that much about it either way. But it’s just the thing of, making the checker conform to the spec requires doing what the spec actually says, rather than what I or anybody else thinks it rightly should say instead. |