| 05:51 | <nektro> | is there a matrix/slack/etc like this community but for unicode? |
| 07:39 | <annevk> | Fernando Fiori: I think what you want to be able to defend is why entry here is correct. Note that I gave a reason in that discussion as to why it is not (you end up looking at the wrong ancestor chain). |
| 07:41 | <annevk> | nektro: I think Unicode is fairly closed, but if you find something that contradicts that, please let me know. (There might still be a public mailing list though.) |
| 11:10 | <eemeli> | Unicode has a slack instance, though it's not well advertised. Here's a joining link: https://join.slack.com/t/unicode-org/shared_invite/zt-3ntrn2geu-i81l1gMJGnYZ33TayeZXXQ |
| 11:28 | <sideshowbarker> | IMHO having eemeli around with his ears on here may be more useful than what could be got from discussion wherever else it might be taking place (including that dedicated Slack instance for Unicode he mentioned) |
| 15:33 | <mfreed> | Hi all, just a friendly reminder to post any discussion topics for this Thursday's joint CSSWG/WHATWG/OpenUI task force meeting to the meeting agenda issue: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/12064 |
| 20:01 | <Fernando Fiori> | Thanks Anne, yes I was just curious as to why entry is discouraged in general, separate from the PR intention itself. But regards the PR, if we want to look at the document that initiated the action of calling x.focus(), wouldn't entry be the right choice? Sorry if I'm wrong or missing something, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be the right ancestor chain. Olli suggested using incumbent instead at WHATNOT but I understand that would refer to the realm where the call is being executed, which wouldn't match the PR's intentions. |
| 20:12 | <Noam Rosenthal> | https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27196 has an interesting conversation about it from 11~ years ago |
| 20:40 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Fernando Fiori: See also this warning and the text underneath: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#topmost-script-having-execution-context:~:text=concepts%20should%20not%20be%20used%20by%20new%20specifications%2C%20as%20they%20are%20excessively%20complicated%20and%20unintuitive%20to%20work%20with.%20We%20are%20working%20to%20remove%20almost%20all%20existing%20uses%20from%20the%20platform I think the recommendation there to go with "relevant" is something to consider |
| 21:12 | <Fernando Fiori> | I see! Ok got it. Thanks :) |