| 00:59 | <jmdyck> | In wording such as "abort the image request, queue an element task ... to restart the animation if restart animation is set, and return", I'm looking at the phrase "if restart animation is set". It's ambiguous whether it associates with the "queue" or the "restart". Probably the latter (i.e. the check of 'restart animation' happens when the task runs), but it's unclear how I'm supposed to know that. Should I assume that an 'if' like that always associates with the most recent verb? |
| 03:14 | <Kaiido> | In that case I'd assume it's the whole "queue a task to X" that's conditional to this "if"; it would be weird to queue a task to do nothing. Maybe placing that "if" at the beginning of the clause would be clearer, and maybe using a sub-list would be even clearer. |
| 03:18 | <jmdyck> | It would indeed be weird to queue a task to do nothing, if you knew at the time of queuing that it would do nothing. But in this case, I don't think you know, because you don't know if 'restart animation' will be set at the time the task runs. |
| 03:21 | <jmdyck> | But anyhow, it's useful to see that someone can reach a different conclusion about how the 'if' attaches: shows there's some need for disambiguation. |
| 03:22 | <Kaiido> | I took restart animation as the param passed to the call to update the image data not as the mutable flag anymore. |
| 03:27 | <jmdyck> | Hm, yeah. |
| 03:29 | <jmdyck> | Yeah, now i'm leaning to the 'if' attaching to the 'queue', like you say. |
| 06:08 | <annevk> | I think it could do with a rewrite to use nested steps instead. The "if" at the end is always awkward and probably a sign you should reword. |
| 06:08 | <annevk> | Except in very trivial ternary cases I suppose. |
| 08:35 | <Luke Warlow> | Fwiw I find these prose conditionals really hard to grok quite often. Even in fairly trivial cases it takes an extra second to realise oh this is a conditional thing and it's also harder to write and get the grammar right too. I wouldn't even mind this being split into an ol and two lis. I think single line ifs without the steps only really work if it's a single inner step |
| 13:07 | <annevk> | Anyone interested in reviewing https://github.com/whatwg/url/pull/904? (A couple of minor changes.) |
| 14:36 | <annevk> | keithamus: it seems serialization order in the test is still mismatching with the standard; I'll put up a PR |
| 15:28 | <annevk> | Did nobody file an issue yet on PR Preview not working? I just filed https://github.com/tobie/pr-preview/issues/176 |
| 15:50 | <annevk> | Andreu Botella: just a draft for now based on your work, but hoping to make multipart/form-data happen finally: https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/1922 |
| 15:50 | <Andreu Botella> | oh, that's awesome |
| 15:51 | <Andreu Botella> | i don't know if i'll have much time to help here soon |
| 15:51 | <Andreu Botella> | but I'll be keeping an eye on it |
| 16:10 | <Luke Warlow> | I did think that it was missing on your URL pr but assumed that maybe it was only on DOM and HTML. |
| 21:17 | <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/12351 |