| 06:43 | <annevk> | Amazing, custom elements is the sole reason we still need to be able to modify the prefix of elements. |
| 09:27 | <Luke Warlow> | Congrats on upstreaming the sanitizer API everyone! |
| 13:50 | <smaug> | foolip: is https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/12473 fixing some spec issue? What might be the issue number. Or is it linked somewhere? |
| 14:29 | <smaug> | zcorpan: can you (or someone else) re-trigger diff creation for https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10995 ? |
| 16:03 | <annevk> | Alan Stearns: I think we should make the joint meeting also end at :50 or :55 at the latest so people have some time |
| 17:06 | <smaug> | annevk: jarhar what is the spec pr/issue where shadow dom for option is being discussed? |
| 17:15 | <smaug> | I guess https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/12201 |
| 17:15 | <jarhar> | yes, thats the one |
| 17:16 | <smaug> | Need to think a bit performance in case of thousands of option elements and such |
| 17:16 | <smaug> | Which is a thing with select element unfortunately |
| 17:22 | <smaug> | jarhar: what does "it is appended to the option 's shadow root as the second child." mean? |
| 17:27 | <jarhar> | whoops, fixed that but forgot to push the commit. should be fixed now |
| 17:36 | <smaug> | jarhar: but ok, that seems mostly minor tweak to the spec. Might affect a bit to UA's find and/or selection |
| 17:37 | <smaug> | we couldn't do this using some css magic ? (not sure it would be any better) |
| 17:38 | <jarhar> | could you elaborate? |
| 17:42 | <smaug> | jarhar: isn't this to use either label or the actual content? |
| 17:42 | <smaug> | or do we need the shadow dom for something else |
| 17:43 | <smaug> | I guess we would need to have some new pseudo elements and they then have content or something |
| 17:44 | <jarhar> | yes, its to use the label attribute or the actual content |
| 18:31 | <smaug> | annevk: Alice (🇳🇱) dandclark This one text predictor predicted some visualization for tomorrow's event handling meeting https://mozilla.pettay.fi/composed-events-dispatch.html I think it got it right, even the last scenario |
| 18:34 | <smaug> | hmm, maybe a bug |
| 18:35 | <smaug> | when dealing with composed=false |
| 18:39 | <smaug> | fixed |