| 13:15 | <Noam Rosenthal> | WebKit shipped it first so it seemed like a good interop candidate? I wish those discussions were public TBH |
| 14:42 | <Noam Rosenthal> | I remember conversations here about "abstract operation" being a legacy thing used only to link to Ecmascript... am I hallucinating? Couldn't find official documentation of this |
| 15:31 | <Luke Warlow> | https://matrix.to/#/!AGetWbsMpFPdSgUrbs:matrix.org/$GGIAyoeqcNC8XU5GC9IdvjHe_qKZQ_H-VnpMRYcNtS8 - yes it's mostly ecma related. I don't think it's legacy per-se but I don't think it's used much either. |
| 17:45 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Just received a PR with those so not sure if to treat it like a matter of taste or a matter of convention |
| 18:19 | <Luke Warlow> | They are/were used in the trusted types spec, so it might be more common in W3C specs and just not super common in whatwg |
| 21:42 | <Noam Rosenthal> | thanks Luke! |
| 21:56 | <jmdyck> | I'm looking at grammatical ambiguity in the HTML spec, found a couple examples. The form is roughly something is a thing whose X is foo and is bar, where it's ambiguous where the is bar attaches: does it modify something or X? |
| 21:56 | <jmdyck> | One example is in 4.10.19.5 Enabling and disabling form controls: the disabled attribute: |
| 21:57 | <jmdyck> |
|
| 21:58 | <jmdyck> | (This is disambiguated by knowing that it doesn't make sense to ask if an attribute is a descendant of something.) |
| 21:58 | <jmdyck> | Other example is in 6.8.6 Writing suggestions: |
| 21:59 | <jmdyck> |
|
| 22:00 | <jmdyck> | (Disambiguated because you don't ask if an attribute is mutable.) |
| 22:06 | <jmdyck> | In 6.8.6, you could avoid the ambiguity by swapping the order: "element is mutable and is an input element whose ....", but that doesn't work for 4.10.19.5. |
| 22:08 | <jmdyck> | I suppose both could avoid ambiguity by repeating the elided subject. (e.g. "the element is a descendant of A and the element is not a descendant of B") ("element is an input element whose ... and element is mutable") |