| 07:39 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Oh you're right Double negative |
| 08:23 | <annevk> | Domenic: I played a bit with AI to see if I could solve an old URL issue. WDYT? ^ |
| 08:27 | <annevk> | (I was expecting this to be easier by the way, but it actually took a surprising amount of persistence and continuous tweaking.) |
| 08:50 | <sideshowbarker> | Pretty neat. The concentric boxes, and how it indicates the origin parts |
| 08:52 | <evilpie> | I think two different similar blues aren't good. But the presentation overall is cool. |
| 11:24 | <Lea Verou> | Hi all! Q: In the last WHATNOT annevk expressed the view that polyfilling is undesirable, which surprised me. Curious if that reflects a broader committee shift. Are there are others here that feel this way? Until now, I was under the impression that the general consensus was that the benefits outweigh the occassional smooshgate (however unfortunate this is when it happens) and that we generally do want web platform features to be polyfillable. Is that no longer the case? |
| 13:11 | <jmdyck> | re the URL diagram: I think I would prefer a diagram in which horizontal space was inserted into the shorter URLs so that the corresponding components (e.g. all the host components) were in a vertical column. Then you wouldn't need the horizontal lines telling each component where it 'belongs'. |
| 13:15 | <jmdyck> | I think all the criss-crossing lines make it look more complicated than it really is. |
| 14:39 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Polyfilling is undesirable for what specifically? |