| 04:35 | <annevk> | I wonder if we can just make it point to a concept on the option element. But clarifying it’s B seems fine for now |
| 08:04 | <annevk> | FYI: WHATNOT started |
| 09:38 | <annevk> | foolip: could you rebase https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/11818 perhaps? Perhaps my last commit clashed somehow? I noticed we were using the wrong target definition for Sanitizer and fixed that; might be your PR is impacted as well |
| 09:38 | <smaug> | still trying to remember where heading offset was discussed... I remember the room, and I think wasn't Anaheim, but some nicer place. Probably Sevilla? |
| 09:39 | <smaug> | Yes, https://github.com/whatwg/meta/issues/284. And now the notes... |
| 09:42 | <annevk> |
|
| 09:42 | <annevk> | lol |
| 09:53 | <smaug> | annevk: what was the DOM pr/issue number you mentioned, which wasn't on the agenda |
| 09:55 | <annevk> | smaug: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/1486 |
| 10:11 | <smaug> | yeah, can't really figure out why it was added https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/744 |
| 10:11 | <smaug> | But removing sounds good |
| 10:13 | <annevk> | smaug: from what I recall I (we?) wanted ShadowRoot and DocumentFragment with host to be more consistent with each other |
| 10:14 | <smaug> | yeah, could be that consistency bit |
| 10:15 | <smaug> | But since no one ever implemented that, removing is ok |
| 11:46 | <annevk> | smaug: I added you to the group of people who have write access to all spec repos. The main effect of this is that your review checkmark will now be green. (Which then will also allow people to merge based on that as the main branches typically require a PR + review although some allow admins to merge without review.) |
| 11:47 | <smaug> | Now the important question is that what was the color before, if not green? |
| 11:52 | <annevk> | I wanted to post a screenshot, but it seems that GitHub changes the checkmark retroactively. Which seems quite wrong. Found one: |
| 11:57 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Black coral |
| 12:19 | <annevk> | By the way, it seems that TC39 has moved away from coercion except for booleans. So we should probably do it as well. Kinda silly as I'm pretty sure we added coercion for consistency with JavaScript. |
| 13:29 | <Noam Rosenthal> | annevk freddy : can I enlist WebKit/Gecko as interested in "sanitize while parsing"? the only observable behavior of that is text node coalescing but some follow up fixes (e.g. sanitizer DSD support) rely on that. also does that need its own implementation bug opened? |
| 13:30 | <Noam Rosenthal> | (https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/12645) |
| 14:49 | <annevk> | Yes, no for WebKit; ?, probably yes for Gecko |
| 14:50 | <annevk> | I'm pretty sure we established ? is yes for Gecko too |
| 15:11 | <keithamus> | annevk: we're discussing https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/14143 in the openui/csswg/whatwg joint meeting right now. |
| 15:18 | <Noam Rosenthal> | "yes, no for WebKit"? sounds like "yes"? |
| 15:18 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Ah "no" for opening a specific bug, gotcha |
| 15:39 | <annevk> | Sorry, had to run an errand. That's why I left a comment. |
| 17:08 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Hey I'll go to TPAC in October by train+ferry from the netherlands (NL-BE-London-Wales). If anybody along that path (or from around Paris, or western germany) wants more info or to join me rather than flying, react to this message or DM me :) |
| 17:41 | <linus> | unlikely to be at TPAC but i love that you're still doing that |
| 22:23 | <jmdyck> | In https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#updating-the-image-data, there's a sentence that begins with "That task, and each subsequent task," and contains "if image request is the current request". Does that if-test happen when the task is queued, or when it runs, or something else? |