| 06:58 | <annevk> | Yeah that seems busted somehow. Might be a Bikeshed issue. |
| 07:33 | <annevk> | freddy: did you review https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/12583? I'm curious where we ended up as you also had a Trusted Types proposal around sanitization. |
| 07:43 | <zcorpan> | Merged, thanks! |
| 07:57 | <freddy> | Adding to my queue, but likely not reviewing this week |
| 08:01 | <annevk> | Noam Rosenthal: AI has found a lot of blockers for these 1 TT + 4 HTML stacked PRs. Given that we likely need a couple more rounds here based on what I'm seeing I'd rather merge my PRs. |
| 08:02 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Can you send these blockers over? |
| 08:03 | <Noam Rosenthal> | That's OK of course, I'll manage with the rebase |
| 08:04 | <annevk> | Yeah will do. I guess I'll create a gist again as that seemed to work okay, right? |
| 08:04 | <Noam Rosenthal> | yea sure, whatever format. comment/gist/fax all works |
| 08:05 | <Noam Rosenthal> | interesting how different people get different results on LLMs for these reviews. Both zcorpan and myself did a few rounds. I wonder if it's a matter of prompt, personal context, or which LLM engine |
| 08:07 | <Noam Rosenthal> | annevk: also I'd like to see if anything in the API shape has an issue - I'd like to at least move this to stage 3, or if this is only logical bugs/editorial issues |
| 08:07 | <annevk> | https://gist.github.com/annevk/973d21ae390332babf94d6abddaf9a08 Note that the initial HTML PR is covered by both files. Probably the second file has a better review for it. |
| 08:07 | <annevk> | I was using Opus 5 at max effort FWIW. |
| 08:09 | <annevk> | I think we have agreement on most of these features, except for maybe the Trusted Types integration. At least I know freddy wanted to look at that. |
| 08:10 | <zcorpan> | Might be worthwhile to set up a loop that reviews with different models |
| 08:17 | <annevk> | It seems my own PRs have also been invalidated, but hopefully they are not too hard to rebase on top of out-of-order streaming. |
| 08:40 | <annevk> | Noam Rosenthal: I guess I should wait with further refactoring. I really want to turn the insertion location into a tuple. Though if you can think of changes that would make your PRs easier to review, perhaps it would be good to make those as smaller standalone changes first. |
| 08:45 | <annevk> | See https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1706 for context. Before vacation I was just trying to address a number of old HTML parser issues which is how I stumbled upon this mess. |
| 08:47 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Yea there's a ton of mess in the parser. I am more familiar with it now after integrating it with all the new stuff (sanitizer/streamHTML) |
| 08:48 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Rebasing was actually quite easy |
| 08:57 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Though the bottom 2 PRs in the stack don't rely on anything special in the parser. It's just new calls to the fragment parser. Where it touches the parser internals is with streaming |
| 09:55 | <Noam Rosenthal> | freddy: we discussed this a few weeks ago and at WHATNOT |
| 10:21 | <Michael Reeves> | Dominic Farolino: just following up on this, no worries if you're busy! |
| 10:25 | <Noam Rosenthal> | I can address the "make insertion into a tuple" thing before, and also making the "fragment case" more normative. I think doing those would make the reviews of the upper two PRs easier (though they shouldn't affect the bottom two at all) |
| 10:36 | <annevk> | Thanks! And interesting, I would have expected it to impact the sanitizer integration. |
| 10:38 | <Noam Rosenthal> | yea it does affect that, that's the 3rd PR in the stack |
| 10:39 | <Noam Rosenthal> | The first two are mostly independent of parser stuff, but they touch the fragment parser initialization so I preferred to put them first. they're also much simpler |
| 10:39 | <annevk> | Oh I guess this shows my confusion with stacks. |
| 10:40 | <Noam Rosenthal> | yea it goes bottom up... I guess it's more like a queue |
| 10:41 | <Noam Rosenthal> | point is, the first two are quite independent, and this stack is built in a way where each PR can be submitted sequentially and we don't need to review everything at once |
| 10:41 | <annevk> | Noam Rosenthal Luke Warlow: so for innerHTML, an XML document, and Trusted Types, the story is that TrustedHTML is accepted and a string is not, right? Would we throw for this new type so we can make it work later? |
| 10:42 | <annevk> | Okay, I guess we should focus on Trusted Types for now then and hopefully freddy can review it soon. Or am I incorrect in assuming that has to land first as well? |
| 10:43 | <Luke Warlow> | Noam Rosenthal Luke Warlow: so for innerHTML, an XML document, and Trusted Types, the story is that TrustedHTML is accepted and a string is not, right? Would we throw for this new type so we can make it work later? |
| 10:43 | <Noam Rosenthal> | it has to land first as well in this stack, but I could change the order if absolutely necessary (rather not) |
| 10:49 | <annevk> | Alright cool. Let's aim for that then. |
| 10:50 | <annevk> | Okay, yeah that makes sense to me. I doubt we'll ever put it in the effort, but who knows. |
| 11:55 | <zcorpan> | Noam Rosenthal: are the extra commits in https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/61748 expected? |
| 12:27 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Maybe it's not stacked correctly on top of the other ones. But there are a few new commits for streamHTML together with template for |
| 13:46 | <Noam Rosenthal> | I will check on Monday. Perhaps let's focus on the bottom of the stack first (trusted types, positional methods) and then I will re-align the rest once that lands? My initial goal with stacking is that reviewers will be able to see the whole picture but we can land them one at a time |
| 14:17 | <danae404> | Would someone be able to send me a link to the WHATNOT meeting today? Also, if there's time in the agenda, could someone add https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/12735? (I think I don't have permission to add agenda+ myself) |
| 14:41 | <annevk> | Hey danae404, I added you to the calendar. I'll also fix your permissions in a second. |
| 14:42 | <danae404> | Thank you! |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | danae404: also, it seems it was already discussed two weeks ago and people are generally supportive based on the comments on the PR. |
| 15:02 | <danae404> | annevk: I wasn't sure if it needed further discussion regarding whether or not to restrict it to added tracks |
| 15:45 | <annevk> | zcorpan Noam Rosenthal: could you review https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/12703? |
| 16:11 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Afk until Monday, will look then if no one beats me to it |
| 16:57 | <annevk> | Dominic Farolino: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/commit/ed37f83e79426194b075cfc29a5454894ae6f36f has the crashing test. https://github.com/whatwg/html/commit/57811ef0dca48568665d65eafd827764e9e454a2 is the HTML parser fix. |
| 16:58 | <annevk> | It's done, ta! |