| 08:24 | <annevk> | zcorpan freddy Noam Rosenthal: is everyone now on the same page with the Trusted Types bits of the parser changes? I'd like to let AI do a final-review given the many changes but hopefully we can land that soon then. |
| 08:29 | <annevk> | zcorpan Noam Rosenthal hsivonen: I found more HTML parser interoperability issues, this time with foster-parenting (no specification changes required this time though): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/62346 |
| 08:29 | <freddy> | Generally yes, though I haven't re-reviewed latest changes after my first pass on friday. |
| 08:51 | <Michael Reeves> | Hi! I was wondering if anyone could please review my small console spec change, I've been waiting about a month. It's here: https://github.com/whatwg/console/pull/254 If there's anything else I need to do in order for it to be reviewed LMK. Thanks! :) |
| 08:54 | <annevk> | Hopefully Dominic Farolino can take a look. |
| 08:55 | <annevk> | One thing I'm noticing myself is that it's doing the setter steps pattern incorrectly. |
| 08:55 | <annevk> | It's pretending there's a value parameter whereas instead Web IDL describes a magical "the given value" phrase we ought to use. |
| 08:56 | <Ms2ger> | Speaking of PRs, is there anyone who could merge https://github.com/w3c/DOM-Parsing/pull/88 ? Maybe sideshowbarker ? |
| 09:15 | <annevk> | zcorpan Noam Rosenthal: I'm once again surprised at the lack of alignment between AI tools. Claude found a lot that's possibly wrong. Some of the defects might be design decisions I suppose (such as not honoring the sanitizer for TrustedHTML inputs), but they do seem rather surprising and I don't think the proposed commit message spells them out? https://gist.github.com/annevk/adeb57f8be2ccd3d75fb8d8523cf598a |
| 09:55 | <hsivonen> | Thanks. keithamus ^ |
| 12:08 | <annevk> | Noam Rosenthal: a test where we invoke open() on the a parseHTMLUnsafe document is invalid as parseHTMLUnsafe creates a document with an opaque origin currently. So open() throws. I don't remember if that was intentional or not. |
| 12:42 | <annevk> | What do you think we should do? Who else might have an opinion? Luke Warlow? |
| 12:43 | <Luke Warlow> | Is there a GitHub comment for context here? |
| 13:23 | <annevk> | No, I was just looking at WebKit test failures for shadow-dom/declarative/declarative-shadow-dom-opt-in.html and stumbled across this. |
| 13:23 | <annevk> | I guess I should file an issue. |
| 13:30 | <annevk> | https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/12878 |
| 13:37 | <Noam Rosenthal> | oh interesting |
| 13:42 | <Noam Rosenthal> | For most of this stuff it seems like the problem is in the most recent change since freddy's comment (plus a few nits), so it could be a genuine mistake in that part |
| 14:10 | <Noam Rosenthal> | annevk: I went through them, 2 are wrong, and the rest are mostly missing comments/some changes to examples/nits. There was one logical error in the recently changes algorithm (I have to return the author-provided sanitizer and not null when the author passed TrustedHTML). |
| 14:11 | <Luke Warlow> | What's weird here is Chrome does seem to do a same origin check on document.open() and at least according to the Origin API parseHTMLUnsafe() does return a document with an opaque origin |
| 14:13 | <annevk> | Wait Chrome does not throw when you pass a document to Origin.from()? |
| 14:19 | <Luke Warlow> | Oh whoops scratch that I used the constructor (which doesn't throw with excess params) |
| 14:19 | <Noam Rosenthal> | I do have to still update the HTML bit and also the commit message of the trusted-types bit |
| 14:43 | <bkardell> | who is the editor of fs? https://github.com/whatwg/fs. Just curious, no real particular reason - there's none listed at the top and there's an ack in the bottom but I'm not sure |
| 14:45 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Didn't we assign a new editor at web engine hackfest? |
| 14:48 | <annevk> | I'm the editor as per https://whatwg.org/workstreams. The deputy editor is Austin Sullivan per https://github.com/whatwg/sg/blob/main/db.json though he has been inactive. James M Snell is planning to take over. We had scheduled a meeting to discuss that, but something came up. |
| 14:51 | <annevk> | It does seem weird that the Acknowledgments section talks about Marijn. It seems that https://github.com/whatwg/sg/commit/5d1adcc36daebc51298d9a290823777181b37ddb did not happen on both sides. |
| 15:17 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Fixed the html bits as well, they were 100% suggestions/nits so it makes sense different LLMs come up with different issues. To conclude, out of all of this, the only substantial issue was carrying over the given |
| 16:32 | <annevk> | I'll have another look tomorrow, but you're saying that ignoring the sanitizer when TrustedHTML is passed was indeed a bug? |
| 16:33 | <annevk> | While not substantive, I also found the "setter steps" change a bit troubling, I take it that is addressed as well? |
| 16:51 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Yes - that one was a bug. |
| 16:51 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Yes, all of the comments you've sent are addressed |
| 17:15 | <Noam Rosenthal> | The "setter steps" thing - why is this troubling? I thought we try to fix phrasing to be normative in places where we touch. That was at least the intention... but I reverted it to be "the given value" |
| 19:51 | <annevk> | Can you clarify what you mean? Web IDL defines the pattern, no? |
| 19:53 | <Noam Rosenthal> | I see, those setters don't have an xref to that "given value" so I thought it's just prose like we had for "insertion point" |
| 19:54 | <Noam Rosenthal> | TIL that it's a normative thing |
| 23:38 | <James M Snell> | Yeah still planning to jump in here soon but have been absolutely buried the past month. Hoping to start digging in on this in the coming couple of weeks |