| 05:29 | <annevk> | We could maybe have a <dfn> for "the given value". Forgot why Domenic and I opted not to do that. |
| 07:12 | <hsivonen> | It looks to me like Chromium is switching (non-XSLT) XML parsing from libxml2 to https://github.com/kornelski/xml-rs . The README of the crate says that it targets XML 1.1. Is Chromium switching support for Web XML from 1.0 4th ed to 1.1, or are there some changes to keep the target as 1.0 4th ed. despite the README? |
| 07:15 | <hsivonen> | Whoa. TIL that 1.0th 5th ed. went this far: https://github.com/kornelski/xml-rs/commit/bd8fe074cca1ed5f1aadaa151284c3d218308484 |
| 07:15 | <hsivonen> | Was Chromium doing 5th ed. already previously? I thought the Web was 4th ed. |
| 07:16 | <hsivonen> | FWIW, libexpat is explicitly 4th ed. |
| 07:21 | <hsivonen> | Whoa. https://wpt.fyi/results/xml/xml-prolog-accepted-versions.html?label=master&label=experimental&aligned |
| 07:22 | <hsivonen> | I have a recollection of the WHATWG leaning towards staying on 4th ed. Was Chromium's and WebKit's move to 5th ed. discussed here or did it just happen? |
| 07:25 | <hsivonen> | The wpt test case appears to come from a hidden Chromium issue: https://issues.chromium.org/issues/441911594 |
| 07:53 | <hsivonen> | Looks like Chromium was doing this already 13 years ago: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501837#c5 |
| 07:54 | <sideshowbarker> | Ladybird shows the same results as WebKit and Chrome for that https://wpt.fyi/results/xml/xml-prolog-accepted-versions.html?label=master&product=chrome%5Bexperimental%5D&product=firefox%5Bexperimental%5D&product=safari%5Bexperimental%5D&product=ladybird&aligned And Ladybird’s just using libxml2 as-is. So I assume that’s from libxml2 behavior as-is. |
| 07:54 | <hsivonen> | sideshowbarker: AFAICT, libxml2 has a flag to request 4th ed. behavior, but I guess the browsers that use libxml2 don't set that flag. |
| 07:57 | <hsivonen> | I'm very curious why 5th ed. didn't take the relaxation of the value space of text node content from XML 1.1. That's in practice a much bigger footgun of XML and would have been worthwhile to fix if making a breaking change. Instead, stuff like https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/office_standards/ms-oi29500/d34ae755-c53f-4a44-a363-c6dd3ee018a4 had to happen. |
| 07:57 | <sideshowbarker> | Right. I implemented Ladybird’s switch over to libxml2 (away from a custom XML parser LB had until then). And I guess I didn’t even know about that switch. But even if I had, I wouldn’t have used it — because, interop. |
| 08:17 | <annevk> | hsivonen: pretty sure we knew this was broken and out of sync. |
| 08:47 | <eemeli> | Having just needed to look into something around XML, I happened to notice that the normative reference in the HTML standard points to https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/, which is currently 1.0 5th edition. It seems a bit surprising to me that there isn't alignment on this. |
| 08:48 | <Ms2ger> | Is that the XML5 I've heard so much about? |
| 08:48 | Ms2ger | 🦆🦆🦆 |
| 09:57 | <Noam Rosenthal> | we do have a dfn for it, but it's not referenced |
| 09:58 | <Noam Rosenthal> | https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#the-given-value |
| 09:58 | <Noam Rosenthal> | I can prepare a PR for a blanket replacement of this (but not before I finish the current PRs) |
| 09:59 | <Noam Rosenthal> | anyway, this is fixed in the new revision together with everything else, plus better PR commit messages |
| 11:48 | <annevk> | hsivonen eemeli: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501837 |
| 11:54 | <annevk> | Oh wait, you already pointed out that bug. Well, that's all I know about the topic. |
| 14:04 | <Stephen> | 13 years ago on Chrome it might have been me who rolled a new version of libxml2 and didn't pay any attention at all to behavior changes. Honestly, at the time all we cared about was getting security fixes in. |
| 14:11 | <annevk> | Noam Rosenthal: https://gist.github.com/annevk/adeb57f8be2ccd3d75fb8d8523cf598a#file-tt-parser-review-follow-up-txt I removed one thing it got wrong, I didn't verify everything though. |
| 14:16 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Thanks! Going over it now. Looks smaller than before :) |
| 14:26 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Fixing now. The second "blocker" is actually editorial and I would classify it as a suggestion. Trusted types can indeed not enable JS execution if the caller didn't request it. But the note can be explicit about that being done when using the default policy |
| 14:32 | <annevk> | I don't see new commits on whatwg/html? |
| 14:34 | <Noam Rosenthal> | ("Fixing", not committed yet) |
| 14:39 | <annevk> | Sorry :/ |
| 15:01 | <Noam Rosenthal> | ok all that stuff is fixed. |
| 15:08 | <Noam Rosenthal> | (and committed to html & tt :)) |
| 15:58 | <Shannon Booth> | for spec tags:
I may be missing something obvious, but what is the difference between these things? seems to have a lot of overlap |
| 16:07 | <Noam Rosenthal> | Maybe navigation & history can fold into the 3rd one |
| 16:07 | <Noam Rosenthal> | (I didn't know about that one, I don't think it was in use much) |
| 16:08 | <dbaron> | Not sure why it's hidden, but the issue is the issue for adding xml-rs support. |
| 16:09 | <dbaron> | and fwiw any substantive discussion should be in the code reviews on gerrit which should be visible |
| 16:11 | <dbaron> | effectively I think that test was a followup to the code review discussion in https://crrev.com/c/7088396?tab=comments |
| 16:12 | <dbaron> | ... which I then added in https://crrev.com/c/7118800 |
| 16:16 | <dbaron> | in particular I think I was following up on https://chromium-review.git.corp.google.com/c/chromium/src/+/7088396/comment/d88f4f53_e0ec9809/ |