2025-01-02 [16:40:45.0919] https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#:~:text=Returns%20the%20event%E2%80%99s%20timestamp%20as,relative%20to%20the%20occurrence.%20 "Returns the event’s timestamp as the number of milliseconds measured relative to the occurrence." Is this incorrect as worded? The timestamp is relative to the Unix epoch. "Occurrence" sounds like it's the event occurrence. [01:44:56.0219] It's not relative to the epoch, it's monotonic time, initialized in https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#inner-event-creation-steps #w3c:matrix.org [01:45:06.0663] * It's not relative to the epoch, it's monotonic time, initialized in https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#inner-event-creation-steps [01:45:48.0356] I agree that the non-normative description for `timeStamp` can be worded better [06:17:26.0111] Happy New Year, WHATWG! I would appreciate some feedback on https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/1601 (and not just from Anne). 🙏 [10:16:43.0823] Hi everyone, I wonder what are the accessibility concerns that are solved by making _non-modal_ [HTML] `dialog` elements themselves focusable? I am playing with one here on Firefox 133, and a focused `dialog` shown with the `show` method, focused through keyboard navigation, seems to offer absolutely nothing in terms of being focused. To explain, I have a form that is part of the dialog, with `method="dialog"` so that the [submit] buttons in the form close the dialog, and the first button is focused initially when the dialog is shown, as expected, and I have zero issues with that. It's when I "tab" myself backwards and the focus switches to the dialog element itself, that got me thinking -- what is the use for that, and shouldn't I, in this case, add a `tabindex="-1"` to the dialog element? 2025-01-03 [08:30:23.0993] Happy new year everyone! I opened a PR to node.js to add URLPattern https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/56452 2025-01-06 [02:06:11.0138] > <@akaster:serenityos.org> Is there a meaningful difference between an `optional any` argument being _missing_ vs being the value `undefined`? https://github.com/WebAssembly/spec/issues/1861 I explained how the spec matches the test in the issue [10:02:55.0123] Deborah Sollman: [13:19:15.0970] ?? 2025-01-07 [20:14:29.0627] Idk what the f I’m doing 😩😩 2025-01-09 [00:58:31.0539] If an HTML document is served with a `Content-Type: text/html` without a `charset` parameter, but with ``, then the spec requirements are that UAs must respect the `` — and use `shift_jis` as the character encoding, right? [00:58:45.0380] I’m specifically looking at https://www.ntt-west.co.jp/news/1504/150417a.html [01:02:24.0777] * If an HTML document is served with a `Content-Type: text/html` HTTP header — without a `charset` parameter — but with a `` element, then the spec requirements are that UAs must respect the `` element — and use `shift_jis` as the character encoding, right? [01:15:02.0881] * If an HTML document is served with a `Content-Type: text/html` HTTP header — without a `charset` parameter — but with a `` element, then the spec requirements are that UAs must respect the `` element — and use `shift_jis` as the character encoding, right? [01:15:59.0344] sideshowbarker: yup. [01:16:46.0768] A BOM can override all technically, but that website does not appear to have one. [01:19:51.0000] OK, the https://webirc.w3.org/ client (which is an instance of https://thelounge.chat) seems to not handle the encoding properly — even regardless of whether it’s set in the Content-Type header [01:20:32.0758] That client does previews of any link you post — just as Matrix does here [01:21:37.0694] https://www.w3.org/2025/tests/shift_jis-encoding.html is a demo of the same document, but with a proper `Content-Type: text/html; charset=shift_jis` HTTP header. But in TheLounge, the preview for it is mojibake [01:23:29.0577] Anyway, maybe I’ll try to write a patch for it. That Lounge is otherwise a really great client. Among other things, it enables you to stay on an IRC channel persistently — even after you close the browser tab, or close the browser. Like IRCCloud or whatever [03:54:23.0022] Good Day to all. I am new to coding as well as this community. [03:56:58.0994] I have trying to copy iframe from youtube source and executing in html coding. the frame is showing but video unable to view. if i paste the url again in second line , then the second line video shows properly. May i know how i have to recitfy this. [10:46:47.0861] This server is about developing HTML and related web standards. For technical coding questions, please ask on Stack Overflow or other dev-focused communities. 2025-01-10 [04:26:45.0181] Can you please tell me how I can test this step from the specification of the [create and initialize a Document object](https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#initialise-the-document-object) algorithm? > If browsingContext's active document's is initial about:blank is true, and browsingContext's active document's origin is same origin-domain with navigationParams's origin, then set window to browsingContext's active window. [04:27:07.0085] * Can you please tell me how I can test this step from the specification of the [create and initialize a Document object](https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#initialise-the-document-object) algorithm? > 6. If browsingContext's active document's is initial about:blank is true, and browsingContext's active document's origin is same origin-domain with navigationParams's origin, then set window to browsingContext's active window. [06:26:45.0825] Maxim Vaarwel: I think with https://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/13378 [06:28:20.0299] Chrome, Firefox: true Safari: undefined [06:29:12.0892] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#evaluate-a-javascript:-url [06:48:24.0922] Interesting. Are there any other examples besides executing javascript in the search bar? [06:51:19.0881] * Interesting. Are there any other examples besides executing javascript in the URL? [07:00:02.0000] I think javascript: url is the only case where the document is swapped. But you could detect it in other ways, e.g. OAC [07:06:18.0569] I tried iframes, storing different properties in the window object. But I could not find a single case where the window object matches when loading a new document, as in your case. What does OAC mean? 2025-01-11 [01:40:56.0973] There are ways to test that without JS URLs. The 2-documents 1-Window horribleness is much more broad-reaching than that, I think... let me find some old threads... [01:42:35.0113] Ah it's coming back to me, this can be tested by using global variables and watching them stick around... [01:43:01.0266] https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3267 [01:45:01.0064] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/html/browsers/the-window-object/window-reuse-in-nested-browsing-contexts.tentative.html and the tests in https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/804797 [01:48:58.0995] I seem to remember needing to use global `var` declarations for something related to this, to test `Window` vs. `WindowProxy`, but those tests above don't seem to be bothering with that. [04:18:20.0765] Yeah, I've seen some of those links. But I haven't looked at wpt tests before your post. I ran tests on chrome and firefox. Chrome fails almost everything, but firefox isn't perfect either, although it passes almost all the tests. Thanks for the links and help. 2025-01-12 [15:53:41.0505] zcorpan: (or anybody else set up to do HTTP Archive queries) Can you do query to find out how many pages have `shift_jis` (lowercase) in the `` or `` values? Or in the `Content-Type` header? 2025-01-13 [16:13:53.0054] zcorpan: Or actually, not just lowercase but case-insensitive for the standard `Shift_JIS` — also (case-insensitive) `shift-jis` [16:14:01.0765] Context is https://github.com/thelounge/thelounge/pull/4951#discussion_r1912529404 [01:33:43.0427] Do you have a REGEXP handy? I checked "]+(charset|content)=\"shift[_-]jis\"" on response bodies in November, got 1333 out of 672M [02:59:35.0159] That regexp looks right [03:01:41.0640] I guess the lowercase shift_jis is relatively rare. Maybe a Shift_JIS query would return a lot more hits [03:32:15.0167] `SELECT COUNT(*) FROM `httparchive.response_bodies.2024_11_01_desktop` WHERE REGEXP_CONTAINS(response_body, "]+(charset|content)=\"SHIFT[_-]JIS\"")` returned 32 [04:34:01.0258] Thanks — how about just `Shift_JIS` (that is, `Shift` rather than `SHIFT`) [05:09:07.0329] With ignore-case it's 3769 [05:09:22.0415] Thanks much! [06:20:12.0161] Hmm, what is the odd white box (when using dark mode) in the warning here: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#interaction-with-details-and-hidden=until-found [06:23:40.0869] It's an image of a fingerprint as a link to somewhere. Bit odd it covers content though. Probably needs a darkmode-aware class adding to the img. [06:56:41.0814] Origin-Agent-Cluster. See the "otherwise" steps in the spec 2025-01-14 [19:00:55.0145] Oh, I thought https://github.com/whatwg/wattsi/pull/161 would fix this... [19:39:18.0945] not also fixed in bikeshed yet, maybe? [20:22:25.0747] Yes, TabAtkins fixed it for bikeshed in https://github.com/speced/bikeshed/commit/72e42de7d16654bc6059cf0d622d14d4035fe536 [21:40:51.0253] Maybe HTML's stylesheet doesn't do the darkmode-aware thing? Although I thought that part was shared between HTML and Bikeshed specs. [22:10:31.0839] The fix there is in the markup of the image itself, html is using its own file. [01:55:24.0739] HTML uses https://resources.whatwg.org/tracking-vector.svg which responds to dark mode. But the `img` needs `class=darkmode-aware` [01:59:02.0898] But now I'm confused why it doesn't - https://github.com/whatwg/wattsi/blob/main/src/wattsi.pas#L1695 [02:48:18.0422] zcorpan: I was thinking about the async-CSS discussion... `font-display: swap` is a valid use case (though I personally really dislike that UX) I thought of an option to add ``, where `rel=font` would be non-blocking, but only allow font-descriptors [02:49:56.0552] Noam Rosenthal: I assume people use the onload hack for more than fonts [02:52:35.0323] zcorpan: for that, I thought to have `` where the stylesheet would load, but would only apply when we see an element with that ID [02:53:11.0397] zcorpan: I kind of see these as separate use-cases, where in one of them you actively opt-in to an FOUT and in the other one you probably don't want it but you don't know when the element will come [02:53:20.0889] * zcorpan: I kind of see these as separate use-cases, where in one of them you actively opt-in to a FOUT and in the other one you probably don't want it but you don't know when the element will come [02:54:13.0884] If we had a general `async` people would use it for "below the fold" and then they'd have a FoUCy race between scrolling and CSS loading [02:55:42.0581] * zcorpan: I kind of see these as separate use-cases, where in one of them you actively opt-in to a FOUT and in the other one you probably don't want it but you don't know when the content will come [02:55:56.0490] Would the parser block on that stylesheet when it sees an element with `some-id`? [02:56:02.0953] yes [02:57:13.0060] Interesting, so same effect as putting the link just before that element (in chromium currently), but you can do it from `head` [02:57:21.0312] exactly [02:58:53.0725] That seems reasonable, at least if webkit and gecko are onboard with the general stylesheets block the parser thing [02:59:21.0455] zcorpan: also render-blocking rather than parser-blocking at that point would be non-FoUCy [02:59:59.0041] though probably it would mean freezing the entire frame, might be worse UX than parser blocking where JS still runs [03:01:02.0872] Right we don't currently block rendering after the first paint, and might cause issues to start freezing what the user sees [03:01:33.0886] I want to see from he thread if more use cases come up. So far we've heard of: 1. `font-display: swap` 2. Non-critical/below-the-fold CSS, where for several reasons the dev can only put stylesheets in the head [03:03:32.0826] I think things that are initially hidden could be a use case. For that, ideally you don't want to block the parser, since that would hold up anything after the non-critical widget [03:04:18.0658] zcorpan: yea but you probably want to block the JS that allows showing them [03:04:32.0055] Otherwise you're racing between the interaction that shows them and the CSS loading (FoUC again)O [03:05:55.0124] Yeah. So if `for` points to a script element, wait with running that script until the stylesheet is loaded? (The script could be `async`) [03:09:14.0126] zcorpan: Yea, parser-blocking would do that automatically. Or alternatively, `import` the style from the script and adopt it [03:18:07.0253] Thought: Maybe in the future this could be extended to a behavior where the target element is not parser-blocked, but instead received `display: none` until its stylesheet is loaded. So you'd have those elements appearing asynchronously, but at least each of them would be fully styled [03:28:02.0824] smaug: were you planning on looking at `moveBefore()` once more before it lands? [03:29:00.0773] yes [03:29:11.0842] I was out sick last week [07:19:46.0847] Domenic: I looked a bit more at the prerender code in WebKit we found a long time ago and it turns out that visibilityState at some point supported a prerender value. It's related to that. [08:50:46.0736] I keep seeing people get surprised by the fact that microtasks are not run after callbacks, when JS is on the stack (i.e., user-dispatched events for example). Sometimes it's discussed as a problem that hopefully we can "fix" someday. I'm sure it's intentional, but it is weird and confusing. I haven't thought about it too too much, but is there any appetite / possibility to change this? Any ideas how incompatible it would be? [08:52:11.0435] I imagine it'd lead to very observable differences, but I wonder if we'd be in a better state if we changed it. I don't have a good reason except for "consistency", with the caveat that changing it might introduce other inconsistencies [08:52:47.0521] You should check with server-side runtimes (Node.js, Deno...) because they write most of the runtime's code in JS, and they have in a sense the opposite problem, in that if some runtime-internal JS code runs multiple callbacks, the microtasks would only get run at the end [08:53:49.0843] That said, making all callbacks behave the same way would also make it easier for them, even if it would mean manually triggering a microtask checkpoint [12:03:12.0388] Funnily enough this is something that I've been digging into a litle recently trying to figure out all of the ins and outs of when microtask checkpoint should be run. E.g with how spin the event loop empties the event loop. And the observability of invoking 'spin the event loop' to implement 'Wait for X', since that performs a microtask checkpoint. [12:36:35.0273] Is "Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: permessage-deflate" mandatory? https://github.com/whatwg/websockets/issues/63 [12:39:58.0220] Dominic Farolino: We can't empty the microtask queue after the existing `dispatchEvent`, it would be web breaking... The only reason to do that is to be able to call `stopPropagation` in a microtask (as user-dispatched events don't have `preventDefault`). [12:43:42.0817] What I would want to have is something like `EventTarget.nextEvent(eventType)` that calls `addEventListener` with `once` and returns a promise... but it would need some mechanism to be able to stop propagation synchronously because of those `dispatchEvent` scenarios [15:30:19.0628] Noam Rosenthal: I'm quite confused by this message about `nextEvent`. If you init your event as `cancelable` then you can very well call `preventDefault()` on it, it even sets the return value of `dispatchEvent()`. Also I'm not sure how `stop[Immediate]Propagation` would be an issue for a `nextEvent()`, which I assume would be a kind of "after non-capture" phase, and would thus possibly only prevent other `nextEvent()` listeners. Or did you envision a second round of the whole dispatching with all 3 phases? The issue I see would actually be with the return value of `dispatchEvent()`, and maybe it's what you were hinting at? Dispatchers could wait for one more microtask before checking the event's `defaultPrevented` but that seems indeed problematic that listeners don't know if the dispatcher will receive the info in time. 2025-01-15 [22:46:12.0933] > <@kaiido:matrix.org> Noam Rosenthal: I'm quite confused by this message about `nextEvent`. If you init your event as `cancelable` then you can very well call `preventDefault()` on it, it even sets the return value of `dispatchEvent()`. Also I'm not sure how `stop[Immediate]Propagation` would be an issue for a `nextEvent()`, which I assume would be a kind of "after non-capture" phase, and would thus possibly only prevent other `nextEvent()` listeners. Or did you envision a second round of the whole dispatching with all 3 phases? > The issue I see would actually be with the return value of `dispatchEvent()`, and maybe it's what you were hinting at? Dispatchers could wait for one more microtask before checking the event's `defaultPrevented` but that seems indeed problematic that listeners don't know if the dispatcher will receive the info in time. I haven't thought of all the details here, just that something that turns "once" events into promises could be useful in some scenarios [22:59:13.0997] Yes, I completely agree, but I didn't understand the concerns you expressed. [23:40:48.0488] Kaiido: I was referring to the fact that calling something like `const event = await nextEvent("my-event"); event.stopPropagation()` wouldn't work because the event would already have been propagated at that point [23:44:09.0877] Thinking that `nextEvent` could return something `PromiseLike` instead of a `Promise`, with both `then` and e.g. `preprocess` So or something where the `then` is synchronous, e.g. `const event = await nextEvent("name").then({ e => e.stopPropagation(); return e; });`, and `await nextEvent("name")` would just work. Though we can probably come up with better ergonomics [00:11:15.0675] But you could still prevent the propagation to the next handlers added through later `nextEvent()`. It's basically like how you can't expect `stopPropagation()` in the bubbling phase will prevent the handlers in the capturing phase. It makes sense that `nextEvent()` would be its own phase. [00:33:03.0704] Kaiido: sure, it's a potential way to look at this. [09:59:39.0098] Dominic Farolino: smaug probably recalls the rationale for not draining microtasks when JS is on the stack. I don't. In any event we might want to clarify it in the HTML standard. [10:07:56.0299] The whole point of microtasks is that they are handled at the end of outermost script execution. The idea being that it is effectively end of "your" script when your MutationObservers are handled. Big(est) reason for that is performance, basically trying to batch as many mutation as possible, yet not mix microtasks from different event listeners or so. [10:11:32.0391] Microtasks were designed for MutationObserver, and I'm not sure anyone ever really thought through how well they work with Promises and such. [10:15:16.0158] * Microtasks were designed for MutationObserver, and I'm not sure anyone ever really thought through how well they work with Promises and such (Promises started to use them later). [10:51:32.0616] * Microtasks were designed for MutationObserver, and I'm not sure anyone ever really thought through how well they work with Promises and such (Promises started to use them later). Microtasks were possibly just good enough for Promises. [10:55:42.0697] * Microtasks were designed for MutationObserver, and I'm not sure anyone ever really thought through how well they work with Promises and such (Promises started to use them later). Microtasks were possibly just good enough for Promises. And it would have been probably quite confusing to have microtasks for MutationObserver and something almost-microtasks for some other use cases. [11:43:36.0476] * The whole point of microtasks is that they are handled at the end of outermost script execution. The idea being that it is effectively end of "your" script when your MutationObservers are handled. Big(gest) reason for that is performance, basically trying to batch as many mutation as possible, yet not mix microtasks from different event listeners or so. [11:43:45.0707] * The whole point of microtasks is that they are handled at the end of outermost script execution. The idea being that it is effectively end of "your" script when your MutationObservers are handled. Big(gest) reason for that is performance, basically trying to batch as many mutations as possible, yet not mix microtasks from different event listeners or so. 2025-01-16 [16:18:17.0629] Huh, yeah, that's confusing. I don't know enough about wattsi to debug that. [16:48:25.0539] I remember I did test locally when pushing that change and it did work, in fact, running *html-build* `build.sh --remote` on my machine today does generate the proper class and renders fine for me. The issue might be in the building-pipes. [17:41:54.0406] Hmmm probably it's because https://github.com/orgs/whatwg/packages?repo_name=html-build doesn't rebuild after Wattsi improvements [17:41:59.0635] I thought we had an open issue on that somewhere [17:42:43.0578] I wish I knew Docker well enough to know how this is supposed to work [17:43:20.0150] Like ideally html-build would have some minimum wattsi version in a file (like Node.js package.json or similar) and we could bump that file and that would force a rebuild. [17:44:26.0087] But right now the html-build -> wattsi dependency is expressed via https://github.com/whatwg/html-build/blob/main/ci-build/Dockerfile#L28 (`COPY --from=ghcr.io/whatwg/wattsi:latest`) which is good if html-build and Wattsi are both revved frequently but not good in this case. [17:44:53.0641] I believe docker-compose is possibly the relevant tool here but I have not learned it or how to integrate it into our GitHub actions pipeline... [23:58:29.0080] Domenic: https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10737 strictly speaking doesn't have multi-implementer interest [23:59:08.0384] Oh no :(. When someone tells me "ping, all the boxes are checked" on a PR that's been open for months, I'm inclined to take them at their word :( [23:59:12.0765] I see now that was a mistake [23:59:30.0498] I think this is the second time this has happened with Mason. I suggest to no longer do that with him. [23:59:38.0341] Ugh wow that box is definitely checked in error, yeah [00:00:07.0811] Should we revert? [00:00:50.0670] I think it's probably okay, unless Mozilla has some objection to it. Need to think about it a bit more. [00:01:00.0585] smaug: zcorpan: ^^ [00:29:26.0462] One related thing to microtasks/promises... I encountered a few times the issue that if you `resolve` a promise from platform code, the promise reactions would only run at the end of the task. This is confusing if you have a task that does multiple things that might have reactions or callbacks, like the rendering task. I thought to generalize it where HTML would have its own `resolve` that resolves the promise inside a "run/cleanup script" scope and specs should be calling that instead of the WebIDL resolve. Wonder what smaug / Domenic think about this [00:30:51.0884] Kinda like what I had to do in step #5 of https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsing-the-web.html#reveal [00:33:39.0563] From the perspective of how they were introduced for mutation observers, it would seem bad if you don't delay them until the end of rendering, as the reactions might incur new things that require rendering. [00:34:21.0184] but we already do that when firing events [00:36:02.0501] also each rAF callback clears the microtask queue and might incur new things that require rendering etc... [00:36:51.0901] Well yes, but that's why we moved from mutation events to mutation observers. So to then suggest that promises should work like events feels a bit backwards. [00:37:32.0721] If you don't want promise-timing, don't use a promise. [00:40:33.0373] Sometimes promises are there because of ergonomics, not because of anything to do with timing [00:41:28.0993] To be clear, I don't think this would change anything existing in the platform. Apart from view transitions, all the other `resolve` calls are one-per-task [00:41:50.0469] (AFAICT) [00:41:51.0682] How would it not change the timing of promises already on the queue? [00:44:01.0415] There should not be any promises in the queue, only platform microtasks such as mutation observers. But it doesn't matter, because in 100% of uses of resolve today this would be a noop [00:44:55.0844] ... because today all the uses of `resolve` *only* resolve during the task, so at the end of the resolve you'd get the event loop's microtask checkpoint [00:52:21.0546] I don't understand that sentence. You can only call resolve during a task. [00:52:31.0847] yes, but no spec does that in practice [00:52:50.0868] They do? [00:52:53.0324] I mean, no spec calls resolve and then does something else that calls user code in the same task, AFAICT [00:53:11.0318] it's usually "queue a task to resolve" [00:53:28.0497] I think there's plenty of examples of events or callbacks and promises all being handled in one sweep. [00:53:34.0935] As they should. [00:54:24.0103] not sure about it, but will go through the specs, maybe my assumption here is wrong [00:55:11.0813] There's also plenty of cases where a promise is rejected immediately. Which happens during whatever call did the wrong thing according to IDL. [00:55:21.0968] sure [00:56:59.0354] ok, perhaps this is not going to work. Thanks for the clarification [01:13:12.0329] The cases I am concerned about which are adjacent to (or the same as?) the ones Noam Rosenthal is discussing are the ones where promises and event firing are next to each other, and thus the existence of event handlers can change the ordering. See https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#note-suppress-microtasks-during-navigation-events . In such cases we can manually add something to the stack to *prevent* promises from immediately resolving when the events are fired. That seems OK as it makes the promises more delayed. It's only happened a couple of times so far so we haven't needed to do it more generally. [01:14:27.0068] I think Noam's case is basically the same as mine. [01:15:01.0267] I don't really know how to generalize it though; just wrapping the resolve in run/cleanup a script wouldn't work. You need wrap both the "fire an event" and the "resolve". [01:21:41.0819] Yea these timing gotchas are not trivial at all to an outside spec to deal with. But not sure what the right solution is [01:55:09.0913] Domenic: can't you fire the event and then resolve? [05:21:41.0141] Given both WebKit and Mozilla track standards positions in public GitHub issues, do you think it is worth adding some tooling to PRs to scrape the API and check that A) an issue is supplied linking to the standards position of those respective vendors and B) that issue has the correct label on it, marking the vendor as supportive? [05:22:32.0710] It could be a CI check that fails a PR unless it is able to successfully confirm that each vendor is indeed supportive, reducing the human error involved. [05:26:46.0247] > <@keithamus:matrix.org> It could be a CI check that fails a PR unless it is able to successfully confirm that each vendor is indeed supportive, reducing the human error involved. One issue with this is sometimes a spec PR is to match implementations and in that case you wouldn't want to raise the issues. But possibly that could be handled with labels? [05:28:14.0023] I imagine the option to skip those checks could be added via a checkbox saying "standards positions aren't necessary for this", which would pass the check but could provide a signal to the editors merging that this _hasn't_ gone through standards positions [06:50:25.0978] keithamus: I wouldn't be opposed to that being available, but as I clarified at some point WHATWG uses "implementer interest" which is quite informal (though you do need to actually have someone say it). Going through standards-positions to obtain that is fine, but it's not required. [06:51:16.0065] that makes sense. Perhaps it would be too much then. [08:13:54.0926] Is there any documentation or issues to read about how moveBefore interacts with stuff like mutation observer? [08:25:41.0988] https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10904/files moves a bunch of text and then makes some tweaks. Is there a good way to highlight the changes? I guess copy-and-paste it all and do a manual diff? [08:56:30.0683] Hey, both I and nicolo-ribaudo wanted to join today's WHATNOT meeting to talk about the web integration AsyncContext, and we don't have an invite [09:02:39.0497] Figured it out [10:01:28.0196] Andreu Botella: is there a comment/document somewhere explaining this new design and in particular why it was changed? [10:03:07.0948] Andreu Botella: FWIW, I'm still super worried about any implicit context capture (assuming I understand the proposal correctly). That kind of things tend to cause leaks. [10:03:44.0040] > <@annevk:matrix.org> Andreu Botella: is there a comment/document somewhere explaining this new design and in particular why it was changed? There was feedback from a number of folks, but some of that happened in a meeting and there isn't a lot in the PR or issues. Check out Aug 20 in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pi-NMbqVhg2UuxQAZ4jOGDeHLlZGD_DJ7fyxHt_C2hs/ though [10:04:31.0733] > <@smaug:mozilla.org> Andreu Botella: FWIW, I'm still super worried about any implicit context capture (assuming I understand the proposal correctly). That kind of things tend to cause leaks. Most of the implicit context capture in the previous proposal is gone. What's left now is similar to what the TC39 proposal would do for `await`s and `.then` [10:05:25.0322] So how would DOM callbacks deal with this then? I'm a bit confused. The proposal talks about "associating state implicitly " [10:06:21.0181] I think this is clearer in https://github.com/tc39/proposal-async-context/pull/109 [10:07:00.0057] For things like `setTimeout`, you'd store the context with the callback, and get rid of it afterwards (or for `setInterval`, when it gets canceled) [10:07:50.0492] Ok, so context is stored implicitly with the callback? [10:09:21.0934] > <@smaug:mozilla.org> Ok, so context is stored implicitly with the callback? not for every callback, only for APIs that take a callback and schedule it at some later point [10:09:40.0906] event listeners would not store the context [10:09:49.0688] Andreu Botella: for a change of this magnitude I'd expect a bit more. I mean I gave feedback too, but that apparently has been dismissed now. [10:09:53.0733] The difference is that now we capture implicitly for callbacks that are going to be run (unless explicitly cancelled) and not for things that _may run_ like event listeners (where you don't know if it's ever going to be triggered again, so you can't capture the context) [10:10:38.0334] * The difference is that now we capture implicitly for callbacks that are going to be run (unless explicitly cancelled) and not for things that _may run_ like event listeners (where you don't know if it's ever going to be triggered again, so you can't ever free the context) [10:20:29.0973] To avoid misunderstandings: this proposal talks about propagating the context implicitly, as a way to frame the expected behavior for context passing. This could be implemented by changing the way task queueing and "in parallel" work in engines, but for the initial rollout we propose only exposing things that could be implemented in other ways. [10:21:29.0577] You could implement/spec `setTimeout` as implicitly passing the context to the "in parallel" code, and then implicitly passing that same context to the queued event loop task [10:21:36.0557] Or you could store the context with the callback [10:22:21.0140] I don't think this is a change from what we discussed in TPAC [10:26:39.0321] I'm not sure I was at the discussion at TPAC, but I'm pretty sure I gave feedback that per-thing handling feels extremely error prone. [10:27:01.0938] Especially for events. [10:33:54.0853] > <@annevk:matrix.org> I'm not sure I was at the discussion at TPAC, but I'm pretty sure I gave feedback that per-thing handling feels extremely error prone. Well, I'm talking about the informal side chats. About per-thing handling, I guess you mean having to know which events have a sync or async dispatch and so on? I think we might be able to spec that such that this doesn't rely on something like a list of events [10:34:33.0296] but for the initial rollout, there would be a very small list of events that would be special-cased so the context does propagate for those [10:34:49.0054] because that can be implemented without the implicit tracking [11:34:34.0318] Andreu Botella: It is quite confusing to have some callbacks work in certain way and other in some other way. And for example idle callbacks aren't guaranteed to be run, even though the are "scheduled". Nothing ensures there is idle time ever. [11:36:04.0409] (I'm just super concerned about memory leaks here, just given, as an example, the massive leaks Youtube fixed couple of days ago. At least some of them were exactly about capturing certain things semi accidentally and keeping them alive for too long) [11:40:13.0373] > <@smaug:mozilla.org> Andreu Botella: It is quite confusing to have some callbacks work in certain way and other in some other way. And for example idle callbacks aren't guaranteed to be run, even though the are "scheduled". Nothing ensures there is idle time ever. For the behavior of callbacks, the underlying behavior should be the same as implicit propagation. Different APIs have different behavior, because they do different things on the way to calling the callbacks [11:41:56.0998] Well, "the same as implicit propagation" isn't strictly true, because multiple rAF callbacks can be scheduled on the same event loop iteration, but you'd still want each to propagate its own context [11:42:11.0426] but it's a similar concept [11:42:39.0531] * Well, "the same as implicit propagation" isn't strictly true, because multiple rAF callbacks can be scheduled on the same event loop iteration (or the same task in some implementations), but you'd still want each to propagate its own context [15:49:35.0561] This discussion of "for the initial rollout" seems scary; I cannot imagine changing this sort of thing after it's shipped. [15:50:01.0691] I would prefer the final semantics are worked out ahead of time, as part of the "initial rollout". 2025-01-17 [16:39:54.0290] Hey [23:23:31.0246] > <@domenicdenicola:matrix.org> I would prefer the final semantics are worked out ahead of time, as part of the "initial rollout". That would mean analyzing essentially the whole set of events across the whole web platform, and would probably mean the whole implicit context propagation would need to be implemented from the beginning in browsers, which might result in interoperability bugs because the exposed surface is huge and it might be really easy for interoperability bugs to creep in [23:25:15.0671] Also, the set of events we're considering for the initial rollout are ones for which we have use cases at this point, but there might be other use cases that haven't been brought up yet [23:26:10.0931] One common thing with AsyncContext is that since much of the goal is for third-party code to be able to pass state seamlessly across first-party code, it's hard to know which events the context should propagate through, because the first-parties are not involved in the conversation [23:30:38.0266] I mean, saying people might implement it wrong and therefore we should implement it piecemeal is not generally how we do things on the web platform. We can't trade hypothetical interoperability bugs now for definite compatibility bugs later. [03:49:42.0222] I am quite confident that there will be interoperability bugs because we're making things observable that so far have been unobservable [03:49:56.0640] but fair enough [05:11:41.0020] I guess what you're saying is that this new feature might build upon some existing infrastructure that might not match the envisioned behavior? But that's really an argument for writing sufficient tests. Not for delivering only part of the feature. 2025-01-20 [01:33:36.0049] TabAtkins: I like the (new?) markup checker in Bikeshed. Already identified valid issues in DOM and Infra and nothing bogus thus far. [06:56:11.0409] > <@annevk:matrix.org> TabAtkins: I like the (new?) markup checker in Bikeshed. Already identified valid issues in DOM and Infra and nothing bogus thus far. Nice, that's precisely what I was hoping for. Saw a lot of little errors in the test suite. [06:56:22.0144] And yeah, brand new, haven't written up the release notes yet [06:56:50.0288] If anything bogus does come up just file an issue 2025-01-21 [18:29:18.0953] All sorts of good Bikeshed stuff being detected now. This is a fun one... https://github.com/whatwg/xhr/actions/runs/12878961165/job/35905693141?pr=394 [02:16:24.0775] I think that one was probably identified already and I caused that to happen when I redid "clone a node". [09:15:42.0023] Yeah that error isn't from anything new, it's just an ordinary ambiguous link 2025-01-22 [03:26:32.0612] Are IDL setters in the spec expected to be called for an IDL attribute's default value? [03:34:56.0854] mbrodesser (offline on Fridays): can you give an example of what you mean? [03:47:23.0209] zcorpan: `SomeInterface { DOMString someAttribute; // (default: someDefaultValue) }` [03:47:55.0172] The question arose in the context of https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10873#discussion_r1891023659 [03:51:16.0122] mbrodesser (offline on Fridays): the comment about default value has no normative effect and doesn't say anything about when the setter is invoked. The setter is called when author code sets it, or some spec text says to call it. The default value is about what the getter will return [03:52:11.0277] zcorpan: thanks, that makes sense [12:02:37.0192] Can you have a union of two dictionaries? I think not, since they are not mutually distinguishable (https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#distinguishable-table) right? [12:54:08.0222] > <@domfarolino:matrix.org> Can you have a union of two dictionaries? I think not, since they are not mutually distinguishable (https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#distinguishable-table) right? Yes, I guess you can merge the oredered maps and "implicitly treat them as dictionaries" in the spec [12:55:52.0443] https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/#ref-for-dfn-dictionary-member⑧ 2025-01-23 [16:47:39.0282] The Unix domain sockets thread is really something. [17:36:21.0280] Domenic: makes me grateful for other people who find themselves at a loss for words [21:45:41.0854] PSA: If you can make it to [Web Engines Hackfest](https://webengineshackfest.org) (June 2–4 in Spain) this year: I’ve proposed a *“Running WPT tests under CI”* session and want to have some additional facilitators for it. https://github.com/Igalia/webengineshackfest/issues/43 [01:56:40.0440] Apparently there was already a "needs incubation" label, ha [02:02:15.0620] And I forgot I added that three months ago 😅 [02:08:32.0900] Perhaps https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/41745 would have been something for WHATNOT. Oh, well, maybe next time. But that has been a rather unfortunate issue, and oddly enough the discussion is happening in that wpt issue (too). [08:25:04.0343] Ooh what thread is this? [09:04:53.0556] Dominic Farolino: https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/577 (I've been wondering whether to lock it, but it's mostly harmless) [09:05:23.0310] * Dominic Farolino: https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/577 (I've been wondering whether to lock it, but it's mostly harmless; but also too noisy so I unsubscribed which I feel a bit bad about since other people might still get notifications and if it turns bad then...) 2025-01-24 [19:05:54.0441] Bikeshedding help requested for an error type that includes properties with how much X is available, versus how much X you requested: https://github.com/whatwg/webidl/issues/1463 [19:18:57.0741] I don’t think that to developers using *“Quota”* will seem to storage-specific. I think developers a familiar with the context of “quota” being used in the web platform to mean a browser/UA-imposed maximum. I don’t think usage of *“Limit”* or other imaginable alternatives would have the same familiarity to developers. [19:21:55.0385] That is helpful, thank you! [19:23:30.0831] New/separate unrelated question for the room: At https://w3c.github.io/uievents/#event-type-keypress I find this requirement for the `keypress` event: > _If supported by a user agent, this event MUST be dispatched when a key is pressed down, **if and only if that key normally produces a character value**._ In other words, per-spec browsers must not fire the `keypress` even for the Enter key (and modifier keys, and the arrow keys, etc.) — but instead only for the alphanumeric keys and symbol keys. [19:24:31.0882] But… that’s not what existing engines do. Instead, they do fire `keypress` for the Enter keys, and for modifier keys, etc. — everything [19:25:00.0195] Well, all engines except Ladybird (which implements that requirement per-spec) [19:27:20.0881] So… that requirement doesn’t seem to be compatible. And that makes me wonder why it’s in the spec, and how it made its way into that spec to begin with — I mean, if implementors don’t support it. And given that if everybody _did_ implement it per-spec, it seems like it would break all kind of existing sites. [19:28:09.0611] I’ll file an issue for it, but in the meantime I’m wondering if anybody here might know that background on where it came from [19:28:25.0097] * New/separate unrelated question for the room: At https://w3c.github.io/uievents/#event-type-keypress I find this requirement for the `keypress` event: > _If supported by a user agent, this event MUST be dispatched when a key is pressed down, **if and only if that key normally produces a character value**._ In other words, per-spec: Browsers must not fire the `keypress` even for the Enter key (and modifier keys, and the arrow keys, etc.) — but instead only for the alphanumeric keys and symbol keys. [19:28:32.0750] * New/separate unrelated question for the room: At https://w3c.github.io/uievents/#event-type-keypress I find this requirement for the `keypress` event: > _If supported by a user agent, this event MUST be dispatched when a key is pressed down, **if and only if that key normally produces a character value**._ In other words, per-spec: Browsers must not fire the `keypress` event for the Enter key (and modifier keys, and the arrow keys, etc.) — but instead only for the alphanumeric keys and symbol keys. [19:28:48.0465] * So… that requirement doesn’t seem to be web-compatible. And that makes me wonder why it’s in the spec, and how it made its way into that spec to begin with — I mean, if implementors don’t support it. And given that if everybody _did_ implement it per-spec, it seems like it would break all kind of existing sites. [19:29:10.0011] * I don’t think that to developers using _“Quota”_ will seem to storage-specific. I think developers are familiar with the context of “quota” being used in the web platform to mean a browser/UA-imposed maximum. I don’t think usage of _“Limit”_ or other imaginable alternatives would have the same familiarity to developers. [19:29:48.0217] * But… that’s not what existing engines do. Instead, they do fire `keypress` for the Enter key, and for modifier keys, etc. — everything [20:15:21.0878] I vaguely remember there being stuff around keyCode vs. other properties, and only one of them makes sense as producing a character value. Maybe the intent was to have an event that only fires when that character value property is set. (But nobody implemented it that way.) [20:19:58.0768] I misspoke a bit, actually: UAs _do_ all seem to conform to that requirement for all non-character keys — _except_ for the Enter key [20:20:16.0812] That is, all UAs do still fire `keypress` for the Enter key [20:20:50.0588] So I guess I’ll open a spec PR with a patch which states that exception [20:50:29.0003] Well, it seems there are existing already-reported issues: - https://github.com/w3c/uievents/issues/183 - https://github.com/w3c/uievents/issues/266 - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1602694 [20:55:32.0215] Anyway, I really just want to know what I should implement in Ladybird in order to be interoperable with existing behavior in other engines [20:56:35.0974] And per Nakano-san’s analysis in https://github.com/w3c/uievents/issues/183#issuecomment-448091687, that _seems_ to maybe come down to being Enter, Shift + Enter and Ctrl + Enter as the exceptions [02:20:58.0267] Hype: https://bsky.app/profile/tabatkins.com/post/3lggxdwp4h22w [02:26:44.0511] oh wow, finally being able to get the HTML spec build ported over to Bikeshed would be a big win [02:27:19.0605] hope Tab gets the perf stuff worked out [02:27:31.0510] zcorpan: FYI https://github.com/w3c/uievents/pull/392 [05:47:11.0166] sideshowbarker: I usually just lurk here, but doesn’t enter emit a newline “character value”? [06:48:11.0379] Colin Alworth: per-spec at https://w3c.github.io/uievents/#character-value, it seems to mean the same thing as https://w3c.github.io/uievents/#unicode-character-categories, which is: > *all the Letter (Ll, Lm, Lo, Lt, Lu), Number (Nd, Nl, No), Punctuation (Pc, Pd, Pe, Pf, Pi, Po, Ps) and Symbol (Sc, Sk, Sm, So) category values* [06:50:19.0204] Hmm, surely space and tab too? Or are you saying those should be excluded as well? [06:50:42.0821] Newline is certainly a Unicode character [06:51:19.0652] I’m saying what the spec says it means is _“all the Letter (Ll, Lm, Lo, Lt, Lu), Number (Nd, Nl, No), Punctuation (Pc, Pd, Pe, Pf, Pi, Po, Ps) and Symbol (Sc, Sk, Sm, So) category values”_ [12:02:13.0544] I think it is time to bring an XML web back. [12:02:43.0429] along the 1.0 lines not the modular nonsense. [12:10:56.0578] Here is my vague semblance of a plan.. HTML5 living standard does as the living standard does.. But codify versioned strict predictable serializations as XHTML 5.x or Year or whatever. Anyone wanting that is more likely to accept or prefer the strict markup requirements. "Unversioned" XHTML 5 == current standard. Anyone think there is anything remotely good about my vague list of desires presented as a plan? [12:18:37.0377] lol i hadn't asked y'all about it yet, just been doing some exploration first to make sure it is indeed possible. i'll poke y'all in q2 or q3; gotta get multi-page output working first [12:26:46.0634] But yes, getting rid of the accidental quadratics was easy, and I'm continuing to poke around to see what else I can shave off now. Currently the "15 copies of DOM" spec is 1m50s on my laptop, which indeed right about 15x the time of DOM itself, meaning I'm just tightening up some surprisingly linear bits now. 2025-01-25 [16:12:48.0895] I see. [16:33:13.0431] out of the fifteen people or so who has read what I said.. no one has even a response? [16:36:08.0156] nsITobin: I assume your familiar with how we got where we are? I’ve been at this for … a while, and lived through the xhtml days - it was a great idea, but there are good reasons it didn’t pan out and we ended up where we are (and they aren’t all technical, or even most). I’d be very skeptical of another standard that replaces the existing one without a little more than that blurb to base it on [16:38:00.0227] The reason is the W3C slow walking everything plus modular xhtml basically resulted in and endrun and you guys deeming yourselfs a standards body and via market position have strong armed the W3C into acceding to your authority. Great.. don't care anymore. I wanna go forward but I also want an equally capable XML future along side. [16:38:13.0089] * The reason is the W3C slow walking everything plus modular xhtml basically resulted in an endrun and you guys deeming yourselfs a standards body and via market position have strong armed the W3C into acceding to your authority. Great.. don't care anymore. I wanna go forward but I also want an equally capable XML future along side. [16:38:39.0816] I am leaving the upset behind me these days. [16:40:30.0510] Speculation in the Mozilla Outskirts is the W3C specifically slowwalked Mozilla's and early google standards mainly because of Microsoft.. Which is a huge problem now considering issues with Google control over the base chromium and Microsoft's latest stuff they have added to Edge which AI, aside, seems exceedingly familar. [16:40:44.0277] also Opera was there too ;) [16:42:05.0293] On the order of a term.. Every WhatWG member should be familiar with .. no matter if they lived it or not. Shell Update. [16:43:16.0744] Both the W3C and WhatWG now conduct official operations on a Microsoft service where Microsoft are the gatekeepers to whom may contribute or participate. This is ALSO a problem. [16:44:23.0851] I am just no longer interested in debating the decisions made in the late 2000s.. It's 2025 now. [16:45:47.0382] Every browser has either stellar XML parsing or decent enough XML parsing and also JS access to dom interfaces to deal with XML there too. Why is this not being taken more advantage of especially in situations where no person writes a single iota of html. [16:46:07.0971] Computers that generate code can generate strict code just as easily.. see the over-reliance of javascript. [16:51:49.0347] Eventually I am gonna pursue all this anyway and I have a fully functional XUL platform with first party support for an XML web so I can basically create my own microcosm if I so desired and this time I would be calling the shots.. but how does that help anyone else.. HTML5 has real world problems and has had since its inception. We're past the 10 year mark where WhatWG uncommitted by "the little people" just isn't gonna cut it or be great for HTML in the end. [16:52:32.0855] * Eventually I am gonna pursue all this anyway and I have a fully functional XUL platform with first party support for an XML web so I can basically create my own microcosm if I so desired and this time I would be calling the shots.. but how does that help anyone else.. HTML5 has real world problems and has had since its inception. We're past the 10 year mark where WhatWG is allowed to pass uncommented by "the little people" just isn't gonna cut it or be great for HTML in the end. [16:53:43.0261] * Eventually I am gonna pursue all this anyway and I have a fully functional XUL platform with first party support for an XML web so I can basically create my own microcosm if I so desired and this time I would be calling the shots.. but how does that help anyone else.. HTML5 has real world problems and has had since its inception. We're past the 10 year mark where WhatWG is allowed to pass uncommented by "the little people" which simply isn't gonna cut it or be great for HTML in the end. [16:55:20.0664] also partial support for WebComponents. [16:56:00.0406] Though if I go the create my own older style web with xhtml I would opt for a version pre-webcomponents cause I have.. XBL. [16:56:47.0040] But again who does that help outside my self and a few freaks. [16:57:57.0544] Excluding XML now that WhatWG has accomplished so much with str8 living standard html seems kinda silly especially when XML will never die. It's like IRC that way. It should be made as useful as it once was along side your HTML. [17:00:33.0917] Or I can merely document the UXP implementation, deem my self a standards body and have stuff that outshines even my autistically compromised social skills.. May go no where but again the WhatWG could have easily gone no where as well. [17:05:08.0122] I already have a bit of an idea of how to basically use an almost unmodified mozilla XBL file as an input to some javascript to build a custom element based on it. The real issue is I can never get FULL mozilla capability as HTMLElements are on the same level they don't derive from a generic least none I can access. If all HTMLElements derived from a base element then customelements could be done EXACTLY like XBL. [17:06:24.0807] * I already have a bit of an idea of how to basically use an almost unmodified mozilla XBL file as an input to some javascript to build a custom element based on it. The real issue is I can never get FULL mozilla capability as HTMLElements are on the same level they don't derive from a generic least none I can access. Not unless I literally reimpl every element or have a mess. If all HTMLElements derived from a base element then customelements could be done EXACTLY like XBL. [17:12:05.0481] It is not fun anymore being someone who writes markup by hand. Because at this point, its more javascript and css than markup.. and css is trying to become its own scripting language on top of it. [17:12:25.0020] So, for the record, I don’t belong to any standards group etc, and never have, but am an end user, tools/app developer, so I think some of that is either misdirected, or just talking past me (you asked for a response… I had some free time to offer thoughts). There’s a lot to follow through on and unpack here, and I think that while the idea makes sense it may not get to the heart of the problems that, from my perspective, are not going to be solved by better standards, but better incentives (and since nearly* every browser is chromium… that’s a tough sell). I think making this case as a proper writeup would serve the ideas better, rather than a wall of text in a channel with a different purpose? [17:13:17.0253] The WhatWG is DIRECTLY responsible for the near monoculture we have now.. I am TRYING to .. ignore that. [17:13:40.0906] I warned about it in 2017 [17:13:44.0526] and 2019 [17:13:58.0106] and then went a bit nuts for a while. I'm better now. [17:16:00.0895] If I wanted to just express how evil the whatwg has been regardless of intent I'd do that get banned and get back to XUL.. Problem is.. that didn't work last time. [17:16:42.0083] I wanna see stuff happen for the FUTURE and not just stuff copyright Microsoft or Google while they are still allowed. [17:22:51.0248] Maybe some extra context. I am Matt A. Tobin aka the New Tobin Paradigm, formerly the number 2 asshole of the Pale Moon Project and creator of the Unified XUL Platform (originally an ESR52 fork with an originally Firefox 24 UI as far as Pale Moon is concerned the Take 2 attempt, the one that worked). I also created the only known independently written multi-application Mozilla Add-ons infrastructure and services site to exist. Until I write a new one. I am an on-again-off-again browser developer and implementor. And will launch a XUL browser again. It is only..a..matter..of..time. [17:25:21.0846] As I have decided to make use of the xul platform I sold most of my sole for. [17:25:34.0765] * As I have decided to make use of the xul platform I sold most of my soul for. [17:27:52.0130] With modern browsers and whatwg's modern features there should be more than enough stuff to add some extra sugar to to even have a messure of XUL capability within a chromium browser over the web.. it is JUST MISSING that easy to use-ness XUL was known for. [17:32:11.0302] I put a website up on my ISP when I was a kid in the 90s using HotDog Pro .. I moved to FrontPage and then Dreamweaver.. Then I simply started doing it by hand and my stuff exploded it was great.. Then I learned XHTML and damn I love XHTML and XML technologies.. Then HTML5 came with its video and audio tags and 800 different copies of div all slightly different and digital rights management. [17:32:45.0375] Then I joined a browser project [17:35:05.0661] I also enjoyed flash and shockwave and other plugins.. [17:35:36.0162] as a browser developer it makes a lot of sense to have special content handlers as external things.. but plugins are bad for android. [17:36:03.0186] also adobe and java did not protect or educate the users enough on the risks and proper usage of plugins [17:36:07.0237] just driveby installed [17:38:38.0477] Basically HTML5 made HTML suck for me [17:38:58.0520] and its over fifteen years past that I relate that and ask for solutions and alternatives. [17:39:09.0846] Or get banned in the process and do what I want knowing I tried. [17:46:45.0022] When the world may end in five years .. what's a ban in comparison to trying to do or say the right thing.. not necessarily the appropriate thing but the right thing. [17:49:59.0363] People banned from github cannot interact with the whatwg even if their ban had nothing to do with anything whatwg related.. Microsoft banned me for participating in an anti-wayland gist because of that and wanting to organize an xorg fork to be ready if wayland craps out I was banned.. on github globally.. my stuff wiped out.. my infra crippled.. my history purged. [17:50:42.0255] Why is the WhatWG gatekept by Microsoft? [17:51:50.0390] Why are WhatWG specs ALWAYS rewritten biasing a Google impl just because it exists despite other impls in other browsers. Why is there a rule of two when almost everyone is chromium based. Why does being chrome give you a majority to dogpile specs onto others like Mozilla or Apple [17:52:30.0346] and why is the WhatWG not inclusive of any browser VENDOR in that case to have equal rights if the engine can be almost if not exactly identical for several controlling memebrs [17:53:04.0337] any firefox fork should be treated the same as any controlling chromium fork or rebuild. [17:53:25.0207] Thus I should be equal to Mozilla or Google the moment I release a browser. [17:54:14.0384] if it is by ENGINE then everyone using chromium should get but one vote and i still should be equal to mozilla because UXP's gecko fork is so unlike gecko then and especially now its defacto a different engine. [17:55:01.0344] but no. That isn't how it works. It's corperations using employee proxies to not be beholden to anyone not even the W3C. A cartel is not a superior option to the wild west my WhatWG friends. [17:55:30.0867] But I would PREFER to talk about the future you see. [17:55:37.0679] Cause I can do.. THAT endlessly. [17:55:45.0512] the not future stuff i mean [18:03:24.0200] Can the designated official body for HTML and many web technologies not seem to use those technologies to run their organization? [18:04:09.0140] * Can the designated official body for HTML and many web technologies not use those technologies to run their organization? [18:05:21.0271] is a 15 dollar a month server too much to ask for to run a small gitforge where people can contriute in standards without being blocked by Micorsoft. Aren't there enough barriers to WhatWG as it was pre-Microsoft owning github? [18:05:45.0221] * is a 15 dollar a month server too much to ask for to run a small gitforge where people can contriute in standards without being blocked by Micorsoft. Aren't there enough barriers to WhatWG pre-Microsoft owning github? [18:06:15.0176] * is a 15 dollar a month server too much to ask for to run a small gitforge where people can contribute in standards without being blocked by Microsoft. Aren't there enough barriers to WhatWG pre-Microsoft owning github? [18:07:01.0547] Why not Gitlab.. you don't have to run it either and it isn't controlled by a major controlling stakeholder in this standards body [18:09:22.0476] I am likely FAR too opinionated on the standards them selves to be of much use but things the WhatWG could be doing to ensure it becomes something more than a damned cartel of the same players for the past 25 years + google who just didn't like agreeing on something AND sticking to it over a duration I might have some suggestions. [18:10:58.0311] Scoped Styles for example.. it didn't REALLY impact the webcomponents standards at all and everyone EXCEPT chromium ALREADY supported it but now no one supports it except UXP and maybe SeaMonkey. [18:12:23.0041] and it sure made an attractive addition for someone not ready or not interested in shadowdom and the rest of the webcomponents stuff.. Which is still conceptually based on classical Mozilla technologies btw. Don't fool yourself. Especially customelements. Mozilla's only REAL hard push at standing firm.. it would have been impressive to me if it didn't kill XBL in the process. [18:13:04.0873] it would have been perfect if it had just that little extra bit to make it as good to use as XBL was. [18:17:48.0404] If the WhatWG and related groups want the actual respect the W3C automatically gets despite them being an ineffectual mess ever since WhatWG was formed.. the WhatWG should do everything in its power to bolster the ranks of browser vendors and engines and stop letting special interests redefine everything on a monthly basis. A common open platform also means one open to change from without. Else it is just corporate collusion and conceptual price fixing. [18:18:56.0789] the cost being in implementation and refactoring of course since its all technically free. [18:20:06.0813] and being judge for not having the resources to waste millions of dollars on something half a dozen people can do.. but I don't have that now even. [18:20:41.0582] * and being judged and disparaged for a decade personally and collectively for not having the resources to waste millions of dollars on something half a dozen people can do.. but I don't have that now even. [18:22:47.0773] and my **peers** have in the past 3 years devolved from Tech Supremacists to Final MAGA when it is obvious to anyone with a chunk of brain left that it stopped being anything but a new american nazi party after Jan 6th.. THAT is who has the shit I slaved over for a decade because the of the WhatWG and its impacts on the world wide web. [18:23:30.0483] So yeah past.. never ends.. until the future arrives and I would PREFER a future that potentially has SOMETHING for someone like my self as I am now. [18:25:02.0850] So I can go play in my unsandboxed xul sandbox or i can TRY and make it known what exactly its like at my level. [18:25:18.0394] and maybe do some good [18:26:33.0443] * Or I can go play in my unsandboxed xul sandbox or i can TRY and make it known what exactly its like at my level. [18:26:47.0567] * I can go play in my unsandboxed xul sandbox or i can TRY and make it known what exactly its like at my level. [18:27:48.0364] * and being judged and disparaged for a decade personally and collectively for not having the resources to waste millions of dollars on something half a dozen people can do just takes a while.. but I don't have that now even. [18:31:40.0925] The monoculture needs to end and the WhatWG needs to be modernized beyond corporate interests. Because unless that happens I may as well fork HTTP the protocol by writing up its impl in UXP and also XHTML 1.0 and update it for HTML5 stuff but in the way XHTML 1.0 was not later versions.. put it up on a website.. in standard html and have software that can make use of it like a browser and an nginx fork because I'll be damned if I will use http/3 a google protocol any time soon. [18:33:08.0101] because you have a protocol, a browser, and a server and you HAVE a chunk of the Internet of Protocols to your own self. [18:34:06.0570] but I do forget WhatWG also is responsible for superclassing protocols with web tech.. So my Internet of Protocols and the World Wide Web aren' [18:34:14.0731] * but I do forget WhatWG also is responsible for superclassing protocols with web tech.. So my Internet of Protocols and the World Wide Web aren't on the agenda let alone XML. [18:34:35.0789] And that is my general beef. [18:35:41.0277] We have more things but in totality.. we are at BEST no better than before.. and at worst it is a corruption of the evolution of the internet and the world wide web. [18:37:36.0872] So what can be done about it? [18:41:59.0919] The Modern Web is harming The Internet as a whole. [18:42:14.0878] until this is understood i doubt anything I have or will say will matter. [18:45:19.0619] I also expect the adoption of the new Google Web Protocol over UDP will be a shedding point for legacy compatibility and there goes http older than 3 and likely XML as a rendered thing all together and things will get a few more abstractions and superclassings and be as opaque and virtually unusable outside specialized software that it will be indistinguishable in practicality from any closed proprietary series of technologies delivered over the internet. [18:45:30.0952] and HTML 4 [18:45:49.0587] * and HTML 4 will go too [18:47:58.0517] and I have to ask in the face of this almost certain possibility if trends remain unaltered based on the past decade or so when I have been directly affected as a browser and xul platform developer [18:48:06.0097] Is it worth it? [18:48:38.0882] because i look at it.. and it could all be done better as a standalone application in xul or better yet actually securing remotexul [18:49:22.0207] if Firefox's UI is now XHTML and HTML based and they have seperation of chrome vs content privs plus sandboxing.. Remote XUL being insecure was never a real blocker.. it could have been secured. [18:50:05.0494] that little nugget puts the WhatWG's positions into question from the very outset. [18:50:32.0269] as well as Mozilla's decision making at the time. [18:50:54.0647] and brings into question what REALLY happened between Google and Mozilla back then. [18:52:13.0465] and if none of that is relevant to today.. neither is really all the crap that has up till now never been questioned.. so the future CAN be wide open.. Thus I am here trying. [18:52:29.0914] How am I doing? [18:52:37.0158] Please leave a comment .. here. [18:52:38.0232] lol [18:56:53.0360] * and if none of that is relevant to today.. neither is really all the crap that has up till now never been questioned or more properly ALLOWED to be questioned.. so I figure the future CAN be wide open.. Thus I am here trying. [19:02:51.0075] So yeah.. in summery.. radically change the organization and governance of the WhatWG and also embrace XML technologies as equally valid and stop doing Google and increasingly Microsoft's corporate interest driven bidding. Also Mozilla is more or less full of its self and can't be trusted anymore to act on behalf of the internet population and needs taken down a peg for not only causing all this but failing to be bothered to even live up to it or its own past. [19:03:04.0087] and get off github [19:03:38.0840] and you will have a dramatically better and fairer Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group [19:04:52.0310] I am sure my stuff can be mined for more tidbits of benefit but that will be sufficient for now. [19:07:44.0158] I mean WHATWG is not a stranger to radical changes but my changes may be off brand.. to that I say.. deal with it.. things will be better for it. [19:09:23.0314] Or make it clear that I should piss off and potentially but not very likely obsolete you all with 20 year old technology. [19:09:48.0002] It could be fun. [19:11:03.0619] * It could be fun to try. [19:12:05.0189] I didn't have a lot of fun last time because I had to justify my capability and still burned for it.. This time it will be FUN. [19:12:16.0829] * I didn't have a lot of fun last time because I had to justify my capability and was still burned for it.. This time it will be FUN. [19:34:29.0515] If I can't have a voice in the shaping in the future of the web at this point because I don't have dollar signs and can hire people with social skills .. i dunno how that is any better than the W3C in the end.. I do know the W3C was defeated once and their defacto successor on html is making even worse mistakes. Especially in a time where regardless of your politics.. elites are making their moves because for elites power is the only real political correctness [19:34:55.0374] and valid social construct [19:35:03.0698] * and valid social contract [19:36:11.0544] power and acceding to their authority as a company in the industry they control. [19:36:51.0668] or some industry professional who can't keep a job more than 2 years [19:37:22.0854] but is always gainfully employed SOMEWHERE [19:38:30.0813] Mozilla.. OLD Mozilla Netscape-employed Mozilla wasn't like this.. and I am SURE KDE didn't want this either for their engine. [19:40:49.0130] or the web [19:41:33.0696] and Google.. Google has never been about anything other than services that can place ads on. [19:41:43.0144] What the hell even IS this organization?! [19:45:04.0708] Basically if WhatWG had happened in the 90s.. u'd be selling Chromium Mark of Quality Logo Licenses to non-chromium browsers and no browser not carrying the Chromium Mark of Quality would be trusted.. Effectively That is the web on a functional level THANKS to the WhatWG. [19:45:17.0023] and I want something done about it. [19:50:04.0731] Or is the WhatWG supposed to be the solution to the browser war.. cause it isn't.. it just means when it falls many enemies will fall with it with one stroke.. [19:50:11.0918] is that good for the open web? [19:54:38.0756] And how is inverting things the solution.. strict markup and loose js vs loose markup and strict and ever cryptically complex javascript.. How is anything WhatWG has done benefit more than the bottom line of its particpants? [19:55:51.0925] I love when I come to these kinds of places and very little is ever said in response to a slew of questions.. once the first contact has decided I won't just accept and leave. [19:56:38.0294] one strat involves attacking and banning the other involves silence. I am aware of both and really can't care less. I will continue. [19:58:28.0870] I would contend that save video streaming because but mah netflix and youtubes .. nothing that has come from HTML 5 has objectively been better than HTML 4 let alone XHTML 1.0 [19:58:54.0503] just as everything ES6+ except promises was all achievable in ES5 [19:59:16.0865] and nothing new to the modern web didn't exist in a Mozilla XUL codebase at some point save DRM [19:59:26.0287] * and nothing new to the modern web didn't already exist in a Mozilla XUL codebase at some point save DRM [19:59:44.0409] Anyone care to debate that? [19:59:53.0088] To prove me wrong or how mistaken I am? [20:00:11.0053] Do anything other than the status quo NO ONE ASKED FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE? [20:02:08.0687] also excluding AI of course. [20:03:20.0493] I am also PARTLY a result of the consequences of the WhatWG. [20:05:41.0174] because of what you all have done to a thing to many things I have cared about since I was 8 and have made a significant part of my life ever since. HTML and the World Wide Web. [20:08:43.0122] I would gladly give up XUL for the specs from the end of 90s to still prevail especially XML [20:08:48.0431] * I would gladly give up XUL for the specs from the end of 90s to still prevail especially XML-based ones [20:10:07.0808] and when browsers used to be navigators [20:12:47.0766] How is a Hypertext Application the same as a website.. why aren't you something else rather than slowly but progressively overwriting stuff with other stuff that isn't as capable? [20:13:36.0784] Why does the web have to be THIS and not some other additional valuable protocol and set of technologies on the Internet? [20:14:11.0783] in addition to the world wide web I logged on to in the 90s [20:15:17.0140] better that than the current strategy of seizing and overwriting or merely excluding it [20:15:48.0769] * better that than the current strategy of seizing and overwriting anything one can get their hands on or merely excluding anything else [20:15:59.0895] * better that than the current strategy of seizing and overwriting anything one can get their hands on or merely excluding anything else including revitalized efforts otherwise [20:20:21.0490] and what if I created some old-web protocol and used old-web technologies that also allowed self-signed as valid for integrity but not identity so that central authorities certs can be used when its important and not a cost in time or money depending on if timesink cert or paid cert. Would your corperate masters add the protocol and retain features and capabilities largely XML stuff for it? [20:20:24.0475] I doubt it. [20:20:30.0204] it's not in the profit plan. [20:21:54.0984] and EVEN if I actually REMOVED standard http from my xul browser and it ONLY accessed my old web protocol it would still be shat upon for not only its XUL tech not being web compatible AND for reinventing the wheel everyone wants busted to pieces. [20:23:12.0929] It's already no-win for me as-is and I really don't care I just want solutions and a future that isn't a google initiated microsoft hell that isn't even as interesting as the one planned in the 2000s [20:25:05.0741] Especially when all the wheels the WhatWG makes have an arbitrary expiration date attached and browser parity STILL might not happen but broad adoption outside $mainstream is difficult to impossible [20:25:30.0833] Google Wheels have Chrome hubcaps obviously every browser needs chrome-like hubcaps [20:25:47.0915] disgusting. [20:26:39.0116] Microsoft hubcaps perform illegal operations and need shut down.. can't wait for Chrome Browser to be sold off and Microsoft slots in to defacto chromium maintainer and shoves that down to even Firefox. [20:26:48.0843] their final revenge for netscape i guess [20:26:56.0249] except.. I am still alive. [20:27:03.0374] and too old to stop [20:28:43.0910] and obviously won't shut up. [20:28:46.0754] sooo [20:36:48.0061] If the speculation in the Mozilla Outskirts is correct then if Microsoft assumes Google's defacto leadership and lead on WhatWG specs you will have become the W3C and MUST be endrun with a new standards body. [20:36:53.0624] I hope you all realize that. [20:38:23.0887] Maybe it could be me or maybe it could be someone else. But its a real concern that SHOULD concern the WhatWG [20:40:12.0111] It's happened before.. the WHATWG did it. [20:42:05.0755] It's the only way to preserve an Open Web after all. [20:42:12.0664] ;) [20:46:53.0547] precedents when remembered are a bitch aren't they? [20:48:44.0321] It's the same risk as anything really.. when you go against the status quo its all sunshine and rainbows but when you ARE the status quo because you usurped the role even in a minority of people's minds.. you open your self to your own potential downfall.. [20:50:06.0556] * It's the same risk as anything really.. when you usurped status quo its all sunshine and rainbows but when you ARE the status quo because you usurped the role even in a minority of people's minds.. you open your self to your own potential downfall.. [01:17:01.0809] wtf did I just read [01:18:49.0609] sorry but no one's going to use your browser [04:57:43.0622] Hey, [04:59:40.0083] I’m building an audio player and one issue I’m currently facing is that, in order to start the next audio in the playlist, the user has to open the page to unpause it for it to process the events, etc. Is there any way to work around this? Like somehow wake the page when audio stops playing or something similar? [06:55:09.0600] Good morning. I do believe I did imply that given the conditions surrounding it. But I could do it.. and there is a statistical probability it might explode and take off like crazy.. Just not a very good one ;) [06:57:16.0373] People.. have STOLEN xul code from me from private repos.. SOMEONE other than me is nuts enough and willing to pull scriptkiddy tricks on a gitea instance to get it.. [06:57:36.0008] people have tried to steal my branding and logo artwork [06:57:46.0230] it's not impossible just unlikely. [06:58:05.0083] Which is my point. Basically the point of any argument put forth by an autist. [06:58:13.0037] well a good number anyway [06:59:00.0813] and the WHATWG's existence indicates things can change in a big way because it has happened before. [07:01:02.0299] Who knows.. since I have no resources to legally defend my rights I might very well be the architect of the WHATWG downfall it will just be someone else stealing my plans and technology and taking the credit.. I dunno. The future doesn't make sense anymore. [07:02:40.0034] That is why I am here. [07:15:49.0551] Not coming here.. wherever here was before Matrix.. didn't accomplish anything other than all the technology i ever wanted and the near destruction of my personality and soul.. I survived and stuff still ain't any better broadly let alone for my self. That is where I am now. [07:24:19.0694] SPEAKING of no one using my browser.. XUL isn't the only thing there is Modern Mozilla.. its chief issue beyond all the telemetry and service bs and any semblance of real extensibility was gutted and obliterated one interface at a time over years bug after bug.. Anyway the chief issue with Firefox is its UI decisions from Firefox 4 onward.. Pale Moon's Strata 4 style, australis, photon, whatever it is called today.. all stuff users never wanted or even like.. it is why Mozilla has dropped in marketshare.. Regardless the BASIC interface is important. And I think even a modern browser that is laid out and application feature wise is somewhere between Firefox 2 and 3 .. bonus points if the aesthetic can be revived. I have done some experiments towards that end last year.. While transforming a XUL browser back to something more traditional.. Modern Firefox is a lot harder.. But the experiments showed promise. [07:25:04.0953] just a proof of concept. So I can do what I do to XUL on Modern Firefox as well.. after adapting to the changes.. [07:25:31.0067] and netwerk.. the necko lib? it's not that different between then and now.. so my protocol bs could apply on a MODERN BROWSER [07:27:20.0863] * SPEAKING of no one using my browser.. XUL isn't the only thing there is Modern Mozilla.. its chief issue beyond all the telemetry and service bs and any semblance of real extensibility was gutted and obliterated one interface at a time over years bug after bug.. Anyway the chief issue with Firefox is its UI decisions from Firefox 4 onward.. Pale Moon's Strata 4 style, australis, photon, whatever it is called today.. all stuff users never wanted or even like.. it is why Mozilla has dropped in marketshare.. Regardless the BASIC interface is important. And I think even a modern browser that is laid out and application feature wise is somewhere between Firefox 2 and 3 .. bonus points if the aesthetic can be revived. I have done some experiments towards that end last year.. While transforming a XUL browser back to something more traditional isn't that hard.. Modern Firefox is a lot harder.. But the experiments showed promise. [07:29:45.0035] of course my goal would be to get MODERN firefox looking like this: My upcoming xul browser [07:30:28.0945] and there is nothing but gobs of stuff layered on top that is in my way.. Traditional interfaces MIGHT lead to a more traditional web. [07:30:34.0249] How about that? [07:33:12.0784] As far as web applications go.. I like PHP my self with as little javascript as possible.. None is prefered. [07:34:04.0947] it would be flatter on non-win7 [07:34:07.0294] of course [07:34:23.0320] You’re using this channel as a text editor, rather than making a single coherent case. When you “pause” and ask for comment but don’t wait and give the assembled async readers the chance to respond (2-3 days id guess), you are ensuring only that no one will read it. [07:35:16.0284] I have a lot to express. [07:35:51.0258] That doesn’t make this a good approach, it only alienates potential readers. [07:35:53.0320] I very strongly recommend writing all of this as a blog post and then share the blog post in this channel, rather than sending a hundred messages [07:36:10.0031] This is more like spam than a treatise [07:36:32.0981] Colin Alworth: it is OBVIOUS i know no other means or approach. It is also obvious I am not letting that stop me anymore.. its been fifteen years. [07:37:10.0763] If you aren’t interested in feedback to improve, you clearly won’t be interested in collaboration, and you’re asking to be ignored. [07:37:38.0006] You are holding me to social rules I don't understand. Please stop. [07:38:54.0090] Colin Alworth: I am NOT ignoring your feedback I just don't know what to do with most of it.. I never do. [07:40:27.0889] My alternative was to give those freaks at the Pale Moon project the legitimacy they wanted and that was an unmitigated disaster .. nothing I do or say here about stuff will ever be as bad. [07:44:39.0375] built and transformed them into a model of a mini-mozilla.. multiple applications.. service infrastructure.. the add-ons site.. a fully functional late model XUL platform.. all because of me from a once firefox rebrand.. [07:44:53.0560] I have that capability. [07:47:18.0289] Biggest mistake i made was for a long time merely attributing MY accomplishments to the project which made it easier for me to become the scapegoat when not set off as an attack dog. [07:48:39.0604] which is the primary function I am known for not for anything that makes a project at that level possible [07:48:48.0411] multiple projects [07:49:18.0505] with my server i donated use of vs what i got in return.. i am owed 120 dollars still.. but i worked for nothing for a decade [07:49:33.0516] because I don't HAVE the social skills to do anything else [07:49:49.0866] and what ones I did got badly eroded.. I am working on it.. [07:55:07.0128] but that 120 is of a total of a sub thousand dollar balance so basically he KINDA paid for his hosting but not all of it.. and nothing. This is money i could have used for food mind you. Same as my servers today that have gone virtually unused for 3 years. I could have cancelled them and had more food. [07:57:03.0524] Yes. I transformed a rebuild into a mini-mozilla for a decade for a thousand dollars. That is my capability.. and all without social skills apperently. [07:57:19.0096] So ignore me if you want i guess. Though it makes me more sad than angry at this point. [08:04:50.0221] I just wonder what I could have done with the 200 million 400 million mozilla was getting every year last decade when I did all that for around a thousand dollars total just with dedication and work plus a server [08:05:37.0356] that my addition was worth so much then but not worth spit now. [08:06:01.0490] and that the stuff I did do is rotting. [08:07:26.0164] but still props up their credibility in the eyes of their users and the uninformed [08:34:31.0408] I have mentioned embracing XML as an equal web technology, I have mentioned the issue with the monoculture and governance and voting issues.. I have expressed my own opinions, my own accomplishments regardless of how tainted they are, my own realization of my own harm which has little to do with the technology.. and their continued threat as well as the very nature of the WHATWG being a rebel usurping force that may very well have it done to them as well as the personal impacts on my own development and progression through life as the decisions and such filter down to me. I have also related that I am in no way good at this because it is beyond the technology its self and why and have been honest about everything. If that isn't sufficient. I really can't know what is and that should invoke other things I am entitled to but never does of course. [08:39:56.0465] it isn't all one big rigged system it is thousands of small rigged systems with slightly different rules I understood that before I even disagreed with most of it. It's worse now. [08:45:18.0046] Aside from obviously going away.. I dunno what you guys want from me in exchange for changing things for the better for some, including me, that have been left behind, thrown out, or whatever. [08:56:40.0395] One person mentioned async readers.. That i don't understand.. I have issues wrapping my head around async code. It is not the first time I have heard that but it is the second instance.. I use IRC and also used to use every instantmessenging service and even ICQ before that. I basically grew up with Windows 3.1 and DOS and even with later 9x I booted to DOS first. Windows 2000 was when I essentially stopped using a command prompt.. It did me a disservice especially since I have always wanted to go Linux but hardware was never there until the late 2010s and I finally made it late 2023. Linux I made it. Finally. I have a command line and a display server with openbox and it has given me a lot of joy.. Wayland doesn't work for me and when it does work it doesn't work how I think it should.. it doesn't feel the same as X and it is murder on my hardware and resources. I as I stated before, started participating in an anti-wayland gist and was banned for wanting to organize an xorg fork from github globally erasing everything and crippling my infrastructure. I couldn't use normal channels in a normal way even if I wanted to now. [08:58:25.0965] I don't have any real options or anything to really loose.. [08:59:47.0086] I can't have a browser without being subject to everything WHATWG puts out.. I can't have a display server because its too god damned big to fork alone.. eventually I won't be able to use a computer effectively enough to be worth it.. I already have usabilty issues with touch screens.. [09:00:53.0694] Not to mention AMD's decision to go LGA means I don't have the dexterity to risk damaging any of those bouncy pins when installing or changing a processor.. I have never bent a processor pin because the physical nature allows me to compensate for my bad dexterity [09:01:13.0991] I am LOOSING everything even if i DO NOTHING. Why else would I even bother. [09:01:58.0032] and I can't just keep my OS and shit the same forever cause browsers will leave compatibility [09:02:16.0914] I.. am beyond what I can cope with here.. that too should be obvious. [09:02:30.0051] and yet i feel i must continue trying.. [09:02:56.0625] not just for me but for everyone I could help [09:05:41.0807] If that is worthy of being ignored for.. Then save a step and ban me. I should have been banned years ago judging my everything so it WOULD be on brand AND on the agenda and might save a few dollars later on too. [09:06:43.0220] Cause it is entirely possible I could spend months talking about it to unperceptive people instead of actually doing it. [09:07:19.0903] * Cause it is entirely possible I could spend months talking about it to unreceptive people instead of actually doing it. [09:08:04.0367] ... There I go again giving people what they need to defeat me.. Sometimes I think I am too helpful. [09:16:13.0792] Wonder if Matrix has shadowbans yet.. Most matrix users I know are in favor of them for anyone deemed undesirable. Sure is a powerful weapon now in the hands of powerful corperations like Microsoft whom gatekeeps any access to whatwg activities. [09:16:32.0205] via github. [09:17:28.0895] on libera.chat their irc server has a mode that makes it so only chanops can see what you say but not other peers.. Wonder if matrix will get that instead. [09:17:50.0795] That would be great to use on me. [09:18:02.0910] Might not notice for a week or two. [09:20:06.0122] Save you guys from doing it manually ;) [09:23:47.0642] My self is the only resource I have and I expend it like others would money for the benefit of others and .. the near false hope that it might help. [09:24:04.0115] and I might be helped in return. [09:33:17.0416] Standards that change are NOT standards they are arbitrary policy. [09:34:37.0136] Living Standards are just a standard that says policy is always right. [09:34:48.0187] How is that remotely good for anyone OTHER than the policy makers [09:36:46.0720] The goal of these standards is for the "policy makers" to agree with each other, rather than every of the major browsers implementing their own version of the web [09:37:35.0512] That is called collusion. [09:37:44.0100] corporate collusion [09:37:51.0680] it's textbook cartel behavior [09:38:12.0812] because it isn't coming from the demands of people using the web it comes from people SELLING the web as a product [09:38:51.0861] The web has been radically transformed and only CURRENTLY maintains a legacy compatibility. [09:39:02.0426] when it SHOULD have eben something else [09:39:13.0066] that MAYBE replaced the web and MAYBE didn't [09:39:29.0661] it was just all forced for fifteen years and the WHATWG is at the center of it [09:42:35.0933] I do not necessarily disagree, but this approach is not going to change everything. You are writing a wall of text that: - is so long and unstructured that guarantees nobody is going to read it - it's basically preventing any other communication, because it's difficult to jump in while it appears there is another very active conversation going on Either you try to engage constructively (and, if the goal is to radically change everything, you'll need to convince _a lot_ of people), or this is equivalent to just... doing nothing to reach whatever your goal is [09:42:48.0270] * I do not necessarily disagree, but this approach is not going to change anything. You are writing a wall of text that: - is so long and unstructured that guarantees nobody is going to read it - it's basically preventing any other communication, because it's difficult to jump in while it appears there is another very active conversation going on Either you try to engage constructively (and, if the goal is to radically change everything, you'll need to convince _a lot_ of people), or this is equivalent to just... doing nothing to reach whatever your goal is [09:43:21.0141] And this channel is moderated, so if you continue like this one of the moderators will probably end up silencing you [09:43:27.0252] I don't think anything you guys have done would be so bad if it didn't come at the expense of things before it that in some cases were better [09:43:33.0916] it can exist side by side [09:43:35.0658] as a choice [09:44:12.0523] and there is no way after HTTP is no longer a TCP/IP protocol that legacy web stuff will be retained.. only a pretense of some similar functionality [09:44:26.0901] just like in the end user software of the companies writing the specs [09:45:41.0428] Going forward I wish very much to see it sidebyside if not actually embraced and certainly not disparaged and I would like to see a mroe bottom UP WHATWG organization so that the demands of the web are by people using the web not agents of the companies that sell it. [09:46:45.0010] this would make the term "Open Web" actually mean something and not just be a label for can't disagree with it cause its "Open" [09:47:21.0108] and for the WHATWG to move off github to somewhere independant [09:47:29.0546] of the spec writers [09:47:37.0126] so no spec writer can for other reasons deny entry [09:48:10.0543] nicolo-ribaudo: would you like it formatted in markdown with a bullet point summery? [09:48:20.0141] is that REALLY the issue? [09:49:03.0176] I can't open a pull request for an issue on github tho [09:49:53.0809] * Going forward I wish very much to see xml tech sidebyside if not actually embraced and certainly not disparaged and I would like to see a mroe bottom UP WHATWG organization so that the demands of the web are by people using the web not agents of the companies that sell it. [09:52:23.0824] * I can't open a pull request or an issue on github tho [09:55:54.0280] Of course I could have taken on the mantel of the New Tobin Paradigm and come in shouting EX-TER-MIN-ATE like the old days seems like it would be at LEAST as effective as the NOT doing that I been trying. Kinda sucks really. [09:57:24.0641] Non-perfect expression means any expression really doesn't matter if its screaming crying debating arguing or stating.. it ain't perfect so its not valid much of the time. I can make my self okay with taht again if it would be helpful. [09:59:41.0116] and yet strict xml markup is bad.. go figure. [10:07:35.0414] If I am gonna be ignored strictly based on my articulation of what I am trying to express then there is a MUCH LARGER issue here than one slightly insane documented and diaganosted autistic that feels lied to and has had stuff taken away and been attacked and eroded for years for simply trying to hold on to it in my own little corner [10:23:18.0759] My dream was to be a web designer .. the Modern Web brought with it everyone using the same uninspired magazine large thin text on a stark white background unless inverted and killed all creativity just as Mozilla killed it within their own rich and mature eco system. [10:23:53.0371] the Modern Web is not a web of documents and resources.. it is a web of corporate services and paywalls. [10:24:32.0713] walls everywhere [10:24:35.0509] roadblocks [10:24:39.0269] hurdles to jump over [10:24:43.0240] it never ends [10:25:39.0549] the goal posts ever streching and the goals them selves ever changing [10:26:13.0237] because its a marketing department and product r&d lab for a cartel of browser vendors where most use the same exact engine [10:26:55.0683] The Modern Web continues to exclude me with every change just as surely as my flawed articulation does. [10:28:14.0728] anything other than normal regardless of the label resolves to the word retard.. and that is how I am treated and regardless how close an emulation I make towards the accepted form of expression it won't be perfect and almost certainly won't be seen as valid.. I simply am not letting that stop me anymore. [10:29:15.0038] I will need either not ignored or cut down.. Limbo sucks. [10:29:17.0919] Decide. [10:31:14.0397] you guys have indirectly .. largely indirectly altered my path and the choices I would otherwise have made.. Now you can do it directly. [10:34:16.0336] Choose for me. It's what the WHATWG wants. [10:39:01.0373] You're all about rapid progress.. why so slow in resolving the unexpected Tobin issue? [10:40:56.0044] I have already admitted I am either unlikely or unable to follow social constructs originating past the early 2010s so all that Trump provoked overreaction that merely gave him the tools to silence us all in the end.. Yeah them swinging CoCs.. I won't respect that any further than mid-2000s forum rules extended. [10:41:29.0473] i didn't read it because it would just make this harder for me [10:41:44.0613] not recently i did read the 2019 version [10:42:16.0163] so I can be banned at any time.. [10:42:20.0812] and I am aware of it. [10:57:41.0842] Once we had a universal rulebook for how citizens of the internet should be.. I'd love to still employ those and have everyone do the same.. The internet was nicer before all the mandated social contracts [10:59:00.0353] most forum rulesets included most of it. Moderation processes were known and unambiguous and sometimes but now always there were ways to redress abuses in power .. one way or another. [10:59:15.0670] * most forum rulesets included most of it. Moderation processes were known and unambiguous and sometimes but not always there were ways to redress abuses in power .. one way or another. [11:01:20.0577] The Internet was in effect a new world with unique problems and solutions and a rich culture of its own.. before the rise of the memes.. It's largely gone now.. The very idea of not using some common framework or the latest shiny feature or not being instantly compatible with a corperate product is unthinkable.. NOW a big push in open source is the falsehood that open source projects MUST be funded and governed by a corporation or it isn't trustworthy [11:01:36.0643] backed by increasing enforcement of digital signing of applications [11:03:12.0982] and some of that can be lead streight back to the WHATWG and other similar newer modern organizations deciding web and internet standards [11:03:17.0918] * and some of that can be lead straight back to the WHATWG and other similar newer modern organizations deciding web and internet standards [11:04:15.0433] what is on the phone must be how it is on the computer and how it is on the web must be how it is on the phone which must be how it is on the computer AND I CAN'T FUCKING USE ANY OF IT TO ANY DEGREE THAT MAKES ME NOT WANT TO COMMIT SUICIDE IN RESPONSE. [11:05:00.0534] But if I did that I couldn't be here to TRY something slightly more constructive than killing my self. [11:05:47.0209] my life is more important than your fucking collective social circle jerk. that is non-negotiable. [11:16:54.0217] god, is this channel literally this guy just yapping about XUL [11:17:03.0620] Ways to improve WHATWG ---- - Permit XML-based tech as an equal or Embrace XML for awesomeness - Get off Github to not be subject to gatekeeping by a voting member of the organization by indirect means - Reorganize to be bottom-up as far as web standards so that the web industry meets demand of the web consumers, users, and builders NOT the web industry inventing products to sell or push as a basis for a product to sell. - Adopt a more open social construct based more on rules rather than morality that are clear and more akin to the role of a netizen than a democratic operative. [11:17:04.0005] * god, is this channel literally this guy just talking about XUL [11:19:55.0188] * ## Ways to improve WHATWG - Permit XML-based tech as an equal or Embrace XML for awesomeness - Get off Github to not be subject to gatekeeping by a voting member of the organization by indirect means - Reorganize to be bottom-up as far as web standards so that the web industry meets demand of the web consumers, users, and builders NOT the web industry inventing products to sell or push as a basis for a product to sell. - Adopt a more open social construct based more on rules rather than morality that are clear and more akin to the role of a netizen than a US democratic operative. [11:20:47.0359] such huge wall of text [11:20:50.0019] even if you ignore xml those three are very good ideas [11:20:51.0684] I just cant read it [11:20:55.0656] too much [11:21:04.0436] I just summerized [11:21:21.0885] mr. cheff: this time in a bullet point markdown form christ [11:21:30.0501] what do you want OTHER than my utter extermination? [11:21:35.0825] for disagreeing [11:21:59.0209] the thing is that you are just talking alone [11:22:10.0028] this is a very one-way conversation [11:22:18.0144] makes it boringh [11:23:01.0224] That isn't my fault. I have been excessively conversational and flowed through many topics I have repeated repeatedly while repeating them and summerized it in two ways. [11:23:20.0494] the most important points [11:24:30.0124] and excuse me but as far as I know almost nothing of HTML5 would exist without earlier XUL analogs in Mozilla [11:24:46.0553] and Mozilla is a founding member of the WHATWG [11:24:57.0965] custom elements is almost a complete reimpl of XBL in js [11:25:00.0908] for christ sakes [11:25:25.0556] Stop using my knowledge, love, and command of unpopular technology against me. [11:27:20.0745] Not until you bring HTML to XUL parity and not a XUL parody. [11:27:25.0841] is this understood? [11:28:39.0505] I am talking to MANY walls actually. But common core can be explained for the miscalucation. [11:30:32.0789] and here it is.. Why after fifteen years is HTML not anywhere near as capable as XUL? What have you been doing other than increasing profit margins? [11:30:58.0120] and making teh web hard for anyone to do anything but consume it? [11:31:44.0840] I think it started as not wanting to use XML because W3C still likes XML .. slightly [11:32:29.0756] what a petty reason to fuck up decades of hundreds of thousands of peoples work and effort and my life due to unfortunate circumstances indirectly caused by each and every one of you. [11:33:32.0730] * and making teh web hard for anyone to do anything but consume it as an end user of say a television or games console? [11:33:46.0845] and a shitty reason to keep on with it today [11:34:07.0127] how many of you are actually from the founding of the whatwg anyway [11:34:18.0579] how many people have ACTUALLY experienced this technology [11:34:23.0974] in the way they do now [11:34:27.0526] with html [11:35:17.0313] Where is HTML going aside into a binary udp protocol [11:35:23.0144] what will it be in 10 years [11:35:28.0754] will it even be markup anymore [11:35:32.0929] or programmically generated [11:35:38.0599] or AI generated [11:36:14.0733] will the very act of writing HTML by hand become a social crime of the grandest order like xul is [11:37:34.0301] That was used as a reason not to talk to me.. so i gotta know.. where is it going .. and what have i missed that is also not allowed by punishment of being cast out? [11:38:28.0245] cause the CoCs never mention tech social crimes i might commit [11:39:39.0600] also why is laziness a valid excuse for not reading which I find rude as hell.. but my flawed articulation is a social crime? [11:40:11.0953] I don't have answers. [11:41:51.0765] and I am loosing all that distract me from not having answers and worse the stuff that often lets me work through stuff to find answers. [11:42:25.0699] and the last bullet point in the summery is to make it all actually worth it.. cause I can't see that it is [11:46:50.0584] That is pretty much it. Any more is just gonna start repeating again or more than likely I will start calling out Mozilla Employees by name who have directly wronged me or my efforts. So yeah pretty much done. [11:50:25.0910] Except this: Has it occurred to any of you that not everyone is gonna know how to express them selves let alone in a new environment and especially when they have grievances spanning a decade or more. By expecting everyone to implicitly know this makes you anti-autistic and likely a lot of other disorders and disabilities. Stop it. It is so bad that even I who tends to avoid the topic unless I am already being attacked to seem less vunerable. [11:50:39.0691] * Except this: Has it occurred to any of you that not everyone is gonna know how to express them selves let alone in a new environment and especially when they have grievances spanning a decade or more. By expecting everyone to implicitly know this makes you anti-autistic and likely a lot of other disorders and disabilities. Stop it. It is so bad that even I who tends to avoid the topic unless I am already being attacked to seem less vulnerable has to say something. [11:51:59.0954] That includes my walls of unstructured flowing text. [11:55:18.0655] If that is ignored.. as well.. then well I can just start attacking individuals for their arbitrary attributes forcing you to mob me into making my decision. [11:55:47.0551] The structure may not be in my expression but it IS in my intent. [11:57:02.0120] It comes down to this. I can in some small way serve the reexpansion of the open web or the whatwg can serve me by forcing my hand and overriding my fear of failing. [11:58:27.0300] And then what I do is as I see fit. [11:59:59.0604] Dramatic turning points are always the most lasting for me. It's a tool to help my advancement since largely no one cares. [12:04:43.0721] There are 1.2k of you in this channel I would be surprised if half of you don't automatically hate me assuming the entire few days survives along enough to be read. [12:06:14.0954] likely be spun into a grand protection of the openweb from spamming disruptive users and their technology. [12:06:21.0096] looking forward to it.. i guess [12:24:45.0146] The problem with social mandates as a replacement for regular old rules or deferring to netiquette is if I do take it to heart I will hold others to the same rules regardless of the circumstances and that comes from circumstances often being ok if its done to me but otherwise nope unthinkable especially if I do it. [12:26:06.0815] If your system is not fair and I am not otherwise an equal but I get a foothold I will attempt to take it over. This is why the excuse of articulated expression is used because wow someone rude or uncivilized no need to listen to THEM. [12:26:30.0330] what ever man, I just use the internet for youtube [12:27:02.0788] Good you are using a single service on one protocol.. great vision for the future. [12:27:22.0370] or so it may be believed.. I am to remind you all it really isn't. [12:27:54.0941] Why is your youtube more important than my xhtml? [12:27:58.0229] explain that? [12:29:56.0521] because it's a really insignificant thing to worry about? I dont know about you man but I have to pay the bills [12:30:00.0774] I would gladly accept the potential contention it may be AS important but then my next question is.. fantastic, how can we have both? And it will fall down again. [12:30:03.0163] if u wanna do an XUL browser or something, just do it [12:30:07.0694] but dont spam on this channel [12:30:52.0875] i could do a qt ui on chromium .. stop trying to use XUL as a weapon against me because it is far more powerful as a weapon against the web.. and I understand it. [12:31:19.0059] great [12:31:20.0290] do it then [12:31:27.0701] i did [12:31:36.0839] for about a decade [12:31:40.0194] why are you saying "I could" then [12:31:41.0269] didn't help [12:31:47.0165] I could do it .. AGAIN [12:32:02.0080] but the first time didn't work? [12:32:20.0780] mr. cheff: you should read above.. i explained it all [12:32:59.0670] tl;dr is i made a mistake [12:33:07.0968] i elevated others the wrong others [12:33:13.0812] instead of doing it my self [12:33:16.0801] and being in charge [12:33:34.0084] so let me get this straight, are you trying to do a chromium browser that supports XUL? [12:33:45.0688] because in your head, you think HTML is discriminating you? [12:34:01.0920] that's what im getting out of this idk [12:34:21.0442] why would I do a chromium browser [12:34:36.0309] i can of course .. maybe its a beast to compile on a single machine vs mozilla [12:34:43.0609] > i could do a qt ui on chromium [12:34:51.0766] that would just be a UI [12:35:05.0629] ok, so you are making an engine that supports XUL because HTML is discriminating you? [12:35:43.0320] as an example.. the XUL ui nature doesn't matter Firefox is xhtml and html based now with only a few remaining XUL widgets and my prelem experimentation I was able to strip off much of the styling to get back to a base toolkit/os styling.. it was very prelem and is above. [12:36:01.0756] mhm [12:36:16.0639] I could do both stuff on UXP and modern firefox or i could be a traditional UI using chromium [12:36:34.0609] so is HTML discriminating you or... why are you mad exactly? [12:36:41.0546] the web after fifteen years is NOT at parity with XML-based technologies from 25 years ago [12:37:07.0087] why would it have to be [12:37:15.0329] why shouldn't it be? [12:37:40.0206] because it's a deprecated technology? [12:37:47.0170] because some browser companies fifteen years ago decided xml is bad because xml is favored by the standards body they decided to endrun around? [12:37:58.0089] depercated by WHOM [12:38:10.0858] the WHATWG [12:38:17.0690] XML is bad [12:38:21.0416] HTML for the win [12:38:41.0146] yeah destroying the potential of superior competing technologies how Google of you. [12:39:08.0522] what's so google about a markup language [12:39:20.0946] nah but now that you say it [12:39:26.0595] this project of yours have potential ngl [12:39:34.0199] I'd use it [12:39:40.0581] will it be for mobile as well? [12:40:20.0155] Yes because I am gonna make something for a platform that I can't use or develop for.. [12:40:40.0782] you dont have a phone? [12:40:48.0145] now I get why you have so much free time [12:40:50.0411] now if this was 2011 no problem.. we HAD xul on android in 2011 [12:41:30.0110] only enough java to get XRE up and running like every other mozilla os widget code [12:42:09.0314] android native fennec was doable in the mid 2010s [12:42:15.0315] I think you are crazy, trying to fight insignificant problems and attacking those who point out the truth [12:42:33.0985] .. now its too far not even hardly using gecko except as an embed.. after they killed desktop embedding and kept killing it. [12:42:57.0352] no one's going to use your janky browser [12:43:11.0866] which one.. the xul one or the modern firefox one [12:43:18.0835] why is it janky [12:43:44.0517] the one you are going to make [12:43:55.0989] why are you disparaging my capability and work when you know nothing about it while advocating on the side of an organization that has done everything in its power to eradicate it from existance [12:44:24.0922] by mandate or by mob rule [12:44:33.0713] dont blame me [12:44:48.0000] it's true that the browser you are going to make [12:44:51.0351] will suck and no one will use it [12:45:44.0015] They liked it the first time they were told to use it..they may like it again.. [12:46:00.0632] and the prelem experimental testing on modern firefox [12:46:10.0288] yeah your pale moon followers liked it [12:46:11.0101] no shit [12:46:14.0954] addressbar and icons need major work [12:46:21.0746] not my followers [12:46:25.0212] that looks janky af [12:46:27.0788] I woudnt NOT use this [12:46:37.0437] do you not have a designer on the team? [12:46:53.0377] aside from the Aero provided by windows 7 which on 10 would be flatter what is essentually wrong with the UI or layout [12:47:08.0156] oh the modern firefox [12:47:46.0764] i said it was VERY prelem experimental testing [12:48:09.0249] I intend to layoutwise if not aesthetically match the XUL version [12:48:23.0170] as I said, it's ugly af [12:48:35.0797] id hate myself for even downloading it [12:48:37.0535] then Windows 10 is ugly as fuck [12:48:43.0243] it is yeah [12:48:45.0988] which is true [12:48:46.0960] yeah [12:48:52.0983] but your browser is worse [12:48:57.0798] can it play youtube? [12:49:01.0122] can it play netflix? [12:49:07.0900] but the idea is it isn't imposing anymore than you are already willing to accept by the OS you run.. stylistically [12:50:56.0125] I gave pale moon a try [12:51:02.0096] why doesnt speedometer even load [12:51:02.0780] UXP long ago aquired PARTIAL webcomponents support so youtube works.. Netflix is a more complicated story.. it has ALWAYS discriminated against not-mainstream browsers even in the silverlight days even when it was only a year from last released Firefox.. The Unified XUL Platform however has no remaining DRM as eme requires a content decryption module that can only be used under license from google which would not even respond to the request locking it out despite previous inherited support from Mozilla in ESR52 at the time. [12:51:02.0899] wth [12:51:36.0854] mr. cheff: you're behaving exactly as predicted. I have already came up with the responses to your attacks. [12:51:46.0632] but let's continue. [12:52:02.0973] no you didn't? [12:52:22.0109] The modern version of course will be able to run any DRM.. because IDC anymore about google's licencing.. They can sue me put me out of my misery. [12:52:33.0968] why would they sue you [12:52:39.0357] you are insignificant [12:52:43.0488] if they don't want me to have it then Firefox should not have it as an open source thing or be disabled by default. [12:53:05.0398] anyways, im bored [12:53:12.0429] how do I mute channels in element [12:53:36.0344] But does it feel good to shit on something that isn't perfect because its barely be started and then to apply modern standards to something you know won't support all of them from the get go? [12:53:40.0821] Does that make you right? [12:53:48.0674] because I tried that many times before and it didn't work [12:54:02.0385] I think the problem is that you think the world is againt you [12:54:08.0380] where that's not the case [12:54:25.0857] everyone that contradicts you in the slightest you take it as a huge offence [12:54:52.0193] trying to fight insignificant problems [12:54:53.0475] The whole world.. i could only dream.. but there is by policy or by actions a lot against me either directly or simply because of who or what I am and the opinions I hold. [12:55:42.0529] because as I said, im just giving you factual facts [12:55:44.0827] no one will use it [12:55:49.0481] I'm not allowed or socially adept enough to fight larger problems despite being often capable of doing the tasks. [12:55:52.0137] if it cant even play popular websites [12:56:18.0327] "play popular websites" [12:56:22.0270] the fuck does that even mean [12:56:35.0013] netflix, spotify, youtube, ... [12:56:46.0769] + no mobile version [12:56:47.0815] so imagine [12:56:49.0939] it runs youtube just fine tho full loading can be slower at times [12:57:01.0650] but I thought u hated html? [12:57:04.0978] XUL only browser [12:57:16.0674] You're not very good at this. [12:57:45.0351] You're getting into the areas of interaction by circumstance I do know.. attack and evade. [12:57:58.0154] ok, it's very simple [12:58:11.0365] you want to make a browser that only runs XUL because HTML is discriminating you [12:58:18.0355] and then, achieve what with it? [12:58:23.0616] complete internet freedom? [12:58:26.0842] you are assuming that because you haven't read what I have said [12:58:39.0918] I did read it [12:59:01.0577] Tell me where im wrong [12:59:10.0365] what thing did I say that is wrong and please correct me [12:59:30.0202] . [12:59:55.0414] > Get off Github to not be subject to gatekeeping by a voting member of the organization by indirect means [12:59:56.0416] why [13:00:47.0601] then you're a liar and did not read or you have faulty reading comprehension in that case sorry for calling you a liar. [13:01:40.0104] idk man u keep evading my questions lol [13:01:48.0059] it's normal I get confused [13:02:00.0057] you keep talking nonesense [13:02:10.0945] I already answered it [13:02:15.0407] why that needs done [13:02:31.0436] this [13:03:42.0717] . [13:03:43.0449] > because some browser companies fifteen years ago decided xml is bad because xml is favored by the standards body they decided to endrun around? [13:03:49.0862] oh, so this is why all this started? [13:05:00.0105] the speculation in the Mozilla Outskirts is the whatwg was formed because Google and especially Mozilla were sick of the W3C slowwalking stuff because of Internet Explorer. I have no reason to discount this speculation because it comes from former mozilla employees who told me about it at the time [13:05:18.0287] I feel like this isn't the whole story but ok [13:05:44.0801] We don't have TIME for the whole story you can barely read my walls of text [13:05:59.0730] ah ok [13:06:11.0514] we have time to spend the whole day talking about a web standard [13:06:15.0953] but not to write a short story [13:06:16.0501] alr [13:06:20.0129] have a good day [13:07:21.0561] I am debating to either play along or try and redirect.. its an old tactic police interrogation but with a troll bent.. Used to be fun in the old days when things weren't a disaster because of some tech decision [13:09:34.0914] If you read ALL THE WAY back you'd know my primary objective was not so much to rehash the past which I can do endlessly but what should happen going forward [13:12:48.0105] but that wasn't enough to ignore the assignments of blame and not punish the guilty I needed to explain WHY and that's not important.. so what is.. the past doesn't matter the present is only here for a moment and the future will be decided arbitrarily by corporate direction under for now a fascist state.. last time that happened things got nuts now all the technology is theirs .. would be mine too for a similar purpose if I would just use it.. but I like the other stuff better. [13:14:15.0751] Social constructs and mandates fall apart when your technology is weaponized. and the corperate greed has financed a weaponized web to shut down and silence anyone and again.. YOUR technology drives it not my petty ass xml shit. Pale Moon not withstanding of course. [13:16:09.0375] they were just absorbed by Final MAGA and I was cast out as the undesirable I have always known i was. Know how it feels to be thrown out by nazis for not being evil enough? [13:16:11.0155] I do. [13:16:48.0690] or rather thrown out so they can BE nazis cause I wouldn't let them [13:16:56.0141] with my work. [13:18:08.0602] Least I know Daddy Trump will fix it.. fix them.. fix you.. and fix me.. everyone will be fixed.. no more issues. [13:19:24.0977] very few everyone tho but no issues.. But i won't be there to confirm it. [13:20:36.0751] That's what I been hearing anyway.. [13:20:57.0128] Maybe I should check to see if the Onion has bought infowars for some real fake news. [13:22:06.0001] * Maybe I should check to see if the Onion has bought infowars again yet for some real fake news. [13:24:04.0555] * very few everyone left after tho but no issues.. But i won't be there to confirm it. [13:26:46.0290] The worst piece of trash I ever read was Technology Problems are People problems. [13:27:43.0136] don't let the god damned republicans get wind of that jesus [13:29:48.0758] their solution VERY soon is get rid of the people .. get rid of the problem.. like a ban but final. [13:31:01.0309] is the god damned WHATWG web standards gonna help with THAT? [13:32:07.0989] if I am on about small barely relevant problems the hell are any of you doing other than whatever the controlling intrests want .. which are one by one falling to Trump and even Google won't provide much defense microsoft certainly won't and Mozilla is incapable.. Opera doesn't matter and Apple is all about the desires of the rich and well off. [13:34:20.0582] HTML especially HTML5 won't stop fascism. [13:34:26.0027] it won't save lives [13:34:41.0144] or prevent death or protect our democracy because that was sold off long before I was born. [13:35:00.0907] at TIMES some of it has been loaned back but not for long [13:39:55.0217] Here is how Technology is a people problem.. You keep technology in a state of magic and force everyone to obey without question THEN you attach it to a political mandate THEN you use that to bolster your ideas and you amass an army of support and you attack. Making sure instances of the older stuff are disparaged, people who use or enjoy it attacked, and you then cut any pretense of being what you said you are gonna be and do whatever the hell you decide. Just like anything else.. Cyberspace the internet the web and computers were supposed to be special the great shifting moment for humanity to become more than they are.. it started to happen.. I grew up in a part of it.. then suddenly everyone turned.. on a dime over a small period of about 3 years and then full steam ahead rolling over everything and everyone not otherwise useful to the then overarching agenda .. which I believe long stopped being relevant once power and authority was achieved. [13:40:56.0556] and that and profit became the agenda [13:43:26.0513] We're past the then relevant politics that were used to establish the WHATWG as a fixture.. and the rest of the politics has failed.. NOW i want to know what to do next.. If the WHATWG is gonna do nothing different or get worse AND exclude me as a god damned browser vendor and implementor then my path is clear.. Destroy the WHATWG with the mature form of 25 year old technology.. Win or loose that is MY path should no others be avilable. [13:44:04.0090] * We're past the then relevant politics that were used to establish the WHATWG as a fixture.. and the rest of the politics has failed.. NOW i want to know what to do next.. If the WHATWG is gonna do nothing different or get worse AND exclude me as a god damned browser vendor and implementor then my path is clear.. Destroy the WHATWG with the mature form of 25 year old technology.. Win or lose that is MY path should no others be available. [13:44:46.0477] Or kill my self.. but the time for that passed once again. [13:44:57.0561] You need to stop. Now. [13:45:11.0786] Stop what? [13:45:14.0141] Existing? [13:45:19.0939] doubt I will comply [13:46:28.0757] Okay, fine, let's do it the official way, then. [13:47:06.0810] Hey nsITobin, we've met before and I'm sure you remember. I've read your musings for a while now and tried really hard not to get involved, but here we are. I'm not in any official WHATWG position, and I don't have moderation rights in this channel, but I'd like to remind you of something: the Matrix account you're using at the moment is a Mozilla-hosted account, and you know that I do, in fact, have both the abilities and the responsibilities to moderate _that_. I'm not the one to tell you what this room can be used for or not, but if you use your account to threaten, harass, and/or insult people - or just keep on spending hours completely flooding a channel with your unrelated musings, you'll gain my attention. For someone who hates Mozilla as much as you do, you sure seem to get a lot of mileage out of the infrastructure we provide. When signing up for that account, you agreed to, amongst other things, our Community Participation Guidelines, which cover all your use of your Mozilla accounts. You have already violated them at least twice here by actively threatening to harass people. Before you continue, I strongly encourage you to take a step back, leave this channel, remind yourself of the Mozilla CPG, and think about what your future use of your Matrix account should look like. If you want to have productive discussions about web standards, then do so, but what you're currently doing is not that. Stop it. [13:48:02.0931] I don't think those terms existed when I registered the account.. [13:48:15.0802] but i know shifting goalposts [13:48:21.0924] You are wrong. Those terms existed before Matrix even existed, and this is also not up for debate. [13:48:50.0016] I have not singled out a single mozilla employee [13:49:00.0468] I am not directly attacking indviuduals [13:49:41.0342] But you wanna ban me from this on mozilla's matrix then I will come in with my matrix.org account and be banned for evasion.. process crimes [13:49:45.0952] that's all you have [13:50:32.0917] Or is Mozilla the company unaccountable but i must always be [13:50:37.0979] Well sure, feel free to close your mozilla.org account and use your matrix.org account. You'll get rid of me that way, but I'm sure you'll gain new friends. [13:50:54.0968] I don't close accounts. [13:51:59.0978] I think its telling you want to use the literal situation regarding Microsoft and Github to do the same thing via Mozilla's matrix server [13:52:44.0278] denschub: I do reememebr you and if you were to compare then and now you would see a marked difference but I am not perfect and I sick of pretending I know what the hell I am doing when talking to people.. I don't [13:53:37.0892] Besides, I ordered Mozilla to exterminate me six months ago.. what is the hold up? [13:54:13.0692] I will never be allowed back into mozilla channels [13:54:50.0475] So, I take it that you don't care for what I said and you see no issue continuing your behavior as is, then? [13:56:02.0792] I do but I think in this situation its telling. If I am so insignificant and worthless then why am I such a threat because I say words on the internet which over the past year HAS improved. [13:56:22.0106] the mixed messaging is quite old [13:56:45.0119] Gaslighting much? [13:57:04.0592] I only learned the term last year so no [13:58:22.0190] The whole thing shifted once why can't it shift back or sideways or just expand [13:59:57.0313] You're not a threat. You're annoying the people who want to use this channel for productive chats, you're using your account to threaten harassment, and you're doing all kinds of other fun stuff. THAT is the issue. And if you don't stop voluntarily, then I'll make sure you're at least no longer able to use Mozilla's infrastructure to do that. [14:00:30.0676] If you want to post your opinions on the world, start a blog and post it on reddit and hackernews. This isn't the space for you. Neither are most matrix channels. [14:01:37.0429] As far as getting mileage from Mozilla infrastructure i haven't.. you here telling me this proves it.. The rest of the infrastructure I have to create my self none of it use useable anymore outside Mozilla.. this is part of my issues with them.. I can't be one of them.. I can't do my own thing.. and i can't NOT do my own thing.. and none of it works.. [14:04:28.0598] . [14:05:29.0914] denschub: I remember another Mozillian who said that to me on IRC once upon a time. [14:05:35.0595] the second part [14:05:37.0461] not the first [14:08:53.0410] Once a upon a time I had a blog as well.. wordpress i wrote up stuff even got a little bit of coverage.. About Mozilla Rapid Release and how this fork called Pale Moon was more stable and worked better. [14:08:59.0437] Yeah, who knows. Maybe that was me. Anyway, as you've surely noticed, I've temporarily suspended your mozilla.org Matrix account, and I'll have a chat with the other folks after the weekend to see if this is permanent or not. So I can go back to my weekend now, which is good. I'd still advise you to consider what you want to get out of your interactions. matrix.org has ToS, too, and once the moderators of this channel are back from their breaks, I'm sure they'll be happy to state if your behavior is welcome here or not. But if you want to be part of productive discussions about web standards, I'd not burn that bridge before even getting there. [14:09:34.0917] Just ban it.. fuck sakes.. it just projects weakness IF your theory on my ban is legit.. [14:10:07.0912] or fits with policy i guess as well [14:11:08.0910] Also how can I be a productive member of anything I am not socially adept enough and not allowed on github because I wanted to fork xorg.. [14:11:26.0975] and tried to recruit from that gist [14:13:40.0666] bro, out of anything [14:13:43.0967] you are not a threat [14:13:47.0473] Gitlab doesn't work in older browsers even though github does.. mostly in UXP and the UI for gitlab is not great for me.. any hosting service is gonna be subject to arbitrary termination.. My own git forge was dos'd into nonfunctioning I had to resort to plain dumb http to keep any repos available [14:15:10.0752] There are systemic issues with the world and the internet and the web and I can't deal with all of it and be blocked at nearly every turn from carving out my own little corner to delude my self what I am doing might matter [14:15:19.0150] Hey this conversation has to stop now. It has reached incredible levels of spam. Either this stops, or both @mattatobin:matrix.org (for the incredible level of spam) and mr. cheff (for encouraging it) are going to be removed from this channel. [14:15:34.0777] ok, sorry [14:15:37.0223] Spam. [14:15:40.0340] Thanks. [14:15:43.0923] And please read https://whatwg.org/code-of-conduct [14:16:10.0616] I can't its too long. [14:17:03.0925] * I can't it's too long. [14:17:56.0977] Will anyone else be punished along side.. it makes it easier.. according to a point.. mr. cheff violated it. [14:18:08.0559] his comments were direct personal attacks [14:18:23.0198] not spam [14:26:23.0348] Anyways, I dont know if this is the place, but are there any insights on when the paintWorklet API will be fully cross-platform? [14:27:00.0930] Because I would like to use it in order to make squircles without clip-paths, but it seems to be only chromium only [14:27:40.0247] * Anyways, I dont know if this is the place, but are there any insights on when the paintWorklet API will be fully cross-browser? [14:29:30.0517] My best recommendation is to check in the various browser's issue trackers to see if there is any progress. I see that Mozilla's position on it is positive (https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1089), but couldn't find anything for WebKit from a quick Google search [14:30:59.0660] Bufff, last activity 2 years ago [14:31:17.0155] might as well just use clip-path with the fear that it uses lots of GPU [14:31:21.0165] that's what I got told at least 2025-01-26 [20:54:12.0395] Wow thanks nicolo-ribaudo for holding down the fort over the weekend. I'll just... scroll past all of the above. [20:54:37.0322] Anyway I came here to wonder if adding something like https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/56542#issuecomment-2594415264 to the Encoding Standard would be useful background for any readers. [02:53:29.0250] Seems like the comments are evidence that it would be good to have some wording like that to the spec. And after it were added, we could also update the MDN article to cite it [07:28:33.0157] Domenic, annevk: html/CONTRIBUTING.md says `"If foo, then bar" instead of "If foo, bar".` How would you feel about a PR that inserted "then" into then-less "If" steps? (I think there are rather a lot.) 2025-01-27 [20:02:40.0453] jmdyck: I'll defer to annevk on that. He's been the one who loves that particular bit of consistency. [00:36:49.0103] jmdyck: I would r+ it. What might be tricky is not violating the wrapping rules at the same time. And there's also some cases where we don't want it. E.g., "Otherwise, if ..., bar" should not be "then bar". [00:37:49.0103] Y'all don't make it easy :) [01:33:36.0599] denschub: you're now a mod as well. Feel free to ban people using this channel as their personal epic poem blog in the future. [01:34:30.0919] I seriously hope this never happens again 🙃 [01:37:11.0341] but thanks - I hope to never use the mod permissions. :) at least his @mozilla.org matrix account will remain suspended, though. [04:31:36.0613] annevk: Hm, not familiar with "r+". [04:32:16.0188] Re "What might be tricky is not violating the wrapping rules at the same time." Isn't the solution just to re-wrap? [04:33:08.0323] Re "And there's also some cases where we don't want it. E.g., "Otherwise, if ..., bar" should not be "then bar"." Why don't you want it there? [04:33:17.0931] "r+" means "I approve" [04:33:25.0691] thx [04:33:38.0661] where does it come from? [04:39:03.0275] jmdyck: maybe Bugzilla reviewing culture? Could predate that. I don't actually know. [04:40:11.0379] For "Otherwise, if ..." it reads weird (to me). But we omit it for "Otherwise" in general so it's somewhat consistent. [04:40:21.0622] (Looks like "r+" means "rated up" at reddit) [04:40:51.0325] We also started omitting "then" when it precedes substeps. [04:41:16.0074] I should fix that case in Infra I guess. [04:45:19.0866] I'm thinking about it from the viewpoint of parsing algorithms. Having the "then" keyword makes it easier (possible) to detect the end of the condition. But if there are cases like "Otherwise, if" where it's not going to be there, then the parser needs to be able to detect the end of the condition without "then", so inserting "then"s is less valuable to me. [04:45:37.0998] * I'm thinking about it from the viewpoint of parsing algorithms. Having the "then" keyword makes it easier (possible) to detect the end of the condition. But if there are cases like "Otherwise, if" where it's not going to be there, then the parser needs to be able to detect the end of the condition without "then" anyway, so inserting "then"s is less valuable to me. [04:48:32.0389] There's not a lot of "Otherwise, if" since we prefer early returns, but there are some. If that's your goal you might get more mileage out of rewriting algorithms that use labels and goto and typically use a much older editorial style. [04:50:57.0891] labels and goto are easy-ish to parse though. [04:52:49.0938] `grep -c 'Otherwise, if' source` says 196, btw [04:53:40.0788] (and a good fraction of them have "then" too) [04:56:08.0199] Hmm, maybe it should be okay? I guess I could be persuaded. It doesn't read too bad in the hidden setter steps for instance. [05:03:47.0937] "r+" dates back to when people reviewed on bugzilla by changing the "review" field from "?" to "+" or "-", hence "r(eview)+" and "r(eview)-" [05:19:25.0299] Looks like ~80% of "Otherwise, if" have "then" or a colon after the condition. [05:27:40.0180] jmdyck: fair enough. Let's settle on that then. [05:29:45.0907] Which I guess makes the rule that an if statement is terminated by ", then" or ":", which seems pretty good. [05:31:22.0071] ok, thanks. [05:35:49.0658] I've also got some questions about (meta-) terminology. E.g., consider a navigable. The spec doesn't say what kind of thing it is. Is it reasonable to consider it a 'struct' in the Infra sense? [05:37:45.0216] Or do you think of it as a different kind of thing? [05:38:03.0306] Do structs have identity? [05:38:46.0130] Hm, Infra doesn't talk about identity. [05:45:26.0168] Infra doen't mention the possibility of changing the value of an item, so maybe it thinks of structs as immutable values. On the other hand, it says that the *name* of an item is immutable, so maybe the fact that it doesn't say the same for the *value* suggests that the value is mutable. [05:46:05.0955] How do Infra-users treat structs? [05:48:14.0177] HTML says 'close watcher manager' is a struct, and its item-values change. [05:57:21.0886] Similar for 'opener policy enforcement result' [06:31:17.0196] jmdyck: yeah, I think most concepts are probably structs. I actually make this explicit for URLs in the URL standard, but overall we haven't really tried to make much progress on that. [06:32:00.0303] And yeah, struct values can change. [06:34:46.0207] * jmdyck: yeah, I think most concepts are probably structs. I actually made this explicit for URLs in the URL standard, but overall we haven't really tried to make much progress on that. [07:12:55.0132] next q: When you scroll down and see "A navigable's active document" and "A navigable's active browsing context", what's the general term for those? [07:37:01.0885] I've created a WICG for the async CSS discussion we had at WHATNOT, whoever is interested: https://github.com/WICG/proposals/issues/195, with some use cases and ideas. zcorpan FYI [07:39:06.0701] Noam Rosenthal: Would `link`s in a `hidden="until-ready"` subtree *not* block the parser? [07:39:42.0320] Correct! But they'll have to be scoped somehow [07:40:04.0664] as in all the rules inside that stylesheet would be nested inside that element [07:40:19.0874] Maybe that could be mentioned in the proposal [07:40:36.0295] I mentioned it in the proposal [07:40:42.0717] I'll try to make it clearer [07:42:33.0094] jmdyck: I guess I generally say member, but it's not defined formally. [07:43:04.0540] (Which is why they should probably become a struct or some such, so it all flows from there.) [08:05:44.0437] I'm not necessarily suggesting a change to the spec. It's just that my code needs to call these things something, so I figured if you already had a (meta-)term for them, it would cause less confusion down the road if I called them that too. 2025-01-28 [17:13:47.0665] Structs have items, although I sometimes accidentally call them members, which makes me wonder why we called them items in the first place... [18:12:58.0968] And would you refer to something like a navigable's `target name` as an item? [19:29:53.0813] To the extent that we decide they are structs, yes. Which I guess they are, although not explicitly. [23:48:08.0935] Domenic: thoughts on https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/50295? I didn't actually want that to land until you weighed in. [00:11:41.0265] Hmm I wonder how I missed that. I think the 1 and 2 direction seems reasonable. This seems like an area where doing the simplest-possible thing is best, and since "anything starting with on" wasn't good, the 1 plus 2 option seems like the next-simplest. [01:27:39.0866] I'm thinking of writing a basic tool to convert the HTML spec to Bikeshed, getting it only 80% correct, so that Tab could benchmark against that instead. annevk other than performance, do you know of any other issues that would have to be addressed to make migration realistic? I can spend a bit of time on this if it feels within reach. [01:35:56.0935] Grateful that Tab has time to work on bikeshed [03:51:24.0676] foolip: you could maybe use Microsoft's work on the W3C fork some number of years ago for benchmark purposes? But maybe doing it fresh is better, as much has changed. I don't know of any other issues, but I think it's primarily Domenic that cares about the particulars here as I was willing to accept longer CI runs. [04:41:34.0629] I guess we’d want to decide how much a slowdown in build times for CI runs — and for local builds by patch/PR contributors — would be acceptable [04:42:20.0738] In my local environment currently, the build takes only about 25 seconds to run [04:43:10.0945] So even if the Bikeshed build ended up about 10 times as slow, that’s still only 4 minutes [04:44:02.0354] …which maybe is still fast relative to say, building code for a large software project [04:44:34.0533] (certainly faster than running a clean build for any browser engine) [04:55:11.0153] https://matrixlogs.bakkot.com/irc-whatwg/plaintext/2018-06.txt has some prior discussion involving many of the same people. Assuming Domenic still feels the same about this, the numbers would have to be very close to what you get today locally. [04:57:55.0189] I am constantly editing and rebuilding the full spec locally, yeah, anything slower than the current would dramatically curtail my contributions [04:59:15.0059] Html-build's -f mode (single page only, no highlight pass, no lint pass) is like < 5 seconds on my desktop, maybe 10-15 on laptop? [05:05:29.0461] OK yeah, I just tried now, and building with -f is 4–5 seconds on my laptop [05:07:05.0449] so 10 times slower than _that_ would be 40–50 seconds [05:07:55.0189] I’d like to be optimistic, but I find it unlikely that a Bikeshed-based build is going to ever be able to come close to the current build times [05:08:12.0889] I mean, at least a Python-based Bikeshed [05:08:37.0231] but maybe there’s some magic there I’m unaware of [05:09:50.0263] One thing about the existing Wattsi code is that its HTML parser is extremely exceptionally fast [05:10:56.0189] and another thing is, I think maybe even in the -f case, the Wattsi build parses the source multiple times [05:25:04.0615] Why would it parse it multiple times? [05:34:19.0365] Greetings to all. I am glad that this chat on whatwg exists, I just discovered it! I was wondering if there is any documentation on the "domain language" concepts related to DOM, as it would be a good tool for me to have that documentation to refer to while studying the living DOM documentation. [05:36:08.0113] jose.pepe: https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ should explain all the terms. Anything in particular that trips you up? [05:41:02.0044] Hi annevk, that is the documentation I am studying these days, however I have just started and I would like to understand better what is a "navigable", what is 'something active' (for example when talking about session history entry) and some other concepts are used there [05:49:18.0245] navigable and session history aren't mentioned in the DOM spec. Are you looking at the HTML spec? [06:06:46.0382] That's right. Sorry for the misunderstanding. This is the url I'm reading from: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#navigation-and-session-history [06:11:25.0944] jose p: it might make more sense if you start reading at 7.3 (and maybe keep in mind 1.9.1, which is not entirely facetious, especially if you're new to standards in general) [06:20:34.0112] Not facetious. I'm learning the basics so these explanations and rules come in handy here. Thx annevk [06:27:35.0356] zcorpan: I see that the Mozilla standards position github doesn't have a template anymore, is that on purpose? [06:30:52.0619] Noam Rosenthal: I guess GitHub removed support for the ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md. See https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/pull/1156 [06:31:39.0993] Manually copy from https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/blob/main/ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md?plain=1 for now [06:33:35.0625] foolip: I'm curious about the idea of converting the HTML spec to Bikeshed. I wonder if the HTML spec is too 'weird' to express in Bikeshed format, but I'm not familiar enough with the latter yet. [07:20:20.0629] It might need some pre- or post-processing, but I don't think it's that weird in other ways than size [07:41:01.0238] Agreed. HTML used to be in terms of Anolis, which is what Bikeshed in terms of format is also loosely derived from. (And as I mentioned above it's been converted to Bikeshed before. Just not in a way that lasted or could be properly reviewed.) [07:42:57.0642] Did the CSS specification preprocessor have a name of sorts? I think that was used before these tools, but it's hard to find now. [07:45:21.0310] "Bert's postprocessor"? [07:46:28.0770] That's not wrong. 😀 [07:55:22.0893] Jake Archibald: happen to be around? [07:58:05.0988] smaug: half 😀. I'm in all day meetings but I can do some async replying [07:59:06.0277] Jake Archibald: just a random spec question. Is there some clear documentation what is navigable and what is traversable navigable , and when is a navigable not traversable navigable? [08:02:00.0376] smaug: from memory, the traversable is the thing that owns the history entries. So, an iframe is not traversable, because it's the top level that traverses. It'd be nice to have traversable iframes at some point, but they don't exist right now [08:02:27.0947] Eg when you back() an iframe it's just telling the top level to go back (if it's allowed to) [08:02:36.0383] But there is separately top-level traversable [08:03:19.0022] Hmmmmm maybe I need to refresh my memory of the spec [08:05:01.0512] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/document-sequences.html#top-level-traversables > Currently, all traversable navigables are top-level traversables. Future proposals envision introducing non-top-level traversables. [08:05:29.0105] So yeah, it'd be "traversable iframes", if we ever get those, that would be traversables that are not top level [08:05:39.0486] Ok, this is massively confusing. I guess need to get rid of some definition [08:06:27.0291] I mean, I think traversable iframes would be massively valuable, but if folks want to remove that possibility from the spec now, sure [08:06:55.0012] let's add definitions once they are needed for something [08:07:46.0055] But ok, thanks for clarifying this [08:08:40.0207] yea right now traversable navigable and top-level traversable are synonomous AFAIU [08:08:43.0276] (I've read those same definitions every now and then and they are always just as hard to understand 😉 ) [08:09:56.0097] When I need to touch that part of the HTML standard I start the day by saying "traversable navigable" three times in a row fast as a tooth-strengthening exercise [08:12:14.0560] Is traverables vs navigables confusing? In that traversables have history state, and the intended position in history, whereas navigables just get told which history entry to use [08:12:19.0405] I think we should do that. The standard is already complicated enough, it shouldn't have terms things that don't yet exist [08:12:49.0290] The old model was definitely simpler but didn't really cover reality (and there was many bugs as a result) [08:13:14.0012] It's two new 4-syllable words that are not in day to day use [08:14:19.0384] Anyway, not suggesting to rename those terms, but it's indeed not easy [08:14:19.0386] There may be better names out there for "thing that traverses" and "thing that navigates" [08:14:49.0513] But I couldn't think of anything else that described that distinction [08:14:57.0390] I agree it's a bit "thennable" [08:22:16.0501] In HTML yes. If you consider monkeypatched specs like fenced frames, then no. [08:22:49.0056] That is chromium only thingie [08:23:59.0301] I'm aware :) hence my "if" condition haha [08:24:33.0679] Dominic Farolino: oh, since you're here, did you see my comment about moveBefore 🙂 [08:24:39.0810] Does https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/document-sequences.html#infrastructure-for-sequences-of-documents help a little with your original question? [08:25:08.0635] Yeah somehow I missed it until I saw it yesterday, so I will look into that asap. Thanks for the reminder. [08:28:15.0451] I'd say that navigable is a document-view (as per the definition in the spec, it "presents a document") and traversable navigable is a root document view (which can still be a "fenced frame" and can be different than "top level" in monkey-patches). I think the fact that the document view can be navigated and the top-level view can be traverse is a property of the thing rather than a definition of the thing. We can probably come up with something even better but it's at least less jaw breaking [08:35:28.0584] annevk: In https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-node-remove, setting the boundary points of the live ranges is just manual here, right? We don't go through https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-range-bp-set do we? [08:35:40.0843] Seems like we should, and maybe that's the intent? But we don't link to that algorithm so it's unclear [08:40:09.0377] Hmm. It seems clear that we don't go through that algorithm? Perhaps we should, but that seems like something that should be proven first in some manner. Not lead to claims that the current set of steps is unclear. [08:42:21.0348] It is clear we don't link to it, yeah. I thought there was a chance we might've intended to, but just failed to link to that algorithm is all. [08:45:09.0518] I doubt that. "set the start or end" very much seems like something you'd invoke from a public method. [08:51:10.0846] I guess the one caveat here is that those definitions post-date implementations, but are still pretty old going back to the early days of the modern DOM standard. So re-reviewing them and trying to find cases where those conditions don't hold up is prolly valuable work. 2025-01-29 [21:38:46.0507] One thing I just thought of that's worth keeping an eye on is the degree of conversion. E.g. if you leave all our raw markup as-is, it might be faster to build than one that converts the markup to markdown and thus incurs Bikeshed's markdown processing. [02:04:20.0310] annevk: I spent the morning splitting out some of the command/commandfor spec PR; https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10961 and https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10960 are the result. To me these seem like sensible discrete changes, but I'd love to get your feedback - if you think they're unwarranted I can close them out and go back to the one PR. [02:40:51.0915] Added some (non-authoritative) notes, if this helps always feel free to ask (I think we're in the same time zone) [03:17:26.0639] thank you! I've addressed your comments, very helpful [03:58:19.0288] Are you open to converting the HTML spec to markdown (provided the build is still fast)? [04:33:25.0123] You might want to start with something less ambitious... converting the entire HTML spec to a format like markdown is a project that holds so many details and pitfalls that would likely end up making it infeasible [05:02:05.0889] Note that the question is "is the end point where html is written in markdown desirable at all", not "should this be the first step" [05:04:52.0752] I get that, and to me it feels like too many steps ahead to answer. Markdown is great but the devil is in the details [05:06:15.0054] It seems ~pointless to use Bikeshed if we're just writing raw markup instead. You get some small benefits around cross-referencing, but the big one of matching other Bikeshed spec styles and being easier to author is missing. If we just wanted better cross-referencing we could add that to html-build in a few working days I think. [05:06:24.0670] * It seems ~pointless to use Bikeshed if we're just writing raw markup instead. You get some small benefits around cross-referencing, but the big one of matching other Bikeshed spec styles and being easier to author is missing. If we just wanted better cross-referencing we could add that to html-build's Rust component in a few working days I think. [05:55:08.0614] Just as an FYI it would be nice to hear the opinions of others regarding (https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/10953) (cc annevk and smaug) [06:03:57.0759] Noam Rosenthal: Note that I wasn't offering to do the conversion! I'm not even sure it's a good idea. (I think it'd make some things easier, some harder.) I was just asking about editorial disposition towards the idea. (It's probably come up before, but I haven't been around here long.) [06:11:54.0284] jmdyck: I think I totally misunderstood what you originally meant by converting to MarkDown, sorry. Got it now. [06:38:25.0323] This is a good point. With more work the conversion tool could convert a lot of raw HTML to Bikeshed-isms, but it's worth measuring if it makes a difference for build times. [06:50:33.0900] FWIW, I used to prefer HTML because you lost a certain amount of control about the output with Markdown, but we probably reached the point where imperfect output should be addressed by the tooling instead. Still, a mix of Markdown and HTML makes it unclear how it's going to be parsed. [08:36:43.0700] I'd love to ask something of folks that touch the HTML Standard. Could you please start using the `specfmt` tool (https://github.com/domfarolino/specfmt) on your PRs? I'd like to get its output to be part of the HTML Standard CI soon, and that requires more people using it on their PRs so we can find bugs in that tool and harden it accordingly. [08:58:58.0352] Oooh is this the great rewrapper as a CLI tool? I'll definitely start using it. 2025-01-30 [06:42:49.0293] Basically, but with some fixes and more functionality! [10:38:05.0058] annevk: Would you be open to changing the formatting style of other WHATWG specs to permit line breaks within phrasing content, like HTML, so the specfmt tool could be used there too? I vaguely recall you saying you'd be open to this but I want to see IIRC [11:29:36.0200] Dominic Farolino: let's chat once it's been deployed in HTML CI and has seen plenty of PR activity? [11:30:39.0255] But yeah, in principle I'm in favor of automated formatting even if it doesn't meet my preferences. I do wonder how hard it would be to modify to meet my preferences though as inline search is much nicer if you don't have to grep and \s+ everything. [12:18:52.0121] Is anyone tracking https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9457 ? It looks like it was noted as a "popover spec that should be prioritized" in a WHATNOT a year ago, and we ran into the issues it addresses while implementing popover for Ladybird [12:24:59.0605] Dominic Farolino: FWIW the slot reordering case is something like https://mozilla.pettay.fi/moztests/reorder.html . Try to select some parts of the text. Chrome is visually reasonable, but getSelection().toString() is surprising. Firefox has odd visual handling, but reasonable getSelection().toString(). webkit (Gnome web) is like some odd mix of those, in some cases visually good, but getSelection().toString() something I can't quite understand, and in some cases closer to Firefox. 2025-01-31 [17:00:52.0859] We just released Ada URL's v3.0.0. It includes URLPattern which is 100% spec compliant. http://github.com/ada-url/ada [17:01:11.0914] Node.js will land URLPattern as well. Either today or tomorrow. https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/56452 [19:38:53.0080] keithamus: FYI I would be fine with a single dialog rearrange PR, if that's easier :) [20:43:28.0965] jarhar 👆 [23:48:00.0016] It might be kinda nice if you could do something like > Let _comments_ be _options_["comments"] with fallback false. so you don't have to map/exists all the time. [00:05:51.0623] > <@domenicdenicola:matrix.org> keithamus: FYI I would be fine with a single dialog rearrange PR, if that's easier :) Okay cool. I was hoping the individual PRs would be super easy to review but I’ll do a bigger PR for what’s left. [01:24:30.0924] Does anyone here know the story of why it came to be that Brave that previously tried to look like Chrome to sniffers now says Brave in userAgentData and Vivaldi does not say Vivaldi and says Google Chrome? [06:31:13.0949] > <@hsivonen:mozilla.org> Does anyone here know the story of why it came to be that Brave that previously tried to look like Chrome to sniffers now says Brave in userAgentData and Vivaldi does not say Vivaldi and says Google Chrome? Maybe they have better management/more dedication of who they selectively lie to? [14:35:18.0014] prolly broke a lot of websites that do too precise of user agent checking when you're not popular enough [14:35:27.0730] iirc ladybird ran/runs into this a lot too