| 07:10 | <jochen__> | annevk: do you have a pointer to your isolation proposal? |
| 08:52 | <MikeSmith> | jochen__: I thought that was mkwst’s isolation proposal |
| 08:52 | <MikeSmith> | or annevk has a different one? |
| 08:57 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: someone at Moz has one |
| 08:57 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: needs to be fixed a bit before sharing |
| 08:58 | <MikeSmith> | ah ok |
| 09:15 | <annevk> | I wonder how stuff like https://github.com/whatwg/encoding/commit/9224c4cad81fd5720306fe79241cf04b5526a3f0 happens as it's clearly a commit of a fork |
| 09:15 | <annevk> | It's https://github.com/ricea/encoding/commit/9224c4cad81fd5720306fe79241cf04b5526a3f0 |
| 09:15 | <annevk> | Anyway, that commit might interest JakeA |
| 09:16 | <annevk> | I think GitHub basically has a whole bunch of commit attribution issues |
| 09:16 | <annevk> | The forked repo getting a notification about a fork just seems wrong |
| 09:17 | <annevk> | Especially with it appearing as if it was a notification for a commit in the forked repo, rather than the fork |
| 09:20 | <JakeA> | annevk: ohh cheers! |
| 09:21 | <annevk> | JakeA: I suppose they're planning on turning that into a PR at some point, at which point I'll ping you for review |
| 09:23 | <mkwst> | annevk: If you want to spend some time on the `all-the-memory: gimmie` variant of the proposal we talked about on Friday, I'm happy to chat this week. Or to volunteer jochen__ to chat instead. |
| 09:23 | <annevk> | mkwst: sounds good, we're having an internal talk tomorrow evening |
| 09:23 | <annevk> | mkwst: I'm going to try to forward all the points you made today, and then hopefully get the answers tomorrow |
| 09:24 | <mkwst> | annevk: Great. I don't know how lucid my arguments were at that point in the week, but hopefully they made enough sense to spend time on. |
| 09:24 | <JakeA> | annevk: yeah, I'd rather it was a simpler {readable, writable}, but pretty sure they'd have thought about that |
| 09:25 | <annevk> | mkwst: they did |
| 12:19 | <annevk> | "This is way out of scope for IDL. This is just about how we use English words." At some point I'd like IDL to have an opinion about that, as it's kind of governing "IDL algorithms" |
| 12:55 | <tobie> | annevk: agreed. As a relatively new spec editor, guidelines as to how to write algorithms plus formalized language for common cases would have really helped. |
| 13:13 | <mkwst> | annevk, tobie: See also https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/136. |
| 20:09 | <jyasskin> | Domenic/annevk: Is https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/164 the best reference we have on the OpenEndedDictionary proposal? |
| 21:36 | <smaug> | annevk: ping |
| 21:36 | <smaug> | or Domenic |
| 21:36 | <smaug> | want to perhaps comment https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/336 |
| 21:36 | <smaug> | to indicate which settings object should be used these days |