| 03:42 | <jyasskin> | Hey TabAtkins, could you add https://w3c.github.io/webauthn/ to shepherd? |
| 04:23 | <TabAtkins> | jyasskin: Will do tomorrow. File a bikeshed issue to remind me? |
| 06:40 | <jyasskin> | TabAtkins: It seems like autolinks to method arguments don't allow omitting the arguments in the method signature. That is, {{Foo/bar()/baz}} doesn't work; I need {{Foo/bar(quux,baz,xyzzy)/baz}}, which is frustratingly long. |
| 06:40 | <jyasskin> | TabAtkins: Sure |
| 06:41 | <jyasskin> | Ah, that's https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed/issues/634 |
| 09:56 | <zcorpan> | TIL I can use www.software.hixie.ch for testing document.domain. https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/2288#issuecomment-276913576 |
| 11:25 | <annevk> | foolip: I think a further interesting policy change would be to put the standard in charge of test maintenance as well |
| 11:41 | <Ms2ger> | What does that mean, exactly? |
| 11:54 | <annevk> | I was mostly thinking about issues |
| 11:54 | <annevk> | So its an issue against the standard if the test suite is broken |
| 11:55 | <annevk> | Or an issue against the standard if coverage is lacking |
| 11:56 | <annevk> | This would make it clearer how stable a standard, hopefully provide incentives to get those issues cleared, etc |
| 12:44 | <annevk> | Getting rid of submodule issues is the thing I hate most about web-platform-tests, followed by finding the documentation |
| 12:45 | <annevk> | I sometimes need to run git reset --hard origin/master before running the git submodule thingy |
| 12:45 | <annevk> | Ugh |
| 13:13 | <zcorpan> | hmm. is it known that url/a-element.html crashes safari tp? |
| 13:22 | <zcorpan> | annevk: wpt repo has labels for all specs... maybe an easy first step is to file a single tracker issue for a standard asking to drive down open tests issues |
| 13:27 | <jgraham> | annevk: We were discussing adding open test PRs to the top of specs (dunno if that was what you were refering to or not) |
| 13:34 | <annevk> | zcorpan: does it do so consistently now? Crash Safari? |
| 13:34 | <annevk> | zcorpan: worth filing a bug on |
| 13:34 | <annevk> | zcorpan: I noticed it happening once |
| 13:34 | <annevk> | jgraham: that sounds interesting too |
| 13:35 | <annevk> | zcorpan: yeah, could start doing that for WHATWG I suppose |
| 13:35 | <annevk> | zcorpan: I believe I'm mostly on top with stuff I maintain, but who knows |
| 13:35 | <annevk> | zcorpan: HTML probably has a bunch |
| 13:48 | <zcorpan> | annevk: seems to consistently crash for me with Release 22 (Safari 10.2, WebKit 12604.1.4.2) |
| 13:49 | <annevk> | zcorpan: ah yeah, do you want to file a bug? |
| 13:49 | <zcorpan> | sure |
| 13:54 | <zcorpan> | https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167730 |
| 13:57 | <annevk> | tobie: how soon do you expect https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/188 to be fixed? |
| 13:57 | <annevk> | tobie: or should I workaround? |
| 13:57 | <tobie> | annevk: I think it's next on my todo list. |
| 13:58 | <tobie> | annevk: I think we have a plan for it. |
| 13:58 | <tobie> | annevk: must check my notes. |
| 13:59 | <tobie> | annevk: got sidetracked by figuring out WebIDL testing this week |
| 14:01 | <annevk> | tobie: so bz suggested that since the way forward is defining your own toJSON method, a very simple fix would be to drop the restriction on defining your own toJSON method |
| 14:01 | <annevk> | tobie: I could create a PR for that |
| 14:02 | <annevk> | tobie: and the the fix for the remainder can be done later |
| 14:05 | <annevk> | tobie: btw https://github.com/heycam/webidl/pull/244 has been open for a long time |
| 14:05 | <tobie> | annevk: yes, I'm not too sure how to proceed with it. |
| 14:09 | <tobie> | annevk I don't yet have a clear enough vision of what this part of the spec does to know precisely how to reorg things so they make more sense. |
| 14:10 | <annevk> | tobie: okay |
| 14:10 | <annevk> | tobie: I'm in no rush with that one |
| 14:10 | <tobie> | annevk: I wish we had a better understanding of what external stuff might point the different parts of the spec |
| 14:11 | <annevk> | tobie: yeah that would be useful now and then |
| 14:11 | <annevk> | tobie: would be neat to have tooling... |
| 14:12 | <tobie> | annevk: wrt to the toJSON stuff, I think we just need to prevent interfaces which rely on jsonifier to have a parent that specifies a toJSON attribute |
| 14:20 | <annevk> | tobie: ah yeah, I didn't try to go that far in my PR |
| 14:21 | <tobie> | annevk: well, jsonifier's not specified yet… so I didn't really expect you to. :) |
| 14:22 | <annevk> | I just got word bz merged it, so \o/ |
| 14:23 | <tobie> | annevk: do you guys plot things in the background. ;) |
| 14:24 | <annevk> | tobie: I was chatting with bz in #content |
| 14:24 | <annevk> | tobie: on Mozilla IRC |
| 14:25 | <tobie> | sounds like a fun place to hangout. |
| 14:38 | <annevk> | Contrary to what you might have heard on Twitter, the URL Standard feels pretty close to done parser-wise |
| 14:38 | <annevk> | The main thing that still needs to be sorted is IDNA and what code points to allow in hosts/domains |
| 14:57 | <AutomatedTester> | annevk: stupid question: why isn't file:/// part of local scheme ? https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#local-scheme |
| 14:58 | <annevk> | AutomatedTester: I think the way we use local scheme wouldn't want file to be included |
| 14:58 | <AutomatedTester> | more, why is it a special scheme? |
| 14:58 | <AutomatedTester> | ok |
| 14:58 | <annevk> | AutomatedTester: I'm not sure if file still needs to be a special scheme, it's worth looking into whether refactoring it into just being its own category is worthwhile |
| 14:59 | <annevk> | AutomatedTester: the URL syntax section already has three categories, mostly |
| 15:01 | <AutomatedTester> | annevk: would you like me to raise an issue about file being a special scheme? |
| 15:03 | <nox> | Can an URL without a special scheme have an empty hostname? |
| 15:03 | <nox> | AFAIK no, so that's why file is special. |
| 15:38 | <foolip> | annevk: yes, I think so too. we discussed something similar on Monday, concluding that a good start would be to adding a tests section to the top of the spec, linking to wpt, open issues/PRs with the spec's label, and when we have it perhaps the dashboard too |
| 15:39 | <foolip> | annevk: https://wptdashboard.appspot.com/t/dom/events if you haven't seen it |
| 15:39 | <foolip> | note that the data is not fresh |
| 15:39 | <annevk> | AutomatedTester: yeah, please do that, I should investigate it at least |
| 15:39 | <annevk> | nox: but file can have an empty host |
| 15:39 | <annevk> | nox: oh wait, you have it reversed |
| 15:39 | <nox> | Mmh? |
| 15:40 | <annevk> | nox: special schemes require a host name, except for file |
| 15:40 | <nox> | Oh. |
| 15:40 | <foolip> | annevk: this came up in the context of trying to figure out who's job it is to go through all open PRs in web-platform-tests |
| 15:41 | <annevk> | foolip: right, I'm starting to lean towards it being the editor who is finally responsible |
| 15:42 | <annevk> | foolip: but delegation seems fine, e.g., I'm not personally an OWNER of any test effort I think |
| 15:43 | <annevk> | foolip: hmm, I'm getting contradictory, better think about it some more |
| 15:43 | <foolip> | annevk: right, although I think every implementer should feel respsonsible for sheperding any change all the way to interop, ultimately someone needs to be the fallback |
| 15:44 | <annevk> | foolip: Mark Pilgrim once wrote a nice article about this, classifying a couple of approaches |
| 15:44 | <foolip> | annevk: is that now gone from the interwebs? |
| 15:45 | <annevk> | foolip: found a backup: http://www.diveintomark.link/2004/why-specs-matter |
| 15:46 | <annevk> | foolip: probably more fun than informative, but still |
| 15:46 | <foolip> | haha, classic Pilgrim, I remember this one |
| 15:48 | <foolip> | I remember thinking that I certainly would aspire to the angel description and not understanding why it was so implausible to him. |
| 15:51 | <foolip> | "and then thoroughly test it against the accompanying test suite before shipping their product" is key, given that those test suites usually don't exist |
| 15:54 | <annevk> | I guess a problem is that the standard is often broken, and so are the tests |
| 15:55 | <annevk> | And the coverage of the test is low, etc. |
| 15:58 | <annevk> | AutomatedTester: actually, never mind, I found the reason |
| 15:58 | <annevk> | AutomatedTester: the main reason is the backslash handling |
| 15:59 | <annevk> | AutomatedTester: although I guess we could make that a separate group, but not sure if there would be much benefit |
| 16:53 | <Domenic> | That article is amazing |
| 18:38 | <annevk> | foolip: you around? |
| 18:38 | <annevk> | foolip: I'd like to land https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/4658 |
| 18:39 | <foolip> | annevk: not quite here |
| 18:40 | <foolip> | annevk: if you've looked at current behavior and think that it's plausible that we could converge on the spec, then sure |
| 18:40 | <foolip> | now I'm gone |
| 18:44 | <annevk> | foolip: ta |
| 19:23 | <jgraham> | annevk: Why does http://w3c-test.org/html/browsers/history/the-location-interface/location-protocol-setter-non-broken.html use a setTimeout before posting the reply in the data: case? That seems to upset Firefox (not sure why it does, but removing it fixed the problem) |
| 19:59 | <AutomatedTester> | annevk: ahh thanks |
| 20:22 | <annevk> | jgraham: can look Tuesday |
| 21:00 | <rektide> | annevk: (asking about a worker that had DOM)- A) jsdom isn't eaxctly tiny B) the other major issue is debuggability. i've filed https://github.com/tmpvar/jsdom/issues/1719 to ask for Chrome Debugging Protocol Support in jsdom but that's getting super exotic super fast |
| 21:54 | <jgraham> | annevk: Anyone else that can look? It's blocking a wpt update |