| 00:34 | <xfq> | wiki.whatwg.org seems to be down |
| 00:34 | <xfq> | "A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software." |
| 04:35 | <foolip> | annevk, jgraham, gsnedders, I tend to use "web-platform-test", although as the first part of a title it looks a bit odd. I did it anyway though. |
| 04:49 | <MikeSmith> | foolip: I noticed that’s what jgraham normalized it into a recent change the wpt README.md |
| 04:50 | <MikeSmith> | oh but you do mean web-platform-tests, right? |
| 06:04 | <MikeSmith> | in WebIDL blocks, do we make any attempt to put the members in any kind of order? |
| 06:05 | <MikeSmith> | or is it just, whatever |
| 06:05 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., looking at https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#htmllinkelement |
| 06:05 | <MikeSmith> | is there any discernable order there? |
| 06:06 | <MikeSmith> | the members are obviously not alphabetically sorted, but are they sorted in some other logical way? |
| 06:07 | <MikeSmith> | do we not care? |
| 06:08 | <MikeSmith> | in the case of the HTMLLinkElement interface, is there any good reason *not* to just re-sort them alphabetically? |
| 06:09 | <MikeSmith> | it otherwise seems suboptimal to make N different readers have to hunt through that looking for whatever specific member they might have come looking for |
| 06:15 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: the order impacts their web-exposed iteration order |
| 06:15 | <Domenic> | So it's largely the historical order they were added in |
| 06:15 | <MikeSmith> | aha |
| 06:15 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 06:15 | <Domenic> | We know of at least one case where web content depends on this, for some canvas stuff |
| 06:15 | <MikeSmith> | wow |
| 06:16 | <MikeSmith> | that seems .. fragile |
| 06:16 | <Domenic> | Because of minified code contests that do something like var x = Object.keys(CanvasContext2D.prototype) and then they can use x[5] instead of typing out a "long" method name |
| 06:16 | <Domenic> | yeah it's not great... |
| 06:16 | <MikeSmith> | ah geez |
| 06:17 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: excited to look at your PR in more depth tomorrow, the one thing I'm worried about is whether the reorganization is consistent with other elements. E.g. in general we keep everything about an attribute together instead of separating authoring and implementer stuff. We'll see though. |
| 06:18 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I think that link section may be a very special case |
| 06:18 | <annevk> | bz had some ideas on randomizing order of IDL blocks except where it mattered |
| 06:18 | <annevk> | Doubt that will ever go anywhere |
| 06:19 | <annevk> | This is also a problem with partial interfaces and the unclear order in which they are supplied |
| 06:19 | <MikeSmith> | I personally find the current organization of that link section to be sorta random and very hard to read through. It jumps all over the place. I think that’s partly because in adding things over the last year or so, we’ve kinda just dumped stuff in there wherever |
| 06:20 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: yeah when I take members from a partial interface in another spec, and I add them to the element interface in the HTML spec, how to do I know where to add them? |
| 06:21 | <MikeSmith> | just tack them on the end? |
| 06:21 | <annevk> | Sure, but what about multiple partials |
| 06:21 | <MikeSmith> | ah |
| 06:21 | <annevk> | Nobody has been looking towards solving this |
| 06:22 | <annevk> | Along with element attributes and maybe some operations in JavaScript it's one of the few holes we have with regards to ordering |
| 06:23 | <MikeSmith> | kinda surprised it hasn’t caused more problems |
| 06:24 | <MikeSmith> | anyway I guess for the IDL for something that has been implemented but is not in the HTML spec yet, we may need to look at where it was added in the IDL code for the engine(s) that implemented it? |
| 06:24 | <MikeSmith> | I mean especially if they’ve shipped it |
| 06:25 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: depends, but that never hurts |
| 06:25 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 06:26 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: annevk as far as “in general we keep everything about an attribute together instead of separating authoring and implementer stuff” I am starting to wonder if we really want to do it that way because it’s best or instead just because that’s the way it’s always been |
| 06:27 | <Domenic> | Yeah, maybe, but I'd rather change all that at once than piecemeal, if we were to do that.. |
| 06:27 | <MikeSmith> | I think think especially that some of this <span no-dev> stuff in the middle of paragraphs is kind of a red flag |
| 06:27 | <MikeSmith> | well I am happy to start going through and looking at it in other places too |
| 06:28 | <MikeSmith> | but anyway I think we do have evidence that it confuses implementors sometimes |
| 06:28 | <MikeSmith> | IMHO where there are UA requirements in the spec we should be making it as easy as possible for implementors to see them |
| 06:29 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: changing it into "Writing" and "Processing" sections would work for me |
| 06:29 | <MikeSmith> | yeah that would be a lot of work if we did it globally |
| 06:30 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: but we should indeed do it in some principled way with a plan, since it's a bit too much do it piecemeal |
| 06:30 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I guess we can start by looking at this link section as a test case |
| 06:30 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: or we could see about identifying the distinction more clearly somehow |
| 06:30 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 06:31 | <MikeSmith> | btw in this case I didn’t patch the link section just because I didn’t like the current aesthetics but instead because I was looking at how to integrate the rel=serviceworker stuff into it |
| 06:32 | <MikeSmith> | scope, workertype, usecache |
| 06:33 | <MikeSmith> | and once I started trying to add that serviceworker stuff, I found myself .. getting a bit lost/distracted by the current structure |
| 06:35 | <Domenic> | wow they added three attributes?? |
| 06:35 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: I think one relatively easy way for identifying the distinction more clearly is put specific (sub)headings on the UA-requirements stuff |
| 06:35 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: yeah, seems so |
| 06:36 | <Domenic> | I see they went with workertype instead of type, that's annoying |
| 06:37 | <Domenic> | Wait what |
| 06:37 | <Domenic> | "If useCache is not a valid boolean value, queue a task to fire an event named error at the link element, and abort these steps." |
| 06:37 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: which is what I did in that link patch (short of adding separate "Writing" and "Processing" sections; because the distinction can be made implicitly somewhat just be adding specific subheadings like that) |
| 06:37 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: yeah |
| 06:37 | <Domenic> | So you have to do usecache="true" or usecache="false"???!? |
| 06:37 | <MikeSmith> | saw that too |
| 06:37 | <Domenic> | Filing bug now... |
| 06:37 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I hope that was not the intent |
| 06:38 | <MikeSmith> | thanks for saving me the time of filing a bug for that myself :) |
| 06:38 | <MikeSmith> | that sentence should just be dropped |
| 06:38 | <MikeSmith> | and the one above it should be changed |
| 06:39 | <MikeSmith> | just to say, "If the usecache attribute is present, set the use cache to true." Period. |
| 06:39 | <MikeSmith> | I think |
| 06:39 | <MikeSmith> | because it is false by default iirc |
| 06:40 | <MikeSmith> | but regardless the wording should just be about the presence of the attribute |
| 06:40 | <Domenic> | https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1069 |
| 06:40 | <Domenic> | ok, going to bed now... |
| 06:40 | MikeSmith | looks |
| 06:41 | <MikeSmith> | btw, the SW spec also treats "classic" and "module" case-sensitively |
| 06:41 | <MikeSmith> | nn |
| 06:42 | <annevk> | case-sensitive seems fine |
| 06:42 | <Domenic> | Yes, they seem to be following the precedent annevk insists on setting in https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1665 but nobody implements... |
| 06:42 | <MikeSmith> | haha |
| 06:42 | <Domenic> | Really not a fan |
| 06:42 | <annevk> | If we make IDL ASCII case-insensitive count me on board |
| 06:42 | <MikeSmith> | I yeah didn’t mean to re-open that can o worms |
| 06:43 | <annevk> | At some point you want to explain element attributes through IDL enums too |
| 06:43 | <annevk> | And their value space mismatch is just bad |
| 06:43 | Domenic | closes the tab and backs away... |
| 06:43 | <MikeSmith> | 😆 |
| 07:34 | <foolip> | MikeSmith: yes, I meant web-platform-tests with the s |
| 09:42 | <annevk> | How can you enforce a max-width but allow it to go wider for really wide content? |
| 09:43 | <annevk> | Something like max-width:max(60em, min-content) |
| 09:54 | <zcorpan_> | annevk: would be nice to loop in someone from chromium and edge before merging NonTransitional, no? |
| 09:55 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: yeah I suppose that would be better |
| 09:55 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: I don't really know who to copy from Edge |
| 09:56 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: I guess for Chrome jungshik + sleevi? |
| 09:58 | <zcorpan_> | annevk: yeah i guess |
| 10:06 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: done |
| 10:06 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: I doubt we'll get a reply from Edge, but who knows |
| 10:07 | <zcorpan_> | 👍 |
| 10:08 | <annevk> | I'll file bugs on them though |
| 10:08 | <annevk> | Probably all of them, since everyone has bugs |
| 11:40 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen or MikeSmith do you want to reply to the DTD email on the mailing list? |
| 11:56 | Ms2ger | would tend to ignore |
| 12:00 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: we did discuss it at some point, I was wondering whether it was actually an issue |
| 12:00 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: I don't recall if we reached a conclusion though |
| 12:01 | <zcorpan_> | annevk: i think we concluded that it's an issue in DTD but not in RELAX NG |
| 12:09 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: can you synchronously find out whether a blob URL is revoked? |
| 12:10 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: through XHR maybe? |
| 12:10 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: or also less "deprecated" APIs? |
| 12:10 | <Ms2ger> | I don't know off-hand |
| 12:11 | <annevk> | I kinda want to know, but I'm not sure whether I want to write tests since then I get to own it I guess |
| 12:22 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan_: I can reply once I’ve actually read it, which I haven’t yet |
| 13:21 | <annevk> | jgraham: ping for https://github.com/w3c/wptserve/issues/112 |
| 13:24 | <jgraham> | annevk: Noted. Not sure if it will happen today (patches accepted though) |
| 13:25 | <annevk> | jgraham: I would write a patch, but there is no contributor documentation making it clear how to approach it |
| 13:26 | <annevk> | jgraham: I guess I also don't really know what request_handler actually returns or how to find out, so... |
| 13:43 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: perhaps you should ping hsivonen explicitly in https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/2319 or did you already use email or some such? |
| 13:44 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: or does assign to review create a sufficient ping in GitHub already? I don't actually know |
| 13:45 | <zcorpan_> | i had pinged him here in irc. but i can fire off an email |
| 13:47 | <zcorpan_> | (done) |
| 13:48 | zcorpan_ | learns http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/#ToUnicode has examples where conversion succeeds but validation fails |
| 13:50 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: ToUnicode always succeeds basically |
| 13:51 | <zcorpan_> | meant to link to http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/#Table_Example_Processing |
| 13:53 | <zcorpan_> | but yeah. i found it noteworthy since i didn't see anyone complain about ToUnicode in issue 118 |
| 13:54 | <annevk> | ToUnicode is actually not currently exposed anywhere |
| 13:54 | <annevk> | Oh actually, no, I guess HTML uses it |
| 13:55 | <annevk> | But maybe not the parser override, just the conversion algorithm |
| 13:58 | <zcorpan_> | annevk: does anything set the Unicode flag for the host parser? |
| 13:59 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: domainToUnicode() used to be a thing, but not anymore |
| 13:59 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: but also, that could have been defined as host parsing followed by "domain to Unicode" |
| 13:59 | <annevk> | zcorpan_: so I think I'm going to remove it and encourage that pattern instead |
| 13:59 | <zcorpan_> | annevk: sounds reasonable |
| 15:27 | <annevk> | I kinda want to replace e-mail with email |
| 15:31 | <Ms2ger> | Not in Dutch, I hope :) |
| 15:33 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: my written Dutch is not great and I have no ambitions there I think |
| 16:36 | <MikeSmith> | I read the message about the DTD on the mailing list but I don’t really know what I’d say in reply except, If people who are using tools that consume DTDs find it useful to have an HTML DTD, then great |
| 16:36 | <MikeSmith> | there are lots of possible formalisms |
| 16:37 | <MikeSmith> | I think the devs working on the MDN backend have some kind of JSON representation they are using to define HTML element content models and attribute |
| 16:38 | <MikeSmith> | as far as DTDs I guess psgml still exists for Emacs and uses DTDs so if there’s a DTD people can use with that, great |
| 16:39 | <MikeSmith> | psgml is a pretty nice way to get element and attribute completion when editing HTML docs in emacs |
| 16:58 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: I had the impression that they claimed to have represented everything in the DTD, which I thought hsivonen had said was impossible? |
| 16:58 | <MikeSmith> | yeah it is impossible of course |
| 16:59 | <MikeSmith> | certainly can’t represent data-* attributes |
| 16:59 | <MikeSmith> | nor custom elements |
| 17:00 | <MikeSmith> | nor handle ARIA role checking when the role value contains multiple tokens |
| 17:00 | <MikeSmith> | nor do much of any microsyntax/datatype checking of attribute values at all |
| 17:00 | <MikeSmith> | etc etc |
| 17:03 | <MikeSmith> | that said if the goal is not validation but instead just having a DTD that can be plugged into editing tools like psgml to enable context-sensitive element and attribute completion/editing, then it may enought of that right to be very useful |
| 17:03 | <MikeSmith> | *may get enough of that right |
| 17:05 | <gsnedders> | http://sgmljs.net/blog/blog1701.html touches on using it to parse |
| 18:31 | <annevk> | I liked the argument that DTDs were more concise |
| 18:32 | <annevk> | Only true of course if you define that language first and need it elsewhere, which is a little less clear |
| 22:10 | <AutomatedTester> | jyasskin: hey, thanks for the link to promises guide |
| 22:10 | <jyasskin> | AutomatedTester: np :) |
| 22:10 | <AutomatedTester> | jyasskin: are we supposed to reference that guide for certain things |
| 22:10 | <AutomatedTester> | e.g. promise-calling |
| 22:12 | <jyasskin> | AutomatedTester: If you use one of the terms defined there, you should cross-reference to it (using, e.g. [=resolve=] in Bikeshed). I haven't found [=promise-calling=] to be all that useful, but I use [=a new promise=] all the time. (cc Domenic) |
| 22:13 | <AutomatedTester> | jyasskin: oh, annevk told me new promise was a webidl issue |
| 22:14 | <AutomatedTester> | fetch and url dont have new promise linked |
| 22:14 | <jyasskin> | Most of the content in promises-guide should move to WebIDL, but it hasn't yet. |
| 22:15 | <AutomatedTester> | ok |
| 22:15 | <jyasskin> | I think fetch and url are formally incorrect by not linking to promises-guide, but nobody's going to implement the wrong thing as a result, so it doesn't really matter. |
| 22:16 | <AutomatedTester> | thats pretty much what annevk said :D |
| 22:16 | <jyasskin> | Hah :) |
| 22:16 | <jyasskin> | The nice thing about using [==] is that when the terms move, you'll just be able to rebuild your spec, and it'll automatically update the link targets. |
| 22:17 | <AutomatedTester> | whats it in respec? |
| 22:18 | AutomatedTester | can't find a link in https://github.com/tobie/specref/blob/master/refs/w3c.json so guessing I should add it... |
| 22:18 | <jyasskin> | Respec didn't do cross-links when I was using it. It might have been added since then, but I don't know the syntax if so. |
| 22:18 | <TabAtkins> | AutomatedTester: Dont' worry about it, because you shouldn't be using ReSpec. ^_^ |
| 22:18 | <jyasskin> | Cross-links are why I switched to Bikeshed. |
| 22:18 | <TabAtkins> | (But also, yes, ReSpec does not have cross-spec linking.) |
| 22:18 | <jyasskin> | Now Tab, you're biased. ;) |
| 22:18 | <AutomatedTester> | TabAtkins: I use what I have... |
| 22:19 | <AutomatedTester> | not going to bikeshed...oh |
| 22:19 | <jyasskin> | AutomatedTester: https://github.com/tobie/specref/blob/cf450e0b903b90e9f903aedcb6b02ed3e104447c/refs/biblio.json#L2856 |
| 22:20 | <AutomatedTester> | aha |
| 22:20 | <AutomatedTester> | awesome |
| 22:20 | <AutomatedTester> | <3 |
| 22:21 | <tobie> | AutomatedTester, jyasskin: http://www.specref.org/?q=promise |
| 22:22 | <AutomatedTester> | tobie: I didnt realise that site existed... I always search the json file |
| 22:22 | <AutomatedTester> | *facepalm* |
| 22:22 | <AutomatedTester> | thanks tobie |
| 22:22 | <tobie> | There's also search from within the respec top right menu. |
| 22:23 | <AutomatedTester> | TIL |