| 02:25 | <Domenic> | Does anyone have thoughts on mutable strings vs. immutable strings in specs? https://github.com/whatwg/infra/issues/91 |
| 02:51 | <domfarolino> | Domenic: seems convenient for specs, and as far as prog langs go, I personally don't have an issue with the mutability of std::string in C++ :) |
| 03:32 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: so if the spec language were changed what would it be changed to say? “Take the value of string foo and change it in this way to create string bar and then use that for baz”? |
| 03:53 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: by the way it seems our buddy RichardMaher is back again in some GitHub issue-tracker discussions |
| 03:53 | <MikeSmith> | under the handle Solzhenitsyn |
| 03:54 | <MikeSmith> | https://github.com/w3c/push-api/issues/243#issuecomment-288586166 |
| 03:54 | <MikeSmith> | and https://github.com/w3c/push-api/issues/243#issuecomment-288594110 |
| 04:20 | <Domenic> | Oh, joy |
| 04:20 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: yeah that would be the change. Reassigning variables to new strings, in general. Kind of annoying. |
| 06:36 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: yeah sounds annoying enough that unless it’s really necessary we probably don’t want to voluntarily start doing that |
| 06:40 | <MikeSmith> | in other news, LinkedIn notification informs me that Andreas Bovens (formerly Opera) is now at Mozilla |
| 06:41 | <MikeSmith> | Lead, Product Management in Mozilla's Platform Product Management team |
| 09:16 | <tobie> | annevk/Domenic: looking at some of the latests infra issues, I see a tension building up between readability vs. precision. |
| 09:17 | <tobie> | annevk/Domenic: my gut reaction is that some of the things you're considering specifying in infra should be common sense, |
| 09:17 | <tobie> | but I'm not sure how colored by experience common sense actually is. |
| 09:18 | <tobie> | For example: is common sense of a JS dev the same as that of a C++ one? |
| 09:18 | <annevk> | tobie: I think most things we've filed something on has been the result of a question or problem seen somewhere |
| 09:19 | <annevk> | tobie: and as the topic of this channel indicates, there's no common sense on the web, so it's better to be explicit |
| 09:20 | <annevk> | tobie: I want to be extremely pedantic in Infra so the problem is solved for everyone, it seems to me that is how you build powerful abstractions that can last a long time |
| 09:22 | <mathiasbynens> | I feel like I’m missing some context here https://twitter.com/LeaVerou/status/844813111802585088 |
| 09:24 | <tobie> | annevk: my other, related, concern is seeing typical comp lang issues such as variable scope creep up in spec prose. |
| 09:24 | <tobie> | annevk: such as the let/set question in conditional statements |
| 09:25 | <Domenic> | mathiasbynens: hmm. I remember two Lea bugs: one about how new URL() should use location.href as the base by default, which was rejected, and one about EventTarget.prototype.getEventListeners(), which got positive feedback and is waiting on implementer interest. I guess neither felt productive? |
| 09:25 | <tobie> | annevk: which sort of suddenly implies scopes which aren't clearly specified anywhere |
| 09:25 | <annevk> | mathiasbynens: one of https://github.com/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3ALeaVerou+user%3Awhatwg maybe? |
| 09:26 | <Domenic> | ah yes, asking for removing the data- requirement, also mostly rejected |
| 09:26 | <annevk> | mathiasbynens: the one on URL() didn't had a bit of a communication breakdown unfortunately, the others seemed okay, but maybe not |
| 09:26 | <annevk> | s/didn't// |
| 09:27 | <annevk> | tobie: right, that's why we need more precision, not common sense |
| 09:28 | <tobie> | annevk: yeah, I'm not arguing against this (gut reaction means precisely that). |
| 09:30 | <tobie> | annevk: perhaps I'm suggesting infra should preemptively address gut-reaction-based pushback? |
| 09:30 | <annevk> | tobie: heh, what would that mean? |
| 09:30 | <annevk> | "Trust us, you need this!" |
| 09:34 | <tobie> | annevk: well, I guess you could add as a goal to "help write clear and readable algorithmic prose by clarifying otherwise ambiguous concepts" or something like that |
| 09:35 | <annevk> | tobie: sounds reasonable, PRs appreciated |
| 09:36 | <tobie> | annevk: last related question which maybe I should open an issue for: how do you opt-in to that language without linking all the things? |
| 09:37 | <annevk> | tobie: there's some suggested boilerplate at the top |
| 09:37 | <annevk> | tobie: but we also strongly recommend linking the concepts just as you would xref other terms |
| 09:37 | <annevk> | tobie: shouldn't be much effort with Bikeshed |
| 09:38 | <tobie> | annevk: it's not so much effort vs spec will edn-up looking like christmas trees |
| 09:38 | <tobie> | e.g. let/set return, for loops, etc. |
| 09:39 | <tobie> | annevk: maybe that's something for the Bikeshed to solve, though |
| 09:42 | <Domenic> | I am personally not so sure about the linking |
| 09:42 | <Domenic> | I think it is fine to not link for things |
| 09:42 | <Domenic> | It's a gray area |
| 09:43 | <Domenic> | I think let/set/return/throw we have decided not to even given dfns because we don't want people linking to them. |
| 09:49 | <tobie> | Domenic: I think that has been brought up already in some of these issues, but how do you know whether you're using a "set" the way it's specified in infra vs. an unspecified, common-sense based approach? |
| 09:49 | <tobie> | Domenic: sepcifically in documents that are transitioning to relying on infra |
| 09:51 | <Domenic> | Well if you're transitioning then it seems like a bad idea to only use it some of the time |
| 09:53 | <annevk> | Everything that's transitioning will be somewhat ambiguous, but likely less so than before, since before it was undefined |
| 09:54 | <annevk> | Everything that's done transitioning or new should be good |
| 09:54 | <annevk> | Anyway, I'd be happy to require less linking, that's probably something we find out over time |
| 09:55 | <tobie> | annevk: I think I was pushing for *more* linking, but maybe a different way to present infra x-ref than the rest. |
| 09:56 | <tobie> | annevk: but you're right. This is something we'll find out over time. |
| 09:56 | <annevk> | I see, we've talked a little about that already in the context of private/public, might make sense to have something for Infra terms too |
| 09:56 | <annevk> | Though that'll also make it look like a Christmas tree |
| 09:57 | <tobie> | annevk: could be toggle-based. |
| 09:59 | <tobie> | annevk: just to clarify, I'm not pushing back against the whole idea of infra, btw, which I think you know I'm fully backing. Just attuned to how it makes me *feel* as an editor and trying to balance being explicit with being readable. |
| 10:27 | <mkwst> | speaking of telling editors what to do even if they don't like it, can we agree upon a standard way of describing algorithms? |
| 10:28 | <mkwst> | for instance, it would be lovely if we had a copy/pasteable way of describing inputs and outputs. |
| 10:28 | <mkwst> | every spec does it differently. or doesn't do it at all. |
| 10:28 | <mkwst> | (and it would get us closer to my secret dream of type checking if we also standardized the calling mechanism) |
| 10:36 | <annevk> | mkwst: yeah, file an issue? |
| 10:37 | <annevk> | mkwst: I'm planning on making Algorithms a top-level section and eventually address all their aspects |
| 10:37 | <annevk> | mkwst: doing it slowly though and adjusting standards that use Infra as we go |
| 10:44 | <mkwst> | Yup. Filed. |
| 15:12 | <mkwst> | annevk: How do you feel about https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-clear-site-data/#dom-api? Is it something you'd like to see upstreamed to Storage, or are you happy for it to live in this other doc until someone implements it? |
| 15:14 | <annevk> | mkwst: heh, was just filing issues |
| 15:14 | <mkwst> | Oh, great! |
| 15:17 | <AlexxNica> | Hey! |
| 15:18 | <AlexxNica> | Does anyone knows if for '<link rel="icon" href="favicon.png" sizes="16x16" type="image/png">' I'm obligated to keep the "icon" on quotes? |
| 15:18 | <AlexxNica> | Or can it be '<link rel=icon href="favicon.png" sizes="16x16" type="image/png">', skipping the quotes? |
| 15:24 | <annevk> | AlexxNica: you can skip the quotes for all those values |
| 15:29 | <AlexxNica> | annevk: Ok, nice! Do you know where I can find more info on this? Skipping quotes and whatnot |
| 15:33 | <annevk> | AlexxNica: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/syntax.html#attributes-2 is the authoritative source on this |
| 15:34 | <annevk> | AlexxNica: it might be a little hard to read though initially, pretty formal |
| 15:34 | <AlexxNica> | annevk: Great! Thank you very much! |
| 15:34 | <AlexxNica> | annevk: It's ok, the only problem I have is that I'm kind of impatient, so I may have skipped that part.. |
| 15:35 | <AlexxNica> | annevk: I'm reading it all but because I don't have much time to do it I have the bad habit of skipping things.. |
| 15:36 | <AlexxNica> | annevk: Not gonna do it again, again, thank you! 😁 |
| 15:36 | <annevk> | AlexxNica: feel free to ask questions, happy to help |
| 15:36 | <annevk> | AlexxNica: "Unquoted attribute value syntax" is the exact bit |
| 15:37 | <AlexxNica> | annevk: Great to have people like you. 🤗 |
| 15:47 | <annevk> | nox: "The same issue exists for the https to ws check." what test is that? |
| 15:48 | <nox> | annevk: We were discussing that in #servo let me paste the logs. |
| 15:49 | <nox> | annevk: But both WebKit nor Gecko throw anyway, so how can that change be intentional? |
| 15:50 | <annevk> | nox: because otherwise you have to duplicate all security checks and not forget each time you add a new security check |
| 15:50 | <annevk> | nox: the existing WebSocket setup is extremely fragile |
| 15:50 | <nox> | annevk: But isn't it a matter of web-compat by now? |
| 15:50 | <annevk> | nox: compat on exceptions? |
| 15:50 | <nox> | Well, nothing surprises me anymore. |
| 15:51 | <annevk> | It's worth a try to change this still I think |
| 15:55 | <nox> | annevk: Do you know in which step is the https to ws check done? |
| 15:56 | <annevk> | nox: step 5 of https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#main-fetch |
| 15:56 | <annevk> | nox: note that at that point the URL is already a HTTP URL |
| 15:56 | <nox> | Yeah. |
| 15:56 | <nox> | Thanks! |
| 15:56 | <annevk> | nox: due to https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-websocket-establish |
| 16:32 | <ShaneHudson> | I'm currently doing some research into <textarea>. Probably quite a simple straightforward thing but if anyone has any interesting facts, bugs, or historical things then please do let me know! |
| 17:01 | <smaug> | annevk: reading https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#the-directionality . There is text like "The character is from a Text node..." My interpretation is that it includes also CDATA (since that inherits Text). Is that right? |
| 17:37 | <annevk> | smaug: yeah, but I want to make that clearer at some point |
| 17:37 | <smaug> | ok, thanks |
| 17:37 | <annevk> | ShaneHudson: there were quite a few issues recently around the API |
| 17:38 | <ShaneHudson> | annevk: Oh? Is there anything I can read about that, mailing list or irc log? |
| 17:40 | <annevk> | ShaneHudson: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues?q=textarea has them all I think |
| 17:41 | <ShaneHudson> | Ah perfect, that will be really helpful cheers! |
| 19:34 | <zcorpan> | Edge's bug tracker's comment thing manage to mangle comments to no end... :-( https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/issues/11372968/ |
| 19:35 | <annevk> | Yeah, best to keep it basic; newline-separated URLs |