| 02:14 | <domfarolino> | Is the percentage of people heavily involved in standards AS WELL as implementing standards in a major browser fairly high, or not so much? I imagine most have some role in implementation, if only overseeing, but are many heavily involved in the development/implementation process as well? |
| 02:16 | <MikeSmith> | domfarolino: low |
| 02:16 | <MikeSmith> | in some browser project it’s higher, some very lower |
| 02:17 | <MikeSmith> | I guess the Chrome team and the Chromium project has way more than anybody |
| 02:18 | <MikeSmith> | Mozilla has fewer but the ones they have involved are highly prolific/productive, so it makes up for the difference in numbers some |
| 02:18 | <MikeSmith> | Opera was like that before too |
| 02:19 | <MikeSmith> | well and still now, though their implementation effort goes into Blink/Chromium |
| 02:21 | <MikeSmith> | Apple/WebKit probably has an even tinier implementation team, but is supporting some key people contributing to the design of the core specs, and testing |
| 02:22 | <MikeSmith> | anyway I guess it’s not about the numbers but instead about how effective individual people can be |
| 02:23 | <domfarolino> | I see. I guess I always kinda pictured the two groups as one , as it seems natural for implementers to know exactly would what is feasible and what is ridiculous |
| 02:23 | <MikeSmith> | a lot of the work spec-development work, I am not sure how much it would help to throw more people at it |
| 02:24 | <domfarolino> | standards is very interesting |
| 02:24 | <MikeSmith> | domfarolino: yeah as what is feasible and what is ridiculous, I guess communicating with implementors about that is one of the main things editors do |
| 02:24 | <domfarolino> | or *are*, if you take it as the collective plural |
| 02:24 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 02:24 | <MikeSmith> | it is an odd world |
| 02:25 | <domfarolino> | Indeed, really cool though haha |
| 02:27 | <MikeSmith> | anyway, we say “editors” but we should say “collectors of information from implementors” because that is one the key tasks, and also “architects” because in that end that is what they do |
| 02:27 | <MikeSmith> | all from daily communication with implemetors |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | the real bottleneck we have right now where we could use more people is for test review |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | we need way, way more reviewers |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | but it is basically a time-consuming, thankless, unrewarding task |
| 02:28 | <domfarolino> | Yeah, been learning a bit from the console standard |
| 02:29 | <MikeSmith> | ah yeah |
| 02:29 | <domfarolino> | Test reviewers as in people to review tests in the WPT repo? |
| 02:29 | <MikeSmith> | yes |
| 02:29 | <domfarolino> | Makes sense, I often see a lotta requests to review this and that |
| 02:30 | <domfarolino> | That repo is a beast too |
| 02:30 | <MikeSmith> | it has grown pretty enormously but is managed surprisingly well |
| 02:31 | <MikeSmith> | large credit due to jgraham personally |
| 02:31 | <MikeSmith> | but lots of other key contributions from a long tail of other people |
| 02:32 | <MikeSmith> | but the big problem there is way too much latency in reviews, test writers having to chase down people to beg for reviews, and then getting frustrated and risking to lose interest |
| 02:33 | <MikeSmith> | the WPT test-submission process is not something that in practice would lead most people to be enthusiastic about putting themselves through it again after they have done in the first time |
| 02:34 | <domfarolino> | Geez that's a shame. I imagine there's no real clear solution to that either, just slowly try to spark and hold more peoples' interest |
| 02:35 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I wish we could put some kind of better reward system around it |
| 02:36 | <MikeSmith> | give test reviewers some more recognition of some kind for their work |
| 02:37 | <MikeSmith> | test writers too |
| 02:37 | <MikeSmith> | good test writers at least |
| 02:37 | <MikeSmith> | we had this Test the Web Forward effort before but I think to some degree it gave the wrong incentives to test contributors |
| 02:38 | <MikeSmith> | and just created yet more work for test reviewers |
| 02:39 | <domfarolino> | yikes, backfire |
| 02:46 | <domfarolino> | MikeSmith: what did Test the Web Forward consist of that isn't seen now? Like, was there some sort of incentive behind it that has since been extinguished? |
| 02:47 | <MikeSmith> | we used to have face-to-face events |
| 02:48 | <MikeSmith> | hackathons, but for testing |
| 02:48 | <MikeSmith> | we would have people there who’d explain how to write tests, and then to do hands-on work with guiding people to work on writing their first tests |
| 02:48 | <MikeSmith> | the energy was great and it was all a lot of fun |
| 02:49 | <MikeSmith> | but we never got many good tests out of it |
| 02:49 | <MikeSmith> | lessons learned |
| 02:50 | <domfarolino> | ahh I see. it does sound fun, but it always amazes me (in a negative way), the quality of code produced at hackathons |
| 02:51 | <domfarolino> | for whatever reason it's just so conducive to terrible programming habits |
| 02:52 | <MikeSmith> | yeah? |
| 02:52 | <MikeSmith> | I’ve never been involved much in hackathons otherwise |
| 02:53 | <MikeSmith> | but anyway maybe I am being too critical about the experience |
| 02:53 | <MikeSmith> | the fact is I see we have 486 contributors for the repo |
| 02:53 | <MikeSmith> | https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/ |
| 02:53 | <MikeSmith> | which is pretty big by any measure |
| 03:13 | <domfarolino> | True |
| 03:14 | <domfarolino> | Yeah I help organize the hackathon at my university, that is I mainly do the web stuff but yeah it really pushes "Pick something up you've never touched before, learn it in the most superficial way, and build something quick with no tests" |
| 03:16 | <domfarolino> | "And make sure you don't further your education in the platform your developing on" lol |
| 03:29 | <MikeSmith> | heh :) |
| 07:28 | <Domenic> | A friend of mine is asking about resources for first-time spec writers. I was surprised to find I don't have many great answers. This might be especially complicated since his goal is more like API documentation than web platform specs; the idea is to give a contract to consumers of his software saying "this is how it works now, and we promise not to make it |
| 07:28 | <Domenic> | work differently in the future". But if anyone has any ideas |
| 07:40 | <KiChjang> | Domenic, would W3C have any resources on that? |
| 07:40 | <Domenic> | KiChjang: not that I know of |
| 07:41 | <KiChjang> | hmm, what do you call a promise that is non-binding? |
| 07:41 | <KiChjang> | a declaration? |
| 07:42 | KiChjang | just realized that this can totally be read in the context of JS or legalese |
| 08:00 | <tobie> | Domenic: I've had heated discussion about this topic in the past. Infra is a good first step even though it's not its main goal. |
| 08:39 | <annevk> | Domenic: Promises/A+ was kinda like that, no? |
| 08:43 | <zcorpan> | websocket.sub.js ;_; |
| 08:44 | <annevk> | zcorpan: you no longer like it? |
| 08:45 | <zcorpan> | annevk: i have never liked it (and I didn't write it) |
| 08:45 | <zcorpan> | annevk: this function doesn't return an object. it assigns to global `wsocket` |
| 08:48 | <annevk> | zcorpan: o_O |
| 08:48 | <zcorpan> | testing with port 80 and still get an error event. wonder why that is |
| 08:48 | <nox> | annevk: Re: wss: good to know. |
| 08:50 | <zcorpan> | oh it's testing wss: |
| 09:28 | <annevk> | zcorpan: if you could review https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/5217 that'd be nice |
| 09:47 | <nox> | annevk: What should the UA do if the server send back multiple Sec-WebSocket-Protocol headers? |
| 09:48 | <annevk> | nox: doesn't that just mean multiple protocols? |
| 09:48 | <annevk> | nox: I don't have the standard in memory |
| 09:48 | <nox> | annevk: "The |Sec-WebSocket-Protocol| header field MUST NOT appear more than once in an HTTP response." |
| 09:48 | <nox> | That's what the WS spec says. |
| 09:49 | <annevk> | nox: good times, arguably that means the handshake ought to fail, but tests / what do browsers do -> Fetch bug for clarification? (prefixed with WebSocket) |
| 09:49 | <annevk> | nox: or does it actually define what should happen when it occurs more than once? |
| 09:49 | <annevk> | nox: sometimes they do an attempt at error handling |
| 09:50 | <nox> | annevk: It doesn't AFAIK. |
| 09:50 | <nox> | annevk: Filed https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/515 |
| 11:40 | <zcorpan> | hmmmmmmm. wpt could pick a port that is blocked for ws: |
| 13:51 | <MikeSmith> | mkwst: for CSP in what case would I ever want to use the nonce attribute rather than a hash? |
| 13:51 | <MikeSmith> | is there some case where it would not be possible or practical to create/use a hash but it would be to use a nonce? |
| 14:03 | <gsnedders> | Why am I filing bugs on tr.rdf? :\ |
| 14:04 | <jgraham> | You haven't been given enough work to do? |
| 14:04 | <jgraham> | rbyers: Pleases fix ;p |
| 14:05 | <jgraham> | (also my spelling) |
| 14:05 | <rbyers> | jgraham: Hah, you guys should tell me where the biggest opportunities for impact are ;-) |
| 14:06 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: tbf, I was trying to figure out what tobie wanted for the csswg-test merge and whether all shortnames matched what we have in csswg-test |
| 14:07 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: except, uh, hit bugs in tr.rdf |
| 14:08 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: I swear this is useful! tbf, it also affects Bikeshed and everything else that uses tr.rdf as the source for canonical shortnames |
| 14:10 | <MikeSmith> | plan is still to pull the trigger on the repo move Tuesday? |
| 14:11 | <tobie> | gsnedders: are you sure these are bugs in tr.rdf, not oddities of the CSSWG? |
| 14:11 | <gsnedders> | tobie: yes |
| 14:11 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: yes |
| 14:12 | <tobie> | gsnedders: oh wow. |
| 14:12 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: I need to email about that, thx for the reminder! |
| 14:12 | <tobie> | gsnedders: :D |
| 14:12 | <gsnedders> | tobie: notably, one TR document doesn't appear as a node in the graph at all! |
| 14:13 | <tobie> | "a node in the graph" <-- sounds like gsnedders drank the rdf koolaid. Who's close enough to intervene? |
| 14:15 | <gsnedders> | tobie: oh, I think it's 99.9% of the time totally gratuitous and not worth using, that doesn't mean I don't actually have a good understanding of it and much of the tooling around it |
| 16:44 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: Domenic the WebDriver spec references the dfn “code entry-point” from HTML. Should that ref be changed to “settings object”? |
| 17:23 | <smaug> | annevk: ping |
| 17:23 | <smaug> | or anyone, want to say if my interpretation of an algorithm is right? |
| 17:24 | <smaug> | https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#the-dir-attribute:the-dir-attribute-8 |
| 17:24 | <smaug> | if bdi has dir="auto" and dir is then removed, nothing is supposed to change |
| 17:25 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: annevk or maybe the algorithm at https://w3c.github.io/webdriver/webdriver-spec.html#dfn-execute-a-function-body needs to be updated to match what’s currently in HTML? |
| 17:26 | <MikeSmith> | but step 8 there, “Let script’s code entry-point be function” is the only one that has an HTML ref that no longer matches the spec |
| 20:00 | <jarek> | Hi |
| 20:00 | <botie> | what's up, jarek |
| 20:00 | <jarek> | Are there any recommendation on how to name custom attributes on custom elements? |
| 20:01 | <jarek> | some frameworks are using ":" prefix, for example <el-input-number :min="1" :max="10"></el-input-number> |
| 20:01 | <jarek> | others use data- prefix or no prefix at all |
| 20:14 | <jarek> | nvm, just found https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2271 |