| 01:51 | <wanderview> | JakeA: your triage of all the issues is triggering my OCD to reply to all of them |
| 01:52 | <JakeA> | wanderview: haha I'm trying not to look at replies until I've gone through all the open issues |
| 01:53 | <JakeA> | but yeah, I'm struggling |
| 01:53 | <JakeA> | "ohh look, an email!" |
| 01:59 | <wanderview> | shiny |
| 02:34 | <wanderview> | JakeA: btw... making our "what have we been doing" book report slides... trying to keep it to 3 slides so its short |
| 03:14 | <JakeA> | wanderview: that's ideal. Brief is best I think. Facebook are going to give an update too |
| 04:39 | <annevk> | JakeA: most WHATWG standards do this |
| 04:46 | <JakeA> | ta |
| 05:23 | <wanderview> | JakeA: is background fetch behind a pref or an origin trial? |
| 05:24 | <JakeA> | wanderview: right now, neither. A very limit, not-really-usable thing will hit Canary in a couple of days. It's intended to be an origin trial when it's usable |
| 05:24 | <wanderview> | ah, ok |
| 05:24 | <JakeA> | Need API review & a spec, of course |
| 05:24 | <wanderview> | I saw the chromium issue update this morning... was just wondering |
| 05:24 | <JakeA> | The spec is just IDL right now |
| 05:25 | <JakeA> | I hear vague rumblings that Alex isn't happy with my design :D |
| 05:25 | <wanderview> | ha |
| 05:25 | <JakeA> | But we're going to chat it through, hopefully before the f2f |
| 06:04 | <wanderview> | Domenic: are there any DOM bindings that use WritableStream yet? or included in your intent-to-ship? |
| 06:38 | <Domenic> | wanderview: not at this time. Mainly we want to allow the ecosystem of developer-created writable streams to kick off. Platform APIs really want transform streams and we figured it was better to ship incrementally instead of holding out for a big writable + transform + piping + streaming textdecoder bonanza. |
| 06:38 | <wanderview> | cool |
| 06:39 | <wanderview> | yea, I'm a little annoyed we can't ship ReadableStream without fetch body support... afraid people will just feature detect ReadableStream in the global and not actually body attribute being present |
| 06:39 | <wanderview> | so happy to see them ship separately |
| 06:46 | <Domenic> | Oh, that is a shame, sorry about that :-/ |
| 06:47 | <wanderview> | Domenic: good news, though, is till is looking to land ReadableStream js bits in next couple weeks |
| 06:47 | <wanderview> | so we can start on the binding layer |
| 06:48 | <Domenic> | Very excited :) |
| 06:58 | <JakeA> | wanderview: I've dumped & loosely categorised issues at https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1053. I might reduce it a bit & prioritise |
| 06:59 | <wanderview> | JakeA: wow, nice! |
| 07:04 | <wanderview> | JakeA: you probably deserve a beer after doing that |
| 07:12 | <wanderview> | annevk: is there any discussion about any other browser seriously considering switching to safari's double-keying approach? |
| 07:12 | <wanderview> | I haven't seen it... but maybe I am missing it |
| 07:52 | <annevk> | wanderview: dunno, but we need to solve for all browsers to be successful |
| 07:53 | <annevk> | wanderview: I definitely think Fx should strongly consider it given our messaging on privacy |
| 08:58 | <JakeA> | annevk: wanderview: going to bring up foreign fetch in the context of this. It might require big changes |
| 08:59 | <wanderview> | JakeA: context of what? |
| 09:00 | <JakeA> | wanderview: sorry, the double-keying |
| 09:00 | <wanderview> | JakeA: oh, right... yea... we're totally talking about foreign fetch here :-) |
| 09:00 | <JakeA> | Since foreign fetch kinda makes it not work |
| 09:01 | <wanderview> | I don't think that is the case... foreign fetch just gets a storage location that is less likely to be shared |
| 09:01 | <wanderview> | but thats the whole goal of double-keying... seems like its a purposeful tradeoff to me |
| 09:03 | <wanderview> | JakeA: anyway, I should probably just google fight this fight... I don't think firefox won't be implementing foreign fetch any time soon |
| 09:06 | <wanderview> | if safari implements storage de-duplication it may not even be that bad |
| 09:06 | <wanderview> | or less effective |
| 09:12 | <JakeA> | Yeah, deduping would make things less bad |
| 10:20 | <annevk> | I think it can actually be reasonable if you do de-duping and if first-party visits don't result in later double-keying, which is what Safari does for cookies as I understand it, but not all kinds of storage |
| 10:21 | <annevk> | But it would be nice if we worked through it first and agreed on some kind of model so developers end up with a more predictable platform |
| 10:45 | <wanderview> | JakeA: I wrote a new SW issue in order to make your life more complicated: https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1100 |
| 10:50 | <ondras> | what is the current status re. xhr.send(arrayBuffer) vs. xhr.send(arrayBufferView) ? |
| 10:50 | <annevk> | ondras: both should work |
| 10:51 | <ondras> | annevk: desktop browsers are okay with both (I saw somewhere that they should warn when using ArrayBuffer?), older androids (<4.4) seem to not work with ArrayBufferView |
| 10:51 | <ondras> | is there a preferred version? |
| 10:52 | <ondras> | https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-bodyinit-extract |
| 10:52 | <ondras> | annevk: what exactly is BufferSource here? is that an AB/ABV ? |
| 10:53 | <ondras> | a-ha! https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#BufferSource |
| 10:54 | <annevk> | ondras: there's no preference |
| 10:55 | <ondras> | annevk: I see. This pages states otherwise: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/XMLHttpRequest/send |
| 10:55 | <ondras> | so probably mdn is outdated? |
| 10:56 | <annevk> | ondras: yeah, someone should probably fix that |
| 10:56 | <ondras> | annevk: cool, thanks for the info. .buffer will apparently fix my android issue then. |
| 10:57 | <annevk> | ondras: note that using .buffer can be tricky, since a view can be for only part of an ArrayBuffer, so might represent only a subset of the bytes, if you are then passing .buffer you'd potentially pass more |
| 10:58 | <ondras> | annevk: yeah, I am sending new Uint8Array(plain-number-array).buffer |
| 10:58 | <ondras> | so these should be equal |
| 11:48 | <zcorpan> | annevk: ....what happened here? https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/2420 |
| 11:53 | <Domenic> | zcorpan: it has zero commits, and it's toward some other branch... I wonder if there's a GitHub bug that auto-merges zero-commit PRs or something |
| 12:25 | <annevk> | zcorpan: not sure, first time I see it |
| 12:27 | <zcorpan> | So for the fingerprint, should we wait for bikeshed or try to merge the current set of PRs? |
| 12:28 | <annevk> | I'm happy to wait for bikeshed / TabAtkins |
| 12:28 | <annevk> | Or is something blocked? |
| 12:29 | <zcorpan> | Don't think so. OK |
| 12:30 | <annevk> | I found out WebAssembly is using OCaml for its spec/reference implementation |
| 12:31 | <annevk> | I wonder if that caught Philip`'s attention yet |
| 12:43 | <Philip`> | It hadn't |
| 12:43 | <Philip`> | They should have written the reference implementation in WebAssembly, though |
| 12:44 | <annevk> | heh |
| 12:44 | <Philip`> | because who doesn't like writing assembly code? |
| 12:45 | <Philip`> | (Besides, only weirdos use OCaml) |
| 13:57 | <SimonSapin> | jgraham: whatโs the review/merge process for wpt? Click the green button once Travis is happy? |
| 13:58 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: a) find someone to review it, if it's not already been publicly reviewed |
| 13:58 | <gsnedders> | wait, SimonSapin even, not jgraham ^^ |
| 13:58 | <SimonSapin> | gsnedders: Iโm reviewing |
| 13:58 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: b) hit the green button once Travis is happy and a) is done |
| 14:22 | <tobie> | SimonSapin: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests#test-review |
| 14:22 | <SimonSapin> | thanks |
| 14:22 | <tobie> | (for future reference) |
| 14:40 | <jugglinmike> | JakeA is there any information published online about the April face-to-face meeting/ |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | jugglinmike: https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1053 |
| 14:45 | <jugglinmike> | perfect, annevk. Thanks! |
| 15:07 | <annevk> | Philip`: I'm somewhat surprised they're doing it on OCaml too, but the person writing the standard is a big fan of functional programming |
| 15:08 | <annevk> | Philip`: judging from https://c10109cf-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/mlworkshoppe/2016-1.pdf it sounds like not many other people understood it |
| 15:29 | <annevk> | JakeA: maybe discuss https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/151 next week too |
| 16:37 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: I'd appreciate a definition to link to for the fingerprint stuff. |
| 16:41 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: https://github.com/whatwg/infra/pull/115 is the PR to add one, but it kinda depends on a change to Bikeshed (and I'd also like Domenic to review it) |
| 16:41 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: so we might have a deadlock of sorts ๐ |
| 16:42 | <TabAtkins> | That is not actually blocked by me in any way. |
| 16:46 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: zcorpan said it was |
| 16:47 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: the added "Fingerprint Image:" metadata probably doesn't work without changes to Bikeshed? |
| 16:47 | <TabAtkins> | Right, which he doesn't need to just add a definition. |
| 16:48 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: so your proposal is that we first add some text and link to the image ourselves and then later update that with bikeshed? |
| 16:49 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: moving Bikeshed first and then landing this seems easier to me |
| 16:49 | <TabAtkins> | Or don't use bikeshed magic on the definition. |
| 16:50 | <TabAtkins> | But bikeshed really does need something to link to before I can land anything. |
| 16:50 | <annevk> | But it's kinda the point of the definition to demonstrate how it materialises |
| 16:51 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: how about you create a PR for bikeshed that uses https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/#fingerprinting-vector and then we coordinate landing next week? |
| 16:51 | <TabAtkins> | Sure. ๐ |
| 21:12 | <TabAtkins> | Quick poll: In <https://drafts.css-houdini.org/css-typed-om/#dom-css-hz>; I have a bunch of functions for constructing CSS unitted values. I'm spelling Hz() and kHz() properly - worth it, or should I lowercase them, since CSS doesn't care about casing? |
| 21:13 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: how do authors mostly write them? |
| 21:13 | <gsnedders> | I mean I guess they don't because they're scarcely used |
| 21:13 | <TabAtkins> | I have no idea, since they're only used in Speech. |
| 21:14 | <gsnedders> | Indeed. |
| 22:07 | <JakeA> | annevk: shall do |
| 22:23 | <tobie> | TabAtkins: Use the correct casing. (That's what we'll do with sensors if we end up exposing units.) |
| 22:23 | <TabAtkins> | +1 |