| 06:12 | <GPHemsley> | https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-host-parser |
| 06:13 | <GPHemsley> | Let ipv4Host be the result of IPv4 parsing asciiDomain. |
| 06:13 | <GPHemsley> | If ipv4Host is an IPv4 address or failure, return ipv4Host. |
| 06:14 | <GPHemsley> | An IPv4 address |
| 06:14 | <GPHemsley> | is a 32-bit unsigned integer that identifies a network address. [RFC791] |
| 06:15 | <GPHemsley> | is an implementation of a host parser supposed to confirm that the ipv4Host (1) is a 32-bit unsigned integer, and (2) that it identifies a network address ? |
| 10:36 | <zcorpan> | huh. :-( https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=87553#c66 |
| 10:38 | <micminty> | Hello is this the official Web Hypertext Application Working Group irc channel? |
| 10:39 | <zcorpan> | micminty: Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group, yes :-) |
| 10:41 | <micminty> | zcorpan: OK, thanks for the quick reply.. |
| 10:43 | <zcorpan> | micminty: np |
| 11:11 | <nox> | zcorpan: What's that patch? :o |
| 11:12 | <zcorpan> | nox: it removes <menu> implementation |
| 11:12 | <nox> | zcorpan: Is it an independent decision from them or are we all going to remove it? |
| 11:12 | <zcorpan> | nox: independent |
| 11:12 | <nox> | :/ |
| 13:49 | <Domenic> | We should probably remove it from the spec... |
| 13:53 | <Domenic> | https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2730 |
| 18:06 | <aklein> | Domenic: you around? I'm picking up my old attempt to fix this modules crossorigin WPT |
| 18:07 | <Domenic> | aklein: yep |
| 18:07 | <aklein> | (https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/html/semantics/scripting-1/the-script-element/module/crossorigin.html) |
| 18:07 | <aklein> | Domenic: and now I'm remembering that I can't even tell exactly what the failing test is trying to do |
| 18:07 | <Domenic> | To the logs!! |
| 18:07 | <aklein> | it specifies a valueless "crossorigin" attribute |
| 18:07 | <GPHemsley> | I second Hixie on https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/295 |
| 18:08 | <aklein> | http://logs.glob.uno/?c=freenode%23whatwg&s=19+Apr+2017&e=19+Apr+2017#c1026373 |
| 18:10 | <aklein> | http://logs.glob.uno/?c=freenode%23whatwg&s=19+Apr+2017&e=19+Apr+2017#c1026399 seems like the main outcome |
| 18:10 | <aklein> | " From the spec's point of view github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/…origin-root-missingheader.sub.html and github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/…rossorigin-root-different.sub.html should be identical" |
| 18:10 | <aklein> | my proposed PR would be to just remove tests 1 and 5 |
| 18:11 | <Domenic> | "aklein: I think we should change them to fail" |
| 18:16 | <aklein> | Domenic: ok :) |
| 18:18 | <GPHemsley> | geez, Domenic, let me finish filing the issue first >_< |
| 18:18 | <Domenic> | Er, sorry, thought you did once you edited the title... |
| 18:22 | <GPHemsley> | Domenic: OK, fire away :) |
| 18:29 | <aklein> | Domenic: so does the "crossorigin" attribute on the script elements have any effect in these tests? |
| 18:29 | <aklein> | that's really the only difference between tests 1 and 3 |
| 18:34 | <aklein> | in fact I don't see any web platform tests that set crossorigin to anything |
| 18:48 | <Domenic> | aklein: well the servers respond differently, right? |
| 18:49 | <Domenic> | aklein: nevermind, same URL |
| 18:49 | <Domenic> | aklein: it doesn't have any effect in this case since the server isn't allowing you to access anyway. |
| 18:49 | <Domenic> | But Microsoft thought it did, so it's good to keep a test showing the opposite. |
| 18:49 | <Domenic> | crossorigin="" for module scripts should impact whether credentials are sent or not, and how |
| 18:50 | <Domenic> | But yeah I don't think there are good tests for that yet |
| 18:50 | <Domenic> | Possibly ones are being added as part of fixing that Chrome bug |
| 19:37 | <domfarolino> | Domenic: crossorigin="" on modules sends creds same-origin whereas ="use-credentials" sends creds cross-origin right? |
| 21:39 | <Domenic> | domfarolino: correct |
| 21:40 | <Domenic> | foolip: on https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/2627 / the corresponding fullscreen PR, would editorial-ish review be helpful, or wait for annevk to get back, or you and upsuper can take care of it...? |
| 21:52 | <aklein> | Domenic: re: https://codereview.chromium.org/2914273002/, you're not a Chromium committer? |
| 21:53 | <Domenic> | aklein: nope |