| 08:40 | <annevk> | smaug: I guess given https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/441#issuecomment-313061068 we can move ahead now with the EventTarget constructor? |
| 08:41 | <smaug> | yup |
| 08:52 | smaug | thinks about implementation. I guess EventTarget::Constructor would just return DOMEventTargetHelper, and that one would have WrapObject method to return EventTarget binding. webidl + ~10 lines code? |
| 08:52 | <smaug> | annevk: there will be some wpt too, right? |
| 08:52 | <annevk> | smaug: yeah, I just reviewed those |
| 08:53 | <annevk> | smaug: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/6306 |
| 14:03 | <annevk> | P: "To be perfectly clear, ..." Me: *Great* P: *not at all clear* Me: 😟 |
| 14:08 | <wanderview> | JakeA: the response on that chromium issue was surprising to me... but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
| 14:11 | <annevk> | wanderview: I think they were just explaining how it works, maybe not whether it's a great setup? |
| 14:11 | <wanderview> | ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
| 14:12 | <annevk> | 😊 |
| 14:21 | <wanderview> | JakeA: does the spec really say what browsers have to do in the background? Seems like browsers tend to do impl specific stuff for rAF, setTimeout(), etc in the background |
| 14:25 | <JakeA> | wanderview: It's suggested in this note https://www.w3.org/TR/requestidlecallback/#start-an-event-loop-s-idle-period, but yeah it isn't normative |
| 14:25 | wanderview | shakes head at JakeA using TR specs. |
| 14:25 | <JakeA> | ah shit |
| 14:26 | <wanderview> | wasn't Domenic going to make an addon to auto-fix spec links? |
| 14:26 | <wanderview> | JakeA: but the editors draft is the same: https://w3c.github.io/requestidlecallback/#start-an-event-loop%27s-idle-period |
| 14:26 | <wanderview> | we limit to one idle period per second while in the background, fwiw |
| 14:26 | <JakeA> | wanderview: few, that'd have been even more embarrassing otherwise |
| 14:27 | <wanderview> | simply because we leverage the same code that our setTimeout stuff uses |
| 14:30 | <JakeA> | *phew |
| 14:30 | <JakeA> | ugh I wish I could see even half the shit I spell wrong |
| 14:30 | <wanderview> | JakeA: I think people just blame auto-correct these days |
| 14:31 | <JakeA> | wanderview: I have no such excuse right now, but I'll use it anyway |
| 14:41 | <annevk> | Sigh, week went by quickly |
| 14:41 | <annevk> | Haven't really made any progress on navigation |
| 14:46 | <wanderview> | JakeA: difference in behavior between chrome and FF on this is interesting: https://idle-no-render.glitch.me/ |
| 14:46 | <wanderview> | firefox runs ~14 idle periods when there is no rendering |
| 14:46 | <wanderview> | chrome maxes the cpu |
| 14:47 | <wanderview> | feels like maybe a bug in firefox |
| 14:48 | <wanderview> | although I think we try to anticipate things like timeouts scheduled to run on the main thread... and we do have more of that kind of stuff since we run browser chrome script in our content processes |
| 14:48 | <wanderview> | so maybe its correct |
| 14:48 | <wanderview> | we just have a busier main thread |
| 14:49 | <JakeA> | wanderview: Is the number number of calls per second? |
| 14:49 | <wanderview> | JakeA: yea |
| 14:49 | <wanderview> | its slower than with requestAnimationFrame running... seems weird |
| 14:49 | <JakeA> | wanderview: In Firefox, if I select the text and flail the mouse around, it goes up to 60, which is the opposite of what I'd expect |
| 14:50 | <wanderview> | yea |
| 14:50 | <JakeA> | Rendering causes it to increase |
| 14:51 | wanderview | files a bug |
| 14:53 | <wanderview> | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1379178 |
| 15:53 | <wanderview> | JakeA: farre suggests that we fire fewer rIC callbacks when not rendering because we have switched to "long idle periods"... this is kind of talked about in a note here: https://w3c.github.io/requestidlecallback/#idle-periods |
| 15:54 | <wanderview> | I guess I should track what our deadline in each callback is |
| 17:40 | <wanderview> | yea, I don't think chrome is waiting for the next idle period like its supposed to |
| 19:07 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: sideshowbarker.net is down preventing spec deploys that are using it for validation :-/ |
| 20:09 | <minot> | is https://checker.html5.org/ down? |
| 20:17 | <KiChjang> | looks like so, i'm not able to connect to it |
| 20:18 | <Domenic> | Probably related to MikeSmith's servers being down |
| 22:12 | <jsbell> | Any reason we haven't made DataTransferItemList iterable<> ? |
| 23:48 | <Domenic> | jsbell: I think it automatically is because of the indexed getter and length property |
| 23:48 | <jsbell> | ah yes... |
| 23:49 | <Domenic> | https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#es-iterators second bullet |
| 23:50 | <jsbell> | ah well, I wanted to .map it anyway. Array.from() FTW |
| 23:51 | <Domenic> | Or [...list], at least in non-Edge browsers |