| 02:16 | <Yuhong> | https://twitter.com/yuhong2/status/887556849246945281 |
| 02:16 | <Yuhong> | emember https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What.27s_this_I_hear_about_2022.3F |
| 02:16 | <Yuhong> | Web developer edition would be far shorter and easier. |
| 05:49 | <GPHemsley> | hmm... example.com is all sorts of broken in its 404 pages |
| 05:51 | <GPHemsley> | it sends back the value of the request's Accept header as its Content-Type response header, which Firefox parses in all sorts of different wrong ways |
| 05:51 | <GPHemsley> | http://example.com/bla |
| 05:52 | <GPHemsley> | (parsed as APNG) |
| 05:52 | <GPHemsley> | http://example.com/bla%20http://example.com/fla |
| 05:52 | <GPHemsley> | (parsed as XML) |
| 06:08 | <Zegnat> | Am I reading the spec wrong, or are the HTML validators wrong when they tell me <main> isn’t allowed within <article>? The spec specifically calls out that “a page with multiple article elements might need to indicate the dominant contents of each” in a note for <main>, but when doing so throws errors in both validators linked on https://whatwg.org |
| 06:08 | <Zegnat> | /validator/ |
| 06:19 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic, timwis: Yeah, Chrome at least does identical-text caching; I think everyone does? Not sure about that. |
| 07:06 | <annevk> | Zegnat: sounds like there's some kind of mismatch at least, MikeSmith probably knows |
| 07:10 | <Zegnat> | Should I send the question somewhere specific, or is it fine to just have it here on IRC and wait for someone (possible MikeSmith) to read it? |
| 07:17 | <annevk> | Zegnat: from a brief look it looks like you're running into https://github.com/validator/validator/issues/200 |
| 07:17 | <annevk> | Zegnat: waiting for MikeSmith is probably easiest |
| 07:18 | <annevk> | Zegnat: having said that, he might be out for a couple of weeks or more |
| 07:19 | <annevk> | (afaik he's currently the sole mostly active maintainer so there's no other course of action) |
| 07:23 | <benjamingr_> | Hey, I want to make a `fetch` forwarding the request body to the response body. I expected the following to work but it doesn't - and I couldn't find anything in the spec. I realize this is still experimental on the Chrome side - but I promise to give some consumer feedback :) |
| 07:23 | <benjamingr_> | fetch("./someUrl").then(someUrlReply => { var r = new Request("./postApi", { method: "POST", body: someUrlReply.body }); return fetch(r); }) |
| 07:24 | <benjamingr_> | I expected it to work since the body is a `ReadableStream` and the body argument of `Request` accepts a `ReadableStream`. Am I reading it wrong or is it just not implemented yet? |
| 07:32 | <benjamingr_> | cc JakeA |
| 07:32 | <benjamingr_> | Found https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/425 |
| 07:35 | <JakeA> | benjamingr_: that's a response body going to a request body |
| 07:37 | <benjamingr_> | Right, I want to "proxy" a request from one server to another |
| 07:37 | <benjamingr_> | Basically, I want to 'forward' a request from the frontend without ever reading it into JavaScript, and hopefully I'd like to stream it so it's never even read into memory at once |
| 07:38 | <benjamingr_> | If you're interested - I can get into what's my motivation and why I need to be able to do this. Coincidentally, I'm also giving a "why use fetch" talk in a meetup in a few weeks and I wanted to brag about being able to do it. I actually do need it for real code though. |
| 07:39 | <JakeA> | benjamingr_: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=688906 |
| 07:45 | <annevk> | benjamingr_: request body streams are not implemented |
| 07:45 | <benjamingr_> | Thanks <3 Any ETA on that? |
| 07:50 | <annevk> | benjamingr_: for Fx I think it'll be 2018 |
| 07:50 | <annevk> | benjamingr_: not sure about Chrome |
| 07:50 | <annevk> | benjamingr_: cancelable fetch will be in nightlies in a month or two though, if that's any consolation |
| 07:51 | <tobie> | Shouldn't vars be given a little bit of breathing room in the stylesheets? |foo|[|bar|] looks cramped-up all the time. |
| 07:52 | <annevk> | tobie: we could also allow spaces around [ and ] |
| 07:53 | <benjamingr_> | Wow, that's very encouraging actually - with the fetchController API we discussed in that meeting? |
| 07:56 | <annevk> | benjamingr_: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/6484#issuecomment-315775251 has a good v1 summary |
| 07:56 | <benjamingr_> | Thanks, I remember that meeting |
| 07:56 | <annevk> | benjamingr_: we ended up generalizing a little bit to AbortController/AbortSignal since more APIs are interested |
| 07:57 | <benjamingr_> | Oh yeah, I saw the .signal API, it looked very handy, I can't wait to try these out in real code. |
| 07:57 | <annevk> | benjamingr_: we might still get Fetch* subclasses down the line though for the Fetch-specific stuff |
| 08:03 | <Zegnat> | annevk, thanks for the info and the validator link, it does look like that issue also addresses the <main> problem. I am not in a hurry and I am fine with shipping with validation errors in place, knowing that I am following spec regardless. Thanks. |
| 08:10 | <tobie> | annevk: so a padding-right of 0.1em is subtle but seems to help quite a bit already |
| 08:20 | <tobie> | Filed https://github.com/w3c/tr-design/issues/123 |
| 08:50 | <MikeSmith> | Zegnat: if you don’t get the same error with https://checker.html5.org/ I recommend you just use that instead |
| 08:51 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: they got the error on both validators linked from https://whatwg.org/validator/ |
| 08:51 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 08:52 | <MikeSmith> | well if it’s about <main> I’m not terrifically enthusiastic about sinking more time into checking related to <main> |
| 08:52 | <MikeSmith> | I think the best way to avoid errors about <main> is just to not use <main> |
| 08:53 | <MikeSmith> | but anyway I respond to github issues with specifics if there is a case where the checker is not conforming to the spec |
| 08:54 | <MikeSmith> | if it’s about <main> inside <article> then the core problem is that Ian specced it wrong |
| 08:54 | <MikeSmith> | he specced it in a way that nobody had asked for but that the thought himself was best |
| 08:54 | <MikeSmith> | so I would rather the spec be changed to not allow that |
| 08:56 | MikeSmith | reads more of scrollback |
| 08:57 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I think Domenic agreed with Ian in some whatwg/html <main> issue |
| 08:57 | <MikeSmith> | yeah if so Domenic was wrong about it too |
| 08:57 | <MikeSmith> | but I don’t have any energy left for that perma-argument |
| 08:58 | <annevk> | Yeah |
| 08:58 | <MikeSmith> | anyway Zegnat if you file a bug at https://github.com/validator/validator/issues I’ll fix it to conform to the spec |
| 09:01 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: there's https://github.com/validator/validator/issues/200 |
| 13:03 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/6595 can land now I think |
| 13:09 | <jgraham> | annevk: Done |
| 13:11 | <annevk> | ta |
| 14:06 | <annevk> | tobie: hope GH sends some money your way for that |
| 14:07 | <tobie> | annevk: :D. As long as it solves our problem, I'm fine the current outcome. |
| 14:32 | <bttf> | recently published this, would appreciate any feedback: http://blog.88mph.io/2017/07/28/understanding-service-workers/ |
| 17:30 | <wanderview> | JakeA: if we choose "friday" on the doodle... does that mean asia time zone folks are attending on Saturday morning? |
| 17:34 | <JakeA> | wanderview: yeahhhh Jungkee spotted that too. Fill it in for the day from your pov, and I'll take that into account when picking the actual day |
| 17:36 | <wanderview> | ok |
| 17:37 | <wanderview> | JakeA: oh, I guess we are talking tomorrow or Wednesday then if we want n8s to attend |
| 19:41 | <jgraham> | Oh look, Ms2ger |
| 23:13 | <MikeSmith> | bttf: http://blog.88mph.io/2017/07/28/understanding-service-workers/ is awesome |
| 23:14 | <bttf> | thanks! |
| 23:14 | <MikeSmith> | https://twitter.com/_adnanchowdhury/status/882713554427666432 is pretty awesome too :) |
| 23:14 | <bttf> | haha, yeah |
| 23:22 | <MikeSmith> | bttf: I add a link to your article in https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Service_Worker_API/Using_Service_Workers#See_also |
| 23:24 | <bttf> | MikeSmith oh wow, thank you! i appreciate it |
| 23:24 | <MikeSmith> | if/when you have time you might consider reviewing those SW docs there and improving them |
| 23:25 | <MikeSmith> | mainly it’s just https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Service_Worker_API/Using_Service_Workers at this point and that’s pretty slim |
| 23:25 | <MikeSmith> | you could hoist some details from your article into that |
| 23:25 | <MikeSmith> | just a suggestion |
| 23:26 | <bttf> | ah ok, definitely. just created my MDN acct now |
| 23:26 | <MikeSmith> | I been meaning to go in there and make some updates myself, but not sure when I will get time soon |
| 23:26 | <MikeSmith> | super |