| 05:48 | GPHemsley | put in his linguistic two cents |
| 07:45 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: The CSSWG approved me advancing the Shadow Parts spec <https://tabatkins.github.io/specs/css-shadow-parts/>; to ED. Part of this belongs in DOM, with the other shadow dom stuff. How do you want to handle this, especially as we'll probably be iterating on it? |
| 07:45 | <TabAtkins> | (This has good approval from Chrome, and other browsers don't have objections yet.) |
| 07:47 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: the part attribute is a superglobal? |
| 07:47 | <TabAtkins> | yeah |
| 07:47 | <TabAtkins> | name subject to change |
| 07:47 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: I guess the best would be to have a PR against DOM that we iterate on |
| 07:47 | <TabAtkins> | kk |
| 07:47 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: PRs automatically generate snapshot specs and HTML diffs |
| 07:48 | <TabAtkins> | excellent |
| 07:53 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: FWIW, pseudo-elements had a lot of interest from Apple and also various Mozillians at times |
| 07:54 | <TabAtkins> | yup |
| 07:54 | <TabAtkins> | Current feeling from Apple (per last comment from Ryosuke) is disapproval of ::theme(), but that won't affect the DOM part. |
| 07:55 | <annevk> | I guess I should read through it though I suspect we might lag behind a little bit due to not having implemented shadow trees just yet |
| 07:56 | <TabAtkins> | yeah. dbaron +1'd in the meeting |
| 08:20 | <annevk> | JakeA: you haven't run into https://twitter.com/philpennock/status/891734286864453632 yet |
| 08:23 | <JakeA> | I hadn't seen that |
| 08:23 | <JakeA> | annevk: haha brilliant |
| 08:23 | <JakeA> | Sure IRC cloud, deliver those messages in any order you want |
| 11:41 | gsnedders | feels zcorpan-OOO-14Au is somewhat failing at the OOO thing |
| 12:56 | <annevk> | mounir: didn't you look into deviceorientation at some point? |
| 13:55 | <wanderview> | rbyers: is jugglinmike still doing WPT stuff for you all? |
| 14:27 | <MikeSmith> | wanderview: jugglinmike is around on #testing and #webdriver on irc.w3.org |
| 14:27 | <gsnedders> | wanderview: (yes) |
| 14:27 | <wanderview> | ok, thanks |
| 15:05 | <wanderview> | MikeSmith: somehow I didn't even know that #testing channel existed! |
| 17:22 | <MikeSmith> | wanderview: yeah we should note it more prominently in the docs |
| 17:40 | <rbyers> | wanderview: Most of our Bocoup WPT work at the moment is going to the tooling infrastructure bobholt is With Apple's ServiceWorker announcement I'm very glad we had jugglinmike do the SW testing working (likelihood of Apple implementation was my #1 factor in choosing that as our top priority for Mike). I expect to get back to investing more in WPT suite improvements like that in 2018. |
| 17:43 | <jgraham> | like what? |
| 17:44 | <jgraham> | Like serviceworker? |
| 17:44 | jgraham | just checking he understands |
| 18:32 | <jugglinmike> | rbyers: welcome back! |
| 18:36 | <rbyers> | jgraham: Sorry missed your response. I'm not sure exactly what yet, but I'm convinced that there's likely to be an ongoing stream of high-value test suite improvements to be done (in parallel with our primary strategy of scalability via sustainable culture shift) |
| 18:40 | <rbyers> | ... On my list of areas to look into (below SW and WebRTC where we've already invested heavily) are Fetch, SVG, Grid, webdriver, web payments, WebVR? foolip likely has others. Let us know if you have other areas you'd like to see on our list... We'll have to evaluate more carefully closer to 2018.... |
| 18:40 | <rbyers> | jugglinmike: Thanks! |
| 23:00 | <MikeSmith> | did Apple actually make an announcement of Service Worker? |
| 23:01 | <MikeSmith> | (I’m of the related WebKit implementation bugs that have been raised, but can’t recall seeing an announcement) |
| 23:01 | <MikeSmith> | *Apple actually make an announcement about plans for Service Worker support |
| 23:05 | <MikeSmith> | JakeA: if you think we need a new mailing list for Service WG administrivia, lemme know. But by default I am reluctant to create any new mailing lists. Everybody repeatedly tells me we have too much already and they are tired of it |
| 23:05 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: they changed the status page to under development and landed the IDL into the repo |
| 23:06 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders: OK yeah I knew about the IDL landing but did not know about the status-page change |
| 23:07 | <MikeSmith> | anyway the fact that they are actually implementing is the best news about about the web runtime that’s come along for quite a while |
| 23:26 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/45516070/urlsearchparams-does-not-return-the-same-string-as-found-in-a-urls-parameters |
| 23:26 | <MikeSmith> | > last I checked the API doesn't support parameter arrays like foo[]=1&foo[]=2 |
| 23:35 | <Domenic> | That's some kind of PHP convention |
| 23:40 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: yeah people assume it should be supported natively everywhere I guess |
| 23:41 | <MikeSmith> | but anyway that comment was incidental the original question there |
| 23:41 | <MikeSmith> | regardless, nice to see somebody posting about URLSearchParams at SO |
| 23:43 | <gsnedders> | I think few people know quite what the URL level actually defines about query strings |
| 23:43 | <gsnedders> | esp. how little it does |