| 02:57 | <wanderview> | JakeA: I know you love working on the train in the morning, so I posed a spec question for you: https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1228 |
| 02:57 | <wanderview> | although I think maybe I'm just confused or forgot something critical |
| 03:17 | <jugglinmike> | story of my life |
| 04:15 | <wanderview> | JakeA: sorry, jungkees already answered it... you'll have to shit post on twitter or something |
| 04:15 | <wanderview> | and I was right about forgetting something critical |
| 12:19 | <JakeA> | :D |
| 16:39 | <smaug____> | annevk: thanks for CCing to those SecurityPolicyViolationEvent issues. I was asking chris how much I should review the spec, but didn't get reply yet |
| 16:40 | <smaug____> | looks like the spec has issues and is being reviewed |
| 16:44 | <smaug____> | I wonder how the process could be improved. Too often not-good-enough specs are implemented and implementations even shipped before the spec gets proper review. |
| 16:55 | <Domenic> | smaug____: you could join the TAG ;). Or just monitor their design repo, which means you'll get a heads-up at Blink intent to implement time. |
| 16:59 | <smaug____> | Domenic: I think more important would be to get us developers to review the specs we implement, and also code reviewers. |
| 17:00 | <Domenic> | smaug____: I mean, yes, but given that different engines implement at different rates, that's not going to help you review things before they ship in other implementations. |
| 17:00 | <smaug____> | Domenic: oh sure, but atm it often happens specs don't get reviewed pretty much at all before implementing them |
| 17:01 | <Domenic> | Yeah, I think the issue is most implementers don't have spec-reviewing chops |
| 17:01 | <Domenic> | I try to encourage a culture of "if you had to make a decision that wasn't covered by the spec, something went wrong" but it seems people have not internalized that very much. |
| 17:05 | <wanderview> | Domenic: I think many times implementors end up "this is probably covered by the spec but I just don't understand its terminology", etc |
| 17:06 | <wanderview> | which isn't good either of course |
| 17:11 | <smaug____> | I like "if you had to make a decision that wasn't covered by the spec, something went wrong" |
| 18:59 | <annevk> | smaug____: I reviewed because you filed that issue, mostly ๐ |
| 19:01 | <annevk> | Domenic: smaug____: maybe we should put that somewhere prominent in specs until itโs common knowledge |
| 19:24 | <smaug____> | Specs should indeed shout quite loudly that whoever is implementing them, should review too |
| 19:31 | <smaug____> | (oh, and I'm not blaming spec authors here. Untested pseudo code just is untested pseudo code and writing specs is hard.) |
| 22:04 | <nox> | smaug____++ |