| 06:44 | <MikeSmith> | botie, inform zcorpan about “Consider restricting <form accept-charset> to utf-8” https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3097 would it help if I added a use counter to the HTML checker? |
| 06:44 | <botie> | will do |
| 06:48 | <botie> | zcorpan, at 2017-12-19 06:44 UTC, MikeSmith said: “Consider restricting <form accept-charset> to utf-8” https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3097 would it help if I added a use counter to the HTML checker? |
| 06:57 | <domfarolino> | Domenic: Oh sorry was on mobile didn't see your message about #27 |
| 06:58 | <domfarolino> | Agreed, forgot about that issue I'll get on it |
| 08:26 | <annevk> | kochi: any thoughts on the date for the F2F? |
| 08:27 | <annevk> | kochi: I guess the week of March 5? |
| 08:37 | <kochi> | annevk: yeah, the week of Feb.26-Mar.3 have conflicts with Domenic and Ryosuke, so March 5 sounds good. |
| 08:38 | <annevk> | kochi: bit unfortunate for Tom Dale and the location change might also not be great for framework developers :/ |
| 08:39 | <annevk> | kochi: hopefully we can work out a better plan for that next time |
| 08:39 | <kochi> | annevk: yeah, but if we arrange properly, people can remotely dial-in/VC? |
| 08:39 | <annevk> | kochi: it might mean that we can't make much progress on new things |
| 08:39 | <annevk> | kochi: yeah maybe |
| 08:40 | <kochi> | so still I guess many are from US, Toronto would be best option? |
| 08:43 | <kochi> | annevk: how bad is it to set the date from Mar.5 - Mar.6? It would make people move on Sunday, so Mar. 6-7 ? |
| 08:43 | <annevk> | kochi: well, not if there's all kinds of travel trouble |
| 08:43 | <annevk> | kochi: 6-7 seems ok to me |
| 08:44 | <annevk> | kochi: Mozilla has a slight preference for Tokyo at this point (we might have 6 people attend) |
| 08:44 | <annevk> | kochi: but we'll make it work either way |
| 08:44 | <kochi> | annevk: wow, I didn't feel Tokyo was so preferred <3 |
| 08:46 | <kochi> | of course the best option for me is Tokyo, but considering everyone's travel, and timezone (some people might dial-in), I thought it would be the least option :) |
| 08:49 | <kochi> | annevk: In that case, as Ryosuke mentioned Tokyo is an option, let me propose Tokyo in the issue tracker? |
| 08:49 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: Maybe, if you know how to interpret the result of that data. The usage is pretty low per httparchive, but also it's sort of an opt-out mechanism, so it might be more useful to understand why it's being used. |
| 08:50 | <annevk> | kochi: sure |
| 08:51 | <kochi> | annevk: okay, then Tokyo, Mar. 6-7 is the primary option, and if no strong opposition is heard, let's go for the date/location. |
| 08:53 | <annevk> | kochi: k, maybe update the top post too |
| 08:54 | <kochi> | annevk: sure |
| 09:05 | <smaug____> | kochi: Tokyo sounds ok to me. I might travel to Taipei from there, or first to Taipei and then Tokyo. |
| 09:08 | <kochi> | thanks everyone! |
| 10:24 | <annevk> | miketaylr: hmm, I guess we forgot to talk about srcElement et al |
| 14:46 | <wanderview> | JakeA: damn it, your tests are better than mine |
| 14:47 | <JakeA> | wanderview: haha are you absolutely sure? |
| 14:47 | <wanderview> | no |
| 14:47 | <JakeA> | haha |
| 14:47 | <wanderview> | JakeA: but you have more of them |
| 14:48 | <wanderview> | bugzilla is sad today, so might not even be able to see our test |
| 14:53 | <annevk> | Domenic: I'll have a look at blog posts for "good first bug" |
| 14:53 | <annevk> | Domenic: please ping me if you're already on it |
| 14:55 | <annevk> | Domenic: https://blog.whatwg.org/github is updated |
| 14:56 | <annevk> | Domenic: https://blog.whatwg.org/html-standard-now-more-community-driven as well |
| 15:00 | <tantek> | annevk any chance that the old /web-apps/current-work/multipage links could be fixed to redirect to the right page rather than just the top of html.spec.whatwg.org ? |
| 15:00 | <tantek> | or maybe I should just file an issue |
| 15:02 | <annevk> | tantek: against https://github.com/whatwg/whatwg.org |
| 15:02 | <annevk> | tantek: they should redirect properly so yeah, that'd be a bug of sorts |
| 15:02 | <tantek> | ok |
| 15:13 | <tantek> | done: with example: https://github.com/whatwg/whatwg.org/issues/142 |
| 15:33 | <annevk> | thanks |
| 16:16 | <annevk> | Domenic: the other issue with non-custom translate was that it would appear in a different place from custom commits and issues |
| 16:16 | <Domenic> | annevk: fixed via the new ordering thing |
| 16:17 | <annevk> | Domenic: okay |
| 16:21 | <Domenic> | annevk: if we can get TabAtkins to merge the Bikeshed PR do you think we can merge the whatwg/url boilerplate update commit? Or do you want to wait on figuring out LICENSE vs. LICENSE.md? |
| 16:21 | <Domenic> | Basically I want to figure out if I should work on the other 10-ish PRs, or hold off. |
| 16:22 | <annevk> | Domenic: I'd like the LICENSE to be fully confirmed |
| 16:22 | <annevk> | Domenic: best to only do this once |
| 16:22 | <TabAtkins> | Will merge now, dang mobile UI won't let me merge until Travis completes, and by then I've forgotten about it. |
| 16:22 | <Domenic> | TabAtkins: don't merge it! |
| 16:23 | <Domenic> | Apparently we're not ready, says annevk. |
| 16:23 | <Domenic> | I'll add a comment. |
| 16:23 | <TabAtkins> | Oh! |
| 16:23 | <TabAtkins> | Kk |
| 16:24 | <annevk> | Domenic: using the text/plain variant makes the most sense to me given that's what CC distributes itself |
| 16:24 | <Domenic> | Hmm I guess. But the SG has already expressed a preference for Markdown pretty strongly :P |
| 16:24 | <annevk> | Domenic: I don't really know though how that works with the Copyright statement at the top; I guess that's a modification you just need to make? |
| 16:25 | <Domenic> | One of the CC pages said that part was optional. |
| 16:26 | <Domenic> | I think it's like people are on vacation enough that we won't get this resolved until the new year, which is kind of a shame, but doing this all once is indeed better. |
| 16:32 | <Domenic> | It'd be nice to not include that copyright statement at the top in LICENSE because I'd really like to avoid updating those every year. |
| 16:36 | <annevk> | Domenic: good point |
| 16:36 | <annevk> | Domenic: if we did have to add it, would GitHub still detect it as such? |
| 16:36 | <annevk> | Domenic: in https://github.com/domenic/test-license-stuff/blob/master/LICENSE that is |
| 16:37 | <annevk> | (thanks for testing!) |
| 16:40 | <Domenic> | Might as well find out |
| 16:41 | <Domenic> | Header seems fine |
| 16:43 | <annevk> | Domenic: assuming there's not some kind of cache, yeah |
| 16:43 | <annevk> | Domenic: but yeah, avoiding a Meta: commit each year would be great |
| 16:58 | <othermaciej> | Domenic: in your test repo, did you determine whether LICENSE vs LICENSE.txt makes a difference to recognition by GitHub? |
| 16:59 | <othermaciej> | Domenic: I think GitHub autorecognition trumps formatting, so we defiitely want plaintext over .md |
| 16:59 | <Domenic> | othermaciej: I didn't but I will |
| 16:59 | <Domenic> | I find the URL-not-changing point by annevk compelling though |
| 17:02 | <Domenic> | othermaciej: .txt works too it seems |
| 17:03 | <othermaciej> | Domenic: not sure what the URL not changing point is. Is it that the repos currently contain files named just plain LICENSE? |
| 17:03 | <Domenic> | othermaciej: yeah exactly |
| 17:03 | <Domenic> | othermaciej: opinions on whether the changing-every-year copyright line is necessary? |
| 17:06 | <othermaciej> | Domenic: the first few popular open source projects that I checked on GitHub all have a copyright statement in the LICENSE file |
| 17:09 | <othermaciej> | Domenic: I randomly sampled 8 projects from the top 20 most popular on GitHub according to some list, and they all had a copyright notice in the LICENSE file |
| 17:09 | <Domenic> | Well, I guess if we want to be _conformist_, the path is clear... ;) |
| 17:09 | <othermaciej> | So it seems to be common practice. Whether it is absolutely required, I'd have to ask a lawyer, but I would be inclined to go with the common practice. |
| 17:10 | <Domenic> | Maybe include it without the year? |
| 17:11 | <othermaciej> | I have been told before that it's never correct to have a copyright notice without a year, but again I'd have to ask a lawyer to be sure |
| 17:11 | <Domenic> | Ah well. |
| 17:11 | <Domenic> | Maybe I'd feel better if we just delayed until 2018 so I don't have to do all these PRs twice |
| 17:11 | <Domenic> | Or maybe I should invent a tool that submits PRs to all repos to update their copyright year! |
| 17:12 | <othermaciej> | It would be ok to have an automated process update the year, either automatically on the 1st, or on the first commit in a given year |
| 17:12 | <Domenic> | Relevant XKCDs: https://xkcd.com/1319/ https://xkcd.com/1205/ |
| 17:13 | <othermaciej> | Could make it a check on PRs for instance, that a PR must update LICENSE to the current year if not already up to date |
| 17:13 | <othermaciej> | heh, everyone knows programmers can't resist going into the shaded regions of that chart |
| 17:14 | <othermaciej> | ah, wait, I misunderstand the shading I think. But you know what I mean. |
| 17:16 | <astearns> | "Can I automate 90% of this 1-hour task so I could do it 50+ times a day?" |
| 17:18 | <Domenic> | ^_^ |
| 17:19 | <othermaciej> | Domenic: if you decide between LICENSE or LICENSE.txt and I'll update the sg repo to plaintext license in the matching filename. (Or feel free to just send a PR to that effect) |
| 17:19 | <Domenic> | othermaciej: I'll go with no extension. I'll work on the PR too. |
| 17:20 | <Shreya> | Domenic: Please review my pull request https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3303 |
| 17:20 | <Domenic> | Shreya: yep, it's on my to-do list, hopefully today! |
| 17:51 | <othermaciej> | hmm, I just noticed that Console has multiple listed Editors in Workstreams.md, but all the policies assume one per Workstream |
| 17:58 | <wanderview> | I don't know how many times I can describe the same thing in https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3054 |
| 18:00 | wanderview | gives up |
| 18:00 | <annevk> | wanderview: yeah dunno |
| 18:01 | <annevk> | wanderview: FWIW, the main thing I wanted to do here is to point out the fingerprinting concern |
| 18:01 | <wanderview> | annevk: its more than fingerprinting, no? its tracking |
| 18:01 | <wanderview> | maybe thats the same thing |
| 18:01 | <annevk> | wanderview: we have some kind of fingerprinting logo we use to alert implementers to the fact that those features might need special consideration under more privacy-sensitive settings |
| 18:01 | <wanderview> | ok |
| 18:52 | <wanderview> | annevk: hah... now that person is asking that I define "privacy" for them |
| 19:03 | <Domenic> | I'm not sure what to do with that person... they are very aggressive |
| 19:04 | <Domenic> | But not in a way that crosses any lines, just ... really derails otherwise-productive discussions. |
| 19:10 | <annevk> | Just needs some coaching I hope |
| 19:10 | <jyasskin> | Amusing that "guest271314" doesn't believe people should worry about privacy. ;) |
| 19:13 | <othermaciej> | From reading the issue, WebKit would definitely need to disable or partition BroadcastChannel in some contexts when/if we implement it, to support our privacy features |
| 19:17 | <wanderview> | I wish github had a mute button |
| 19:20 | <othermaciej> | If it was good faith questions, I could at least explain the privacy property that WebKit aims to preserve with our Intelligent Tracking Prevention feature |
| 19:20 | <othermaciej> | Defining "privacy" in general seems way too broad though |
| 19:20 | <annevk> | I think they’re good faith |
| 19:21 | <annevk> | The problem is that person not doing some research first |
| 19:28 | <wanderview> | at least I know I'm not insane... I was starting to wonder if I was just typing gibberish |
| 19:28 | <wanderview> | well, probably not |
| 19:29 | <othermaciej> | I gave what I hope is a useful answer |
| 19:29 | <othermaciej> | at least about ITP, not on the more general "define privacy" question |
| 19:37 | <zcorpan> | annevk I don't have the bandwidth to review FP, but if chrome shipped the behavior change for allowfullscreen and it hasn't been reverted then it seems that should be done in the other engines also |
| 19:37 | <annevk> | zcorpan: I guess so |
| 19:38 | <zcorpan> | If FP does that to allowfullscreen then I guess my allowfullscreen PR can be closed, referencing the new one |
| 19:44 | <annevk> | Good point |
| 19:54 | <Domenic> | Today-I-learned [NoInterfaceObject] prevents x.constructor from existing. |
| 20:00 | <annevk> | I hope we can get rid of it completely still |
| 20:19 | <wanderview> | annevk: whether its intentional or not, I don't think this person is contributing constructively |
| 20:44 | <annevk> | wanderview: yeah... |
| 23:02 | <Domenic> | annevk: FYI https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3242 is nice but just waiting for tests. |