| 00:04 | <Domenic> | Oh no, Quirks Mode doesn't have a Twitter account /cc zcorpan |
| 00:04 | <zcorpan> | oh no! |
| 00:05 | <Domenic> | And its web platform tests directory is different than its spec shortname |
| 00:05 | <zcorpan> | no it does have one, https://twitter.com/quirksstandard |
| 00:05 | <Domenic> | Ah! Well then that'll get added to the header shortly :) |
| 00:06 | <Domenic> | lol we need to fix its logo |
| 00:07 | <Domenic> | Hmm it doesn't have its own logo, it's created with CSS |
| 07:41 | <annevk> | One day you have shared memory, and then you don't |
| 07:43 | <KiChjang> | sometimes you need to retrace your steps in order to move forward |
| 08:35 | <JakeA> | annevk: is Firefox thinking of changing its shared content process model in light of this? |
| 08:36 | <annevk> | JakeA: I don't know |
| 08:36 | <annevk> | JakeA: is Chrome considering not having a limit? |
| 08:38 | <JakeA> | annevk: I believe so. https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/site-isolation |
| 08:38 | <JakeA> | If I understand it right, that means one process per similar origin |
| 08:38 | <annevk> | Mark Miller is certainly vindicated in putting all the authority in the URL and then not having the URLs leak somehow |
| 08:39 | <annevk> | Not that I know any system that fully works that way, but it would not have been vulnerable today |
| 08:39 | <annevk> | Ambient authority strikes again |
| 08:39 | <annevk> | JakeA: sure, but Chrome has a limit at which it stops doing that |
| 08:40 | <JakeA> | Ahh ok. Didn't know. |
| 09:24 | <foolip> | annevk: I'm going to review https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/579 with tests now, anything to look out for? I see "Add more tests" not checked. |
| 09:25 | <annevk> | foolip: I think I've added more tests since and Domenic might have even run some code coverage check |
| 09:26 | <annevk> | foolip: so I think I simply forgot to check it, but perhaps there's things I've overlooked |
| 09:27 | <foolip> | tobie: is it you or "us" that controls that https://whatpr.org/fetch/579.html includes the big red warning? excluding it would be nice, because the sha is wrong, and results in two changes that are invisible when navigating. (changes 3 and 4) |
| 09:27 | <foolip> | annevk: I'll take a look then. |
| 09:27 | <annevk> | foolip: it seems some comments from Domenic about the tests went unaddressed |
| 09:28 | <annevk> | foolip: the red warning is important |
| 09:29 | <foolip> | annevk: you don't think the URL alone will scare people away? |
| 09:29 | <annevk> | foolip: no |
| 09:29 | <foolip> | OK then :) |
| 09:29 | <annevk> | foolip: standards are hosted in so many different places that URLs unfortunately are not clear enough |
| 11:42 | <tobie> | foolip: it is you. Fixing the sha would be good though. |
| 11:42 | <tobie> | foolip: what's wrong with it? |
| 11:43 | <tobie> | foolip: I'm not too sure what you mean by: "results in two changes that are invisible when navigating" |
| 11:45 | <tobie> | foolip: note that you can specify how you pass the parameters to bikeshed via the config file, see: https://github.com/tobie/pr-preview#params-optional |
| 11:47 | <tobie> | Is it ok to put a dfn in a non-normative section? |
| 11:55 | <annevk> | tobie: it seems rather questionable |
| 11:55 | <tobie> | annevk: yeah, which is precisely why I'm bringing it up here. |
| 11:55 | <foolip> | tobie: in https://whatpr.org/fetch/579/07999e9...3ee4d8e.html, notice what happens when you press next a few times |
| 11:55 | <foolip> | tobie: the warning is collapsed and so there's nothing to see |
| 11:56 | <annevk> | tobie: I'd say no and try to refactor, but hard without context |
| 11:56 | <foolip> | can't really see how to fix that though |
| 11:57 | <annevk> | foolip: in that scenario you're reviewing a specific diff, no? |
| 11:57 | <tobie> | annevk: I was trying to create an informative section about legacy WebIDL constructs, as there's often confusion with editors wrt to legacy vs deprecated from WebIDL |
| 11:58 | <annevk> | tobie: seems that could be normative to some extent, as we have requirements around such constructs for new standards |
| 11:59 | <tobie> | annevk: agreed, but "new standards" are not a conformance class |
| 11:59 | <tobie> | (maybe they should be?) |
| 12:00 | <tobie> | foolip: oh, I see, the collapsed warning is hiding stuff away? |
| 12:00 | <annevk> | tobie: standards are to some extent, at least lots of specs make various requirements of them |
| 12:00 | <annevk> | tobie: hard to test though |
| 12:01 | <tobie> | annevk: yeah |
| 12:02 | <tobie> | foolip: (fyi, you can navigate HTML diffs using the "j" and "k" keys) |
| 12:14 | <Ms2ger> | zcorpan, do you still deal with chromium? |
| 12:16 | <zcorpan> | Ms2ger: not currently |
| 13:07 | <tobie> | annevk: your thoughts on https://github.com/heycam/webidl/pull/506 welcomed (informative section on legacy constructs) |
| 13:29 | <Zegnat> | I am probably overlooking a thing, but maybe someone here can just tell me: when getting the textContent of an HTML void element, should that result in null or an empty string? |
| 13:33 | <annevk> | Zegnat: empty string I'd expect |
| 13:34 | <annevk> | Zegnat: though I think you helped me find a bug as https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-node-textcontent does not really say what happens when there are no Text node children |
| 13:35 | <annevk> | Zegnat: would you like to appear in the Acknowledgments section? |
| 13:35 | <annevk> | (and if, how?) |
| 13:35 | <Zegnat> | Oh, that would be pretty cool. What information usually goes there? Name and URL? |
| 13:35 | <Zegnat> | Ah, just name. "Martijn van der Ven{ |
| 13:36 | <Zegnat> | Yeah, “empty string” would lead me to ask the question “how do I concat 0 nodes” ;) |
| 13:38 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, looks like ordered set serializer is the only use of "concatenation" in the spec that considered that case |
| 13:38 | <Ms2ger> | Maybe we should just define "concatenation" in infra.swo |
| 13:41 | <Zegnat> | I feel slightly vindicated now that it seems I didn't really overlook anything. Ha. |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: sounds reasonable; guess I should audit callsites |
| 14:52 | <annevk> | tobie: sorry, maybe tomorrow |
| 14:55 | <domfarolino> | Domenic: annevk: thanks for the PR reviews, gonna be MIA for the next couple days just FYI! |
| 14:55 | <annevk> | domfarolino: enjoy the other thing! |
| 15:14 | <annevk> | Zegnat: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/555 |
| 15:20 | <Zegnat> | annevk, I subscribed for notifications. For now I am going to assume empty string. |
| 15:21 | <annevk> | Zegnat: yeah, that's what it should be |
| 15:21 | <annevk> | Zegnat: that's what all impls do anyway, iirc |
| 15:24 | <domfarolino> | thanks! |
| 15:26 | <Zegnat> | Looks like it is what implementation do, yes. |
| 15:26 | <Zegnat> | It still feels a little odd to me on HTML void elements. Elements with content model "nothing" can never have a Text node descendent, so empty string (which could be an empty Text node descendent, IIRC) is not obvious to me. |
| 15:28 | <annevk> | Zegnat: have you ever tried to appendChild to a void element? |
| 15:29 | <annevk> | Zegnat: (aka content model is not an actual limitation) |
| 15:30 | <nox> | Also, templates. |
| 15:31 | <Zegnat> | True, it totally makes sense from the DOM point of view. It just didn’t make sense in my head when I ended up doing textContent on a void element. |
| 15:32 | <Zegnat> | I will never forget how textContent works after today though. After spending way too long on figuring out this concat thing before asking here. |
| 16:23 | <TabAtkins> | "How to concat 0 nodes" strings form a monoid under concatenation, so "empty string" is the correct answer. ^_^ |
| 16:33 | Ms2ger | ignores |
| 16:34 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, parsing "data,x" into a URL, what happens? |
| 17:39 | <Domenic> | TabAtkins: https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed/issues/1161 is somewhat high priority as it'd be sad to lose those legacy open bugs links when transitioning to new WHATWG boilerplate. |
| 17:50 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: without a base URL you'd get failure |
| 17:50 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: "absolute URLs" need a scheme |
| 18:02 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic: Will check on it as soon as I'm in the office |
| 18:02 | <Domenic> | <3 |
| 18:50 | <annevk> | Domenic: I'll try to come up with some CSS suggestions for the redesign tomorrow |
| 18:51 | <Domenic> | annevk: I gave it a shot myself, might be good enough? |
| 18:53 | <Domenic> | At least for the homepage |
| 18:53 | <Domenic> | Secondary pages I'm less sure |
| 18:53 | <annevk> | Domenic: I'd go for more space at the top still |
| 18:54 | <annevk> | Domenic: looks very cramped on a large display at least |
| 18:54 | <Domenic> | Hmm yes that change got lost it seems |
| 18:54 | <annevk> | I also miss the color a bit, admittedly |
| 18:55 | <annevk> | I also think we should stick with images/ and not have this legacy dir and new dir, but that's rather minor |
| 18:56 | <Domenic> | I think images/ is a lost cause |
| 18:56 | <annevk> | Still doesn't have that much spacing at the very top |
| 18:56 | <annevk> | I don't think so |
| 18:56 | <Domenic> | Oh very top hmm |
| 18:56 | <annevk> | If it was, /principles would be too |
| 18:56 | <Domenic> | I think principles is too actually |
| 18:56 | <annevk> | It works fine here |
| 18:56 | <Domenic> | Although perhaps nobody visited it before |
| 18:57 | <Domenic> | Yeah |
| 18:57 | <annevk> | And I had visited it |
| 18:57 | <annevk> | For sure |
| 18:57 | <Domenic> | Hmm |
| 18:58 | <Domenic> | Well I'll leave it all be for now, top spacing and /img works for me, but when you have time we can revisit |
| 19:03 | <annevk> | Domenic: the big thing with the tabbed pages is the boxes not being clickable btw |
| 19:03 | <Domenic> | Yeah that's easy to fix |
| 19:04 | <annevk> | Domenic: which you can solve with some display:block float:left trick |
| 19:04 | <annevk> | Or maybe it's easy with flexbox these days? |
| 19:04 | <Domenic> | Yeah I think flexbox or similar |
| 19:04 | <Domenic> | It's fixed on the homepage |
| 19:04 | <Domenic> | Just gotta port that |
| 19:04 | <annevk> | I only know 2006 era CSS |
| 19:04 | <Domenic> | Well our homepage only works in modern browsers after this redesign |
| 19:45 | <TabAtkins> | Grid yo, stop doing crazy float hacks. Hide it inside a @supports block and let down-level browsers get a minimal but useful bare-HTML view. |
| 20:03 | <Domenic> | No need to hide within @supports for that, right? |
| 20:06 | <TabAtkins> | Depends on how much code beyond the base Grid declarations you're applying - if you've got styling that would be bad when Grid's not there, you want @supports to group it together. |
| 20:48 | <Domenic> | TabAtkins: are deploys to api.csswg.org instant for new bikeshed boilerplate? |
| 20:48 | <TabAtkins> | Nearly so - the server has a commit hook on the repo. |
| 20:48 | <Domenic> | Hmm hmm |
| 23:16 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: align-items: left & align-items: left are no valid, right? |
| 23:17 | <MikeSmith> | perhttps://drafts.csswg.org/css-align-3/#propdef-align-items |
| 23:17 | <TabAtkins> | Nah, they're fine. (And you repeated the same thing twice; I presume one meant to refer to "right"?) |
| 23:17 | <TabAtkins> | *-items take the same grammar as *-self. |
| 23:17 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 23:18 | <TabAtkins> | ...huh, we didn't put left and right into the grammar terms. I think that's a mistake. |
| 23:18 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: OK but if I follow the links in Values part there I find nothing that allows "left" or "right" |
| 23:18 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK |
| 23:18 | <MikeSmith> | should I file an issue? |
| 23:19 | <MikeSmith> | or if you can just update the spec source, I am happier with that :) |
| 23:19 | <TabAtkins> | I just pinged fantasai. |
| 23:19 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 23:19 | <MikeSmith> | thanks |