| 08:00 | <annevk> | Domenic: yeah, I haven't really gotten review for any of the XHR fixes or the corresponding tests so I just let it go for a bit |
| 08:00 | <annevk> | Domenic: gonna be away for roughly two weeks so not gonna happen now either |
| 08:06 | <annevk> | The fact that opener and noopener are actually quite unrelated is bothersome and part of the reason why I wasted a ton of time trying to make them a similar thing while that was never a realistic option |
| 08:07 | <annevk> | noopener basically means open a new top-level browsing context that's not an auxiliary browsing context |
| 08:07 | <annevk> | And opener is a thing that many browsing context's WindowProxy's [[Window]] can have, due to targeted navigation... |
| 08:08 | <annevk> | We should have called noopener "fresh" or "isolated" or some such |
| 08:27 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: wonder if you have time to review https://github.com/validator/htmlparser/pull/5 |
| 09:12 | <justJanne> | By the way, on the topic of punycode (which was semi-limited due to known issues in some browsers), I've found a good example case of flüge.de. The site has no alternative domain to reach it, advertises as flüge.de, and all ascii domains that might be reasonable alternatives, e.g. fluege.de, are owned by competitors. And showing xn--flge-1ra.de (sorry if I typo'd, this is from memory) in the URL bar obviously just increases the risk for |
| 09:12 | <justJanne> | phishing (as a user won't be able to distinguish that site from e.g. xn--flge-2ra.de, or whatever) |
| 09:12 | <justJanne> | Just in case an example is needed for punycode discussions next time |
| 10:03 | <annevk> | foolip: could you take a look at https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2636? |
| 10:27 | <kochi> | annevk: related to https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/56#issuecomment-362517302 the other day I tried to find the definition of :defined() and ended up finding it in the HTML spec (prior to that I searched CSS selectors and other CSS specs) |
| 10:33 | <annevk> | kochi: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2258 |
| 10:36 | <kochi> | annevk: ah, you already raised the concern clearly. |
| 10:37 | <kochi> | The other complaint is that "defined" is quite search-unfriendly :) |
| 10:38 | <kochi> | You can find "defined" in almost all specs, while you can only find ":defined" in the HTML spec :-P |
| 10:39 | <kochi> | If ":defined()" is fine to be specified in the HTML spec, then e.g. "::slotted()" can be defined in the DOM spec. |
| 10:41 | <kochi> | IMHO all these pseudo classes and elements should be defined in the CSS Selectors spec. |
| 10:43 | <annevk> | As long as things are defined it's fine with me, but a registry of sorts would be nice |
| 11:11 | <kochi> | yeah, indeed. |
| 15:29 | <annevk> | hsivonen: https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/2056 |
| 16:05 | <Domenic> | annevk: status on https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3383 ? "do not merge yet" why? |
| 16:11 | <annevk> | Domenic: I was thinking of grouping it with any outline changes to hgroup, if any |
| 16:11 | <Domenic> | Hmm OK, seems like it could be done incrementally |
| 16:11 | <annevk> | Domenic: that's fine too; I wasn't sure if we'd keep hgroup around so changing it and then removing it seemed a little weird |
| 16:15 | <hsivonen> | annevk: looking |
| 16:33 | <hsivonen> | annevk: commented |
| 16:40 | <jyasskin> | kochi/annevk: Check out https://drafts.csswg.org/indexes/#selectors for that registry. It sometimes falls out of sync, but it's right today. |
| 16:44 | <annevk> | jyasskin: pretty cool |
| 23:07 | <kochi> | jyasskin: thanks for the pointer! |