| 05:10 | <railgun> | just made a series of PRs addressing some of the older issues, I'll be heading off for now |
| 09:32 | <annevk> | \o/ |
| 18:21 | <railgun> | annevk: if I merge the two paragraphs, do I need to keep the old section as well? |
| 18:22 | <railgun> | (for #860) |
| 18:45 | <annevk> | railgun: the old section contains loads more, no? |
| 18:46 | <annevk> | railgun: oh you mean, keep the audio element specific requirements? |
| 18:46 | <annevk> | railgun: they'd be redundant with media element requirements, so no |
| 18:59 | <railgun> | annevk: yeah that makes sense |
| 18:59 | <railgun> | just noticed that the audio element section would be talking about media elements if I didn't move it |
| 19:00 | <annevk> | railgun: ah yeah, we need to move it for that reason |
| 19:01 | <annevk> | railgun: thanks for all these fixes, I'll do more review later on, taking a break now |
| 19:03 | <railgun> | np, I'm enjoying this so far |
| 19:50 | <railgun> | it may be helpful to warn of nested <div w-nodev> tags (would also help if there was an easy way to figure out which sections are nodev imo) |
| 20:55 | <Domenic> | You can view the developer view to find out |
| 21:03 | <annevk> | Maybe we should bring back the stylesheet if we preserve those elements |
| 21:04 | <annevk> | We had an alternate stylesheet so you could see the diff more clearly in the main spec |
| 21:18 | <railgun> | Domenic: yeah that works (didn't realize html-build made a dev/ directory as well) |
| 21:21 | <railgun> | annevk: I'm not familiar with it, but I assume nodev sections had a box around them? |
| 21:50 | <MikeSmith> | yeah we should bring back the alternative stylesheet |
| 21:51 | <MikeSmith> | I think we should also add back the in-page UI that went along with it, for hide/show-toggling nodev parts |
| 21:52 | <MikeSmith> | I’ll make time soon to put together a PR |
| 21:54 | <MikeSmith> | in the mean time, PSA: the HTML checker now does JavaScript syntax checking of <script> contents |
| 21:55 | <MikeSmith> | though only classic scripts at this point, because the checker uses Rhino to do the syntax checking, and Rhino doesn’t support modules yet |
| 21:57 | <MikeSmith> | Rhino also doesn’t handle template literals, so I had to add some special-casing in the checker code to drop the error Rhino reports when it finds the backticks |
| 23:32 | <railgun> | hope I'm not doing too many of the good first issues, I'm just trying to get familiar with how things work (and fix things I think need to be fixed) |