| 02:18 | <Domenic> | Sebmaster: I tweeted at the spec author and CCed you |
| 02:18 | <Domenic> | Seems like a pretty bad oversight, lol |
| 04:45 | <annevk> | Sebmaster: apparently it was meant to be private still and I messed up |
| 05:32 | <Domenic> | oh dear |
| 05:54 | <vfrflj> | THIS IS A FREENODE BREAKING NEWS ALERT!! Hitechcg AND opal ARE GOING AT IT RIGHT NOW WITH A LOT OF FIGHTING AND ARGUING WOW YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS!! TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION...AGAIN TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION!! |
| 05:54 | <vfrflj> | THIS IS A FREENODE BREAKING NEWS ALERT!! Hitechcg AND opal ARE GOING AT IT RIGHT NOW WITH A LOT OF FIGHTING AND ARGUING WOW YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS!! TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION...AGAIN TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION!! |
| 05:54 | <vfrflj> | THIS IS A FREENODE BREAKING NEWS ALERT!! Hitechcg AND opal ARE GOING AT IT RIGHT NOW WITH A LOT OF FIGHTING AND ARGUING WOW YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS!! TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION...AGAIN TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION!! |
| 05:54 | <vfrflj> | THIS IS A FREENODE BREAKING NEWS ALERT!! Hitechcg AND opal ARE GOING AT IT RIGHT NOW WITH A LOT OF FIGHTING AND ARGUING WOW YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS!! TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION...AGAIN TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION!! |
| 05:54 | <vfrflj> | rego a-ja dboehmer howdoi plutoniix eric_carlson justJanne hendry karlcow dmiles dgrogan jsbell espadrine Garbee stalled kbrosnan Manishearth mpt yoav gavin__ hober XhmikosR globbot moo-_- scott_gonzalez felixsanz MikeSmith robertkowalski wakaba tomaw manu ricea beowulf MrMaxMeranda daurnimator Domenic jdescottes hayato aklein birtles lerc nox annevk miketaylr twisted` timeless Krinkle jschoi SimonSapin NavidZ Dashiva wcpan Bakkot cgbrews |
| 05:57 | <Domenic> | They always leave before I can kick them... |
| 05:57 | <a-ja> | cowards! |
| 06:08 | Krinkle | was watching The Terminal minutes before and heard Gupta say “You are a coward! You come *this* close to America.. Coward!” |
| 07:38 | <annevk> | nox: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/585#pullrequestreview-103789697 |
| 08:15 | <nox> | annevk: What about it? |
| 08:18 | <annevk> | nox: it's the thing you wrote a PR for once about resetting more state; question now is whether this other stuff should be reset too |
| 08:21 | <nox> | Oh. Seems to me like everything should be. |
| 09:06 | <nox> | Is w3c-test.org down? |
| 09:08 | <annevk> | It's here |
| 09:09 | <beowulf> | Hi, in the Participant Agreement what does "a person who does not work in the field of web technologies" mean? If I work for a SaaS company that builds HTML widgets but doesn't contribute to specs or browsers, do I meet the definition of not working in "field of web technologies"? |
| 09:11 | <annevk> | beowulf: I think so |
| 09:11 | <beowulf> | annevk: thanks |
| 09:19 | <nox> | annevk: Ah damn. Doesn't work for me. |
| 09:20 | <annevk> | nox: I was agreeing |
| 09:25 | <nox> | annevk: Oh. :) |
| 09:36 | <Domenic> | annevk: https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3472 would be nice to get reviewed and merged |
| 10:03 | <annevk> | Domenic: looking |
| 11:03 | <annevk> | Domenic: are you waiting with reviewing the StaticRange thing until impl have made the change? |
| 11:03 | <annevk> | Domenic: or should someone else review it? |
| 11:04 | <Domenic> | annevk: oh, hmm, I think I forgot. I guess since nobody else is stepping up, I should... Tomorrow, hopefully. |
| 11:05 | <annevk> | Domenic: I could ping that email thread with folks asking for it |
| 11:05 | <Domenic> | I mean, might be good to get more eyes/involvement. |
| 11:08 | <annevk> | I pinged Florian, Johannes, Gary, and Chaals who I had been emailing with to some extent about this |
| 11:08 | <annevk> | We'll see what happens |
| 11:09 | <annevk> | Maybe I should ping Chong too, looking at the blink-dev thread |
| 11:14 | <MikeSmith> | wptserve is running on the http://w3c-test.org/ host so I think the problem might be with the W3C firewall not allowing requests to get through to it |
| 11:15 | <MikeSmith> | which I can’t fix on my own, so will ping the systems team |
| 11:15 | <MikeSmith> | nox: ⬆ |
| 11:15 | <annevk> | Pinged them too (and some others on the blink-dev thread) |
| 11:15 | <nox> | MikeSmith: Ack, thanks. |
| 11:16 | <annevk> | Somehow I have the feeling that all these emails are typically in vain |
| 13:13 | <MikeSmith> | nox: http://w3c-test.org/ is back |
| 13:13 | <nox> | MikeSmith: You rock. |
| 13:15 | MikeSmith | leans gets up from his rocking chair to pat himself on the back |
| 14:56 | <smaug____> | annevk: so is the issue about the return value of dispatch algorithm or whether to return early? the initial comment hints about latter, but your latest comment former |
| 14:57 | <annevk> | smaug____: the return value of the returning early condition |
| 15:00 | <annevk> | I wonder if instead of returning early I should just invert the conditional and nest a whole bunch of steps |
| 15:00 | <annevk> | That would actually be a fair bit cleaner |
| 15:01 | <smaug____> | I think return value should be false, if the event was already canceled before dispatching |
| 15:02 | <smaug____> | did you test Gecko? |
| 15:02 | <annevk> | smaug____: Gecko throws on attachShadow |
| 15:02 | <smaug____> | what has this to do with attachShadow |
| 15:03 | <smaug____> | oh, retargeting |
| 15:03 | <annevk> | Anyway, I think I agree the return value should still branch on the canceled flag |
| 15:03 | <smaug____> | you could enable dom.webcomponents.shadowdom.enabled |
| 15:04 | <annevk> | smaug____: thanks, I didn't know we had that flag, I have custom elements enabled |
| 15:04 | <annevk> | although it seems that's enabled by default these days |
| 15:04 | <smaug____> | custom elements pref is enabled in Nighlies |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | smaug____: so yeah, Gecko returns false (doesn't clear target though if relatedTarget was in a shadow tree) |
| 15:06 | <smaug____> | annevk: right, the target clearing happens per (old) spec |
| 15:08 | <annevk> | The inverse of "If target is relatedTarget and target is not event’s relatedTarget" is "If target is not relatedTarget or target is event's relatedTarget", right? |
| 15:25 | <annevk> | Went with that |
| 22:57 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: from the ABNF at https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#http-new-header-syntax it currently seems not at all clear that the * wildcard is an allowed value for Access-Control-Allow-Methods and Access-Control-Allow-Headers |