| 00:48 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: the following WebIDL isn’t syntactically valid? |
| 00:48 | <MikeSmith> | [Exposed=Window] |
| 00:48 | <MikeSmith> | interface Example { |
| 00:48 | <MikeSmith> | // this is an IDL definition |
| 00:48 | <MikeSmith> | }; |
| 00:51 | <TabAtkins> | That seems to work. Is highlighter complaining? |
| 00:52 | <TabAtkins> | Its webidl parser is relatively old at this point, I should update it. |
| 00:53 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: Yeah the highlighter chokes on it |
| 00:53 | <MikeSmith> | echo '["pre", { "class": "idl extract" }, "[Exposed=Window]\ninterface ", [ "dfn", "Example" ], " {\n // this is an IDL definition\n};" ]' | python2.7 ./highlighter/__init__.py webidl |
| 00:53 | <MikeSmith> | => Exception: IDL SYNTAX ERROR LINE: 1 - skipped: "[Exposed=Window] ... |
| 00:54 | <MikeSmith> | that is the very first example in the spec |
| 00:55 | <TabAtkins> | I just updated widlparser and pushed, and it seems to work just fine now. |
| 00:55 | <MikeSmith> | well, code example at least |
| 00:55 | <MikeSmith> | oh cool |
| 00:55 | MikeSmith | pulls |
| 00:57 | <MikeSmith> | hmm still fails for me, with the same error |
| 00:57 | <MikeSmith> | even after pulling |
| 00:58 | MikeSmith | does find . -name *.pyc | xargs rm |
| 00:59 | <MikeSmith> | ... gets same error |
| 00:59 | <TabAtkins> | Huh, that's odd. |
| 01:00 | <TabAtkins> | Ah, I'm getting it now with your exact example. Hm. |
| 01:00 | <TabAtkins> | Oh, duh, it's the ["dfn"]. |
| 01:00 | <TabAtkins> | It needs a {} as the second arg! |
| 01:00 | <MikeSmith> | aha |
| 01:00 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I ran into that before |
| 01:01 | <MikeSmith> | I guess I need to change the serializer code I wrote for wattsi to always emit that |
| 01:01 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah. |
| 01:01 | <MikeSmith> | k |
| 01:01 | <MikeSmith> | thanks |
| 01:02 | <TabAtkins> | (The error hints at this - it just says `interface {`, with no name.) |
| 01:02 | <MikeSmith> | ah yeah |
| 01:02 | MikeSmith | adds the {} |
| 01:03 | <MikeSmith> | sweet yeah it works |
| 01:12 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: btw whenever I pull I need to do a git checkout first |
| 01:13 | <MikeSmith> | otherwise git says error: cannot pull with rebase: You have unstaged changes |
| 01:14 | <MikeSmith> | ...because of pygments/__init__.pyc being under version control and it gets regenerated when I run the highlighter/__init__.py script |
| 01:14 | <MikeSmith> | maybe you want to git rm pygments/__init__.pyc |
| 01:18 | <TabAtkins> | Ah, indeed, I'll fix |
| 01:21 | <MikeSmith> | super |
| 02:33 | <smaug____> | igrigorik: https://github.com/wicg/event-timing |
| 02:33 | <smaug____> | what is duration trying to capture |
| 02:35 | <smaug____> | igrigorik: remember that 'Update the rendering' is basically end of task model |
| 02:35 | <smaug____> | not "UA will actually update rendering at this time" |
| 02:35 | <smaug____> | UA may decide, per spec, to not update rendering of documents |
| 02:36 | <smaug____> | igrigorik: or perhaps you know who to ask about that proposal |
| 02:39 | <smaug____> | filed https://github.com/WICG/event-timing/issues/6 |
| 06:24 | <annevk> | Thanks smaug____, filed an issue too |
| 06:25 | <annevk> | I wish folks would be better about filing upstream early |
| 07:27 | <domfarolino> | JakeA: CC'd self on http://crbug.com/849952 as I may be interested in implementing, but it'll be on the backlog unfortunately (just figured I'd mention tho) |
| 07:29 | <JakeA> | domfarolino: Ohh cheers! |
| 07:32 | <JakeA> | annevk: ohhhhh so I should be using the "core" component? Seems weird that isn't signposted on https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi |
| 07:34 | <annevk> | JakeA: yeah, dunno |
| 07:35 | <annevk> | JakeA: I've tried to improve some aspects of that Bugzilla instance, but there's quite a lot of apathy from peers so I stopped caring |
| 07:35 | <JakeA> | fair enough |
| 11:06 | <MikeSmith> | what RFC states the requirement that quoted parameter values must use double quotes? (rather than single quotes) |
| 11:23 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: HTTP RFC? |
| 11:23 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: might be since the dawn of MIME though |
| 13:10 | <wanderview> | JakeA: annevk: I highly recommend using the "find product" search box on the new bug page |
| 13:10 | <wanderview> | for example, if you type "service worker" in there it will give you CORE:DOM:ServiceWorkers, etc |
| 13:12 | <annevk> | neat |
| 16:23 | <bkardell> | I'm a little confused on https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/468 discussion about fake-shadow-root ... this is the thing referred to also as virtual-shadow-root, yes? |
| 16:28 | <bkardell> | annevk said interested in seeing how this translates into a proper specification" but domenic also said "what's interesting is that the UA stylesheet-based spec text and the virtual-shadow-root based spec text are almost exactly equivalent in their observable consequences" |
| 16:33 | <bkardell> | sorry, so many conversations/overlapping ideas - it can get a little confusing and hard to backtrack to the real thing |
| 16:40 | <GPHemsley> | I didn't know we'd upped the price of standards to two bits |
| 17:29 | <domfarolino> | annevk: Would you mind taking a look at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=532782 and see if my take on it is correct? |
| 17:31 | <annevk> | domfarolino: yeah |
| 17:31 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: hah |
| 17:31 | <annevk> | domfarolino: not sure if we have good tests, but that seems accurate |
| 17:32 | <annevk> | bkardell: Domenic focusing on what it actually means helps |
| 17:32 | <Domenic> | bkardell: yes, I am having a hard time understanding as well. Tried to straighten out a bit... |
| 17:32 | <annevk> | I'm still confused though |
| 17:32 | <bkardell> | Domenic, yes, I gave you a 👍 on that - thank you :) |
| 17:33 | <bkardell> | annevk, are you mostly confused in _how_ it is treated that way in the virtual/fake case? |
| 17:35 | <annevk> | bkardell: I basically don't understand what people mean when they say "fake shadow root" |
| 17:43 | <bkardell> | As I understand it, it is really simply saying what Domenic recapped - but I wanted to know if that is what we were saying. Effectively this applies to, more or less, how you match selectors in 3rd arg stylesheet? |
| 17:45 | <bkardell> | in other words, I think there is no new 'node' in here or anything |
| 17:45 | <annevk> | Domenic: I think you need to make your last bullet point more specific as to which style sheet you would use that selector in |
| 17:45 | <annevk> | Domenic: I think rniwa is saying that such a selector would not work here |
| 17:51 | <Domenic> | annevk: hmm, I thought such selectors worked with shadow DOM today, but maybe I should have tested |
| 17:54 | <bkardell> | Domenic, they said they implemented in chrome, will it be in nightlies or something? |
| 17:54 | <Domenic> | Might be in Canary behind a flag, not sure, might just be on rakina's local machine... |
| 17:55 | <bkardell> | I wonder if maybe a good thing would be for rakina to create demo illustrating the test cases and say 'you can get release x and flip such and such flag' - then people could just actually see/play with it and ask better questions... is that a reasonable thing to ask on the thread? |
| 17:56 | <Domenic> | Yeah maybe. |
| 18:04 | <bkardell> | done |
| 19:35 | <domfarolino> | annevk: ta for checking |
| 19:38 | <domfarolino> | I'll check out the tests (if any) we have around that |
| 19:58 | <Domenic> | annevk: is https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3742 ready for review or should I hold off? |
| 22:51 | <undefined_> | anyone here? |
| 22:53 | <domfarolino> | should be |