| 00:12 | <jungkees> | annevk: once an auxiliary browsing context is disowned, is it still an auxiliary browsing context or becomes a (top-level) browsing context? |
| 05:22 | <annevk> | jungkees: disowning is somewhat broken |
| 05:27 | <annevk> | jungkees: but if you are auxiliary you can no longer become top-level atm |
| 16:52 | <domfarolino> | annevk: what might be the reason for allowing a null callback in addEventListener()? Seems like we null check and return in "add an event listener" algo |
| 17:00 | <annevk> | domfarolino: web compat presumably and old bindings that were less thought out |
| 17:05 | <domfarolino> | annevk: Ok. Also could you to provide me with an example of an idl interface that accepts a nullable? and at some point distinguishes between null and other values; one that is not RequestInit's signal would be great |
| 17:07 | <domfarolino> | if you can't recall one then no worries |
| 17:27 | <annevk> | domfarolino: cloneNode maybe? Nullable for methods is less of a pattern though, mostly go for optional (undefined) these days |
| 18:09 | <domfarolino> | Ok thanks |
| 18:11 | <mathiasbynens> | paragraph 3 of https://whatwg.org/working-mode#conflicts is happening right now over at https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1242 and it’s not going well |
| 19:09 | <annevk> | mathiasbynens: give it enough time and it’ll converge |
| 19:09 | <annevk> | mathiasbynens: document.all took a long time too 😊 |
| 19:36 | <domfarolino> | In general I agree with Domenic’s comments on matching the spec w/ reality and then moving forward from a solid foundation via the usual process. 👍 comment. |
| 19:38 | <annevk> | 👍 |
| 20:22 | <mathiasbynens> | yeah, that’s what I was trying to get across too |
| 20:22 | <mathiasbynens> | not sure why that’s so controversial |