| 04:58 | <domfarolino> | annevk: What is the expected destination of a request coming from `event.respondWith(fetch(event.request))` in a ServiceWorker? |
| 04:58 | <domfarolino> | annevk: Should it assume the destination of the input request, or be `""`, which seems to be the destination associated with `fetch()`s |
| 05:00 | <domfarolino> | annevk: Given https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-request > 13 doesn't copy over "destination" information, I imagine the destination will not be preserved, and thus will always represent fetch()? Or...? |
| 06:10 | <annevk> | domfarolino: correct |
| 06:10 | <annevk> | domfarolino: otherwise CSP could be misled |
| 06:11 | <annevk> | domfarolino: though perhaps for that specific scenario it could be ok |
| 06:12 | <domfarolino> | annevk: Yeah, I'm wondering if it would be helpful/non-breaking to copy over destination/initiator (context: https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/785#issuecomment-412253141) |
| 06:12 | <domfarolino> | (disclaimer: don't know much about CSP actually) |
| 06:14 | <annevk> | It’s not okay I just remembered |
| 06:15 | <annevk> | The service worker would have script access to the response, whereas the CSP policy might only expect it to render as image |
| 06:19 | <domfarolino> | Oh interesting. Will take a closer look tomorrow, that seems problematic |
| 07:30 | <annevk> | domfarolino: once priority is non-null it won’t be reset if you preserve it |
| 07:31 | <annevk> | domfarolino: so I think your PR comment does not apply |
| 11:16 | <annevk> | Hmm, Travis again had trouble reaching GitHub |
| 11:47 | <smaug____> | hayato: does blink have some optimization for mouseenter/leave which causes events to not be dispatched if ancestors don't have listeners? |
| 11:47 | <smaug____> | and is it possible that there is a bug when dealing with shadow DOM |
| 11:47 | <smaug____> | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1478959 starts to smell like website relying on some bug in Chrome |
| 13:10 | <domfarolino> | annevk: oops. Missed that |