| 07:49 | <lgrahl> | jib: o/ |
| 07:50 | <smaug____> | did someone already create a searchfox instance for webkit? |
| 07:50 | <smaug____> | I think Ms2ger or someone was planning on doing it |
| 07:54 | <jib> | lgrahl: hi |
| 07:56 | <lgrahl> | jib: Going through your slides right now. Anything we need to talk about? :) |
| 07:57 | <jib> | lgrahl: you tell me ;) |
| 07:57 | <lgrahl> | Ok! |
| 07:57 | <lgrahl> | First two look good |
| 07:57 | <jib> | I left out a slide on stream of streams, as I didn't want to blow people's mindss |
| 07:57 | <lgrahl> | Yeah, I think that's a good idea. We can come back with that later. NV is still in its infancy. |
| 08:01 | <lgrahl> | Adding a couple of comments for you right now |
| 08:11 | <Domenic> | lgrahl: jib: still on track for streams stuff to start at 10:30? |
| 08:11 | <jib> | possibly, we have a 30 min break first |
| 08:12 | <jib> | maybe shortened to ~20 mins at this point |
| 08:12 | <Domenic> | OK, well, I'll be in the break area, feel free to grab me |
| 08:13 | <jib> | Domenic: breaking now, we'll start at 10:30 |
| 08:13 | <jib> | 15 min break |
| 08:36 | <lgrahl> | jib: Done with my comments now (I think) |
| 08:36 | <jib> | ok I hope I've addressed most of them |
| 08:41 | <lgrahl> | Domenic: Made it? :) |
| 08:41 | <Domenic> | Yep! |
| 09:04 | <Domenic> | This is going well :) |
| 09:08 | <lgrahl> | jib: Good work :) |
| 09:08 | <lgrahl> | Domenic: It was a lot of work getting them there though. |
| 09:09 | <jib> | lgrahl: thanks for your help! |
| 09:09 | <jib> | Domenic: thank you as well |
| 09:11 | <lgrahl> | Domenic: ^ that |
| 09:16 | <Ms2ger> | smaug____, no, wasn't me |
| 09:17 | <Ms2ger> | smaug____, though I saw a reference to http://178.128.32.224/ earlier |
| 09:32 | <lgrahl> | jib: I think one important question is: What of this should be in NV and what an extension? |
| 09:38 | <jib> | lgrahl: define "this" |
| 09:39 | <lgrahl> | streams for RTP, streams for all the other stuff |
| 09:41 | <jib> | define "NV" ;) |
| 09:41 | <jib> | I don't know the answer basically |
| 09:42 | <lgrahl> | Yeah, I guess my mindset is still kind of separating NV from 1.0 whereas it might actually evolve over time from 1.0 to NV |
| 10:01 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: looks like it is still not moving the <aside>s up into the body :(. https://travis-ci.org/whatwg/html-build/builds/445031916#L811 |
| 10:02 | <Domenic> | Hmm but wait it worked locally |
| 10:02 | <jib> | lgrahl: So it sounds like (at least from Peter's presentation) that there's some appetite for a dc.readable of type ReadableStream<ReadableStream<byte>> at least on the receiving end |
| 10:03 | <lgrahl> | jib: Yeah... we should discuss that after TPAC. Perhaps also with feedback from Domenic, annevk and co. |
| 10:03 | <jib> | so maybe we can add that as an alternative to dc.onmessage. I see fewer problems with that than with dc.writable |
| 10:03 | <jib> | yes for sure |
| 10:04 | <lgrahl> | I'm a bit reluctant due to the impact on the API but we'll see if we can figure something out that doesn't break things |
| 10:04 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: oh right, we don't run the conformance checker on local builds. So it's broken, yeah. Any chance you can fix soon, or should I do some reverts? |
| 10:04 | <jib> | lgrahl: yeah we can leave it out for now as well |
| 10:05 | jib | breaks for lunch |
| 12:03 | <yoav> | annevk: related to what we discussed on double-keyed caching, what's the best way to get from the relevent settings object to the origin of the top level document? |
| 12:08 | <yoav> | would "top-level browsing context's Document's origin" work? |
| 12:22 | <annevk> | No, a browsing context holds a sequence |
| 12:22 | <annevk> | So active doc perhaps |
| 12:42 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: sorry about crossed streams with our competing fixes. Happy to take a better fix if you have it :) |
| 12:53 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: no worries ー sorry for breaking the build |
| 12:53 | <MikeSmith> | but it’s still unclear to me how any of the <aside> could end up within <h5> |
| 12:54 | <MikeSmith> | because as far as the source I had goes, it doesn’t seem to me like it could happen |
| 12:54 | <MikeSmith> | and it only happened in the dev-edition output, which is also odd |
| 12:55 | <MikeSmith> | I guess there’s something I don’t understand that wattsi does differently when it generates the dev edition |
| 13:09 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: one thing I think we forgot about is, adding the styles for the annotations to the dev-edition output |
| 13:10 | <MikeSmith> | otherwise a couple things I notice are that there are now many cases where the annotations overlap with the spec text |
| 13:11 | <MikeSmith> | that’s the reason I had separate handling for the <p> cases, so that the annos get inserted after the <p> instead of before |
| 13:12 | <MikeSmith> | also we seem to have lost all the annotations for IDs that were heading descendants |
| 13:14 | <yoav> | annevk: so ""top-level browsing context's active document's origin"? |
| 13:20 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: yeah, I figured i would break stuff like that. |
| 13:20 | <Domenic> | I'll work on dev stylesheets |
| 13:21 | <Domenic> | How did we lose heading descendants I wonder |
| 13:21 | <Domenic> | I wonder if I can set up a Wattsi CI of some sort |
| 14:01 | <Ms2ger> | I'm sure you can :) |
| 14:08 | <annevk> | yoav: yeah |
| 14:11 | <yoav> | annevk: cool, thanks! :) |
| 15:17 | <smaug____> | jgraham: do you recall any wpt tests around selection handling? |
| 16:41 | <jgraham> | smaug____: Well there are tests for DOMRange, and maybe some editing testss, but idk if that's what you mean |
| 16:41 | <smaug____> | jgraham: was thinking something which mimics user interactions |
| 16:41 | <smaug____> | mousedown, move... up |
| 16:41 | <smaug____> | I guess that should just work |
| 16:42 | <smaug____> | or same with key events |
| 16:42 | <smaug____> | though, I don't know if wpt has very rich capabilities for key events |
| 16:42 | <jgraham> | smaug____: I'm not aware of any tests like that |
| 16:42 | <jgraham> | Key events are reasonably rich |
| 16:43 | <jgraham> | Meaning you can spcify individual up/down/multiple keys |
| 16:43 | <jgraham> | But you probably can't do anything involving an IME |
| 16:43 | <smaug____> | (some folks at editing TF were wondering about the testing, and complained that automated wpts aren't enough) |
| 16:43 | <smaug____> | right, IME is hard |
| 16:44 | <jgraham> | I suspect the situation for wpt got better in the last month or so, so if their information is older than that it's outdated |
| 16:48 | <smaug____> | jgraham: ok, thanks. I'll let them know |