| 05:40 | <howdoi> | https://tc39.github.io/ecmascript-asyncawait/#examples what is `currentPromise` here? |
| 12:09 | <Domenic> | annevk: https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/4130 too, to minimize brokenness? |
| 12:21 | <Domenic> | Filed https://github.com/tobie/pr-preview/issues/24 for getting pr preview fixed for HTML |
| 13:35 | <Domenic> | zcorpan: can you help drive https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3819 to conclusion? Not sure if Yoshi is around today still for in-person discussion |
| 13:50 | <gsnedders> | someone needs to write a "make HTML multipage" web extension |
| 13:54 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders: what would that do? |
| 13:56 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: I mean, always redirect from single to multipage aggressively before the browser tries to render |
| 13:57 | <zcorpan> | Domenic: I need to leave for my plane about now |
| 14:09 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: who should I ask to update https://www.w3.org/wiki/Process/faq#Are_WHATWG_living_standards_permitted_as_normative_references.3F? given W3C is currently expected to soon not have any group chartered to working on HTML/DOM, it seems silly that the answer is anything but "yes"? |
| 14:10 | <Mek> | probably wait until the AC has approved the new process? |
| 14:11 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders: not me |
| 14:12 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders: plh I suppose |
| 14:19 | <gsnedders> | Mek: the bigger thing appears to be the Web Apps WG charter, given that decides whether or not HTML is working on at the W3C, AFAICT? |
| 14:19 | <gsnedders> | (I obviously have no idea what's going on with the AC discussions, for reasons of not having any AC rep to speak to.) |
| 14:24 | <Mek> | from what I understand the result of the AC vote will feed into the webapp WG charter discussions, assuming all goes to plan. But I don't really know much about this either |
| 14:25 | <Mek> | afaik all w3c members can at least see the minutes/agenda/slides for the AC meetings this week, so you might be able to have some idea of what is going on? But dunno... |
| 14:27 | <gsnedders> | there's some things on w3c-ac-members and w3c-ac-forum which are both MO only, but I thought more was AC-only? |
| 14:28 | <Mek> | probably, I have no idea what ac-only stuff exists. not an ac member myself either, just noticed that the agenda/slides/minutes were all readable by me... |
| 14:31 | <gsnedders> | I still dislike that the AC meeting is AC only, while basically everything that happens there is published in MO space. |
| 14:32 | <gsnedders> | I'd much rather it be open to all people with MO access (i.e., Team + Member reps + some IEs), and if really necessary kick non AC-reps out |
| 14:41 | <yoav> | zcorpan: For progressive images, is the time when the image is "completely available" after the image was fully downloaded and decoded? Reading the spec language I think it is, but wanted to verify |
| 14:49 | <zcorpan> | yoav: Yes same as non-progressive |
| 14:51 | <yoav> | zcorpan: cool, thanks! :) |
| 15:11 | <Domenic> | annevk: what is the most canonical/reliable way to generate a network error in WPTs? |
| 15:12 | <gsnedders> | Domenic: what sort of network error? |
| 15:12 | <annevk> | Domenic: I think we added something like invalid.web-platform.test, but I'm not sure |
| 15:12 | <Domenic> | gsnedders: "network error" as in the fetch spec. So not a bad status. |
| 15:15 | <Mek> | fetch spec tests seem to use /fetch/api/resources/bad-chunk-encoding.py to generate a certain kind of network error... |
| 18:27 | <domfarolino> | Domenic: probably you got an email but in case not, remaining worker descendant credential tests are up for review @ https://crrev.com/c/1301964, if interested |