| 00:21 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: OK |
| 00:32 | ato | pictures MikeSmith as an experiment |
| 00:42 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 00:42 | <MikeSmith> | maybe it’s an experiment in increasing Firefox search revenue |
| 11:58 | <mkwst> | MikeSmith: If you can reproduce the error, please hop on https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=901477. |
| 11:59 | <mkwst> | It's a mostly-finished implementation of https://github.com/WICG/origin-policy that's apparently going haywire for you, and two other people. :) |
| 12:06 | <MikeSmith> | mkwst: thanks will do |
| 12:06 | <MikeSmith> | I can reproduce it 100%.. |
| 12:06 | <mkwst> | That is both excellent and terrible to hear! |
| 12:07 | <MikeSmith> | haha |
| 12:07 | <mkwst> | It would be helpful if you could grab a net log. |
| 12:07 | <mkwst> | https://www.chromium.org/for-testers/providing-network-details |
| 12:08 | MikeSmith | looks |
| 15:20 | <annevk> | I keep finding more Content-Type parsers in browsers |
| 15:20 | <annevk> | This cannot be good |
| 15:26 | <gsnedders> | This does not surprise me. |
| 15:39 | <annevk> | gsnedders: yeah, slowly getting there though in having the answers to how HTTP parses; not sure when we last talked about defining this, been a while |
| 15:41 | <gsnedders> | annevk: I don't think anyone has much since I played around a bit with it in about 2008/9. |
| 16:06 | <fserb> | hello folks :) |
| 16:06 | <ato> | annevk: Is there anything like floor(), max(), min() defined in WHATWG infra? |
| 16:14 | <annevk> | ato: we don’t even have numbers 😊 |
| 16:14 | <annevk> | ato: hopefully soonish though once BigNum is a thing |
| 16:15 | <gsnedders> | What's a number? ;P |
| 16:15 | <ato> | I wasn’t able to find any good uses in any CSS specs either. |
| 16:15 | <annevk> | Very much so gsnedders |
| 16:15 | <annevk> | Primitives are fun |
| 16:16 | <ato> | For the moment we have borrowed some of the one-line definitions of things like floor() from TC39. |
| 16:16 | <ato> | Basically copy-paste. |
| 16:16 | <annevk> | ato: seems fine, Encoding has some of this too btw |
| 16:17 | ato | looks |
| 16:18 | <ato> | Ah yes, we actually borrowed the logical grouping part from Encoding! |
| 17:19 | <jugglinmike> | Where is the Symbol.iterator property of HTMLCollection specified? |
| 17:20 | <gsnedders> | WebIDL |
| 17:20 | <TimothyGu> | jugglinmike: https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#es-iterator |
| 17:20 | <gsnedders> | jugglinmike: https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#es-iterator |
| 17:20 | <jugglinmike> | so fast, TimothyGu! Thank you! |
| 17:20 | <gsnedders> | oh, TimothyGu beat me |
| 17:20 | <jugglinmike> | gsnedders I'll give you partial credit |
| 17:21 | <jugglinmike> | Taking it on your word that you didn't just copy and paste TimothyGu's message |
| 17:21 | <gsnedders> | Promise I didn't! |
| 17:21 | <gsnedders> | Resolve(I didn't) |
| 17:22 | <jugglinmike> | Do you know why it's done this way? |
| 17:22 | <jugglinmike> | More specifically |
| 17:22 | <gsnedders> | I presume it was the easiest way to make it apply to everything? |
| 17:23 | <jugglinmike> | Do you know why it's specified externally rather than in the interface definitions themselves |
| 17:23 | <gsnedders> | And minimises the amount of work per interface? |
| 17:23 | <jugglinmike> | That would be my initial guess, but an optimization like that seems like an implementor's concern |
| 17:24 | <jugglinmike> | From a specification authoring standpoint, it seems too indirect |
| 17:24 | <gsnedders> | no more indirect than many other things in WebIDL? |
| 17:25 | <jugglinmike> | I don't know anything about that, but I'm wondering if maybe it shouldn't be in webIDL in the first place |
| 17:26 | <jugglinmike> | but that's a little ignorant |
| 17:27 | <gsnedders> | It avoids any inconsistency |
| 17:27 | <jugglinmike> | I'll need to figure out the WebIDL/DOM boundary before suggesting improvements like this |
| 17:28 | <gsnedders> | Remember that things like Array.prototype.* are spec'd to work based on .length and [n] alone |
| 17:29 | <jugglinmike> | That's actually why I'm here :) |
| 17:29 | <gsnedders> | (others probably know more about this than me, though!) |
| 17:33 | <ato> | Speaking of collections, I wish there was a single list of all of them. |
| 17:33 | <ato> | Some are defined in DOM and some in HTML. |
| 17:34 | <gsnedders> | I would like to get away from having to list Array-ish things in WebDriver |
| 17:34 | <ato> | That’s why I’m saying. |
| 17:36 | <jugglinmike> | ato: my silly ideas incoming :) |
| 17:38 | <annevk> | jugglinmike: it was done this way to easily migrate existing collections and ensure they all share the same behavior |
| 17:39 | <annevk> | jugglinmike: letting IDL do as much heavy lifting as possible is def preferred for consistency and quality |
| 17:41 | <jugglinmike> | annevk: got it |
| 17:43 | <jugglinmike> | annevk: does that mean that the multi-inheritance supported by DOM interface definitions is out of style? Or are there cases where it still makes sense to be specifying shared behavior with that mechanism? |
| 17:43 | <annevk> | jugglinmike: multi-inheritance? |
| 17:44 | <jugglinmike> | That's how I think of "[Exposed=Window, LegacyUnenumerableNamedProperties]" in https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-htmlcollection |
| 17:45 | <annevk> | jugglinmike: that’s not inheriting from multiple interfaces though, that just affects enumeration of properties |
| 17:48 | <jugglinmike> | ahah |
| 17:48 | <annevk> | Sorry for using “just”, it’s indeed all rather weird |
| 17:55 | <jugglinmike> | No worries, I took "just" to mean "exclusively" |
| 18:00 | <ato> | jugglinmike: I read that and thankfully I’m going for a drink soon. |