| 02:40 | <MikeSmith> | https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-building-chromium-powered-web-browser-windows-10 |
| 02:40 | <MikeSmith> | > I'm told that Microsoft is throwing in the towel with EdgeHTML and is instead building a new web browser powered by Chromium, a rendering engine first popularized by Google's Chrome browser. Codenamed Anaheim, this new web browser for Windows 10 will replace Edge as the default browser on the platform. |
| 11:50 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: Yeah, really hoping that turns out to be misleading and they're actually not replacing Edge but some other HTML-rendering component. OTOH the fact that it seems so plausible even when unconfirmed should be very worrying to everyone. |
| 11:54 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: We’ll see, but I’m guessing it’s gonna turn out to not be misleading. It aligns with some hearsay somebody shared with me last month but that I was a lot more skeptical about til today. |
| 11:56 | <Ms2ger> | Might still be the same hearsay |
| 12:19 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: Oh, don't mistake me for an optimist. It's certainly a "is 7am too early to start drinking" kind of story. Just trying to apply some basic critical thinking even so. |
| 13:13 | <gsnedders> | For various circumstancial reasons, I'm inclined to believe this. :/ |
| 13:14 | <gsnedders> | That said, I still think the commits could be unrelated (and likely are, given MS wouldn't do such a thing without considering what might happen first): Chrome running on Win/ARM64 is pretty easy to argue as essential for the success for Win/ARM64. |
| 16:46 | <nox> | Does anyone have details about https://twitter.com/stubbornella/status/1069097850770870272? |
| 16:48 | <nox> | Domenic: Are "built-in JS modules" related to implementing DOM as JS? |
| 17:08 | <Domenic> | nox: nah, just putting new features in modules instead of globals. |
| 19:29 | <nox> | Domenic: Ack, thanks for the answer. |
| 22:44 | <domfarolino> | Domenic: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#processing-link-headers defers to the Web Linking RFC for Link header processing, and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-5 describes that Link headers are semantically equivalent to the <link> element, but there's no explicit fetching of Link headers anywhere right? |