| 00:00 | <domfarolino> | sounds more like cancellable promises than just an extension of abortable fetch |
| 00:59 | <fantasai> | Would someone mind reopening https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/284 for me, please? |
| 01:05 | <domfarolino> | reopened |
| 05:34 | <domfarolino> | annevk: If you wouldn't mind giving https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/4048 a look now that I've rebased it that would be great. It should be done now |
| 07:51 | <annevk> | I think the signal propagates? |
| 07:51 | <annevk> | domfarolino: k, should have time |
| 09:45 | <annevk> | oh wow, a source set is not an actual set |
| 09:45 | <annevk> | it's a struct consisting of a set and some other field |
| 09:46 | <annevk> | I guess it's already somewhat questionable practice to name the type in a name, but getting it wrong is another level 😊 |
| 09:46 | <annevk> | Although I tend to make an exception for lists/sets/maps, they somewhat make sense to name at times |
| 14:50 | <JakeA> | When specs "rethrow any exceptions", what's the purpose of that? I thought rethrowing would be the default unless exceptions were caught |
| 14:51 | <annevk> | JakeA: old-style |
| 14:51 | <annevk> | JakeA: aka pre-Infra-making-it-better |
| 14:51 | <JakeA> | ahaaaa thanks |
| 15:54 | <annevk> | So Glitch is pretty great, should have tried that sooner |
| 15:55 | <annevk> | Basically avoids all the issues that Live DOM Viewer has due to the nested frames, though you'll need to use developer tools for the remaining features, which is okayish |
| 15:56 | <annevk> | One problem I ran into is that they name the Preview window, which tainted my test, but that's easy enough to work around once you know it |
| 17:57 | <jyasskin> | https://w3c.github.io/network-error-logging/#generate-a-network-error-report creates a "new ECMAScript object" for the primary purpose of calling JSON.stringify() in https://w3c.github.io/reporting/#try-delivery. I feel like bz won't like this setup. Would y'all suggest building a big WebIDL structure and JSON'ing it manually, or something else? |
| 18:34 | <annevk> | jyasskin: we lack good infrastructure around JSON |
| 18:35 | <annevk> | jyasskin: so I suspect that approach is fine as long as serialize is the intrinsics method and not a potentially modified one |
| 18:37 | <jyasskin> | annevk: If you're happy with it, I'm happy with it. The wording is "executing the JSON.stringify() algorithm on collection [ECMA-262]", which looks like an attempt to avoid any modifications. |
| 18:37 | <annevk> | You prolly want something similar to what Infra does for parse, but that’s WIP |
| 19:31 | <Domenic> | We have serialize |
| 19:31 | <Domenic> | https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/#serialize-json-to-bytes |
| 20:01 | <Domenic> | jyasskin: in general that looks OK, the only question being types. Like, I have to infer that IP addresses are probably stored as strings because of the "Otherwise, the empty string" |
| 20:08 | <jyasskin> | Domenic: Yes, types are fuzzy throughout. |
| 20:23 | <annevk> | Aaah forgot Jeff landed that |
| 20:24 | <annevk> | So yeah, it should use that |