| 02:21 | <saschanaz> | Hello people, I want to replace the old mixin syntax in https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/DOM_XPath but I don't have a wiki account. Can I request one? |
| 03:21 | <terpri> | saschanaz, yes, ask someone from this list: https://wiki.whatwg.org/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=autoconfirmed |
| 03:37 | <MikeSmith> | saschanaz: I had the system send you some mail |
| 03:38 | <MikeSmith> | we really need to just migrate all that wiki content to github. The need-to-request-a-wiki account dance is a waste of time for all parties |
| 03:57 | <saschanaz> | I got my account, thanks! 👍 |
| 04:02 | <MikeSmith> | saschanaz: cheers |
| 05:11 | <annevk> | saschanaz: thanks for updating that |
| 06:16 | <saschanaz> | annevk: 😎 |
| 12:19 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: it seems I might not have much time today after all |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | Domenic: so I think one reason I went for one event loop per agent is because the alternative is rather hard to pin down |
| 15:07 | <annevk> | Domenic: it's basically 1:1, but similar-origin window agents may share an event loop if they happen to be same-site and same-scheme |
| 15:14 | <Domenic> | annevk: that sounds about right |
| 15:25 | <annevk> | Domenic: and with this high-res enabler it’ll be even more involved |
| 15:25 | <annevk> | Domenic: I’m still not really convinced it’s worth the effort |
| 15:25 | <Domenic> | I mean, reality is indeed pretty complex. Seems like it's our job to spec it :) |
| 15:26 | <annevk> | When it’s observable |
| 15:26 | <Domenic> | Yes, and I think this is extremely observable, although not easily from tests you can write in JS. |
| 15:26 | <annevk> | It’s not, not anymore than anything else perf-related |
| 15:27 | <annevk> | And we don’t define those either |
| 15:27 | <Domenic> | Right, I think it's abuse of the perf loophole to say "oh your stuff just got slow for no reason; while true actually means pause whenever you want" |
| 15:27 | <Domenic> | I would rather spec an architecture that relates to what can be feasibly implemented. |
| 15:28 | <annevk> | One process per cluster is feasible in theory |
| 15:28 | <Domenic> | I don't think it's a good idea to spec things based on what's feasible in theory. |
| 15:30 | <annevk> | Sure, but is this a big enough problem to block a whole bunch of improvements on? |
| 15:31 | <Domenic> | Yes, I think this would be a big regression. |
| 15:31 | <annevk> | If we cannot even test it |
| 15:31 | <Domenic> | I can make a lot of untestable regressions to how the spec describes the web architecture. |
| 15:31 | <Domenic> | But I don't think we should, even if it simplifies the spec. |
| 15:32 | <annevk> | The current model cannot be implemented, hard to regress |
| 15:33 | <Domenic> | The current event loop <-> agent mapping can be. |
| 15:33 | <annevk> | It’s not even defined |
| 15:34 | <Domenic> | I'm not really sure how to make progress here; it seems like we have a lot of disagreements on the state of the world and the desireability of speccing something implementable. But I'm really not comfortable committing a 1:1 mapping to the spec. |
| 16:22 | <annevk> | I think I would have more sympathy for your concern if we consistently applied these principles. But I guess I will try to meet this req as you’re effectively gatekeeping everything on this |
| 16:46 | <Domenic> | I think we try to apply the priority of constituencies pretty consistently. |