| 02:38 | <Jessidhia> | twitter thread but... what do you think? https://twitter.com/jessidhia/status/1092975303171833856 |
| 02:39 | <Jessidhia> | adding HTMLElement#scrollBlock and HTMLElement#scrollInline to make writing-mode aware scroll properties instead of having to do various magic with #scrollLeft |
| 12:28 | <nox> | annevk: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/15264 |
| 14:49 | <nox> | annevk: I feel like the spec behaviour is saner, but then I don't forget this channel's topic nor that most browsers don't follow that bit of the spec. |
| 14:50 | <annevk> | nox: again, the spec is broken due to <iframe>, no? |
| 14:50 | <nox> | annevk: Mmmh |
| 14:51 | <annevk> | Hmm, maybe it's not broken, but it just doesn't match implementations |
| 14:51 | <annevk> | It's been a while |
| 14:51 | <nox> | Yeah, that I agree with. |
| 14:54 | <annevk> | nox: I guess the question is to what extent https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/576#issuecomment-368522669 true is |
| 14:55 | <nox> | annevk: I don't even compute what a "safe point" is. |
| 14:55 | <annevk> | nox: script can execute without messing up assumed invariants |
| 14:56 | <nox> | Which invariants? |
| 14:56 | <nox> | I'm curious where the current behaviour of Firefox comes from, why was it deemed important to be able to access iframes' browsing contexts from scripts that are inserted before them iframes. |
| 14:56 | <annevk> | nox: e.g. the script removes some reference node |
| 14:56 | <annevk> | nox: leading following insertions astray somehow |
| 14:57 | <annevk> | nox: this is also a problem with the eventual speccing of mutation events (unless they get removed, any day now I'm sure) |
| 14:57 | <nox> | annevk: Before or after Attr stops being a Node? :p |
| 14:58 | <annevk> | nox: so yeah, the current algorithm doesn't defend against child moving around |
| 14:58 | <annevk> | nox: child's index could become much larger therefore than parent has children |
| 15:04 | <nox> | annevk: Not sure what you mean. |
| 15:05 | <annevk> | nox: 7.2 of https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-node-insert is not robust against script execution |
| 15:05 | <annevk> | nox: if a script moved child around, it's index could end up much larger, and you'd have an out-of-bounds error for the insert operation it invokes |
| 15:06 | <nox> | mmh |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | (which is not defined since Infra assumes error-free invocation atm) |
| 15:06 | <nox> | annevk: I don't follow, child's index is always ok |
| 15:07 | <nox> | I mean, the child maybe could have been moved to somewhere entirely different, in which case it's a problem, but child's index is always the correct index of child. |
| 15:07 | <annevk> | nox: it's correct for the child, but not correct for the parent anymore |
| 15:07 | <nox> | Ok, I see. |
| 15:07 | <annevk> | nox: and it's the parent where we are inserting |
| 15:07 | <nox> | annevk: I guess I should make a test that plays with that. |
| 16:23 | <annevk> | Domenic: https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/4214 is ready once more \o/ |
| 16:39 | <Ms2ger> | Anyone know if there's already tests for named property getters with custom elements? |
| 16:45 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: rniwa might, but I suspect not |
| 18:37 | <Domenic> | Nice, new data: URL spec being implemented in WebKit https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/240706/webkit/ |
| 18:39 | <Domenic> | https://trac.webkit.org/browser/webkit/trunk/Source/WebCore/platform/network/ParsedContentType.h?rev=240706#L39 is a little worrying though |
| 19:11 | <annevk> | Hmm yeah, I guess we should ask |
| 19:14 | <annevk> | Domenic: why is X unclear to you? If you navigate a browsing context you might get a different agent and loop, as the event loop link explains |
| 19:23 | <Domenic> | annevk: it's not clear to me that clicking on one of the many terms referenced in that paragraph will lead to an explanation for X, right? |
| 19:23 | <Domenic> | annevk: sorry for review delay today, having computer problems :( |
| 19:40 | <nox> | annevk: I wonder what happens if you insert 3 scripts from a div and the first one changes the third one during its execution. |
| 19:48 | <nox> | annevk: Wrote a quite interesting test for that, found difference between Safari and rest of the world again. |
| 19:48 | <nox> | Ah no, Firefox fails it but Chrome passes it. |
| 19:50 | <nox> | https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/commit/b1247749f1ac2e0fcc440e3cc0f8b1a10e9eeb42 |
| 19:51 | <annevk> | Domenic: you mean for a reader not knowing anything? Seems you first need to read about event loops anyway and then you get this |
| 19:52 | <Domenic> | annevk: I mean for reader trying to understand session history, yeah. |
| 19:53 | <annevk> | Domenic: it seems you would naturally read up on event loops as this is similarly called |
| 19:54 | <Domenic> | Maybe, but I think the previous state made it easier to understand without having to assume people will do that |
| 19:55 | <annevk> | Domenic: perhaps, but we also want to change most things session history so it’s not clear that investing in clarity helps here when it doesn’t much match what is going on |
| 19:55 | <Domenic> | I just much prefer a style of making incremental improvements, not regressions, and not saying that it's OK to make things worse because they're already bad. |
| 19:55 | <annevk> | nox: pass/fail remain confusing to me when we are not sure on the model |
| 19:56 | <nox> | annevk: Fair |
| 19:56 | <nox> | annevk: I don't really care which pass or fail, just stating that it does to show that things are unclear. |
| 19:58 | <annevk> | Domenic: it’s not clear to me this is worse, but okay |
| 20:00 | <nox> | The last test I added definitely feels like Firefox is wrong on this one. |
| 20:32 | <annevk> | nox: I wonder if we need to test mutation events too |
| 20:58 | <nox> | annevk: Step 8 you mean? It happens after the two loops of step 7 so I don't think so. |
| 20:59 | <nox> | Oh, mutation events from DOM mutations happening from a script inserted in tree through JS? |
| 20:59 | <yoav> | Hey! Is there an HTML concept that maps to "browser process"? |
| 21:00 | <annevk> | yoav: only aspirational: agent cluster |
| 21:00 | <annevk> | yoav: in practice they often share one |
| 21:00 | <annevk> | yoav: more of an ES concept, too |
| 21:01 | <yoav> | Cool, thanks. I'll read up on that! |
| 21:10 | <Mek> | that actually maps more to "renderer process" than "browser process", at least in chromium lingo |
| 21:10 | <Mek> | browser process would just be "user agent" or something like that I imagine |
| 21:30 | <nox> | annevk: I also wonder what happens if you do script.append("", "foo();") |
| 21:30 | <nox> | Whether foo() gets executed or not I mean. |
| 23:49 | <jyasskin> | https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/history.html#session-history seems to say that when a Document is discarded, it gets removed from its session history entry, but https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/window-object.html#discard-a-document doesn't actually say to touch the session history. Am I missing something? |