| 10:02 | <annevk> | nox: thanks for writing all the patches, I guess later today I should make some time to review all the tests to make sure coverage and browsers matches intuition |
| 10:04 | <nox> | annevk: I need to patch my steps to make them follow the new spec |
| 10:04 | <nox> | My tests* sorry |
| 10:09 | <annevk> | nox: I'm a little sceptical about script not doing its work in two parts, but we'll see |
| 10:09 | <annevk> | nox: I left a comment on that in the PR |
| 10:09 | <annevk> | nox: I guess maybe with style there's also that condition to consider, that what is queued might have gotten invalidated by something else that runs first |
| 10:10 | <nox> | annevk: I don’t think scripts should do their job in two parts yeah |
| 10:11 | <nox> | There is a step for “if it’s not connected then return” IIRC during preparation |
| 10:19 | <nox> | annevk: I'm not sure what you mean about style. |
| 10:20 | <nox> | annevk: Step 6 of prepare a script is "If the element is not connected, then return. The script is not executed." |
| 10:23 | <annevk> | nox: if all the things in "update a style block" indeed happen at this later time |
| 10:24 | <annevk> | nox: e.g., that means .sheet points to the old style sheet, if any |
| 10:24 | <nox> | annevk: Ah I see what you mean, if a previous script recreated the stylesheet, it should probably not get invalidated again? |
| 10:25 | <annevk> | nox: I'm not sure I follow that example, but basically ensuring it's robust against tempering that can happen between the operation being appended to the queue and it being run |
| 10:26 | <annevk> | tampering* |
| 10:26 | <nox> | annevk: You insert a script followed by a style, |
| 10:26 | <nox> | that queues "prepare a script" followed by "update a style", |
| 10:27 | <nox> | "prepare a script" executes the script, which modifies the style block, which runs "update a style" on its own, |
| 10:27 | <nox> | should the previously-queued "update a style" recreate the stylesheet again? |
| 10:28 | <annevk> | nox: [insert Palpatine meme] |
| 10:28 | <nox> | This is not a problem for scripts thanks to the "already-started" flags and whatnot, so I wonder if I should add a "soon-to-be-updated" flag to styles. |
| 10:46 | <nox> | annevk: I amended my existing tests according to the spec changes I made, |
| 10:46 | <nox> | annevk: I'll write one for the thing I just described today. |
| 11:54 | <nox> | https://github.com/servo/rust-url/issues/483 Is that really an invalid URL? |
| 11:59 | <nox> | https://github.com/servo/rust-url/issues/483#issuecomment-462303299 Oh |
| 13:05 | <JakeA> | annevk: Fixed the service worker spec build issue. No idea why it was seg faulting. Switched to the HTTP API. |
| 13:05 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, did you check html for CreateBuiltinFunction callers, btw? |
| 13:06 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: lol I didn't |
| 13:06 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: there are none |
| 13:06 | <Ms2ger> | Ok, thanks for checking :) |
| 13:07 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, webidl pr is good to merge? |
| 13:08 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: yeah |
| 13:46 | <annevk> | nox: left a couple more comments; this might require a few rounds until I fully grasp all the things again; feel free to leave nits unfixed as I can also push some fixup commits once we're close |
| 13:47 | <annevk> | nox: once we're more or less "ready" might also be good to let bz do a quick check |
| 13:56 | <nox> | annevk: No worries. |
| 13:57 | <nox> | annevk: I had a sudden spurge of motivation today, will do all the nits. |
| 14:05 | <nox> | annevk: I need to write the couple of tests you suggested and the one about stylé invalidation anyway. |
| 15:08 | <yoav> | annevk: Is there a Fetch definition for what is "cross-origin"? |
| 15:09 | <yoav> | RT has https://w3c.github.io/resource-timing/#dfn-cross-origin which points at RFC 6454, which we agreed is not great |
| 15:09 | <annevk> | yoav: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#same-origin is the source of truth |
| 15:09 | <yoav> | I can define origin comaprison in RT, but seems like it should go in a more generic place (like Fetch) |
| 15:10 | <yoav> | ok, cool |
| 15:10 | <yoav> | I'll just point there |
| 15:10 | <annevk> | sg |
| 16:40 | <nox> | I read "French definition" instead of "Fetch definition", that was confusing. |
| 17:52 | <annevk> | nox: maybe that explains why CORS is so confusing |
| 17:52 | <nox> | Ah ah ah ah ah ah |
| 17:57 | <annevk> | Domenic: so GitHub actions would make tweeting easy? |
| 17:58 | <Domenic> | annevk: that is my understanding back when I looked at them first, but I should re-confirm. No progress on getting in the beta so maybe we should just write a script... |
| 17:58 | <annevk> | Domenic: it seems we could somewhat easily add it to the deploy script too perhaps? Would take some time though |
| 17:59 | <Domenic> | Credentials management seems like the tricky part |
| 17:59 | <annevk> | Domenic: we could also fix the URL bug and maybe suppress Meta: things |
| 17:59 | <Domenic> | Also we may want to write it in not-bash... |
| 17:59 | <annevk> | Yeah |
| 17:59 | <Domenic> | (which might require updating all the travis.yml) |
| 18:01 | <annevk> | Would be nice to reuse the ssh auth somehow |
| 18:03 | <Domenic> | We could also do a webhook and use credentials stored on the server |
| 18:03 | <Domenic> | That'd probably be easier for me to do at least since it'd reuse a lot of the participate.whatwg.org arch |
| 18:22 | <annevk> | Domenic: oh yeah if those still exist, seems reasonable |