| 11:23 | <annevk> | Domenic: https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/4354#issuecomment-467401550 has a summary now |
| 11:23 | <annevk> | Domenic: hope that helps |
| 13:16 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: ah, so if something takes a WindowProxy we want to validate it's a WindowProxy |
| 13:17 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: I guess in a way its brand is that it has this [[Window]] slot |
| 13:17 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, yeah, we'll need to check something, at least :) |
| 13:18 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: ok yeah, that makes sense |
| 13:18 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: so yeah, that's another thing that needs to be done somehow then |
| 13:18 | <Ms2ger> | I'll wait for bz's thoughts in any case :) |
| 13:18 | <annevk> | sg |
| 13:32 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: so I think the simple solution is for WindowProxy to define [[PrimaryInterface]] as being << "WindowProxy" >> or whatever it needs to be |
| 13:33 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: unless that has weird side effects... |
| 13:33 | <annevk> | good times in exotic objects land |
| 13:33 | <Ms2ger> | That sounds like a reasonable option, but I'd need to think through the consequences |
| 14:26 | <coreyfarrell> | https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/custom-elements.html#concept-custom-element-definition-observed-attributes says that observed attributes are a `sequence<DOMString>`. Can anyone point me to the actual definition of `sequence`? specifically I want to know if a JavaScript `Set` object qualifies (all examples I've seen use `Array` objects). |
| 14:27 | <annevk> | coreyfarrell: https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#sequence-to-es |
| 14:28 | <annevk> | coreyfarrell: sorry, you want https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#es-to-sequence |
| 14:29 | <annevk> | coreyfarrell: so Set ought to work I think as it has Symbol.iterator |
| 14:30 | <coreyfarrell> | annevk: great, thanks for the link. I had already verified it works in current Firefox and Chrome, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't relying on some undefined behavior or bug. |
| 14:31 | <annevk> | coreyfarrell: the simple explanation is that sequence converts an iterable to a list on input, and converts that list to an Array on output |
| 14:36 | <coreyfarrell> | I'm guessing that providing an Array in the first place wouldn't allow any optimization of that process since creating a shallow clone of the original iterator is intentional? |
| 14:37 | <annevk> | coreyfarrell: something something sufficiently smart compiler |
| 14:38 | <annevk> | coreyfarrell: engines have options and I've definitely heard of "nobody touched Array.prototype" as a thing that might create different code paths |
| 14:39 | <annevk> | coreyfarrell: in this case though I wouldn't worry about that too much as this is a one-time conversion that the browser then caches for the lifetime of the object |
| 14:41 | <Ms2ger> | coreyfarrell, there's the conversion to a DOMString in-between as well, so I doubt there's much room for optimization like that |
| 14:43 | <coreyfarrell> | ahhh good point, I can actually see that from my coverage report that the `observedAttributes` property is only read once per instance. I guess that makes sense reading it on every attribute write would be bad. |
| 15:46 | <annevk> | Domenic: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/4335#issuecomment-467485655 if whatever's shorter is better, surely we should just copy all pointers? |
| 15:48 | <Domenic> | annevk: well, I guess my point was more that each should have a distinct set of things accessible from it, and then you should prefer taking as an argument whatever has that thing, instead of e.g. taking a Window and doing window's environment settings object's X. |
| 15:53 | <annevk> | Domenic: okay, so deduplication is a goal, good |
| 17:12 | <Domenic> | annevk: rniwa: hober: can we make sure that the web components F2F is not pay to play this time? Some folks from GitHub (the company) would like to attend, and I want to avoid a repeat of last time. |
| 17:15 | <annevk> | Domenic: maybe email? I lack context I think |
| 17:15 | <Domenic> | Sure, probably best. |
| 17:29 | <hober> | i don't think i understand the question |
| 17:34 | <hober> | do they want people to pay for their flights & hotel rooms? |
| 17:36 | <TabAtkins> | I presume they're referring to the fact that TPAC requires a company to have paid dues for individuals to attend |
| 17:37 | <gsnedders> | and Membership dues |
| 17:38 | <gsnedders> | you can be *personally* invited to TPAC while not an employee of a W3C Member or an IE in any group, but AFAICT the W3C is loath to invite anyone (and especially people working for major companies who presumably could in principle be paying Membership fees) |
| 17:39 | <hober> | but the spring components f2f isn't tpac? |
| 17:39 | <hober> | isn't even a w3c meeting AFAIU |
| 17:39 | <hober> | not that i'm hosting or planning, so i don't know the details |
| 17:39 | <TabAtkins> | If it's not a W3C meeting at all, then more than likely Domenic's concern is satisfied? |
| 17:39 | <hober> | but, like, unless mozilla is charging an entrance fee to the toronto office i think they should be fine, right? |
| 17:40 | <Domenic> | Yeah, ok, I guess tpac was a special case. But e.g. we've had W3C chairs run previous meetings too, in Tokyo for example. |
| 17:41 | <Domenic> | If this is not such a meeting then we're indeed fine. |
| 17:41 | <gsnedders> | aside from TPAC, external people can be invited at the chairs' discression, IIRC; obviously they might be subject to pressure from W3M, but in principle the decision is the chairs' |
| 17:42 | <hober> | i think annevk's hosting so maybe he can answer that |
| 17:42 | <gsnedders> | (and obviously if one of the chairs is Team then W3M have more influence) |
| 17:47 | <annevk> | hober: am I? Would be nice to have that confirmed somehow |
| 17:48 | <hober> | annevk: i'm not in the loop here besides that github issue... |
| 17:48 | <annevk> | I guess the question is if it’s a W3C meeting? I don’t really know why it has to be one. |
| 17:48 | <hober> | yeah, neither do i |
| 17:54 | <gsnedders> | i.e., whether or not it's officially a WG meeting? |
| 17:55 | <hober> | isn't this the wg |
| 17:58 | <hober> | i guess some components work ends up in other specs, but the vast majority of it is in html, which is here |
| 17:58 | <gsnedders> | Yeah, I guess now custom elements is merged it's basically all WHATWG |
| 18:00 | <annevk> | There’s new stuff coming, but all of it are PR-sized additions in my mind |
| 18:00 | <annevk> | But yeah, I guess if Mozilla hosts I’ll clarify that all are welcome |
| 18:01 | <annevk> | And those that have a problem with that are not 😊 |
| 18:02 | <annevk> | Up to whatever cap we have on the space |
| 22:58 | <Domenic> | annevk: after https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/4397 I am pretty convinced it's not much work to create Window/WindowProxy before creating Document. |
| 22:59 | <Domenic> | We just have to pass a URL to "Set up a window environment settings object" and then we can change "Initialize a new Document object" to a "create a new Window and then Document object and then initialize the Document" with a couple extra steps. |
| 22:59 | <Domenic> | Well, no, I guess a bit more refactoring of all the "Page load processing model for X files" is needed, since those often follow the pattern "create a Document, do a few things to the Document, initialize the Document" |
| 23:00 | <Domenic> | So I guess maybe we need a separate "create a Window and environment settings object" or something, and then we refactor all of those into (numbered) "create a Window, create a Document, do a few things to Document, initialize the Document" |
| 23:00 | <Domenic> | Basically, it seems close. |