| 07:02 | <hsivonen> | annevk: Given https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/commit/4b9bb073426578c2c7c270340b526b309ea8ae09 , what's the expectation for Client-Hints WPTs for this? |
| 07:02 | <hsivonen> | (it seem inappropriate to me that tests have landed in WPT for Client-Hints Fetch integration bits that weren't in the spec even) |
| 07:24 | <ondras> | 7/w 49 |
| 07:24 | <ondras> | sorry |
| 07:33 | <annevk> | hsivonen: they should be .tentative. |
| 07:34 | <annevk> | hsivonen: I should have checked WPT… |
| 07:39 | <hsivonen> | annevk: are you going to mark them, or should I file an issue? Does Gecko's wpt CI run .tentative. tests by default? |
| 07:52 | <annevk> | hsivonen: I will take a look now |
| 07:52 | <hsivonen> | annevk: thanks |
| 07:52 | <annevk> | hsivonen: I don't know about Gecko and .tentative.; jgraham? |
| 08:14 | <TimothyGu> | MikeSmith: UTR39 should really be UTS39… updated in https://github.com/tobie/specref/pull/522 |
| 08:16 | <annevk> | TimothyGu: ooh nice |
| 08:17 | <MikeSmith> | TimothyGu: oh wow, thanks for doing all that |
| 08:17 | <TimothyGu> | npnp |
| 08:19 | MikeSmith | is reviewing and testing now |
| 08:19 | <TimothyGu> | MikeSmith: is there a way to test that no spec key ever disappears |
| 08:20 | <annevk> | hsivonen: I looked and I only find hits in fetch/api/headers/headers-no-cors.window.js but those are testing that Client Hints headers get no special treatment |
| 08:20 | <MikeSmith> | TimothyGu: dunno will look through the scripts to see |
| 08:20 | <annevk> | hsivonen: there is also a client-hints/ dedicated folder with more tests |
| 08:20 | <annevk> | hsivonen: but that seems easy enough for us to ignore? |
| 08:21 | <annevk> | hsivonen: it's outside the fetch/ folder to be clear, it's parallel |
| 08:23 | <MikeSmith> | TimothyGu: hmm no, there’s nothing I can see there which would check that |
| 08:27 | <annevk> | hsivonen: ooh, I found a message from Thomas pointing out there's some in cors/ |
| 08:27 | annevk | goes to take another look |
| 08:29 | <MikeSmith> | TimothyGu: should we squash the commits, or do you prefer it gets merged as a series of commits? |
| 08:29 | <hsivonen> | annevk: yeah, https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/cors/simple-requests.htm and https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/cors/client-hint-request-headers.htm |
| 08:29 | <TimothyGu> | MikeSmith: I'd go with series of commits, but either works |
| 08:30 | <MikeSmith> | OK I’ll keep it as-is |
| 08:41 | <annevk> | hsivonen: there's https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/16048 now; yoav perhaps you want to review it? |
| 08:48 | <yoav> | currently at the IETF. I'll try to review later today... |
| 08:49 | <annevk> | ta |
| 08:54 | <hsivonen> | annevk: thanks |
| 09:42 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: hey, who can sort out the legal stuff around https://github.com/w3c/DOM-Parsing/pull/49? |
| 09:42 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I guess the other question is what the status of that work in general is |
| 09:42 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I think there was some tentative agreement to merge it into HTML? |
| 09:46 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: We don't have any special handling for .tentative. it's basically a hint that says "developer beware". Given that we sometimes write .tentative. tests for things we think should be specced, I'm not sure what CI behaviour would be more appropriate than ignoring it (making such tests opt-in seems appealing, but would certainly lead to cross bugs when people failed to enable their tests that |
| 09:46 | <jgraham> | subsequently silently regressed) |
| 10:03 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: ok. thanks |
| 10:26 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: I’ve asked Wendy about that PR |
| 10:26 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: as far as the general status I don’t recall where we were at with that |
| 10:36 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: actually in the relevant agreement doc it seems to already be assumed that it will be folded back into the HTML spec. That is how I read it at least |
| 11:52 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: ok, I guess we should start looking into that |