| 12:49 | <JakeA> | If an argument is specified as a `unsigned long`, and a negative number is passed, should it throw? |
| 12:49 | <JakeA> | I'm looking at https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#es-unsigned-long, but I'm not really familiar with how the ES spec does things, so I don't know what happens if there's an abrupt completion |
| 12:54 | <JakeA> | Ah, I missed the [EnforceRange] bit. Ignore me. |
| 12:57 | <JakeA> | When should we [EnforceRange] / [Clamp] / neither? For method arguments, it seems right to [EnforceRange], but it doesn't seem like many APIs do that |
| 12:57 | <JakeA> | Is it considered bad practice? |
| 13:03 | <yhirano> | annevk: yt? |
| 13:05 | <annevk> | yhirano: yes |
| 13:05 | <yhirano> | regarding https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/4175 |
| 13:06 | <annevk> | yhirano: I didn't immediately reply there was I wasn't sure I quite understood your question |
| 13:07 | <yhirano> | annevk: yeah, i want to make sure if I understand the situation correctly |
| 13:08 | <annevk> | yhirano: okay, I guess I can ask some questions about your comment, what is "none" sameness? |
| 13:08 | <yhirano> | annevk: do we need to create a new browsing context group when CORP-P of navigation source and destination are different each other? |
| 13:09 | <annevk> | yhirano: only if COOP mismatches |
| 13:09 | <annevk> | yhirano: CORP-P by itself cannot provide total isolation |
| 13:10 | <yhirano> | annevk: hmm... I don't understand then. |
| 13:10 | <annevk> | yhirano: okay |
| 13:11 | <yhirano> | annevk: Assume a frame A opens a popup B, and they belong to the same origin and have the same COOP |
| 13:11 | <annevk> | yhirano: okay |
| 13:11 | <yhirano> | annevk: if A opts into CORP-P and B doesn't, we want to isolate them each other, right? |
| 13:12 | <annevk> | yhirano: B won't load in that case (note also that A would have to specify unsafe-allow-origin for this, iirc) |
| 13:12 | <annevk> | allow-outgoing ugh |
| 13:14 | <annevk> | yhirano: so COOP can allow something, but CORP-P could prevent the fetching if it were to end up in the same browsing context group |
| 13:14 | <yhirano> | annevk: hm, then, what happens when both A and B opt into CORP-P? Both frame cannot navigate to a CORP-P disabled resource, even if it is same-origin? |
| 13:14 | <annevk> | (well not the fetching, but block the response from entering) |
| 13:16 | <annevk> | yhirano: hmm so if A defines COOP and CORP-P, can it navigate to COOP but no CORP-P |
| 13:18 | <yhirano> | annevk: sorry, you meant A can navigate to another frame, say C, which has a matching COOP but no CORP-P, right? |
| 13:18 | <annevk> | yhirano: I meant to add a ? at the end there |
| 13:19 | <yhirano> | annevk: i see |
| 13:19 | <annevk> | yhirano: I'm not sure we considered that case well enough |
| 13:19 | <annevk> | yhirano: for popups it'd fail, but for a non-popup that doesn't seem great |
| 13:21 | <yhirano> | annevk: thanks I think we should think about the case... I will try to post a comment on the thread. |
| 13:21 | <yhirano> | annevk: I agree that limiting navigation from the opener would be confusing to users |
| 13:21 | <annevk> | yhirano: I suspect in that case the combination of COOP and CORP-P should result in replacing behavior |
| 13:22 | <annevk> | yhirano: it seems better to let the navigation succeed |
| 13:23 | <yhirano> | annevk: sorry i don't understand the replacing bahavior |
| 13:23 | <annevk> | yhirano: this is also something we could still tweak for popups |
| 13:23 | <annevk> | yhirano: if you navigate A and A' doesn't have CORP-P (but does have matching COOP) |
| 13:24 | <annevk> | yhirano: (the replacing behavior is what COOP defines, closing the current browsing context and creating a new one in a new browsing context group) |
| 13:24 | <yhirano> | annevk: thanks! |
| 13:25 | <annevk> | yhirano: I have limited bandwidth for 2 weeks, but hope to get back to this after that |
| 13:26 | <annevk> | yhirano: thanks for highlighting this scenario some more though, it's important |
| 13:26 | <yhirano> | annevk: what would happen when we do that whenever we see CORP-P unmatch? |
| 13:27 | <yhirano> | annevk: thank you, too! |
| 13:27 | <annevk> | yhirano: it wouldn't work for frames, but it would work for all top-level navigations, including popups, I think |
| 13:28 | <annevk> | yhirano: the question is to what extent popups should work like frames |
| 13:31 | <yhirano> | annevk: i see, thanks again. |
| 13:41 | <Domenic> | https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/38421 someone asking .NET to implement the URL Standard. |
| 13:42 | <Domenic> | JakeA: https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/#numeric-types |
| 13:44 | <JakeA> | Domenic: I did not know about this doc. Perfect. So why is [EnforceRange] used so rarely? Looking in Chromium, it only seems to be used by IDB, RTC, and a couple of canvas methods. Is it just new (guidance)? |
| 13:45 | <Domenic> | JakeA: yeah that's my take. |
| 13:45 | <Domenic> | Not too many new APIs accepting integer types, from what I can tell? |
| 13:47 | <JakeA> | Interesting. Cheers! |
| 14:25 | <JakeA> | Domenic: Could you give https://github.com/w3ctag/design-principles/issues/130 an approving nod if you agree. Heard from a couple of teams trying to require empty option objects. |
| 14:26 | <annevk> | JakeA: it's optional but also provided |
| 14:27 | <JakeA> | annevk: In this case I'm seeing folks suggest that `foo()` should throw, and developers must use `foo({})` |
| 14:29 | <annevk> | JakeA: for that particular case that'd be in violation of IDL as is now pointed out on the issue |
| 14:29 | <annevk> | JakeA: https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/76 might be somewhat interesting |
| 14:29 | <annevk> | JakeA: for more involved cases |
| 14:30 | <JakeA> | Ohh cheers! |
| 22:50 | <bkardell> | Domenic: on https://github.com/tkent-google/std-switch/pull/17 - I feel like I have a question that a) feels like it requires a bit to articulate b) probably doesn't belong there - I simply asked there because the text in that made me think of it... |
| 22:50 | <bkardell> | do you think maybe I could send you some text and you could possibly direct me to a productive/appropriate place to ask it? |
| 23:12 | <Domenic> | bkardell: sure, happy to email. |
| 23:15 | <TimothyGu> | Domenic: re https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3989, I'm having some trouble understanding how about:srcdoc fits into the override URL issue. does adding back override URL fix the srcdoc issue, or are they relatively independent but just got inadvertently merged into the same bug? |
| 23:16 | <Domenic> | TimothyGu: it does seem to have gotten pretty off-topic. But the origin of the merger was https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3989#issuecomment-419470921 where bz was mentioning that javascript: URLs executed in srcdoc documents might inherit the about:srcdoc URL. |
| 23:17 | <TimothyGu> | Ah okay. The recent Chrome navigation cleanups are pretty exciting though |
| 23:21 | <bkardell> | Domenic: excellent - sent to your domain email. Very much appreciate it. I am keen to discuss/understand but also not keen to make unhelpful q's in the wrong place |