2017-09-01 [18:09:52.0000] oh wow the new Github embedded-code-snippets feature is much awesome [18:10:01.0000] https://github.com/blog/2415-introducing-embedded-code-snippets [18:10:31.0000] I guess I’m probably late to the party, as far as figuring out how to use it [18:11:41.0000] it’s not super-intuitive that you must choose “Copy permalink” from the context-menu widget [18:12:17.0000] and I still haven’t figured out how to selecte multiple lines from the GUI view [18:12:47.0000] I just manually add the end line to the range in the URL after pasting it [18:16:08.0000] ah [18:17:02.0000] /me only just now trial-and-error discovers the way to select multiple lines is shift+click [01:48:48.0000] annevk: seems iteration order of stacks and queues in infra are the same. Is this by design or is this an oversight? [02:01:21.0000] aww darn it https://cia.webkit.org/changeset/216851/webkit [02:02:05.0000] tobie: seems like the consistency we see in HTMLAllCollection behaviors among different browsers won't be that consistent after all :(( [02:04:14.0000] TimothyGu: :-/ [02:04:37.0000] TimothyGu: that said: what consistency!? [02:05:14.0000] basically returning undefined when nothing is found (Chrome, Edge, Safari) [02:05:45.0000] Spec and Firefox (and now apparently Safari nightly) returns null [02:06:29.0000] TimothyGu: sounds like it's not a webcompat issue? [02:06:56.0000] probably not [02:07:04.0000] TimothyGu: so we can fix and file issues against vendors either way [02:07:30.0000] DocumentAllLegacyCallNoArguments is <=0.000001% [02:07:44.0000] yeah I think so [02:08:56.0000] is Sam Weinig on GitHub or IRC? [02:09:40.0000] would like to let him know at the minimum [02:09:53.0000] TimothyGu: yes [02:11:09.0000] TimothyGu: samweinig on github [02:11:40.0000] tobie: cool thanks [02:12:10.0000] TimothyGu: and SamWeinig on w3's irc [02:12:57.0000] If I add one more channel to WeeChat my VPS is going OOM lol [02:13:09.0000] TimothyGu: please do loop me in on that conversation [02:13:36.0000] I'll just use GitHub [02:14:02.0000] TimothyGu: I'd like to 1) apologize for the screw-up and 2) see what we can do to lessen the risk of that happening in the future [02:15:08.0000] tobie: well it's not really your fault, the commit happened in May when I haven't even starred whatwg/html yet :) [02:16:07.0000] only started looking at legacycaller when I was implementing legacy platform objects in jsdom [02:20:02.0000] TimothyGu: Well, that commit was triggered by a cleanup I made earlier this year. [02:21:44.0000] TimothyGu: this wouldn't have been an issue if we had better tests. [02:25:35.0000] I don't understand how WebIDL can both claim: "The order that members appear [on an interface] has significance for property enumeration in the ECMAScript binding." and "The order of appearance of an interface definition and any of its partial interface definitions does not matter." [02:25:55.0000] Which is it? [02:26:42.0000] tobie: Oh heh. Speaking of tests, how is https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/6786 coming along? [02:27:25.0000] TimothyGu: it's on my todo list. :-/ [02:27:48.0000] TimothyGu: You're welcome to contribute. :D [02:28:41.0000] :/ school will start pretty soon for me, I'll do what I can! [02:29:19.0000] TimothyGu: I'll get back to it. [05:30:18.0000] annevk: were you referring to WPT my latest HTML PR? [05:30:34.0000] I assume so but wasn't sure [05:34:32.0000] domfarolino: yeah [05:34:45.0000] cool [05:34:49.0000] domfarolino: as per https://whatwg.org/working-mode#changes [05:35:24.0000] annevk: ah make sense, thanks [06:54:21.0000] So I'm really seeing mixins as named interface partials that can extend > 1 interface with a more limited set of members. [06:55:02.0000] Can you relate to this mental model or is it completely off-marks? [07:07:25.0000] tobie: nah is fine [07:35:11.0000] what's the current status of >>>? [07:35:34.0000] gsnedders: controversial still [07:35:42.0000] gsnedders: and maybe renamed? [07:35:48.0000] gsnedders: never know with CSS [07:36:06.0000] annevk: I don't care so much about renaming, but I want to know if we're going to have some way to select elements within a shadow tree [07:41:42.0000] gsnedders: there's a "part" proposal that has some agreement [07:42:15.0000] gsnedders: outsideShadowTree::part(x) [07:46:29.0000] tobie: Yes, it's intended, they're both just lists. [07:46:52.0000] gsnedders: >>> is not in the dynamic (stylesheet) profile, but it is in the static (querySelector) one. [07:47:16.0000] ::part() is indeed how we'll be exposing things outside of the shadow for stylesheets. [07:48:03.0000] I don't think WebKit agreed to implement >>> though and I'm not sure Mozilla has either [07:48:10.0000] TabAtkins: it's sort of surprising to enumerate a stack in FIFO order, though. [07:48:36.0000] tobie: Standard result of doing it in JS tho, where it's just an Array that you're using push/pop on. [07:50:24.0000] TabAtkins: I think this warrants a note in the spec. [09:00:49.0000] Sneak peek at WebIDL mixins: https://github.com/heycam/webidl/pull/433 (WIP) [09:02:02.0000] And with this, have a nice w-e, all! [09:14:22.0000] you too tobie [09:18:08.0000] wanderview: r? https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/584 [09:19:34.0000] annevk: r+... I don't have perms to merge [09:19:50.0000] wanderview: ta [09:20:19.0000] wanderview: yeah, we keep master fairly restricted for standards since we're pretty nitpicky about commit messages and such 2017-09-02 [07:17:15.0000] Hello [15:27:47.0000] Is there any API that exposes a non-normalized TimeRanges object? 2017-09-04 [03:24:04.0000] annevk: do I recall correctly that focus handling is pretty much the only thing in Shadow DOM spec which hasn't been merged to elsewhere? [03:26:53.0000] smaug____: yeah, kochi wanted to fix that iirc [03:27:07.0000] smaug____: maybe also some event stuff? [03:28:10.0000] just trying to figure how to implement this all [03:28:17.0000] or where to look at what to implement [03:30:03.0000] /me is about to start to update wchen's patches [03:46:44.0000] smaug____: okay, another thing I realized is that https://w3c.github.io/DOM-Parsing/ isn't updated [03:47:17.0000] smaug____: I'll look into and create a new tracking issue on upstreaming if we don't have one already [03:48:46.0000] annevk: what should be updated there? [03:49:40.0000] smaug____: ShadowRoot.prototype.innerHTML is a thing iirc [03:50:05.0000] smaug____: https://github.com/w3c/DOM-Parsing/issues/21 [03:50:57.0000] aha, I thought DocumentFragment had innerHTML in some spec [03:51:25.0000] smaug____: that was a plan at some point, but didn't happen [03:51:37.0000] smaug____: putting it on DocumentFragment is more complicated because there's no context node [03:52:14.0000] and what is the context node in ShadowRoot case? the host? [03:52:21.0000] smaug____: yup [03:58:21.0000] smaug____: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/377#issuecomment-250693594 [03:58:35.0000] smaug____: I added a comment there asking some questions from hayato [03:58:50.0000] smaug____: and added a couple pointers to some issues I'm aware of [03:58:58.0000] smaug____: hope that helps [04:09:38.0000] smaug____: looking through things it seems like there's still many open issues around shadow trees that have gone unresolved [04:12:12.0000] hm, can an AudioBuffer instance be passed to a Worker ? [04:17:21.0000] DOMException: Failed to execute 'postMessage' on 'Worker': An object could not be cloned. [04:17:24.0000] okay, apparently not. [04:31:00.0000] gsnedders: see https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/78 for the >>>-controversy [06:36:08.0000] is the private mailing dead and buried along with any notion of membership gone? [07:04:10.0000] JakeA: did anyone sign up to remove foreign service workers from Fetch? [07:04:45.0000] JakeA: there doesn't seem to be a tracking issue against Fetch either; I can probably write a patch though [07:05:15.0000] annevk: as in browsers or spec? [07:05:27.0000] There's https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1188 for the spec [07:05:45.0000] JakeA: spec, there's a bunch of text in Fetch [07:06:05.0000] annevk: it's on my todo list, but happy for you to do it [07:06:37.0000] JakeA: I'm a little bit afraid of creating a bunch of rebase conflicts for your abort work whenever I touch Fetch [07:07:54.0000] annevk: I can deal with those. Going to do another push on the abort spec tomorrow. The whole thing's been like pulling on a thread, especially given that XHR needs changes now :( [07:08:57.0000] JakeA: yeah, none of it was really in shape yet and the API really lays that bare [07:09:27.0000] JakeA: this is why I try to advocate we first revamp existing things; e.g., with the storage work you're planning [07:10:18.0000] But what typically happens is that folks add new features and the infrastructure is left broken for quite a while... Glad that's not the case here though [07:11:39.0000] gotta do it properly :D [13:49:56.0000] yay https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/371d0a1e60e8a2045393fc4db2f1110b9418b2f2 2017-09-05 [22:16:13.0000] smaug____: yeah, it's on my list in THIS quarter :) [22:16:35.0000] Do you guys know if browsers send the Basic HTTP Auth header when doing a fetch() request ? [22:16:59.0000] XHR seems to do it, fetch does not seem to do it. I just want to know if its possible [23:15:20.0000] nootan: not sure what you mean. XHR doesn’t send the Authorization header automatically. It only sends it if your application code adds it [23:16:17.0000] though if it’s a cross-origin request, neither fetch nor XHR will send it unless the server responds to the browser CORS preflight OPTIONS request to say it’s OK to send requests that have the Authorization header [00:21:28.0000] MikeSmith: Let me rephrase it. I've a nginx server setup with Basic Http Auth (which I believe looks for Authorization: Basic xxx) , I've a site setup on that server. When I perform an XMLHttpRequest to get some data, I get it, no questions asked. When I do a fetch() call and see the Network tab on my browser devtools, the server response is 401 [00:22:21.0000] the server response to the OPTIONS request? [00:23:21.0000] let me check [00:24:12.0000] 401 [00:25:08.0000] OPTIONS with Authorization header ==> 405 [00:26:43.0000] nootan: pass credentials:"same-origin" as second argument to the fetch() call [00:27:26.0000] nootan: I plan on making that the default in https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/585 but it hasn't happened yet much less landed in browsers [00:27:38.0000] but that just sends the cookies, right? [00:27:50.0000] nootan: nope [00:28:26.0000] nootan: if it controlled just cookies I'd have named the argument cookies [00:31:27.0000] annevk: from MDN: same-origin: Send cookies if the URL is on the same origin as the calling script. [00:31:45.0000] because it didn't work while doing that too. [00:32:34.0000] I'll give it another try [00:34:36.0000] nootan: well MDN isn't the spec [00:36:33.0000] annevk: thanks! It worked. [00:37:07.0000] I'm sure i did try that before, I must have been looking at a different server. :/ [01:01:54.0000] smaug____: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/661 [01:01:58.0000] smaug____: hope that helps [01:02:32.0000] thanks [01:08:47.0000] nootan: sorry wasn’t paying enough attention when you said it it was the same server [01:08:57.0000] anyway, glad annevk was around :) [01:09:06.0000] and glad you got it working [01:35:26.0000] annevk: thanks for creating a tracker for remaining issue! [01:35:49.0000] s/issue/issues/ [01:37:23.0000] it seems clicking on the checkbox directly edits the content... (if you have an editor bit, of course) :) [01:37:39.0000] yup [02:47:20.0000] thanks MikeSmith // annevk [03:25:42.0000] annevk: are the w3c-test commands documented anywhere? [03:30:07.0000] TimothyGu: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests#publication [03:30:26.0000] TimothyGu: I don't think that works for anyone though, probably need to be privileged somehow [03:31:34.0000] annevk: I've got commit access to wpt repo if that matters? [03:31:40.0000] TimothyGu: kinda sucks how WebKit gets punished a lot for following the spec, though maybe it happens less frequently than I think [03:31:49.0000] TimothyGu: then it prolly works [03:32:44.0000] annevk: yeah that was meh [05:10:56.0000] annevk: yeah :-/ [05:52:29.0000] zcorpan: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/4966#issuecomment-327163613 [05:55:35.0000] annevk: thanks, replied. [07:00:43.0000] Hey all, can I get added to the @whatwg org? I don't necessarily need (or want) commit access to any repos but would be nice to have a badge on my GitHub profile ;) [07:07:27.0000] sure thing [07:08:28.0000] annevk: thanks! [07:13:11.0000] Any idea why http://w3c.github.io/media-source/ has a ™ in the title? [07:16:54.0000] anyone know if someone is working on ES Module loader hooks ? [07:17:38.0000] bradleymeck: I don't think so [07:18:28.0000] is there a place I could start a discussion / start use case requirements? WICG ? [07:18:50.0000] bradleymeck: there's https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2640 and https://github.com/whatwg/loader [07:19:13.0000] bradleymeck: either of those seems better than doing yet another thing [11:56:35.0000] foolip: What's the link to your WPT-template gist or whatever? [11:56:41.0000] Gonna go build something into Bikeshed with it. [11:59:59.0000] annevk: JakeA: are we sure about giving up on mixed-content in service workers? https://twitter.com/AdamRackis/status/905131845188284417 [12:03:07.0000] wanderview: What if it's a malicious jpg that got mitm'd into an ad? [12:03:27.0000] TabAtkins: thats what mixed-content UX is there for? [12:06:57.0000] I was mostly being unserious. ^_^ I don't have an opinion on this or any connection to its resolution. [12:07:09.0000] wanderview: I'd prefer that, it's rather complicated 2017-09-06 [00:49:53.0000] blink has the some 0.x% usage limit for removing APIs [00:50:03.0000] anyone recalls what that number is [00:50:11.0000] was it something like 0.01? [00:50:19.0000] or 0.1 [00:50:33.0000] foolip: ^ [00:55:15.0000] smaug____: 0.003 iirc [00:55:30.0000] smaug____: but they use it more as an indicator of sorts these days, not as a hard line [00:55:35.0000] sure [00:57:09.0000] TabAtkins: do you mean the thing I've added to lots of specs? [00:57:40.0000] foolip: I pasted that in https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed/issues/1001, but I imagine that's not what you're asking for? [00:58:29.0000] smaug____: we used to say that 0.03% was some magic limit, but we've removed mention of that from everywhere now I hope [00:58:45.0000] certainly chromestatus.com no longer has a different color for things below that cutoff [00:59:01.0000] smaug____: things with >1% usage have been removed, it all depends on likely breakage in the wild [00:59:21.0000] ok [02:11:15.0000] I presume NPAPI was a bit above [02:34:16.0000] annevk: how documents get destroyed isn't spec'ed anywhere, right? I mean, how the DOM tree is unraveled and so. Since internally there are operations similar to 'remove' http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/#concept-node-remove but of course we don't want to call the custom element callbacks then. [02:47:34.0000] smaug____: no, expectation is that is not observable [05:29:47.0000] foolip: No, you had a gist or codepen or something containing a template for a wpt test, that you'd start from when writing one. [05:32:13.0000] TabAtkins: http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/testing/web-platform/mach_commands.py#165 might be similar to what you want [05:37:00.0000] TabAtkins: ah, that was from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LSuLWJDP02rlC9bOlidL6DzBV5kSkV5bW5Pled8HGC8/edit?usp=sharing [05:37:24.0000] and https://jsbin.com/pazubak/edit?html,output is the template [05:37:46.0000] Excellent. [07:04:08.0000] TabAtkins: note that the test needs to use /resources/testharness.js as the URL, unlike in that template [07:12:31.0000] smaug____: annevk: yeah that limit is not real anymore and really should stop being repeated. We have no limit; it's all case by case judgment. [07:12:52.0000] I see foolip said that too [07:15:07.0000] annevk: what do you mean by "the test (subtest two in particular) you pointed to above should also be fixed" ? [07:16:19.0000] Domenic: it does an array.length assert where it equals 5 and then shortly after compares the array to another array of 4 items [07:17:28.0000] Domenic: looks like that was my fault [07:17:31.0000] Domenic: patch coming up [07:18:32.0000] OK. So LGTM on spec patch but will wait to see test changes as I think it'll be easier to tell what's going on there with a patch. [07:20:26.0000] Domenic: you already changed the existing tests last time around [07:20:56.0000] Sure, but now we have a full rewrite, and maybe also some fix about 5 vs. 4, I'm not sure what the actual plan is anymore [07:21:23.0000] Domenic: I don't understand [07:21:51.0000] So the plan is not to merge https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/7266 , right? Since that tests something we haven't agreed on. [07:22:27.0000] https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3013#issuecomment-327493192 says that's the plan, but I'm assuming it's not the plan anymore. [07:23:19.0000] Then some test (still not sure which one) has some 5 vs. 4 issue, so you're thinking about submitting a separate patch for that? Is that the new plan for testing whatwg/html#3013? [07:23:31.0000] Or do we not need to test whatwg/html#3013 at all since it was already tested way back when? [07:23:35.0000] Domenic: those tests need to be reviewed, but I don't think that should block this simple bug in the HTML Standard [07:23:59.0000] Right, as I said, spec patch LGTM, but I'll wait to see what's going on with test changes. [07:24:02.0000] Domenic: yeah, I don't think we necessarily need tests for this change [07:24:20.0000] Domenic: I submitted a patch for the 5/4 thing [07:24:24.0000] Domenic: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/7267 [07:24:43.0000] Domenic: the assert is redundant with the assert_array_equals, which does that length check already [07:24:52.0000] Got it [07:27:04.0000] If I don't forget I'll look into those tests some more tomorrow [10:10:29.0000] Domenic: While not real, the limit is still an okay eyeball figure, I think. [15:59:22.0000] TabAtkins: I'm wondering why in http://wpt.fyi/css the css-page-3 subdir doesn’t show up, despite being in https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/css/css-page-3 [15:59:45.0000] is there something different about those tests that would cause them to not get picked up? [16:00:01.0000] MikeSmith: I haven't a single clue about any of that. [16:00:03.0000] like, those tests can’t be automated [16:00:04.0000] OK [16:04:48.0000] I guess maybe they’re print-only [16:05:26.0000] anyway the specific thing I was looking for is a @bottom-right test [16:05:54.0000] They, those tests appear to all be manual tests that you need to print and verify yourself. [16:05:56.0000] and looking at http://w3c-test.org/css/work-in-progress/hp/margin-boxes-012.xht it seems like it’s maybe a print-only thign [16:05:59.0000] yeah [16:06:05.0000] > This test requires 3 pages. When printed, the green box on this page should be equidistant from the blue boxes above and below it. 2017-09-07 [17:04:10.0000] tobie, annevk, Domenic: should I just apply https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/7254? [17:09:46.0000] and https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/2932 too [17:56:19.0000] wiki is once again open for business [17:56:37.0000] foolip, annevk, MikeSmith: ^ [17:58:02.0000] GPHemsley: super [19:11:51.0000] TimothyGu: sorry we haven't had time for review; it's on my to-do [19:12:12.0000] no worries [21:22:00.0000] GPHemsley: excellent! 🎉 [22:57:14.0000] GPHemsley: sweet, thank you! [01:27:24.0000] annevk: for same-origin requests, the XHR API provides no way to prevent credentials from being included, right? [01:29:21.0000] MikeSmith: nope [01:29:36.0000] or I suppose, you are right [01:32:55.0000] k [01:34:31.0000] annevk: another question, why does the XHR spec use the term *user credentials* https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#user-credentials while the Fetch spec uses just *credentials*? https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#credentials [01:34:43.0000] do those to mean the same thing? [01:34:50.0000] *those two [01:35:17.0000] MikeSmith: yeah, XHR should probably just reference Fetch for that [01:35:29.0000] OK I can make a PR [01:35:35.0000] thanks! [01:36:02.0000] but there’s another difference: [01:36:14.0000] Fetch says, “ are HTTP cookies, TLS client certificates, and authentication entries. [01:36:18.0000] oofs [01:36:42.0000] Fetch says, “Credentials are HTTP cookies, TLS client certificates, and authentication entries.” [01:37:28.0000] Nah, just different words [01:37:32.0000] while XHR says, “The term user credentialsfor the purposes of this specification means cookies, HTTP authentication, and TLS client certificates.” [01:37:40.0000] yeah well [01:37:49.0000] different words are pretty important [01:37:52.0000] And Fetch has the better words [01:37:57.0000] not sure about that [01:38:07.0000] technically it does of course [01:38:21.0000] but to a web-developer reader of the spec, maybe not [01:39:11.0000] I guess we should mention HTTP authentication more explicitly somehow in https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#authentication-entries but otherwise I think it's fine [01:39:21.0000] in particular, the specific mention of *HTTP authentication* in the XHR definition is more clear to web-developer readers [01:39:25.0000] yeah [01:39:28.0000] that is all I meant [01:39:32.0000] I will work on it, anyway [01:40:00.0000] if nothing else, will add a note [01:40:30.0000] in practice, notes mean as much to non-implementors as the normative statements do [01:41:57.0000] my main worry with notes is that I sometimes see implementors cite them as if they contain the truth [01:42:07.0000] yeah [01:42:13.0000] that is the downside [01:42:31.0000] and I strongly believe the specs should be optimized for implementors [01:43:15.0000] but fortunately that's easier to teach than not looking at forked variants that end up higher in search results [01:43:23.0000] :) [02:18:29.0000] TimothyGu: today's a bank holiday, here. [04:03:41.0000] jgraham: where do w3c reftests live these days? [04:04:03.0000] aha, https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests [04:04:58.0000] Also testing/web-platform/tests/css in m-c [04:05:03.0000] Or, therefore, rather [04:05:30.0000] hmm, I wonder if there are css tests for shadow dom [04:05:34.0000] I mean reftests [04:05:51.0000] Oh not sure, there could be but not under css probably [04:08:06.0000] kochi: perhaps you know [04:09:18.0000] smaug____: james@ginny:~/develop/web-platform-tests/shadow-dom$ rg -l 'rel=.(:?mis)?match' | wc -l [04:09:21.0000] 6 [04:09:32.0000] what kind of css tests for shadow dom? [04:10:07.0000] I guess some are covered in csswg tests (now in wpt anyway) [04:12:16.0000] kochi: just some tests ensuring that if one uses shadow dom, the layout is still correct [04:13:30.0000] like comparing layout without use of shadow dom to some page with shadow dom [04:13:38.0000] hmm, the scope sounds too broad :) [04:13:52.0000] ah, in shadow-dom/ directory we have several reftests [04:13:55.0000] that is very broad sure [04:14:01.0000] ah, looking [04:15:27.0000] kochi: hmm, where [04:15:56.0000] Using Blink's layout test runner infrastructure, running reftests automatically compares generated PNGs so its automatic, but running it manually is tedious. [04:16:10.0000] oh, you mean in blink [04:16:19.0000] I was wondering if wpt has them too [04:16:39.0000] we do have some reftests in gecko too [04:17:15.0000] I guess csswg tests are mostly reftests [04:18:13.0000] you can find '*-ref.html' in shadow-dom directory. I found 7 tests under shadow-dom/untriaged. [04:19:19.0000] smaug____: Blink imports wpt in its layout test subdirectory (external/wpt), and run them as a part of commit queue. [04:20:28.0000] Under "shadow-dom/untriaged" directory, we have several dozens of ancient tests. [04:20:54.0000] (ancient = created in Shadow DOM V0 era, converted to use V1 API) [04:21:25.0000] they test something, but their values are questionable, therefore needs triage... [04:26:06.0000] tobie: oh ok, I'll wait then [04:31:27.0000] annevk: Any idea what https://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/#stop-timeout-flag is for? It isn't exported, and it doesn't really seem to be used [04:32:54.0000] annevk: seems like the use of it was removed in https://github.com/whatwg/xhr/pull/133/files [04:40:29.0000] ~, [04:53:54.0000] validator.w3.org: [04:53:56.0000] 503 Service Unavailable [04:53:58.0000] No server is available to handle this request. [04:56:39.0000] /me MikeSmith ^ [04:56:41.0000] it works for me though [04:57:43.0000] right, works now [04:58:20.0000] checking which of these "scissor" symbols happens to be valid: [04:58:22.0000] --->8--- [04:58:24.0000] ---8<--- [04:58:36.0000] apparently only the first one is okay [05:00:30.0000] JakeA: oversight I suppose then [05:00:52.0000] annevk: cool, I'll remove it [05:26:21.0000] https://misc0110.net/web/files/keystroke_js.pdf [05:39:08.0000] jgraham: I am not sure how exactly their 6-liner works [05:39:29.0000] jgraham: what exactly happens/changes when a key is pressed in an unrelated context? [05:41:51.0000] hm, I may see now [05:42:07.0000] they measure how many increments happened in every 5ms timeslot [06:52:26.0000] zcorpan: hey while you're looking at data [06:52:37.0000] zcorpan: for https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3005 it would be interesting to know usage of charset + cross-origin URL [06:53:03.0000] zcorpan: and usage of a utf-16 charset, including utf-16le and utf-16be [06:56:01.0000] annevk: I find two utf-16s [06:56:11.0000] i'll comment in the issue [06:56:52.0000] hmm, that's potentially bad news [06:57:16.0000] thanks [07:01:20.0000] I'll need to write a new query to get the src attribute and compare origins, but need to go. Can you remind me tomorrow? [09:22:28.0000] I can [09:23:01.0000] One of those results was rather sad, suggesting that treating utf-16 as utf-8 would fail, but the upside is that it was same-origin, so maybe there's still hope cross-origin [12:32:21.0000] annevk: what is "topic: javascript" as opposed to "topic: script"? seems confusing [12:40:13.0000] Domenic: javascript was meant for host integration stuff [12:40:28.0000] script for the script element [12:40:39.0000] I dunno that's a blurry line [12:40:48.0000] guess I'm okay with merging them [12:40:51.0000] Like all module stuff is host integration too [12:40:54.0000] Ok cool [13:25:49.0000] gsnedders or whoever: The WPT introduction page mentions how to work with the GH repo, *but doesn't actually link to the repo*. [13:26:13.0000] hah, a+++ me [13:26:21.0000] TabAtkins: can you throw together a PR? [13:26:28.0000] No, because I can't find the GH repo. [13:26:32.0000] TabAtkins: wpt/doc [13:26:33.0000] *docs [13:27:03.0000] TabAtkins: i.e., in the wpt repo [13:27:18.0000] Which, again, I cant' find, because it's not in the docs. [13:27:42.0000] the docs are bad :( [13:27:47.0000] I mean they're better than they were a year ago [13:27:52.0000] but that's not saying much [13:27:58.0000] JUST LINK ME TO THE REPOSITORY [13:28:18.0000] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/docs/introduction.md [13:28:26.0000] Danke. ^_^ [13:28:37.0000] I thought you could find a directory in the wpt repo :P [13:29:39.0000] I can find a directory, yes. Couldn't find the repository. [13:29:49.0000] Thus my original complaint. [13:30:31.0000] (At some point I definitely could have just googled for it again, but you seemed to be purposely avoiding actually telling me where the repository was, and I wanted to see how far it would go.) [13:31:04.0000] (until you realise I'm just an idiot [13:31:06.0000] ) [13:31:41.0000] Correct. ^_^ [13:32:12.0000] Your trickery (telling me about a fake "wpt/docs" repo) was really confusing me for a while. [13:32:26.0000] /me goes back to trying to sort out an earlier screw up with more… financial consequences [13:32:38.0000] (financial consequences are the best consequences) [14:09:22.0000] I have a few questions. I notice the URL object is not recommended to be used in APIs, rather string URLs should be passed. Is there a strong reason for this? If URL was made immutable it could've saved us some reparsing between objects maybe? [14:28:50.0000] MikeSmith: sideshowbarker.net seems to not be working, causing HTML build failures, hrm https://travis-ci.org/whatwg/html/builds/272976905#L586 [14:36:53.0000] Domenic: thanks will check and get it fixed [14:38:33.0000] Domenic: working again now [14:38:47.0000] Thanks! [14:39:08.0000] and I’ll put some kind of watchdog in place so I get alerted when it’s down [14:39:36.0000] I think my `certbot renew` cron job is what caused it to go down [14:40:13.0000] that cron job stops nginx before running `certbot renew` and then restarts it after [14:41:00.0000] I think I am &&’ing the `certbot renew` and nginx restart [14:41:16.0000] which I guess I shouldn’t be [14:41:59.0000] yeah [14:42:01.0000] > 59 22 * * * sudo /etc/init.d/nginx stop > /dev/null && /opt/workspace/letsencrypt/letsencrypt-auto -q renew > /dev/null && sudo /etc/init.d/nginx start > /dev/null [14:42:20.0000] that’s not so smart [14:43:29.0000] OK, fixed that [15:12:29.0000] yay the chair of the W3C Service Workers WG has now actually joined the group [15:12:38.0000] progress! [15:19:28.0000] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15196280 [15:25:00.0000] TabAtkins is not the only one here that has worked for Google. [15:36:41.0000] Fucking hell, now I'm gonna have to talk to Legal. That jackass. [15:44:11.0000] On the plus side, comments are surprisingly good for HN. [15:45:24.0000] Notice the question I asked though. [15:45:50.0000] The one pretending this his conspiracy theory actually has some validity? Thanks for that. [15:46:06.0000] I was making an important point. [15:47:02.0000] "How often does random personal blog posts like this make it to the top in the first place " [15:47:31.0000] A lot? Especially when they're linked from the person's own blog? [15:48:01.0000] And several other high-Page Rank news-ish sites linked to it at one point. [15:48:29.0000] I'm super surprised at the longevity actually. Go look at my damn site, there's no special juicing going on. I just have a normal blog. [15:49:08.0000] But for serious, he's a paranoid jerk with an axe to grind. Don't feed his delusions. [15:49:18.0000] Yea, I just edited the comment to point that out too. This post is more than one year old. [15:49:24.0000] this current go-around might promote it higher. It's on my first page of duck duck go results now. [15:50:31.0000] I don't see any other news article about it on the first page either. [15:50:33.0000] Yeah, every time he complains he cements it. [15:51:04.0000] Other than the GamerGate interview. [15:51:40.0000] Which is also more than one year old too. [15:53:13.0000] And you are also talking about the blog article being in the third position of page one. [15:56:23.0000]