freenode :: #whatwg

12 Oct 2017
02:03sangwhanThink ondras is asking if there is no openssl -pubout equivalent, not having that isn't critical but having it is probably useful. I don't know any algorithms where this would be impossible, so not sure if there is a really good excuse for not having it aside from it not being a wide audience API
06:26annevkDomenic: GPHemsley: Im thinking we should add a MIMEType object too, in due course
06:26annevkOnce all other questions are resolved
06:39ondrassangwhan: my case: the client will be generating a keypair, sending the pubkey to the server, storing the privkey in localStorage to sign stuff later.
06:39ondrassangwhan: my point is, whether I need to store the pubkey in localStorage as well (if the server needs it again), or if it is derivable from the (already stored) privkey
07:32tobieIs there some kind of solution to add footnotes (or similar) to Bikeshed?
07:34tobieE.g. to link the (a) in to it's description right below.
07:35tobieI have a bunch of other cases in the spec where this would be useful. It doable by hand, but then it implies scoping identifiers somehow, which is error prone.
07:36tobieTabAtkins: ^
07:44tobieTabAtkins: I *think* that boils down to (1) an incrementing integer (e.g. <sup><a href=&quot;#path-to-note&quot;>[INT++]</a></sup>), and (2) some form of mechanism to go back to where the footnote was referenced, similar to what&#39;s already in place with DFNs and the like.
07:44tobieTabAtkins: also maybe this is completely overkill.
08:16freesamaelannevk: Do you know if there&#39;s a defined session history entry limit in the spec, or the 50 entries limit is just an implementation practice happened to be used in most browsers?
08:16freesamael(I couldn&#39;t find the defined limit in spec)
08:19annevkfreesamael: I haven&#39;t seen a defined a limit
08:19annevkfreesamael: generally we leave that up to impl, unless it becomes a compat problem (such as with redirects, where we do define a limit)
08:20freesamaelannevk: I see. Thx.
08:49tobieannevk: mind giving a quick double check ?
08:53annevkacks are sorted on last name?
08:54annevktobie: it looks good except I&#39;d drop &quot;CSS&quot;
08:54annevktobie: since the technology is selectors and it&#39;s supposedly independent from CSS (even though everyone calls it CSS selectors)
08:55tobieannevk: apparently (wrt to acks sort order)
08:55annevk(well, not just supposedly, these days there&#39;s DOM APIs)
08:55tobieShould I add a [[selectors4]] reference?
08:59annevktobie: I&#39;d drop the 4 if you do
09:00tobieyes, obv.
09:00annevktobie: it probably makes sense since you don&#39;t want to assume too much knowledge from the reader
09:00annevkthis might be an interesting example for that reference discussion
09:01tobieannevk: that said, the syntax error is actually thrown from DOM, not SELECTORS
09:01annevktobie: you could ref DOM instead, since it has all the relevant info
09:02tobieannevk: by &quot;reference discussion&quot; do you mean the &quot;footnotes&quot; I was mentioning above?
09:02annevktobie: I don&#39;t see the assert discussed in in the commit that closed the issue
09:03tobieannevk: yes, filed for that
09:14kochiannevk: tobie: thanks!
09:15tobiekochi: thank you!
09:15tobiekochi: also see the PR I sent to DOM
09:16kochitobie: whatwg/dom#518?
09:16tobiekochi: yes
09:16tobiekochi: as imho that&#39;s the root of the initial confusion.
09:17kochitobie: absolutely. thanks for doing all the stuff.
09:23kochitobie: as already annevk reviewed the PR, I don&#39;t have anything to add and it looks great to me.
10:36annevkJakeA: sorry, I missed that you wanted my review on those SW abort tests
10:36annevkJakeA: I&#39;m not really sure I&#39;m the right candidate, but I&#39;ll look through them
10:36JakeAannevk: no worries, I only pushed them a day ago I think
10:38annevkJakeA: says 4 days here
10:38JakeAannevk: shit, time flies
10:38annevkJakeA: oh my, I&#39;m confusing days and commits
10:38annevkFurther evidence I&#39;m not qualified
10:39JakeAhaha well I just took your world for it
11:19annevkJakeA: thanks for commenting on that push thing
11:19annevkJakeA: we should indeed do the lower-level thing first
11:20annevk(but someone should also figure out if we want to keep the current architecture where a push is tied to the connection)
11:27JakeAannevk: no problem! I think the push cache has to sit beyond the HTTP cache, otherwise it risks skipping stuff like CSP.
11:55annevkfoolip: would be nice for the roadmap
11:55annevkfoolip: there&#39;s some other older issues in w3c/wptserve too that are still relevant I guess
13:14TabAtkinstobie: Not currently, no. For now, just link it manually. Feel free to open an issue tho - if we can collect results I can see if there&#39;s a pattern that would be useful to capture.
13:15tobieTabAtkins: thanks
14:43wanderviewannevk: JakeA: is there a reason we can&#39;t use the WebSockets API on top of H2 under the hood? aren&#39;t network layers a useful abstraction? just curious about some of the motivations
14:44annevkwanderview: I think it&#39;s because nobody defined how it would work
14:45annevkwanderview: WebSocket now is an HTTP/1 handshake followed by framed data over a single connection
14:46annevkwanderview: to do it over HTTP/2 would require new H/2 frames or layering on top of H/2 frames, I&#39;d imagine
14:49JakeADidn&#39;t someone draft that?
14:49JakeABut it was abandoned
14:52annevkGive me full-duplex fetch first and then we&#39;ll see if we still need WebSocket or just smaller frames in H2
14:57wanderviewJakeA: oh, alex linked to that in his gist
16:12wanderviewannevk: JakeA: if we did do `.src = Response()` type integration... would you want it to be `.src` or `.srcobj`?
16:15annevkwanderview: prolly the latter for consistency with existing APIs and to not break things that assume .src is a string
16:16annevkwanderview: I totally forgot that was something I volunteered for looking into; I&#39;ll have a look tomorrow, but it might be a while
16:16wanderviewannevk: its ok... not like I have time to implement it (although it may not be that hard)
16:17wanderviewannevk: if we could tap into the same `respondWith()` resolved a Response logic it might be dead easy
16:22wanderviewannevk: nothing is on the SW TPAC agenda yet... I guess I could try to propose something there
16:44annevkwanderview: which APIs were you thinking anyway? For <audio> and <video> there&#39;s quite a simple entry point; I suspect for <img> it would be quite involved specification-wise
16:46wanderviewannevk: I was thinking for everything... if it supports a ServiceWorker interception/respondWith() it seems like we should be able to manually synthesize a response... was my naive thinking
16:48annevkwanderview: makes sense, though I suspect we&#39;ll have some different challenges for each endpoint, even though if you imagine a service worker it&#39;s rather easy
18:11annevkMaybe I should start blocking email that copies mailing lists
21:56tantekhas anyone heard of the disableRemotePlayback attribute?
21:56tantekor seen / read the Remote Playback API spec?
13 Oct 2017
No messages
Last message: 5 days and 34 minutes ago