IRC log of webapps on 2011-11-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:07:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webapps
16:07:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:07:31 [SungOk_You]
SungOk_You has joined #webapps
16:07:34 [Marcos]
TOPIC: Agenda (bashing)
16:07:44 [Marcos]
we look at stream and file API
16:07:48 [jihye]
jihye has joined #webapps
16:07:51 [jcantera]
jcantera has joined #webapps
16:08:02 [Marcos]
Need to look at what we do with DOM 3 API at 10am
16:08:25 [Marcos]
People who are important are Jakob and Doug, but there is time conflict
16:08:28 [Travis]
Travis has joined #webapps
16:08:51 [Marcos]
So we will do it at 11:30 (DOM3 Events)
16:08:58 [Travis]
Travis has left #webapps
16:09:05 [Marcos]
Testing we also need to discuss
16:09:27 [Marcos]
We need Jonas for the File API
16:09:34 [pererik]
pererik has joined #webapps
16:09:40 [stakagi]
stakagi has joined #webapps
16:10:00 [magnus]
magnus has joined #webapps
16:10:02 [Marcos]
Afternoon: index DB and XBL2 and component model, in the afternoon
16:10:16 [Marcos]
16:10:22 [richt]
richt has joined #webapps
16:10:44 [miketaylr]
miketaylr has joined #webapps
16:10:54 [Marcos]
Bryan wanted to add an item: Event source extension for connectionless push
16:10:59 [miketaylr]
miketaylr has joined #webapps
16:11:00 [sicking]
sicking has joined #webapps
16:11:19 [spoussa]
spoussa has joined #webapps
16:11:23 [Marcos]
If we get through stuff quickly, we can start talking about API design
16:11:24 [dcooney_]
dcooney_ has joined #webapps
16:11:38 [Marcos]
Stream and file API, we can start off with that
16:11:48 [Marcos]
TOPIC: Stream and file API
16:11:52 [Soonho]
Soonho has joined #webapps
16:11:58 [Marcos]
Scribe: Marcosc
16:12:05 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #webapps
16:12:12 [Soonho]
present+ Soonho_Lee
16:12:30 [magnus]
present+ magnus
16:12:32 [krisk]
present+ krisk
16:12:37 [spoussa]
present+ spoussa
16:12:43 [Marcos]
EE: I want to discuss file saver
16:12:44 [jrossi2]
present+ Jacob
16:12:49 [DavidKim]
DavidKim has joined #webapps
16:12:53 [jrossi2]
present+ Israel
16:13:07 [Will]
Will has joined #webapps
16:13:45 [howard]
howard has joined #webapps
16:13:52 [SungOk_You]
Present+ SungOk_You
16:13:53 [Marcos]
Not all the use cases are covered by download attribute on the a element.
16:14:30 [Marcos]
ee: we had talked about looking at saving a blob VS saving a URL (the resource)
16:14:36 [sangwhan]
sangwhan has joined #webapps
16:14:38 [Marcos]
ee: is there interest in implementing this?
16:14:45 [Marcos]
JS: yes
16:14:57 [Marcos]
CMN: nods in agreement
16:15:36 [alexmog]
alexmog has joined #webapps
16:15:36 [davida]
davida has joined #webapps
16:16:38 [Marcos]
AB: We wanted to replicate the same expirience you get form downloading a link. We have implemented two APIs that get sent a blob and the browser displays a dialog and simulates downloading a file (but using a blob). The idea is to make the user experience is the same.
16:16:46 [Marcos]
JS: how is that different from file saver
16:16:57 [Marcos]
AB: you don't get the progress events.
16:17:04 [noriya]
noriya has joined #webapps
16:17:14 [euhrhane]
euhrhane has joined #webapps
16:17:19 [tlr]
tlr has joined #webapps
16:17:22 [Marcos]
AB: going to paste in a URL
16:17:26 [adrianba]
16:17:26 [Kihong_Kwon]
Kihong_Kwon has joined #webapps
16:17:31 [ihilerio]
ihilerio has joined #webapps
16:17:54 [bryan]
bryan has joined #webapps
16:18:04 [rniwa]
rniwa has joined #webapps
16:18:10 [bryan]
present +Bryan_Sullivan
16:18:17 [Marcos]
If you look at the second page… replicating content disposition: which shows the save dialog
16:18:32 [Travis_MSFT]
Travis_MSFT has joined #webapps
16:18:33 [Marcos]
CMN: is there any indicator when the download is done.
16:18:48 [Marcos]
AB: no. it works like the current save dialog that browsers use
16:19:46 [Wonsuk]
Wonsuk has joined #webapps
16:19:48 [jmarting]
jmarting has joined #webapps
16:19:54 [a1zu]
a1zu has joined #webapps
16:19:59 [Marcos]
CMN: We have the File API right now. And I think that is what we want before a full filesystem API. Our use cases are "real file system access": create directories, get at files, so the user can share files with Apps.
16:20:20 [Marcos]
AB: we are not opposed to such an API. But they are not a high priority for us (MS) right now.
16:20:24 [JonathanJ]
JonathanJ has joined #webapps
16:20:27 [chaals]
[berjob waltzes in already...]
16:20:30 [Wonsuk]
Present+ Wonsuk_Lee
16:20:32 [jcdufourd]
jcdufourd has joined #webapps
16:20:50 [Marcos]
AB: this is something we did instead of file saver… the file system API is further down the road.
16:20:51 [mixedpuppy]
mixedpuppy has joined #webapps
16:21:09 [Marcos]
EE: how is this different from the current API?
16:21:36 [DavidKim]
Present+ David_Yushin_Kim
16:21:54 [Kihong_Kwon]
Present+ Kihong_Kwon
16:21:59 [Marcos]
AB: we don't support the download attribute. We don't to support navigation to a blob URL. So if the blog points to a URL page, we don't want to display that page. we are concerned about scripts running in the page contained by the page.
16:22:05 [Linuz]
Linuz has joined #webapps
16:22:05 [tcelik]
tcelik has joined #webapps
16:22:11 [Marcos]
RB: could you not always download it? just a suggestion?
16:22:16 [Marcos]
AB: maybe :)
16:22:43 [jmarting]
Present+ Jesus_Martin
16:23:04 [Marcos]
EE: not sure what Chrome does right now. We might be displaying it in an iframe. But we are not sure about the origin right now and what privileges it has
16:23:18 [darobin]
darobin has joined #webapps
16:23:35 [Marcos]
AB: for use, we have abstract protocol handler…
16:23:48 [chaals]
16:23:55 [chaals]
16:24:17 [chaals]
16:24:19 [chaals]
16:24:23 [chaals]
16:24:46 [Marcos]
EU: It sounds like we have 3 different things that overlap.
16:25:01 [howard]
16:25:21 [Marcos]
JS: I'm very interested in supporting the use cases, but 3 different ways is not good. I would like to find a way to avoid having 3 different APIs
16:25:35 [Marcos]
JS: file saver could do everything you want
16:25:46 [Marcos]
EU: it doesnt have a clean way to allow the user to open the file
16:25:58 [Marcos]
JS: but it is fully API driven
16:26:35 [Marcos]
JS: it would be nice to find a single way. So it would be nice to figure out what the requirements are consolidate them
16:26:51 [Marcos]
AB: agree… we don't want to implement multiple API
16:27:18 [Marcos]
CMN: its clear that we all want to support the use case…. and we don't want to tell devs how to use multiple APIs
16:27:27 [Marcos]
16:27:48 [Marcos]
AB: Can we talk about file API first
16:27:58 [Marcos]
before moving on to stream
16:28:42 [Marcos]
In the first page of the first page: readAsBinaryString… is there a strong use case for it? is that for legacy reasons?
16:28:51 [Marcos]
JS: It is. But it's ok to drop it
16:28:59 [Marcos]
AB: We would like to see it removed
16:29:07 [Marcos]
JS: it's more legacy, so I'm ok with dropping it
16:29:09 [yu1]
yu1 has joined #webapps
16:29:41 [Marcos]
MC: Second question: do we really need the restrictions on the URL?
16:29:48 [Marcos]
JS: I have not looked at the URL part
16:30:14 [Marcos]
Arun has been working on it. But he would probably be interested in discussing it further
16:30:32 [Eliot]
Eliot has joined #webapps
16:30:53 [dom]
RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight
16:30:57 [cyril]
cyril has joined #webapps
16:31:53 [Marcos]
AB: the third thing is a suggestion: a really common pattern is to have an URL that represents something (e.g., an image). So one of the things that we have implemented is boolean flag, that creates a one time URL. The first time it gets dereferenced, it loads and it goes away
16:32:49 [Marcos]
AB: final question, I'm wondering if it's ever possible to see the protocol version that is dereferenced in from the blob URL
16:32:51 [James]
James has joined #webapps
16:32:51 [Marcos]
16:33:09 [Marcos]
AB: we proposed it's not necessary
16:33:22 [Marcos]
JS: agree, but Arun should have a look
16:33:27 [skim_]
skim_ has joined #webapps
16:33:56 [Marcos]
JS: another proposal is to drop BlobBuilder in favour of a contructor
16:34:04 [adrianba]
16:34:10 [Marcos]
TOPIC: stream API
16:34:32 [sangwhan]
sangwhan has joined #webapps
16:34:42 [Marcos]
when we started working on the blob API, a req was to have a blob whose size was unknown (a steam).
16:35:01 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #webapps
16:35:53 [Marcos]
AB: feedback we got was don't make it blob, make it something else… so it's how we ended up with at stream… so we have a Stream Reader, which allows you to covert to a blob. We make the stream available at ready state 3, instead of 4. It allows people to view media before the whole thing finishes
16:36:17 [youenn]
youenn has joined #webapps
16:36:42 [chsiao]
chsiao has joined #webapps
16:37:00 [Marcos]
E.g. in a mail app, you can start viewing stuff at readystate 3, and start showing it without waiting for the end… and start processing data as it downloads … use chuck upload as well
16:37:15 [Marcos]
CMN: we have similar use cases
16:37:23 [Marcos]
JS: so can you create streams?
16:37:40 [Marcos]
AB: yes, we have a stream builder.
16:37:58 [Marcos]
JS: it should interesting
16:38:52 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:38:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MikeSmith
16:38:59 [Marcos]
JS: we had a contributor who did something similar, but what he did was as it progresses, but they grow incrementally until you get the blob that has the whole file… the blobs have a fixed size, so it just keeps growing… you always get unique blobs.
16:39:07 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:39:07 [sejinpark]
sejinpark has joined #webapps
16:39:42 [Marcos]
EU: AB's proposal it sounds interesting to me
16:39:51 [dino]
dino has joined #webapps
16:39:57 [cyril_]
cyril_ has joined #webapps
16:40:13 [Marcos]
EU: is we have a stream object that we can convert to a blob would be good, so we can hand it to file writter
16:40:27 [Marcos]
16:40:34 [Marcos]
TOPIC: Testing
16:40:50 [ChrisWilson]
ChrisWilson has joined #webapps
16:41:05 [krisk]
16:41:09 [euhrhane]
[not necessarily convert to blob--possibly we'd just pass the stream to the FileWriter.
16:41:11 [euhrhane]
16:41:21 [wilhelm]
wilhelm has joined #webapps
16:41:43 [Marcos]
KK: we need a more consistent way to do tests… and we don't have an approval process
16:42:48 [Marcos]
KK: my experience has been that when people start looking at tests they start finding issues. An approval process might help.
16:42:59 [gopal]
gopal has joined #webapps
16:43:22 [nvbalaji]
nvbalaji has joined #webapps
16:43:26 [chaals]
MC: It is difficult to approve tests where we auto-generate a ton of them. You can produce lots from WebIDL, and it is time-consuming to check each one.
16:43:37 [chaals]
... might be a good idea to look at a test generator, rather than the test.
16:44:07 [Marcos]
KK: the tests I have seen have not been autogenerated.
16:44:25 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #webapps
16:44:42 [Marcos]
KK: maybe we can create task force, somewhere more focused to discuss testing
16:44:52 [JonathanJ]
Present+ Jonathan_Jeon
16:44:59 [Marcos]
CMN: not sure how we would do this
16:45:29 [Marcos]
CMN: our experience is that people who make tests are usually not spec people
16:46:01 [Marcos]
Wilhelm … introduces himself
16:46:35 [chaals]
16:48:15 [Marcos]
wilhelm: we had a meeting last thursday about testing… we need to make the tests simple, it would be good to have a standard…. we propose using testharnes.js (HTML5 WG is using it). have a look at There are lots of tests there that use the test harness, so everyone can see how its done. We need someone to nag browser makers to get tests so we don't duplicate work.
16:48:56 [Marcos]
CMN: So, do we need a sub group? wilhelm, how should we collaborate between Webapps and the Testing and Tools group.
16:49:17 [Eliot]
16:49:46 [Marcos]
wilhelm: please contact us. For visual things, use ref-tests from the CSS working group. We are happy to collaborate and provide guidance.
16:50:03 [Marcos]
CMN: but which group should we do it in?
16:50:26 [heycam]
16:50:34 [Marcos]
jG: there is already a mailing list. public-webapps-test-suite ?
16:50:35 [MikeSmith]
16:50:48 [Marcos]
wilhelm: lets figure out what tests there are already
16:51:10 [Marcos]
wilhelm: then we can see what tests are available
16:51:11 [chaals]
ack ch
16:52:06 [James]
James has joined #webapps
16:52:32 [Marcos]
KK: it think getting a good rhythm going… want to try something a little different. If we just do the list, that is ok. But we need some more active ways to do things… getting people to talk more.
16:53:52 [Marcos]
JS: some feedback we had a while ago, it was harder to write tests than necessary. Because of the infrastructure, it made tests hard to write tests. W3C tests required more boilerplate than at Moz.
16:54:21 [Marcos]
JS: at mozilla, we end up doing it our own way to because its easier and faster
16:54:41 [Marcos]
JG: yes, there is a bit more work involved with the W3C tests.
16:54:59 [Marcos]
16:55:04 [tlr]
tlr has joined #webapps
16:55:06 [Rossen]
Rossen has joined #webapps
16:55:11 [chaals]
16:55:11 [Marcos]
+q marcos
16:55:17 [chaals]
q+ marcos
16:55:23 [krisk]
q+ krisk
16:55:33 [Marcos]
JS: the number of tests you get is affected by how easy to write the tests
16:55:49 [jcdufourd_]
jcdufourd_ has joined #webapps
16:55:49 [Marcos]
JG: I've had a different experience
16:57:42 [chaals]
CM: How does HTML test group work cmpared to not having one?
16:57:45 [chaals]
JG: Well...
16:57:49 [chaals]
KK: Yes
16:58:20 [chaals]
MC: having tests be very easily accessible with an interface is really helpful - especially when linked to the spec.
16:59:40 [davidb]
davidb has joined #webapps
16:59:49 [krisk]
HTML started a taskforce two years ago
17:00:02 [krisk]
Before that their was no html5 tests
17:00:08 [skim]
skim has joined #webapps
17:00:08 [Marcos]
CMN: my experience is the same similar to JG and JS… when you pay people, you get people making good tests. But also making them easier to write for volunteers, also helps. As KK suggested, we need review.
17:00:25 [Marcos]
CMN: it seems like it's an action on the chair
17:00:31 [krisk]
today we have a large number of tests across a number of features that are implemented in browsers today
17:01:23 [Marcos]
wilhelm: writing a good test suite is as hard writing a spec. We should have a dedicated person to write a test suite (equal to the editor).
17:02:03 [Marcos]
CMN: how many person think there should be a dedicated testing person for a spec?
17:02:18 [Marcos]
[plenty of agreement]
17:03:21 [Marcos]
MC: we could make it a requirement that no spec start without also having dedicated tester
17:03:40 [Marcos]
CM: not every org has dedicated spec people.
17:04:10 [chaals]
MC: It is fundamental to have tests, so you can't seperate without being able to get a test suite.
17:04:30 [lgombos_]
lgombos_ has joined #webapps
17:04:43 [Marcos]
JG: this person does not need to write the tests… the person would have the responsibility to source the tests.
17:05:10 [jrossi2]
jrossi2 has joined #webapps
17:05:22 [Marcos]
JG: it does not mean that only one person would write all the tests (if any)
17:06:08 [Marcos]
wilhelm: if you have 15 specs, you can break up the task amongst multiple people
17:06:30 [Marcos]
CM: does it have to be a different person than the editor?
17:06:51 [ss]
ss has joined #webapps
17:07:12 [dom]
17:07:23 [Marcos]
RN: when do you need to involve a testing person?
17:08:15 [Marcos]
… discussion… identifying them from the start
17:09:03 [Marcos]
DS: that has traditionally been the role of the editor
17:09:47 [chaals]
RN: What's the diffrence?
17:10:00 [chaals]
MC: It can alleviate the load of the editor
17:10:23 [dino]
dino has left #webapps
17:10:32 [chaals]
... we need to discuss what to do when you generate tests and then the spec changes - how do you avoid starting too early or too late
17:11:41 [Marcos]
RN: but we still not clear when we should have tests
17:12:17 [Marcos]
DS: for DOM 3, I've requested that people contribute tests… but didn't get much back
17:12:25 [wma_]
wma_ has joined #webapps
17:12:35 [wma_]
RRSAgent: draft minutes
17:12:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate wma_
17:12:42 [Marcos]
DS: I would like to have a req that before a spec progresses to CR, it should have a test suite
17:12:47 [morrita]
morrita has joined #webapps
17:13:04 [Marcos]
CMN: it seems reasonable as a first step to appoint someone for testing.
17:13:11 [Josh_Soref]
Present+ Josh_Soref
17:13:41 [Marcos]
RESOLUTION: We will insist that when work on a new spec, a person be appointed to handle testing
17:14:46 [nwidell]
nwidell has joined #webapps
17:14:49 [Marcos]
KK: as DS said, we should have something in the process so specs can't move to CR without a test suite
17:15:17 [youenn_]
youenn_ has joined #webapps
17:15:36 [Marcos]
DS: part of LC would benefit from a test suite.
17:15:40 [hoashi]
hoashi has joined #webapps
17:15:52 [Marcos]
17:16:48 [ChrisWilson]
ChrisWilson has joined #webapps
17:17:19 [hayato]
hayato has joined #webapps
17:17:44 [Rossen]
Rossen has joined #webapps
17:17:46 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #webapps
17:18:23 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
17:19:00 [Marcos]
CMN: problem is that is expensive to produce tests… so, we don't want a process heavy way of making tests…
17:19:12 [Josh_Soref]
s/that is/that it is/
17:19:20 [Marcos]
JG: Tests really only come out when people are implementing stuff
17:19:58 [Marcos]
JG: implementers who want to have a bug free implementation are going to produce tests
17:20:19 [tantek]
tantek has joined #webapps
17:20:37 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:20:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
17:20:49 [Marcos]
CMN: another group to get test from is non-browser vendors (e.g., content providers)/.… how do we talk to those people?
17:21:23 [MOIBA]
MOIBA has joined #webapps
17:21:45 [Marcos]
JG and JS say there are a few examples of people who have done it…
17:22:08 [bryan]
17:22:30 [Josh_Soref]
17:22:34 [mixedpuppy]
mixedpuppy has joined #webapps
17:23:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webapps
17:23:15 [Josh_Soref]
17:23:24 [Josh_Soref]
q+ bryan
17:23:51 [hoashi]
hoashi has joined #webapps
17:25:14 [Marcos]
KK: happy help to set up guidelines
17:25:36 [Marcos]
DS: if we have a good way to contribute tests, that would help
17:25:41 [ArtB]
WebApps' Test Submission process:
17:26:09 [Josh_Soref]
17:26:19 [Josh_Soref]
17:26:28 [Josh_Soref]
ack bryan
17:26:42 [Josh_Soref]
RRSAgent: draft minutes
17:26:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Josh_Soref
17:27:04 [Josh_Soref]
s/RRSAgent: draft minutes//
17:27:10 [Josh_Soref]
s/RRSAgent: draft minutes//
17:27:25 [Josh_Soref]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:27:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Josh_Soref
17:27:36 [Marcos]
BS: one of the best ways to learn is by doing. We need really good guidelines, so test examples are good. Looking to service providers and universities to help use build tests would be good… it benefits lots the whole community.
17:27:48 [Marcos]
CMN: the public tests can vary in quality
17:28:39 [Marcos]
Israel: when is the right point to do testing?
17:29:32 [Marcos]
JS: I don't care what the tests are and what they are targeting, as long as we get lots of good tests
17:29:40 [spoussa]
spoussa has joined #webapps
17:30:18 [ArtB]
Present+ Robin, Cameron, JamesG, Dom, Jonas, Doug, Chaals, Kris, BrianR, Magnus, ArtB, MikeSmith, EricU, LaszloG, Sakkari, WayneCarr
17:30:40 [Kihong_Kwon]
Kihong_Kwon has joined #webapps
17:30:50 [Josh_Soref]
q+ to say you're either implementing or using someone's implementation or planning to use it
17:31:05 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:31:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
17:31:39 [Marcos]
JG: it's never too early
17:31:41 [ArtB]
Meeting: WebApps f2f meeting
17:31:42 [Marcos]
MC: I agree
17:31:55 [ArtB]
17:32:08 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:32:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
17:32:35 [Marcos]
DS: who is going to enforce this policy?
17:33:06 [Marcos]
CMN: good will :)
17:33:25 [Marcos]
CMN: there is no formal policy that we can enforce
17:33:29 [Josh_Soref]
ack me
17:33:29 [Zakim]
Josh_Soref, you wanted to say you're either implementing or using someone's implementation or planning to use it
17:34:07 [Marcos]
JS: hopefully you are implementing this feature… people have a vested interest in the spec and hence produce tests
17:34:09 [ArtB]
Chair: Chaals, Art
17:35:21 [Marcos]
ACTION: Art and Charles to make a proposal about how to appoint a person to be assigned for testing for a spec.
17:35:21 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-637 - And Charles to make a proposal about how to appoint a person to be assigned for testing for a spec. [on Arthur Barstow - due 2011-11-08].
17:37:00 [Marcos]
17:37:11 [howard]
howard has left #webapps
17:37:16 [jihye]
17:39:37 [hayato]
hayato has joined #webapps
17:41:10 [dowan]
present+ Dowan
17:44:15 [lgombos]
lgombos has joined #webapps
17:47:50 [abarsto]
abarsto has joined #webapps
17:47:56 [tlr]
tlr has joined #webapps
17:48:37 [JonathanJ]
JonathanJ has left #webapps
17:48:46 [JonathanJ]
JonathanJ has joined #webapps
17:49:21 [pererik]
pererik has joined #webapps
17:51:11 [richt]
richt has joined #webapps
17:53:50 [DavidKim]
DavidKim has joined #webapps
17:53:55 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:53:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
17:57:44 [morrita]
morrita has joined #webapps
17:59:33 [mixedpuppy]
mixedpuppy has joined #webapps
18:00:06 [howard]
howard has joined #webapps
18:00:47 [a12u]
a12u has joined #webapps
18:05:20 [spoussa]
spoussa has joined #webapps
18:07:42 [Kai]
Kai has joined #webapps
18:08:24 [krisk]
krisk has joined #webapps
18:10:13 [morrita]
morrita has joined #webapps
18:10:20 [chaals]
Topic: API design
18:10:45 [hayato]
hayato has joined #webapps
18:10:58 [khoashi]
khoashi has joined #webapps
18:11:02 [Linuz]
Linuz has joined #webapps
18:11:07 [jihye]
jihye has joined #webapps
18:11:25 [chaals]
MC: we're getting frustrated trying to write APIs because a lot of stuff coming out we don't necessrily understand the design patterns - or when WAC brings in an API it doesn't look like a Web API and they lose out on uptake.
18:11:46 [chaals]
... so we ae trying to reduce the "not invented here" thing by being able to get in APIs that match what we think of.
18:11:51 [Kihong_Kwon]
Kihong_Kwon has joined #webapps
18:12:17 [chaals]
... so we are lookig to create general guidance (rather than formal requirements) - what WebIDL gives you, how do you describe throwing an excepetion and what does that mean, etc.
18:12:43 [chaals]
... It's a friendly list for editors to find information that is helpful.
18:13:18 [chaals]
... The ideas have all been under development, and effectively black magic in people's heads that wasn't available to others.
18:13:31 [youenn]
youenn has joined #webapps
18:13:41 [WayneCarr]
WayneCarr has joined #webapps
18:13:52 [chaals]
... Would also encourage people working on frameworks to help us work out how we can make things more easily.
18:14:09 [nwidell]
nwidell has joined #webapps
18:14:53 [chaals]
RB: To avoid making this exess make-work, when you understand something about a design pattern you haven't thought of, just drop in a rough email. Don't bother trying to get it right and perfect, dump the half idea and let Marcos and me figure out how to explain.
18:15:08 [bryan]
18:15:15 [WayneCarr]
present+ WayneCarr
18:15:16 [chaals]
[throwing exceptions, defining events, how to use dictionaries, etc]
18:16:00 [chaals]
BS: Would like to have had a discussion not just about JS/DOM APIs, but also other things happening here like things on abstract resources handled by the browser.
18:16:14 [chaals]
... We see a number of patterns - trying to understand the rationales for that is important.
18:16:17 [Wonsuk]
Wonsuk has joined #webapps
18:16:42 [chaals]
i/Topic:/Scribe: Chaals/
18:16:47 [bryan]
Here is the link to the draft presentation I had prepared for the TPAC discussion on this topic. It captures some of the questions we had and the objectives for a discussion:
18:16:57 [stakagi]
stakagi has joined #webapps
18:16:58 [chaals]
... why is video a tag, why is event-source an API, etc.
18:17:23 [chaals]
AR: Trying to understand if the intent is to capture the way things are done, or what we think would be an ideal design pattern.
18:17:32 [chaals]
MC: We are trying to figure it out too...
18:17:37 [euhrhane]
euhrhane has joined #webapps
18:17:37 [chaals]
18:17:46 [chaals]
ack br
18:18:19 [rniwa_]
rniwa_ has joined #webapps
18:18:40 [chaals]
RB: A large element is a cookbook. Editors do something, someone says it is a bad way, they don't wnderstand why and just want to make something that works. Goal is to make editing easier
18:20:06 [davida]
davida has joined #webapps
18:20:13 [chaals]
CMN: I'd find the historical explanations useful
18:20:14 [nwidell]
nwidell has joined #webapps
18:20:31 [chaals]
... What's the future of this? A note, what?
18:20:42 [Travis_MSFT]
Travis_MSFT has joined #webapps
18:20:42 [chaals]
AR: If we write down what people do now we perpetuate it and that is bad.
18:20:54 [chaals]
MC: We propose this as a note - a useful thing for the community.
18:21:05 [chaals]
... we are trying to help consistency.
18:21:10 [chaals]
AR: Consistency is good.
18:21:37 [chaals]
CM: Helping editors construct prose and interfaces to match what other people are doing is good. I agree also that it is good to document the rationale.
18:21:54 [chaals]
... it isn't just a matter of people agreeing, because there are real disagreements right now.
18:22:15 [chaals]
MC: Yes, we don't just want to codify what people are doing now, because we don't want to describe how to do things wrong...
18:22:29 [chaals]
AR: The point isn't to make a normative requirement set, right?
18:22:34 [aizu]
aizu has joined #webapps
18:22:45 [chaals]
CM: We don't have a general place to do this at the moment...
18:22:55 [chaals]
RB: THere are a lot of people who are here??
18:23:04 [hoashi]
hoashi has joined #webapps
18:23:26 [chaals]
??: Is this less about general API design and more about particular things that you want to do - events or callback? what is a webby error? ...
18:23:37 [chaals]
RB: Yep.
18:23:41 [euhrhane]
euhrhane has joined #webapps
18:24:05 [chaals]
[examples of different approaches]
18:24:21 [chaals]
... Not sure a document can recommend aright way, but might describe a possible set of ways to do so.
18:24:31 [chaals]
MC: Ca Can show examples, and why they did it.
18:25:12 [darin]
darin has joined #webapps
18:25:16 [chaals]
JS: Think this is a great idea. I'd like to know e.g. how you should write a callback-based approach and why. I'd love to have more input from people who write JS.
18:25:38 [chaals]
... in particular, from more than two people who do the same thing already. Take into account beginners, who are not here.
18:25:56 [chaals]
... most important peopl to get input from are not in the room
18:26:02 [Travis_MSFT]
18:26:03 [chaals]
RB: E.g. JQuery standards group
18:26:10 [chaals]
JS: Right. We should talk to those guys.
18:26:31 [chaals]
AR: I can tell you what to do ;)
18:27:16 [chaals]
Suresh: Good examples are important. We should do this across different WGs. ANd there are different groups that have very fdifferent patterns, e.g. geolocation.
18:27:38 [chaals]
RB: Yes. People outside this WG don't know or care about working group boundaries.
18:27:49 [nvbalaji]
Not suresh. I am Balaji (nvbalaji)
18:28:04 [nvbalaji]
18:28:21 [heycam]
18:29:14 [mmielke]
mmielke has joined #webapps
18:29:18 [Kai]
18:29:26 [chaals]
CMN: I think the TAG has a role here - at least in the structure. I don't think we want to palm this off to the TAG, but I think they have a role as custodians of these large questions.
18:30:11 [jmarting]
jmarting has joined #webapps
18:30:17 [chaals]
NM: I don't think TAG has "the expertise" here, and we don't want to repeat other people's work. We don't necessarily have an opinion here, but we are intersted in how these questions are resolved in different places.
18:30:48 [chaals]
... THere are things that are deep architectural things. When you have APIs, over time, you want to evolve things - and you can't install a flag day on the web.
18:31:28 [chaals]
MC: You were involved in the "architecture of the Web document" - are there relevant lessons from communicating, the experience of doing it, etc?
18:32:59 [chaals]
NM: Web arch is different to architecture documents I have seen. Architecture documents in IBM answered specific questions to say "did you do this right or not?" Web Arch is more informal - and is a retrospective document, not prescriptive. Tim wrote design notes for the web, which found their way into Web Arch (specific "thoughts")
18:33:07 [jrossi2]
jrossi2 has joined #webapps
18:33:18 [chaals]
... I think good architecture can be related to use cases.
18:33:59 [chaals]
... Invent good stuff, think about the use cases, think about architecture. but the web arch document is very backwards-focused - what was important in a running system.
18:35:06 [chaals]
DS: +1 to this - it costs a lot of time and frustration for people to do APIs wrong without knowing where they are going. We shouldn't reinforce anti-patterns, but ahving a document that says why they are anti-patterns and what other patterns could be used is useful.
18:35:31 [Rossen]
Rossen has joined #webapps
18:35:54 [chaals]
BS: What I get out of this is "yeah, we need this discussion..."
18:36:29 [chaals]
[kibbitzing on list choice]
18:36:54 [mollydotcom]
mollydotcom has joined #webapps
18:37:12 [Kihong_Kwon]
Kihong_Kwon has joined #webapps
18:37:45 [ArtB]
Scribe: ArtB
18:37:54 [nwidell]
nwidell has joined #webapps
18:38:10 [ArtB]
Topic: D3E and DOM4 Redux
18:38:33 [gopal]
gopal has joined #webapps
18:38:44 [ArtB]
JR: IE9 implemented 100% of the spec
18:38:58 [ArtB]
… think other browsers implemented about ~60% of D3E
18:39:11 [ArtB]
CM: so, I think the Editors are OK with making the requested changes
18:39:18 [ArtB]
… is that a fair characterization?
18:39:29 [ArtB]
Sam: other than IE, who will implement this?
18:39:38 [ArtB]
JR: Olli Pettay has been involved
18:39:43 [ArtB]
.. I don't know about Google
18:39:57 [ArtB]
JS: I talked to Olli
18:40:09 [ArtB]
… we intentionally remvoved ExceptionEvent
18:40:13 [heycam]
[There may be confusion in the minutes at some points between CM and CMN. :)]
18:40:27 [ArtB]
… Olli is not as concerned about edge cases AvK and Ojan mentioned
18:40:37 [ArtB]
… We do implement a lot of the spec
18:40:45 [ArtB]
… Not sure if we will implement all of it
18:40:58 [ArtB]
… and the parts we may not implement are features that matter
18:41:12 [ArtB]
DS: D3E is a subset of DOM4 re the events
18:41:25 [ArtB]
… we changed the spec to not have conflicts with DOM4
18:41:38 [heycam]
Present+ Cameron
18:41:56 [jrossi2]
18:42:07 [ifette_]
ifette_ has joined #webapps
18:42:23 [anne]
anne has joined #webapps
18:42:27 [ArtB]
[ scribe missed James's comments ]
18:42:32 [gsnedders]
Subset of DOM4? I thought it was a superset, containing additional things like ExceptionEvent.
18:42:41 [ArtB]
Ojan: re Sam's question
18:42:45 [jgraham]
Have we considered dropping the parts of D3E that overlap with DOM4?
18:42:52 [ArtB]
… I can't give an official Google positin
18:42:53 [anne]
gsnedders, mismatch, if you will
18:43:03 [ArtB]
… but there are parts we would implement and some parts we won't
18:43:12 [ArtB]
Sam: specifics please
18:43:18 [ArtB]
Ojan: there would be a long list
18:43:32 [ArtB]
… text input event has an input method
18:43:39 [ArtB]
… I don't think WK will implement it
18:43:47 [ArtB]
… key and char properties
18:43:53 [ArtB]
… are problematic
18:44:03 [ArtB]
… but we havent done a detailed analysis
18:44:16 [ArtB]
Doug: please send that to the list
18:44:37 [ArtB]
Jonas: re taking D3E stuff out of DOM4
18:44:47 [ArtB]
… Ojan's list doesn't help with that
18:44:58 [ArtB]
Ojan: I expect WK to implement DOM4
18:45:18 [ArtB]
Jonas: for the parts that are the same, it doesn't matter
18:45:31 [mmielke]
mmielke has joined #webapps
18:45:45 [ArtB]
… I talked to Olli and my position is the concern is about the long time for DOM4 to ship
18:45:48 [gsnedders]
Only if they are word-for-word the same, otherwise there might be accidental differences.
18:45:51 [ArtB]
… it keeps adding features
18:46:13 [ArtB]
Anne: we are removing features
18:46:17 [cyril]
cyril has joined #webapps
18:46:23 [ArtB]
… only event constructors are new
18:46:31 [ArtB]
Jonas: what about mutation?
18:46:35 [ArtB]
Anne: not there yet
18:46:39 [ArtB]
… but they could be
18:47:01 [ArtB]
Jonas: concerned about a continuously evolving spec that never finishes
18:47:06 [ArtB]
… we need to ship something
18:47:24 [ArtB]
… and D3E is done
18:47:51 [ArtB]
… My concern is no clear signs of DOM4 actually shipping
18:47:59 [ArtB]
… I think we can ship D3E sooner
18:48:07 [ArtB]
Marcos: I don't agree
18:48:14 [ArtB]
… think DOM4 is in good shape
18:48:38 [ArtB]
CM: as Chair, we have a responsibility to ship specs
18:48:47 [ArtB]
… I realize some people don't agree with that
18:48:58 [ArtB]
… but that belief is not aligned with the WG
18:49:14 [ArtB]
… by shipping I mean publishing a Recommendation
18:49:32 [ArtB]
… Re Jonas' comments, we need to ship a spec
18:49:33 [gsnedders]
One option for mutations events is surely to make them a module of their own?
18:49:42 [ArtB]
… don't want a bunch of nit picks
18:49:44 [gsnedders]
In which case DOM4 is more-or-less done
18:49:47 [ArtB]
… that keep coming in
18:49:55 [ArtB]
… think the spec is good
18:50:10 [gsnedders]
(in terms of getting to a point where LC is possible)
18:50:15 [ArtB]
… We could cut stuff out
18:50:23 [ArtB]
… by reading the tea leaves of DOM4
18:50:49 [ArtB]
… and if DOM4 changes, we can rev D3E
18:51:19 [ArtB]
… I don't want to keep going in circles
18:51:31 [ArtB]
… that costs lots of time and money for everyone
18:51:39 [ArtB]
… for Editors and Implemeters
18:52:04 [ArtB]
Doug: the parts under contention are from original DOM specs
18:52:11 [ArtB]
… D2E is too old
18:52:25 [ArtB]
… If DOM4 parts are better and stable
18:52:34 [ArtB]
… and reconcile the 2 specs
18:52:51 [ArtB]
… We could drop stuff from D3E if problematic
18:52:57 [ArtB]
… and then go to LC
18:53:19 [ArtB]
… I am willing to change spec to follow DOM4 where it matches implementations
18:53:36 [ArtB]
… I can see AvK's approach is useful
18:53:41 [ArtB]
… and successful
18:53:49 [ArtB]
… so now we change D3E to match
18:53:59 [ifette_]
ifette_ has joined #webapps
18:54:00 [ArtB]
… I still contend a D3E REC is useful
18:54:16 [tpod]
tpod has joined #webapps
18:54:31 [ArtB]
RN: is it possible to drop those parts not implemented or are controversial?
18:54:39 [ArtB]
DS: yes, that can happen in CR
18:54:45 [ArtB]
… that's kinda' expected
18:55:18 [ArtB]
CM: need to agree on what's controversial and what's not
18:55:29 [ArtB]
… and that requires drawing a line in the sand
18:55:50 [ArtB]
… need browser vendors and others to define what's controversial
18:56:03 [ArtB]
… We need to make a decision
18:56:14 [ArtB]
… DOM4 is trying to make the situation better
18:56:28 [ArtB]
… but we also have people that need to ship product now
18:56:31 [sangwhan]
sangwhan has joined #webapps
18:56:40 [ArtB]
… and of course we have the users of the APIs to consider
18:56:53 [gsnedders]
One option is to proceed to CR, and see what parts meet the CR exit critera, and move from there.
18:57:10 [ArtB]
… How important is it to ship a REC?
18:57:20 [ArtB]
… Need to define the features as implemented today
18:57:52 [ArtB]
Jonas: I don't want to have anything in D3E that DOM4 deprecates
18:58:09 [ArtB]
… need to look at EventException
18:58:27 [ArtB]
Jacob: I agree re deprecation
18:58:41 [ArtB]
… I think we want to move fwd with constructors
18:58:41 [Wonsuk]
Wonsuk has left #webapps
18:58:56 [ArtB]
… think we need to talk to talk about specific events
18:59:07 [ArtB]
… and we can deprecate some events
18:59:29 [ArtB]
… We should make sure the two specs are synch'ed
18:59:48 [smaug]
smaug has joined #webapps
18:59:53 [ArtB]
RN: can we drop the IDL interfaces?
19:00:12 [ArtB]
CM: we agreed yesterday that WebIDL will be used
19:00:34 [smaug]
smaug has joined #webapps
19:00:37 [ArtB]
Jacob: need to work together to get a list of incompatibilites
19:00:42 [ArtB]
… then we fix them
19:00:49 [ArtB]
… then we we go back to LC
19:01:13 [ArtB]
… There is a lot of feedback since D2Events
19:01:34 [ArtB]
… If there are change requests, must open a Bug with Bugzilla
19:02:06 [ArtB]
CM: let's ask Anne if he can help with this?
19:02:09 [ArtB]
Anne: yes
19:02:24 [ArtB]
CM: so Jacob made a proposal?
19:02:32 [ArtB]
… Who supports this proposal?
19:02:57 [ArtB]
… 15 people supported the proposal
19:03:07 [ArtB]
… Does anyone object to that proposal?
19:03:41 [ArtB]
… there were NO objections
19:04:07 [ArtB]
RRSAgent, make minutes
19:04:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ArtB
19:04:36 [howard]
howard has left #webapps
19:05:38 [dowan]
dowan has left #webapps
19:07:19 [krisk]
krisk has joined #webapps
19:21:37 [rogerk]
rogerk has joined #webapps
19:22:40 [Ms2ger]
Ms2ger has joined #webapps
19:33:25 [ifette_]
ifette_ has joined #webapps
19:39:42 [Ms2ger]
smaug, such as? Apart from the new exceptions, we only really have legacy stuff and some things from HTML
19:45:06 [smaug]
Ms2ger: many parameters are optional
19:45:14 [smaug]
DOM range isn't backwards compatible etc
19:45:23 [smaug]
Ms2ger: I agree the changes are usually good
19:45:27 [James]
James has joined #webapps
19:46:24 [davidb_]
davidb_ has joined #webapps
19:46:27 [Ms2ger]
Mm, I guess you can say that
19:51:19 [mixedpuppy]
mixedpuppy has joined #webapps
19:53:18 [morrita]
morrita has joined #webapps
19:56:54 [weinig]
weinig has joined #webapps
19:59:01 [hayato]
hayato has joined #webapps
20:03:10 [mixedpuppy]
mixedpuppy has joined #webapps
20:03:17 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
20:03:31 [abarsto]
abarsto has joined #webapps
20:05:03 [sejinpark]
sejinpark has joined #webapps
20:08:02 [JonathanJ]
JonathanJ has joined #webapps
20:08:58 [krisk]
krisk has joined #webapps
20:09:39 [nwidell]
nwidell has joined #webapps
20:09:49 [JonathanJ]
JonathanJ has joined #webapps
20:11:35 [jrossi2]
jrossi2 has joined #webapps
20:13:03 [skim]
skim has joined #webapps
20:13:25 [sejinpark]
sejinpark has joined #webapps
20:15:01 [a12u]
a12u has joined #webapps
20:15:10 [Eliot]
Eliot has joined #webapps
20:15:24 [morrita]
morrita has joined #webapps
20:16:17 [anne]
anne has joined #webapps
20:16:42 [Josh_Soref]
present+ Josh_Soref
20:16:48 [Josh_Soref]
Scribe: Josh_Soref
20:18:41 [spoussa]
spoussa has joined #webapps
20:18:42 [Ms2ger]
No calling in today?
20:19:03 [magnus]
magnus has joined #webapps
20:19:18 [jgraham]
I think it is possible to set that up if you want
20:19:32 [smaug]
what is the topic?
20:19:33 [jgraham]
Although the evidence is that you don't really exist
20:19:44 [Ms2ger]
Topic: XBL2 and Component Model
20:20:32 [heycam]
Zakim, what is this?
20:20:32 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, heycam.
20:20:38 [heycam]
Zakim, code?
20:20:38 [Zakim]
sorry, heycam, I don't know what conference this is
20:20:43 [heycam]
Zakim, room for 4?
20:20:45 [Zakim]
ok, heycam; conference Team_(webapps)20:20Z scheduled with code 26632 (CONF2) for 60 minutes until 2120Z
20:21:02 [SungOk_You]
SungOk_You has joined #webapps
20:21:08 [heycam]
Zakim, this is webapps
20:21:08 [Zakim]
ok, heycam; that matches RWC_WAPI(WebAppsWG)12:00PM
20:21:11 [heycam]
Zakim, code?
20:21:11 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2011 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, heycam
20:21:18 [jrossi2]
jrossi2 has joined #webapps
20:22:17 [Zakim]
20:22:27 [smaug]
Zakim, ??P1 is Olli_Pettay
20:22:27 [Zakim]
+Olli_Pettay; got it
20:22:36 [smaug]
Zakim, nick smaug is Olli_Pettay
20:22:36 [Zakim]
ok, smaug, I now associate you with Olli_Pettay
20:23:00 [heycam]
Zakim, who is on the call?
20:23:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, Olli_Pettay
20:24:07 [davida]
davida has joined #webapps
20:24:18 [dowan]
dowan has joined #webapps
20:24:53 [Soonho]
Soonho has joined #webapps
20:25:29 [sicking]
sicking has joined #webapps
20:25:40 [ArtB]
Scribe: Josh_Soref
20:25:44 [anne]
how many engineers does it take to dial a number?
20:25:47 [tantek]
tantek has joined #webapps
20:25:51 [anne]
0, you just ask the hotel staff
20:26:29 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: XBL2 and Component Model
20:26:50 [Josh_Soref]
AlexRussel: Alex Russel, from Google
20:27:00 [Josh_Soref]
... we have a proposal for Component Model
20:27:10 [Josh_Soref]
... and there's a belief that there's overlap with XBL2
20:27:53 [Josh_Soref]
... we'd like to understand the WebApp's community view on the landscape
20:27:57 [ojan]
ojan has joined #webapps
20:28:04 [Josh_Soref]
... and we'd rather have an either-or and not an and
20:28:16 [Josh_Soref]
... I'd like to get a sense of the current implementers' view on XBL2
20:28:27 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: Sam, Apple
20:28:27 [Suresh]
Suresh has joined #webapps
20:28:33 [Josh_Soref]
... we've discussed this a bunch of times
20:28:43 [Josh_Soref]
... Apple's iggest concern is the lack of a well formed declaritive model
20:28:50 [Josh_Soref]
... it's also a bit disingenous
20:29:07 [jihye]
jihye has joined #webapps
20:29:14 [ihilerio]
ihilerio has joined #webapps
20:29:15 [Josh_Soref]
... to say XBL2 is dead long live component model
20:29:19 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #webapps
20:29:36 [Josh_Soref]
... and then to say it's similar and has overlapping goals
20:29:48 [Josh_Soref]
AlexRussel: we assume them to be exclusive
20:29:53 [Josh_Soref]
... and our view is that they are
20:30:04 [Josh_Soref]
... the lack of a declarative model that's fully specified
20:30:10 [Josh_Soref]
... is something that we've taken as something
20:30:15 [Josh_Soref]
... and we'll work on
20:30:27 [Josh_Soref]
... Parser Integration, Shadow DOM,
20:30:33 [Josh_Soref]
... what we'll do with behavioral pattern
20:30:53 [Josh_Soref]
anne: We'd like Cross Origin
20:30:58 [Josh_Soref]
... for things like Like / +1 buttons
20:31:10 [Josh_Soref]
... I don't think the goals of cross-origin and bindings
20:31:14 [Josh_Soref]
... are compatible
20:31:27 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: I think it's valuale to have a component technology for the web
20:31:36 [Josh_Soref]
... XBL2 and the new proposals are both two different directions
20:31:36 [Ruinan]
Ruinan has joined #webapps
20:31:41 [weinig]
20:31:45 [Josh_Soref]
.. otoh the framing of this
20:31:49 [karl]
karl has joined #webapps
20:31:55 [Josh_Soref]
20:32:01 [Josh_Soref]
... is XXX
20:32:15 [Josh_Soref]
... otoh the new proposals are fragmentary, not specified in sufficient detail
20:32:25 [Josh_Soref]
... and i'm not convinced they're in the right direction
20:32:38 [Josh_Soref]
... i need to see something that looks good, and currently neither looks totally right
20:32:42 [karl]
karl has joined #webapps
20:32:51 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: my view is that something between xbl2 and component model is the right approach
20:33:04 [chaals]
chaals has left #webapps
20:33:10 [nwidell]
nwidell has joined #webapps
20:33:11 [Josh_Soref]
... i think taking xbl2 and using it and cutting things out is more in the right direction
20:33:18 [Josh_Soref]
... than the proposal i've seen from you guys
20:33:24 [ifette]
ifette has joined #webapps
20:33:31 [Josh_Soref]
... it's hard to see too strong of a comment given the lack of a proposal for the declarative model
20:33:38 [Josh_Soref]
... even though xbl2 has a lot of complexity
20:33:56 [Josh_Soref]
[ Scribe reports that smaug agrees with sicking ]
20:33:58 [rniwa]
rniwa has joined #webapps
20:34:20 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: i also agree with sicking
20:34:26 [Josh_Soref]
dg: I disagree
20:34:35 [Josh_Soref]
20:34:36 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #webapps
20:34:47 [Josh_Soref]
... because if we do it, we'll end up with a completely different spec
20:34:50 [nvbalaji]
nvbalaji has joined #webapps
20:34:56 [Josh_Soref]
... if we cut things out, we'll have to reinvent the parsing
20:35:06 [Josh_Soref]
... we'll have to deal with event forwarding
20:35:09 [Zakim]
20:35:16 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: i disagree, event forwarding is needed
20:35:28 [Josh_Soref]
dglazkov: event forwarding/event retargeting are different things
20:35:35 [Josh_Soref]
... the general approach of the component model
20:35:38 [jdaggett_]
jdaggett_ has joined #webapps
20:35:41 [Josh_Soref]
.... is that you subclass
20:35:50 [Josh_Soref]
... shadow DOM is something you get
20:36:01 [Josh_Soref]
.... i do not think it's a good idea to treeat the component model is just a single spec
20:36:07 [mixedpuppy]
mixedpuppy has joined #webapps
20:36:15 [Josh_Soref]
... because the different pieces can stand on their own
20:36:20 [Josh_Soref]
20:36:23 [Josh_Soref]
20:36:31 [Josh_Soref]
... we already have two different specs
20:36:42 [Ms2ger]
RRSAgent, make minutes
20:36:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ms2ger
20:36:47 [Josh_Soref]
... confinement is a problem outside of components
20:37:06 [Josh_Soref]
.... you want to run scripts confined, instead of just in iframes
20:37:12 [Josh_Soref]
20:37:28 [Josh_Soref]
... that said, i think it would be a useful exercise for those who believe we should keep xbl2
20:37:34 [Josh_Soref]
... to go over it and see if it's doable
20:37:42 [Ms2ger]
20:37:50 [Josh_Soref]
... if they could go over it tomorrow for 30 minutes
20:37:58 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: to make actual decisions which we're not at that stage
20:38:04 [Josh_Soref]
.... we need more concrete proposals
20:38:09 [Josh_Soref]
.... to have discussions here/now
20:38:15 [Josh_Soref]
20:38:17 [Josh_Soref]
20:38:24 [Ms2ger]
RRSAgent, make minutes
20:38:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ms2ger
20:38:28 [Josh_Soref]
... we'll need actual proposals to make
20:38:39 [Josh_Soref]
... decisions
20:38:41 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #webapps
20:38:41 [chsiao]
chsiao has joined #webapps
20:38:54 [Josh_Soref]
dglazkov: what's the right forum and what's the best format
20:39:10 [Ms2ger]
20:39:15 [Zakim]
20:39:16 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: brainstorming session if we get the right people
20:39:16 [Zakim]
RWC_WAPI(WebAppsWG)12:00PM has ended
20:39:16 [Zakim]
Attendees were Olli_Pettay
20:39:23 [Ms2ger]
RRSAgent, make minutes
20:39:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ms2ger
20:39:29 [Josh_Soref]
... if we get the apple people, and hixie
20:39:33 [Josh_Soref]
[ hixie is behind you ]
20:39:45 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: and start sort of drafting some vague proposals
20:39:52 [Josh_Soref]
dglazkov: +1
20:40:06 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: i like seeing proposals
20:40:12 [Josh_Soref]
... two things, about evaluating them
20:40:24 [Josh_Soref]
... often it's really hard to evaluate things independently
20:40:28 [jmarting]
jmarting has joined #webapps
20:40:31 [quaddle]
quaddle has joined #webapps
20:40:33 [Josh_Soref]
... without evaluating the whole system design
20:40:45 [chaals]
chaals has joined #webapps
20:40:47 [Josh_Soref]
... whlie people doing the core design work may have thhe whole thing in their head in a vauge whay
20:41:02 [Josh_Soref]
... second thing is it's important to have proposals drilling out in a detailed way
20:41:13 [sangwhan]
sangwhan has joined #webapps
20:41:28 [Josh_Soref]
... but when you lay out the full details, you see problems that become very complex to address
20:41:39 [Josh_Soref]
... and it's hard to give a full review of a relatively high level sketch
20:41:45 [Josh_Soref]
[ bridge dialing ]
20:41:54 [dglazkov]
20:41:56 [Josh_Soref]
dglazkov: we have a proposal
20:42:05 [Josh_Soref]
... it provides a very good overview
20:42:11 [Josh_Soref]
... it tries to capture the big picture
20:42:17 [Zakim]
RWC_WAPI(WebAppsWG)12:00PM has now started
20:42:25 [Zakim]
20:42:28 [Josh_Soref]
... i have gone over a small part of it at our powwow at mozilla all hands
20:42:42 [Josh_Soref]
... but i didn't go over the whole thing
20:42:57 [ernesto_jimenez]
ernesto_jimenez has joined #webapps
20:43:01 [Josh_Soref]
dglazkov: as far as details, i agree, details are hard
20:43:11 [Josh_Soref]
... i welcome ideas
20:43:17 [Josh_Soref]
... ewe tend to work on this in person.
20:43:30 [Josh_Soref]
... it brings certain isolation as most of us are working for the same company
20:43:37 [Josh_Soref]
... even posting things in public is not enough
20:43:40 [Josh_Soref]
20:43:52 [Josh_Soref]
dglazkov: and it turns out everyone is busy
20:44:06 [Josh_Soref]
dcooney: i agree with dglazkov
20:44:19 [Josh_Soref]
... there was a complaint that proposals so far don't have a detailed declarative syntax
20:44:24 [Josh_Soref]
... and we'll address that.
20:44:32 [Josh_Soref]
... i'd like to encourage people to avoid taking some simplistic view
20:44:47 [Zakim]
20:44:49 [Josh_Soref]
... that declarative and XXX need to be mirrored.
20:44:52 [hoashi]
hoashi has joined #webapps
20:45:10 [Josh_Soref]
AlexRussel: there is, there's the form element v. xmlhttprequest
20:45:11 [dglazkov]
20:45:27 [Josh_Soref]
dcooney: some things just won't be expressable in both
20:45:50 [dcooney]
dcooney has joined #webapps
20:46:06 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: i certainly can understand not jumping to conclusions about individual pieces
20:46:13 [Wonsuk]
Wonsuk has joined #webapps
20:46:14 [Josh_Soref]
... when we saw the demos of what would currently exist.
20:46:29 [Josh_Soref]
... it seems that it was working around things with hacks without a declarative syntax.
20:46:38 [Josh_Soref]
AlexRussel: setting this up as an either or is misleading
20:46:56 [Josh_Soref]
... our goal was to design declarative as a sugar on op of imperative
20:47:05 [Josh_Soref]
... at least a strong mirroring.
20:47:21 [Josh_Soref]
... can you define declarative with the imperative api?
20:47:24 [Josh_Soref]
[ no ]
20:47:31 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: this is what i disagree with
20:47:51 [Josh_Soref]
... we want to have bindings adding to css that are purely stylistic
20:48:01 [Josh_Soref]
... things with a different security model that are cross origin
20:48:15 [Josh_Soref]
AlexRussel: if you don't have the plat capability
20:48:26 [Josh_Soref]
... if you can only do it declaratively
20:48:59 [Josh_Soref]
... you should do the archeology work to uncover the primitives and expose the,m
20:49:09 [adrianba]
20:49:21 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: would you say style sheets are declarative sugar on the style attribute
20:49:29 [Josh_Soref]
AlexRussel: i don't think that's the right question
20:49:31 [MOIBA]
MOIBA has joined #webapps
20:50:12 [Josh_Soref]
... they have a different semantic in terms of inheritance
20:50:21 [Josh_Soref]
... for bindings in xbl2
20:50:32 [Josh_Soref]
... what you're missing is a way to be tied into the application life cycle
20:50:37 [andreip]
andreip has joined #webapps
20:50:47 [Josh_Soref]
... treating style attributes as desugaring
20:50:54 [Josh_Soref]
... there's a missing bit of infrastructure
20:51:01 [Josh_Soref]
... it's the mechanism in which you're allowed to do i
20:51:12 [Josh_Soref]
travis: Travis, Microsoft
20:51:27 [Josh_Soref]
travis: i'd like to +1 the desire to move forward on specing on some balances of company's ideas
20:51:33 [tlr]
tlr has joined #webapps
20:51:37 [Josh_Soref]
... there's clearly value in dspecing out ideas outside of the ocmponent model.
20:51:55 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm interested in seeing that move forward even without a declaritive model.
20:52:05 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: if there were a brainstorm model,. would you be interested?
20:52:19 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: in practice, the declariative/imperative model, which will be the primary interface for developers?
20:52:40 [Josh_Soref]
... for people believe in declarative, the approach to design is based on that
20:52:46 [Josh_Soref]
... define that first
20:52:49 [adrianba]
s/of company's/of Alex and company's/
20:52:56 [Josh_Soref]
... for people in imparative, the approach design's that first
20:53:03 [Josh_Soref]
... and make a sugar layer for a subset of the other
20:53:11 [Josh_Soref]
... that's the underliying phiulosophical difference
20:53:22 [Josh_Soref]
... hopefully once we have specs for this, we can comment on this
20:53:23 [Travis_MSFT]
Travis_MSFT has joined #webapps
20:53:34 [Josh_Soref]
... instead of hypothetical "i think this won't work""
20:53:44 [Josh_Soref]
... you can't predict if the layering will work unles you can see oth layers
20:53:55 [efidler]
efidler has joined #webapps
20:54:08 [howard]
howard has joined #webapps
20:54:13 [Josh_Soref]
dglazkov: it sounds like there will be a brainstorm tomorrow
20:54:21 [Josh_Soref]
... we have some proposals for declaraitve syntax
20:54:28 [Josh_Soref]
... if you enjoy half cooked meals
20:54:34 [Josh_Soref]
... we're tready to sreve them to you
20:54:39 [Josh_Soref]
... the problem is difficult
20:54:49 [Josh_Soref]
... what made xbl2 so difficult to spec and comprehend was the decorator concept
20:54:58 [Josh_Soref]
... the fact that you could ad and remove behaviors dynamically
20:55:01 [DavidKim]
DavidKim has joined #webapps
20:55:06 [Josh_Soref]
... i believe this is where we'll fall into despair tomorrow
20:55:12 [Josh_Soref]
... i recommend defering that question
20:55:30 [dglazkov]
20:55:30 [Josh_Soref]
... there is a page where i outline th edifference between the two:
20:55:43 [Josh_Soref]
[ bad sequence, lag ]
20:55:55 [Josh_Soref]
dglazkov: subclassing is a very common thing that happens in many languages
20:56:03 [Josh_Soref]
... you add behaviors to a thing by extending it
20:56:13 [Josh_Soref]
... decorator is clsoer to an aspect oriented language
20:56:23 [davidb]
davidb has joined #webapps
20:56:29 [Josh_Soref]
... you can create xxx
20:56:42 [Ms2ger]
20:56:44 [Josh_Soref]
... component model tackles element behavior attachment
20:56:45 [Ms2ger]
RRSAgent, make minutes
20:56:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ms2ger
20:56:51 [Josh_Soref]
... and defers decorators
20:57:14 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: i'm hearing agreement on seeing more specs and on a breakout/brainstorming tomorrow
20:57:21 [Josh_Soref]
dglazkov: all day tomorrow?
20:57:32 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: there's no one form w3c here
20:57:36 [Josh_Soref]
20:57:46 [Josh_Soref]
... either it's outside the structure tomorrow
20:57:52 [Josh_Soref]
... you take a table and work it out
20:57:53 [heycam]
Current schedule for the sessions tomorrow:
20:57:58 [Zakim]
20:58:03 [Josh_Soref]
... or you go through channels tomorrow morning and propose
20:58:09 [smaug]
Zakim, ??P10 is Olli_Pettay
20:58:09 [Zakim]
+Olli_Pettay; got it
20:58:36 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: we're enjoying the fact there's no team contact
20:58:43 [bryan]
bryan has joined #webapps
20:59:00 [Josh_Soref]
[ people discuss the grid ]
20:59:03 [stakagi]
stakagi has joined #webapps
20:59:11 [pererik]
pererik has joined #webapps
20:59:12 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: 11:15am?
20:59:31 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: i'd like to go to api design
20:59:38 [Josh_Soref]
... could we have it at 1:30pm?
20:59:44 [Josh_Soref]
[ 1:30pm ]
21:00:04 [Josh_Soref]
[ poll, who might show up? ]
21:00:14 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: about a dozen people
21:00:20 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: i can't be here tomorrow, sorry
21:00:28 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: anything else? sXBL?
21:00:36 [Josh_Soref]
dglazkov: are we still considering sXBL?
21:00:46 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: there's a point wrt Rechartering
21:00:59 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: i think everyone has agreed we want to do components
21:01:08 [Josh_Soref]
... and the disagreement about the starting point
21:01:19 [Josh_Soref]
... as long as the charter doesn't identify the name
21:01:36 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: chaals we should ensure the Charter doesn't name the spec
21:01:40 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: IndexDB
21:01:44 [Josh_Soref]
[ People leave ]
21:02:11 [alexmog]
alexmog has joined #webapps
21:02:13 [ChrisWilson]
ChrisWilson has joined #webapps
21:02:17 [smaug]
21:02:34 [smaug]
is there some kind agenda online?
21:02:39 [Josh_Soref]
sicking:it's been almost finished for 6 months
21:02:59 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: anyone from Google here to talk about this?
21:03:31 [mmielke]
mmielke has joined #webapps
21:04:10 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: the only issue i know outstanding is error handling
21:04:17 [Josh_Soref]
... i don't know if we have filed bugs
21:04:21 [Josh_Soref]
... i can look tat u[p
21:04:27 [Josh_Soref]
... those might be more editorial
21:04:33 [morrita]
morrita has joined #webapps
21:04:37 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: Israel from Microsoft
21:04:38 [Zakim]
21:04:50 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: there's not all editorial, but the ones i see are really small
21:04:51 [anne]
anne has joined #webapps
21:05:28 [Josh_Soref]
michaeln: Michael N, Google
21:05:43 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: Israel and I talked a bit about it over lunch
21:05:45 [richt]
richt has joined #webapps
21:05:50 [Josh_Soref]
... it seem s we might have agreement
21:05:57 [Josh_Soref]
... that error events aren't actually fired
21:06:04 [Rossen]
Rossen has joined #webapps
21:06:09 [Josh_Soref]
... There are two types of errors
21:06:18 [Josh_Soref]
... one associated with a request
21:06:22 [Josh_Soref]
... one isn't
21:06:34 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: and one of those kinds is basically fatal
21:06:35 [SungOk_You]
SungOk_You has joined #webapps
21:06:41 [James]
James has joined #webapps
21:06:47 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: and we never arget ererors at the transaction
21:06:47 [Kai]
Kai has joined #webapps
21:06:59 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: hopefully developers understand what they can do
21:07:06 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: that's actually drafted in the spec
21:07:15 [Josh_Soref]
... we should clarify that we're talking about that in this thread
21:07:22 [Josh_Soref]
... and confirm people are ok w/ that solution
21:07:29 [Josh_Soref]
... beyond that, we could go through the buglist
21:07:36 [Josh_Soref]
... it's pretty simple stuff -13 bugs
21:07:42 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: anything we can close is good
21:07:49 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: i suspect most require changes to the spec
21:07:55 [Josh_Soref]
... but we can coe to agreement
21:07:59 [kensaku]
kensaku has joined #webapps
21:08:03 [chrisdavidmills]
chrisdavidmills has joined #webapps
21:08:11 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: bug 14199
21:08:19 [Josh_Soref]
... just a bug in the spec
21:08:24 [Josh_Soref]
... bug 14201
21:08:41 [Josh_Soref]
... - mention of version change request, which is renamed - trivial change
21:08:47 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: that's editorial
21:08:53 [mjs]
mjs has joined #webapps
21:08:59 [Josh_Soref]
... bug 14318
21:09:06 [Josh_Soref]
... - that's important to mozilla
21:09:09 [Josh_Soref]
... bug 14352
21:09:20 [Josh_Soref]
... - idl marking requirement
21:09:26 [Josh_Soref]
... editorial
21:09:40 [Josh_Soref]
... bug 14384
21:09:50 [Josh_Soref]
... - that's an interesting quetion
21:10:03 [nwidell]
nwidell has joined #webapps
21:10:10 [Josh_Soref]
... currently we throw if readystate isn't done if you try to get result
21:10:21 [Josh_Soref]
... so you can't get the transaction during upgradeneeded, which is bad
21:10:32 [Josh_Soref]
... - we should set readystate to done
21:10:38 [Josh_Soref]
... - not sure if that's the right fix
21:10:49 [Josh_Soref]
... we could do something special in this case
21:10:57 [Josh_Soref]
... it's the request from an open call
21:11:06 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: there is a transaction, locking the whole database
21:11:10 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: yes
21:11:19 [Josh_Soref]
... what should ready state be?
21:11:28 [Josh_Soref]
... done even though we haven't opened?
21:11:35 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #webapps
21:11:35 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: done seems fine
21:11:51 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: bug 14389
21:12:01 [Josh_Soref]
... - i wanted alex here
21:12:13 [Josh_Soref]
... we have two callbacks in the spec in the sync api
21:12:23 [Josh_Soref]
... the two way sfor creating a transaction
21:12:30 [Josh_Soref]
... currently they're [functiononly]
21:12:31 [wma]
wma has joined #webapps
21:12:40 [Josh_Soref]
... so you can't pass an object with a handleevent or similar
21:12:45 [Josh_Soref]
... i have no opinion on that
21:12:48 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
21:13:12 [Josh_Soref]
[ jonas explains to alex who just returned to the room ]
21:13:29 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: is there value in supporting passing objects?
21:13:48 [Josh_Soref]
alexrussel: the object passing protocol is strange from a design perspective
21:14:06 [magnus]
magnus has joined #webapps
21:14:11 [JonathanJ]
rrsagent, draft minutes
21:14:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate JonathanJ
21:14:27 [Josh_Soref]
... you could have an object that handles lots of things
21:14:33 [Josh_Soref]
... the question from hj is "what's this?"
21:14:39 [Josh_Soref]
21:14:53 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: that's the benefit of using an Object
21:15:10 [Josh_Soref]
alexrussel: I think passing an object whose members are named by the event
21:15:41 [rogerk]
rogerk has left #webapps
21:16:00 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: the idl lets you pick the function name on the object
21:16:35 [andreip]
andreip has joined #webapps
21:16:41 [sangwhan]
sangwhan has joined #webapps
21:16:54 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: this is part of the indexed db spec
21:17:03 [Josh_Soref]
... you pass it a callback for the transaction
21:17:27 [Josh_Soref]
... we can support function, or function-or-object
21:17:37 [Josh_Soref]
Marcos: looking in general how JS is used
21:17:44 [Josh_Soref]
... many people don't use the object form
21:18:15 [smaug]
=FunctionOnly should be removed from the spec
21:18:24 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: to make this clear so we stop talking about handle event
21:18:38 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: can you give us the name of the name on the callback object
21:18:44 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: what is the color of the bikeshed?
21:18:50 [Josh_Soref]
Marcos: it's called handleEvent
21:19:04 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: let's pretend we renamed this to transactionStart
21:19:06 [gopal]
gopal has joined #webapps
21:19:17 [Josh_Soref]
... it would be a single function name, since we only do one thing
21:19:47 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, who is on the call?
21:19:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see tpac, ??P1
21:20:12 [Josh_Soref]
AlexRussel: if this is the beginning of having well named properties for callback objects, that's great
21:20:40 [Josh_Soref]
[ scribe repeats what Smaug said ]
21:20:45 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: I agree
21:20:53 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: it should be transactionStart
21:21:09 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: WebKit has usually not done the FunctionOnly bit
21:21:30 [Josh_Soref]
[ Good bikeshedding, we picked a non black color ]
21:21:37 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: bug 14393
21:21:44 [Josh_Soref]
... i think i've already fixed it
21:21:53 [Josh_Soref]
... bug 14404
21:22:02 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #webapps
21:22:09 [smaug]
FunctionOnly is always a spec bug except with onfoo event listeners
21:22:41 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: this related to not knowing which version you were working on during an abort and wanted to do an upgrade
21:23:01 [Josh_Soref]
... this related to an exception/event type not? having a version or something
21:23:09 [Josh_Soref]
[ No one seems to really remember tihs ]
21:23:20 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: inside upgradeneeded
21:23:34 [Josh_Soref]
... with an optional parameter, how would you get the version?
21:23:54 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: database.version in the upgradeneeded or the callback
21:24:06 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: if you aborted it, and you're outside the upgradeneeded
21:24:25 [Josh_Soref]
21:24:34 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: I think this predates an [optional] paremeteer
21:24:43 [Josh_Soref]
21:24:56 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: if you fail to open
21:25:03 [Josh_Soref]
... which is where an upgradeneed happens
21:25:27 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: I think you can close the bug
21:25:29 [hayato]
hayato has joined #webapps
21:25:36 [Josh_Soref]
... i don't think we need it anymore
21:25:47 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: we need to specify something, because it's unclear in the spec
21:26:35 [Josh_Soref]
... bug 14405
21:26:40 [Josh_Soref]
... - i fixed that
21:26:50 [Josh_Soref]
... bug 14408
21:27:11 [Josh_Soref]
... - this is based on a usage pattern we saw
21:27:32 [Josh_Soref]
... as things stand now, if you open a cursor and in the callback and you do a bunch of things, and expect the cursor to progress
21:27:46 [Josh_Soref]
... having to call continue at the end is hard
21:28:08 [Josh_Soref]
... as soon as you call continue, getting .key/etc will trigger an exception
21:28:32 [Josh_Soref]
... we propose that once the cursor has recieved its first data, it won't throw
21:28:48 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: so it's just caching data?
21:29:02 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: this is because of request objects
21:29:23 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: so this is different than calling continue twice?
21:29:28 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: yes, that still throws
21:29:49 [Josh_Soref]
michaeln: what happens when you call continue on the last cursor?
21:30:16 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: either we make it start throwing, or we can leave the values as they were
21:30:24 [Josh_Soref]
michaeln: this came up recently in code review
21:30:32 [Josh_Soref]
... and the response was "oh, i don't think tha'ts specified"
21:30:41 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: in general, the spec tries to agressively throw
21:31:02 [Josh_Soref]
michaeln: where you're changing the behavior of aggressive throwing
21:31:09 [Josh_Soref]
... it needs to be fleshed out
21:31:17 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: i think i offered to fix this bug
21:31:30 [kris]
kris has joined #webapps
21:32:58 [Josh_Soref]
i/start throwing/... there isn't a reference in the callback (it's null), but you can have another reference to it elsewhere/
21:33:27 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: bug 14412
21:33:37 [Josh_Soref]
... no brainer, we should do that
21:33:44 [Josh_Soref]
... bug 14441
21:33:56 [Josh_Soref]
... - just outdated, should remove that note, editorial
21:34:08 [Josh_Soref]
... bug 14488
21:34:33 [Josh_Soref]
... - missing annotation
21:34:42 [Josh_Soref]
... that's it!
21:34:52 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: what do we return from delete operations?
21:35:03 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: I'm ok with not returning anything.
21:35:08 [ysr]
ysr has joined #webapps
21:35:16 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: the spec says to return true if it deleted something or false if there's nothing to delete
21:35:22 [Josh_Soref]
... in some casw, that would be useful
21:35:30 [Josh_Soref]
... this is asynchronous
21:35:39 [Josh_Soref]
21:35:53 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: this could be slower to implement
21:36:10 [Josh_Soref]
... and since we don't know if someone's going to use it, we already have to dig it out
21:36:19 [Josh_Soref]
... the speed cost is totally implementation specific
21:36:30 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: my preference is to return nothing, to be safe
21:36:49 [Josh_Soref]
... you can always get the information, although it's probably slower - by calling count first
21:37:00 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: we're ok not returning anything
21:37:06 [skim]
skim has joined #webapps
21:37:11 [Josh_Soref]
... as long as you end up in a success handler
21:37:27 [Josh_Soref]
... the issue was, what happens when you're deleting a range
21:37:35 [Josh_Soref]
... and you can't delete all of the range?
21:37:42 [Josh_Soref]
... and we agreed to throw two kinds of errors
21:38:07 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: if you fail to delete everything, you always have to revert, since all actions are atomic
21:38:41 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: one thing that would be great
21:38:48 [Josh_Soref]
... we started putting out there a test called LAteral
21:38:59 [Josh_Soref]
... we'd like to get feedback from all implementers to see how interoperable we are
21:39:11 [Josh_Soref]
... i believe the set of tests are for the old set version
21:39:18 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: we already landed the change
21:39:26 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: we'll try to revise the tests
21:39:52 [Josh_Soref]
Israel: open-with-version is the new api to replace set-version
21:40:01 [Josh_Soref]
[ That was answered for the Scribe ]
21:40:14 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: unfortunately, all of our tests rely on the error event
21:40:19 [Josh_Soref]
... and they use generators
21:40:24 [Josh_Soref]
... JS Harmony generators
21:40:40 [Josh_Soref]
Travis: you can always stick things into the submissions folder
21:41:00 [Josh_Soref]
21:41:27 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: we'll need to go through our tests and rewrite them to not use generators, which are convenient to our test writers, but not portable
21:41:28 [lgombos]
lgombos has joined #webapps
21:41:40 [jeff]
jeff has joined #webapps
21:41:46 [Josh_Soref]
adrianba: it'd be helpful if you submitted them so we could see coverage and avoid duplication
21:42:04 [ernesto_jimenez]
ernesto_jimenez has joined #webapps
21:42:05 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: and someone might magically do the conversion for you
21:42:18 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm hearing whispers about LC
21:42:26 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: we might be able to do LC this year
21:42:45 [Josh_Soref]
... we need to fix these bugs, but they're not much work
21:43:02 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, who is on the call?
21:43:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see tpac, ??P1
21:43:49 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: Mutations
21:43:54 [Eliot]
present+ adrianba
21:44:15 [Eliot]
present+ eliot
21:44:31 [Zakim]
21:44:48 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, p1 is Ms2ger
21:44:48 [Zakim]
sorry, Josh_Soref, I do not recognize a party named 'p1'
21:44:54 [smaug]
Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay
21:44:54 [Zakim]
+Olli_Pettay; got it
21:44:54 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, ?p1 is Ms2ger
21:44:55 [Zakim]
sorry, Josh_Soref, I do not recognize a party named '?p1'
21:45:07 [Josh_Soref]
RafielW: from Google
21:45:14 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, ??p1 is Ms2ger
21:45:14 [Zakim]
+Ms2ger; got it
21:45:36 [Josh_Soref]
... I'm curious to know if anyone from Apple/Microsoft has an opinion
21:45:45 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: Travis, Microsoft
21:45:50 [Josh_Soref]
... I'm reading it right now
21:45:56 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: Sam, Apple
21:46:11 [Josh_Soref]
... in a similar vein, we've been working on other things, and it hasn't been a high enough priority
21:46:19 [Josh_Soref]
... it's been moving pretty quickly and doens't seem bad
21:46:30 [Josh_Soref]
... it's good if it ties in with undomanager
21:46:35 [Josh_Soref]
21:46:46 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: this is MutationObserver?
21:46:49 [anne]
wait is this about mutations already?
21:46:52 [Josh_Soref]
RafielW: yes
21:47:17 [hayato]
hayato has joined #webapps
21:47:24 [Josh_Soref]
[ Group apologizes to people not present ]
21:47:43 [Josh_Soref]
[ we break for 10 mins to let those 3pm people to arrive, please arrive promptly ]
21:47:48 [Ms2ger]
[ Threats of hunting down people who are late ]
21:47:55 [Ms2ger]
[ Robin, be warned ]
21:48:29 [tantek]
tantek has joined #webapps
21:48:51 [aklein]
aklein has joined #webapps
21:49:09 [Ms2ger]
RRSAgent, make minutes
21:49:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ms2ger
21:49:13 [abarsto]
abarsto has joined #webapps
21:52:09 [sangwhan]
sangwhan has left #webapps
21:59:33 [dowan]
dowan has joined #webapps
21:59:51 [nwidell]
nwidell has joined #webapps
22:00:12 [rniwa]
rniwa has joined #webapps
22:00:36 [Ms2ger]
OH: I don't believe in the internet
22:01:32 [rafaelw]
rafaelw has joined #webapps
22:01:43 [Josh_Soref]
Zakim, who is on the call?
22:01:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see tpac, Ms2ger, Olli_Pettay
22:01:55 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: it's 3pm, we're starting
22:02:11 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: Would you like to tell us about MutationObservers
22:02:16 [anne]
anne has joined #webapps
22:02:23 [Josh_Soref]
RafaelW: ok, so an overview
22:02:32 [Josh_Soref]
... the intent is to be a replacement for DOM Mutation Events
22:02:44 [Josh_Soref]
... the fundamental difference
22:02:52 [Josh_Soref]
... is mutation events try to project an abstraction
22:03:00 [Josh_Soref]
... that things are going to be dispatched synchronously
22:03:08 [Josh_Soref]
... that turned out to be problematic for a number of reasons
22:03:21 [morrita]
morrita has joined #webapps
22:03:23 [Josh_Soref]
RafaelW: MutationObservers are different
22:03:35 [Josh_Soref]
... you can register an observer to express an interest in a certain set of mutations
22:03:43 [ksons]
ksons has joined #webapps
22:03:46 [Josh_Soref]
... and you'll get a list of things that have happened
22:03:55 [Josh_Soref]
... it's a batched list of things that have happened
22:03:59 [Josh_Soref]
... since the last time you were called
22:04:12 [Josh_Soref]
... the other interesting part is the timing of delivery of mutation records
22:04:28 [Josh_Soref]
... there was a pretty long discussion on Public-Web-Apps about this
22:04:38 [Josh_Soref]
... the people discussing this
22:04:42 [Ms2ger]
22:04:48 [Josh_Soref]
... arrived at what smaug coined as "the end of the microtask"
22:04:49 [krisk]
krisk has joined #webapps
22:04:53 [Josh_Soref]
... for the delivery of mutation events
22:05:14 [Josh_Soref]
... it means mutations are delivered at the end of the outermost script execution
22:05:23 [Josh_Soref]
... if outside such a thing, at the end of the current task
22:05:39 [Josh_Soref]
... as part of the single Turn, before painting
22:05:43 [Josh_Soref]
... otherwise you see artifacts
22:05:44 [Ms2ger]
RRSAgent, make minutes
22:05:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ms2ger
22:05:54 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: can that be defined in terms of the event loop?
22:06:21 [Josh_Soref]
anne: currently painting happens just after Task completion
22:06:40 [Josh_Soref]
RafaelW: currently painting has a gaurantee (ignoring Modal dialogs)
22:06:49 [Josh_Soref]
... but you may get called before the end of a task
22:06:54 [Josh_Soref]
... if a synchronous event is handled
22:06:58 [Josh_Soref]
... say for mouse down
22:07:09 [Josh_Soref]
... and mutations happen as part of those handlers
22:07:23 [Josh_Soref]
... then you'll get something delivery then as part of that outermost
22:07:28 [Josh_Soref]
... invocation
22:07:51 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: my understanding of when it's defined to fire
22:07:51 [Josh_Soref]
... for example the Load event for XHR
22:07:52 [Josh_Soref]
... it fires at the end of each event handler
22:07:57 [Josh_Soref]
... let's use a click event handler
22:08:08 [Josh_Soref]
... it fires at the end of each event handler on each event target
22:08:22 [Josh_Soref]
... it happens multiple times during the call to dispatchEvent()
22:08:32 [Josh_Soref]
... so if you click on an element 3 elements deep
22:08:38 [Josh_Soref]
... you call on 2 elements in capture
22:08:43 [Josh_Soref]
... on target
22:08:46 [Josh_Soref]
... 2 on bubble
22:09:12 [Josh_Soref]
... You get it twice for each thing, potentially, but only if there are mutations
22:09:19 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: the reason for this
22:09:28 [Josh_Soref]
... smaug was concerned that if we do it at the end of a task
22:09:35 [Josh_Soref]
... if each event handler is independent
22:09:42 [Josh_Soref]
... and doesn't know what one might do
22:09:46 [Josh_Soref]
... invluding doing a sync XHR
22:09:52 [Josh_Soref]
22:10:00 [Josh_Soref]
... during one of those, we'd need to fire these there
22:10:18 [Josh_Soref]
... there's a risk of an actor
22:10:35 [Josh_Soref]
anne: what if an actor calls showModalDialog
22:10:45 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: yes, but it means you can only shoot yourself in the foot
22:10:48 [Josh_Soref]
anne: that's acceptable
22:10:55 [Josh_Soref]
RafaelW: smaug are you there?
22:11:03 [Josh_Soref]
... can you explain more?
22:11:24 [MOIBA]
MOIBA has joined #webapps
22:11:28 [Josh_Soref]
smaug: the idea was to encapsulate the mutation
22:11:46 [Josh_Soref]
... web pages cannot detect what is a task
22:11:52 [anne]
^^ "that's acceptable?"
22:11:53 [Josh_Soref]
... you may dispatch several events during a single task
22:12:35 [Josh_Soref]
... it's always when a event handler returns or a timer returns
22:12:49 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: does that mean that every new api we define we'll have to define microtasks
22:12:52 [Josh_Soref]
... or do we infer it?
22:12:59 [Josh_Soref]
... specification-wise?
22:13:10 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: specifcation-wise, it would probably be nice if they did
22:13:14 [Josh_Soref]
... but it should be pretty obvious
22:13:18 [Josh_Soref]
... any time you call into the web page
22:13:23 [Josh_Soref]
... that isn't inside another callback
22:13:35 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: in that case, it might be nice
22:13:45 [Josh_Soref]
... if this concept was codified in some more explicit way
22:13:58 [Josh_Soref]
... we do have the concept of calling into script and having it call out
22:14:05 [mixedpuppy]
mixedpuppy has joined #webapps
22:14:07 [Josh_Soref]
... it seems we're in agreement in what it is
22:14:18 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: when i spoke to Hixie , he said there was something like that in html5
22:14:25 [Josh_Soref]
... used to figure out security for call stacks
22:14:30 [Josh_Soref]
... but yes, it needs to be codified
22:14:38 [Josh_Soref]
[ Hixie is no longer behind sicking ]
22:14:44 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: there's special handling around
22:14:47 [howard]
howard has joined #webapps
22:15:00 [Josh_Soref]
... MutationObserver callbacks themselves
22:15:07 [Josh_Soref]
... if you have 3 observers
22:15:11 [Josh_Soref]
... and you make a mutation to the DOM
22:15:22 [Josh_Soref]
... and #1 makes a mutation
22:15:39 [Josh_Soref]
[ Sicking will write this in ]
22:15:46 [Josh_Soref]
rafaelw: my mental model
22:16:05 [Josh_Soref]
... is the mutation observer maintains a pending queue to be delivered to its observer
22:16:31 [Josh_Soref]
... and when it's called to deliver, it delivers what it has to its observer
22:16:49 [Josh_Soref]
... and that observer can create work to be added to all observers' queues
22:16:51 [sicking]
if you have three observers and a modification is made to the DOM, then we first call the first observer, then the second second observer. If the second observer mutates the DOM, we'll recall the first and the second one with just the second mutation, and then the third observer with both mutations
22:17:04 [Josh_Soref]
... and the system loops around until it empties its queues
22:17:36 [nwidell]
nwidell has joined #webapps
22:17:51 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: everyone will eventually be notified
22:17:57 [Josh_Soref]
... and there's no inner looping
22:18:05 [Josh_Soref]
... we'll append and create larger loops
22:18:23 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: can you create an infinite loop with 2 listeners?
22:18:31 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: even a single listener can create an infinite loop
22:18:43 [dglazkov]
22:18:44 [Josh_Soref]
rafaelw: what would happen with current mutation events?
22:18:48 [Josh_Soref]
... you explode the stack
22:18:59 [Josh_Soref]
... that coding error
22:19:12 [Josh_Soref]
... here is just an infinite loop instead of exploding the stack
22:19:20 [Josh_Soref]
... we talked about a fixed limit on going around
22:19:31 [Josh_Soref]
... the advantage of exploding the stack
22:19:40 [Josh_Soref]
... is that you can see a stack trace to understand what went wrong
22:19:56 [Josh_Soref]
... hopefully developer tools will evolve to help you debug the infinite loop case here
22:20:29 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: there would be a way to avoid starving the paint cycle
22:20:49 [Josh_Soref]
[ Scribe summarized poorly ]
22:20:55 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: it's possible to make a design
22:21:01 [Josh_Soref]
... where you don't have an arbitrary fixed limit
22:21:10 [Josh_Soref]
... but you don't starve the event loop if you have a programming mistake
22:21:14 [Josh_Soref]
rafaelw: we talked about that
22:21:15 [chrisdavidmills]
chrisdavidmills has joined #webapps
22:21:25 [Josh_Soref]
... there are legitimate uses for going around the horn a couple of times
22:21:30 [Josh_Soref]
... and then let things settle down
22:21:36 [Josh_Soref]
... comes from the model driven use proposals
22:21:42 [Josh_Soref]
22:21:57 [Josh_Soref]
... we were asked to slow down and look at the use cases
22:22:06 [Josh_Soref]
rafaelw: imagine you were using a JS library to do templating
22:22:15 [Josh_Soref]
... and used something like jQuery to do a UI
22:22:24 [Josh_Soref]
... and it wants to go decorate the page w/ more DOM
22:22:36 [Josh_Soref]
... and you used a constraint library to manage forms
22:22:53 [Josh_Soref]
... so the templating library might produce more jQuery stuff
22:23:03 [Josh_Soref]
... and the jQuery stuff might trigger more work for the templating
22:23:18 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: that seems like a Use Case where it's easy to create something that never terminates
22:23:38 [Josh_Soref]
... i agree it enables you to do things you could not otherwise do
22:23:49 [Josh_Soref]
ojan: Ojan, Google
22:23:53 [Josh_Soref]
ojan: as long as we agree
22:24:03 [Josh_Soref]
... mutations during one of these callbacks should get delivered eventually
22:24:13 [Josh_Soref]
... this error will either result in a hang, or burning cpu indefinitely
22:24:17 [Josh_Soref]
... i'd rather the hang
22:24:27 [Josh_Soref]
... rather than burning cpu
22:24:34 [Josh_Soref]
... i'd rather a limit and an error
22:24:39 [Josh_Soref]
rafaelw: i mostly agree
22:24:53 [Josh_Soref]
... i just don't want to create a situation where a developer doesn't know if he'll run before a paint occurs
22:25:05 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: you have the situation where each piece of code has observers
22:25:06 [sejinpark]
sejinpark has joined #webapps
22:25:17 [Josh_Soref]
... you need to globally analyze to determine if it will finish
22:25:26 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: they need to be interdepent
22:25:33 [Josh_Soref]
... you could get into an infinite loop
22:25:41 [Josh_Soref]
... if jQuery included things which the validation system depends on
22:25:47 [Josh_Soref]
... which depends on the third component
22:25:53 [Josh_Soref]
... but in most cases, i don't think that will happen
22:25:58 [Josh_Soref]
... you might have a queue of 3 or 4
22:26:10 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: the loop was claimed as a UC
22:26:28 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: i agree, but disagree on a hard limit
22:26:41 [Josh_Soref]
... the distributed UC is potentially difficult
22:26:56 [Josh_Soref]
ryosuke: we already have this problem with the current system
22:27:18 [Josh_Soref]
... i don't see this as introducing new issues
22:27:26 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: given how bad mutationevents are
22:27:36 [Josh_Soref]
... i don't support "no worse than them" as justification
22:27:40 [Wonsuk]
Wonsuk has joined #webapps
22:27:51 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: yes there are problems, yes this makes things better
22:27:57 [Josh_Soref]
... if we could avoid more problems, that's better
22:28:15 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: the situation you've described is a corner i've painted myself into many times
22:28:16 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #webapps
22:28:31 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: in the end, those risks are going to be minimized by something XBL-ish
22:28:37 [Josh_Soref]
... or component modelish
22:28:43 [Josh_Soref]
[ laughter ]
22:28:51 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: there's really 3 basic things for this issue
22:28:59 [Josh_Soref]
... 1. repeatedly cycle until all queues are empty
22:29:07 [Josh_Soref]
... 2. have a fixed limit
22:29:18 [Josh_Soref]
... 3. at some point, delay delivery to avoid starving the event loop
22:29:25 [Josh_Soref]
... this should be on the mailing list
22:30:15 [Josh_Soref]
ACTION rafaelw to send how to handle single pass not emptying all mutation queues to the list
22:30:15 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - rafaelw
22:30:43 [Josh_Soref]
[ anne asks a question ]
22:30:45 [efidler]
efidler has joined #webapps
22:30:57 [Josh_Soref]
anne: call dispatchEvent() from code
22:31:20 [Josh_Soref]
... where does that get trigger the mutation observers?
22:31:36 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: the outermost thing is always a callback
22:31:40 [Josh_Soref]
... which is a microtask
22:31:56 [Josh_Soref]
... if you call dispatchEvent() in there,
22:32:08 [Josh_Soref]
... the mutation observer calls back from the end of the outer microtask
22:32:16 [Josh_Soref]
... it's like a function call
22:32:29 [Josh_Soref]
anne: tasks that are queued are special?
22:32:35 [Josh_Soref]
... yes, they are outermost, so they're special
22:32:56 [Josh_Soref]
rafaelw: are you concerned, or not understanding?
22:33:07 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: i'd like the spec describe the scenarios clearly
22:33:13 [Josh_Soref]
... perhaps even so people can visually see
22:33:41 [Josh_Soref]
ojan: and if sicking could recall the thing Hixie said, that'd be good
22:33:47 [ojan]
ojan has joined #webapps
22:33:57 [Josh_Soref]
smaug: i need to finish the implementation first
22:34:06 [jrossi2]
jrossi2 has joined #webapps
22:34:10 [Josh_Soref]
... to decide if it's good
22:34:18 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: does this go into DOM4?
22:34:26 [Josh_Soref]
... does anyone care?
22:34:31 [Ms2ger]
I do
22:34:36 [Ms2ger]
As mentioned before
22:35:04 [cyril]
cyril has joined #webapps
22:35:29 [anne]
you can edit it :)
22:35:33 [Josh_Soref]
ryosuke: i've heard that they relate to DOM4 and should probably be there
22:36:13 [mixedpuppy]
mixedpuppy has joined #webapps
22:36:16 [Josh_Soref]
anne: i do think it should be in there
22:36:33 [Josh_Soref]
... because every other spec that intergrates should work with it
22:36:42 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: we seem to have violent agreement there
22:36:45 [Ms2ger]
I'm in violent agreement with anne :)
22:36:47 [Josh_Soref]
... anything else to discuss?
22:37:03 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: do these observers include stylistic properties?
22:37:24 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: most stylistic changes don't directly do this
22:37:51 [Josh_Soref]
... but many times you trigger a style change by setting an attribute or inserting something, which would itself be an observer notice
22:37:57 [Josh_Soref]
rafaelw: there's an attribute filter
22:38:18 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: perhaps there should be something specific for a specific class value
22:38:27 [Josh_Soref]
rafaelw: we agreed this is probably the 80% use case
22:38:48 [Josh_Soref]
... there was an earlier proposal from microsoft called watched-selector
22:39:08 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: i want to echo that point
22:39:18 [Josh_Soref]
... the extra class list on element was the favorite thing
22:39:30 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
22:39:32 [Josh_Soref]
... special casing class might be valuable
22:39:53 [Josh_Soref]
ojan: i really liked the watched-selector proposal
22:40:07 [Josh_Soref]
... it's more generic, over a selector instead of just a class list
22:40:32 [Josh_Soref]
22:40:34 [anne]
22:40:34 [Josh_Soref]
22:40:43 [Josh_Soref]
... what i like about this is that you can implement watchSelector on top of this
22:40:45 [bryan]
bryan has joined #webapps
22:41:00 [Josh_Soref]
rafaelw: it's on my list to open source a watchSelector reference impl on top of this
22:41:04 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: anything else?
22:41:13 [Josh_Soref]
[ No ]
22:41:35 [Josh_Soref]
[ Break until 4pm -- for server sent events ]
22:41:37 [Zakim]
22:42:09 [Zakim]
22:51:41 [morrita]
morrita has joined #webapps
22:54:57 [efidler]
efidler has joined #webapps
22:55:18 [jmarting]
jmarting has joined #webapps
22:55:18 [ChrisWilson]
ChrisWilson has joined #webapps
22:55:58 [hayato]
hayato has joined #webapps
22:56:53 [ernesto_jimenez]
ernesto_jimenez has joined #webapps
23:01:43 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: Server Sent Events: Push
23:01:58 [Josh_Soref]
[ darobin bryan will introduce, it's up on the screen ]
23:02:10 [Josh_Soref]
bryan: I sent to the list a link
23:02:24 [Josh_Soref]
... 2 years ago
23:02:28 [Josh_Soref]
.... at TPAC here
23:02:39 [Josh_Soref]
bryan: We had a discussion at the HTML WG about connectionless push
23:02:44 [krisk]
krisk has joined #webapps
23:02:50 [Josh_Soref]
... the text at the time was fairly generic
23:03:14 [Josh_Soref]
... the ability to use connectionless methods
23:03:19 [Josh_Soref]
... not having to maintain keepalive
23:03:32 [Josh_Soref]
... the intent in that spec, still informative
23:03:40 [Josh_Soref]
... a list of things that might occur in the process
23:03:48 [krisk]
krisk has left #webapps
23:03:49 [Josh_Soref]
... this spec
23:03:52 [nwidell]
nwidell has joined #webapps
23:03:58 [Josh_Soref]
bryan: I've been involved in OMA since 2000
23:04:05 [Josh_Soref]
... involved in the push work in OMA since then
23:04:10 [jihye]
jihye has joined #webapps
23:04:23 [Josh_Soref]
... we recently completed work within OMA
23:04:32 [smaug]
smaug has joined #webapps
23:04:38 [stakagi]
stakagi has joined #webapps
23:04:41 [Josh_Soref]
... this api is enough to form the basis of an extension to event source
23:04:43 [krisk]
krisk has joined #webapps
23:04:49 [Josh_Soref]
... it provides a way to use SMS
23:04:58 [Josh_Soref]
... as an extension to http push
23:05:19 [Josh_Soref]
... events are passed up to the application, in this case, the OMA runtime
23:05:33 [mjs]
mjs has joined #webapps
23:05:46 [Josh_Soref]
... when it's advantageous to save resources
23:06:04 [Josh_Soref]
... it's possible to coalesce these into a unified message
23:06:22 [Josh_Soref]
... event source didn't define these because they were out of scope to the spec
23:06:43 [Josh_Soref]
... I have a diagram here showing how apps could be deployed
23:07:03 [Josh_Soref]
[ ]
23:07:15 [Josh_Soref]
[ bryan describes the diagram ]
23:07:26 [Josh_Soref]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
23:07:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Josh_Soref
23:08:08 [Josh_Soref]
[ The diagram is: ]
23:08:12 [Kai]
Kai has joined #webapps
23:08:22 [Josh_Soref]
bryan: this doesn't modify the signature of Event Source
23:08:35 [Josh_Soref]
... down the road, we might create a persistent registration
23:08:49 [Josh_Soref]
... to let events wake up applications
23:08:57 [mdadas]
mdadas has joined #webapps
23:09:04 [aklein]
aklein has joined #webapps
23:09:21 [Josh_Soref]
... you have the desire to connect two new barers through uri
23:09:42 [Josh_Soref]
... you can use a registered urn that defines OMA Push
23:09:47 [Josh_Soref]
... within the IMS framework
23:10:16 [aklein_]
aklein_ has joined #webapps
23:10:22 [Josh_Soref]
bryan: events are delivered using the same model as Event Source
23:10:31 [Josh_Soref]
... although the event type is sent to SMS for SMS
23:10:35 [MOIBA]
MOIBA has joined #webapps
23:10:37 [Josh_Soref]
... and OMA Push for OMA Push
23:10:50 [Josh_Soref]
... you don't get onMessage() since these are not message events
23:10:58 [Josh_Soref]
... with OMA Push
23:11:13 [Josh_Soref]
... the simplest way was to create a sequence of strings
23:11:36 [Josh_Soref]
... so the application can receive all of the data as a single event using the event stream concept
23:11:53 [Josh_Soref]
... in this case, i pulled out the xml document, the url, and the text message, and present it
23:12:07 [Josh_Soref]
... for sms, the sms text message gets put into the event and delivered
23:12:27 [Josh_Soref]
[ ]
23:13:00 [Josh_Soref]
[ bryan describes second diagram ]
23:13:57 [tlr]
tlr has joined #webapps
23:14:35 [ryoichi]
ryoichi has joined #webapps
23:15:19 [Josh_Soref]
[ ]
23:15:24 [Josh_Soref]
[ bryan describes third diagram ]
23:17:04 [howard]
howard has joined #webapps
23:17:19 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #webapps
23:17:22 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
23:17:34 [anne]
anne has joined #webapps
23:18:30 [Josh_Soref]
[ ]
23:19:36 [jmarting]
jmarting has joined #webapps
23:19:51 [Josh_Soref]
[ ]
23:20:08 [Josh_Soref]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
23:20:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Josh_Soref
23:21:09 [Josh_Soref]
[ ]
23:21:33 [morrita]
morrita has joined #webapps
23:22:18 [jeff]
jeff has joined #webapps
23:22:49 [Josh_Soref]
[ ]
23:23:08 [Josh_Soref]
[ ]
23:23:22 [Josh_Soref]
[ bryan mentions Widget contexts but glosses over it ]
23:23:44 [Josh_Soref]
bryan: developers need to consider filtering for security considerations
23:23:52 [Josh_Soref]
... just as in web messaging
23:24:07 [Josh_Soref]
... accepting "*" is the responsibility of the application choosing to do so
23:24:19 [Josh_Soref]
[ ]
23:24:32 [Josh_Soref]
[ ]
23:24:49 [Josh_Soref]
jcantera: Jose Cantera, Telefonica
23:24:57 [Josh_Soref]
... how do you intend to progress this?
23:25:07 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: charter wise, it's in scope to this group
23:25:15 [Josh_Soref]
... if this group is happy to do it
23:25:25 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: do you think it would make sense
23:25:39 [Josh_Soref]
... one good thing is that it lets web apps have the same notifications as native apps
23:25:55 [Josh_Soref]
... and it shields web apps from complexity
23:26:09 [Josh_Soref]
... would it make sense to hide the distinction between OMA Push and SMS?
23:26:16 [Josh_Soref]
bryan: i considered it
23:26:27 [Josh_Soref]
... but, how do you deal with different framing formats?
23:26:36 [Josh_Soref]
... in OMA Push, you can deliver any content type
23:26:46 [Josh_Soref]
... the headers are important, you need to know the mime type
23:26:54 [Josh_Soref]
... those elements are important
23:27:03 [Josh_Soref]
... for a server to provide to the app
23:27:22 [Josh_Soref]
... i couldn't figure out how to combine that
23:27:39 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: what mobile OSs support this?
23:27:46 [Josh_Soref]
bryan: I prototyped this in Android
23:27:58 [Josh_Soref]
... I believe almost any OS in a smartphone class
23:28:10 [Josh_Soref]
... allows a developer to attach to network sources
23:28:20 [Josh_Soref]
... and allow someone to act as an agent for this
23:28:32 [Josh_Soref]
... in mid tier devices, that tends to be more complicated
23:29:15 [Josh_Soref]
lgombos: Laszlo Gombos, Nokia
23:29:19 [jrossi2]
jrossi2 has joined #webapps
23:29:21 [Josh_Soref]
[ Lost, sorry ]
23:29:29 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: we talked about this at Mozilla
23:29:40 [Josh_Soref]
... but we created something very different from this
23:29:47 [Josh_Soref]
... there are two unfortunate things here
23:30:01 [Josh_Soref]
... 1. I'd like to hide whether messages are from TCP/IP or SMS or OMA Push
23:30:05 [gopal]
gopal has joined #webapps
23:30:13 [Josh_Soref]
... (I don't know anything about OMA Push)
23:30:24 [Josh_Soref]
... - it feels like the goal was to expose OMA Push
23:30:31 [heycam]
anne, no it's at 4:30
23:30:41 [Josh_Soref]
... The goal at Mozilla was ... How do we expose SMS over a channel that isn't TCP/IP?
23:30:47 [Josh_Soref]
s/anne, no it's at 4:30//
23:31:03 [Josh_Soref]
... the other part is requiring permission from the user
23:31:14 [Josh_Soref]
... that severely limits how many users allow that
23:31:28 [Josh_Soref]
... if it's a little bit sensitive, people are still rightfully worried
23:31:40 [Josh_Soref]
... people press no, which is better than just pressing no
23:31:51 [Josh_Soref]
... we were hoping to provide something simpler/safer
23:32:01 [Josh_Soref]
bryan: there could be prearranged trust relationships
23:32:02 [sangwhan]
sangwhan has joined #webapps
23:32:19 [Josh_Soref]
... but it would be better for the user to have already trusted the app and not overburden them with prompts
23:32:27 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: what sicking was getting at
23:32:35 [Josh_Soref]
... is providing an *always* safe subset
23:32:41 [Josh_Soref]
... to avoid getting permission
23:32:41 [jmarting]
jmarting has joined #webapps
23:32:57 [sangwhan]
sangwhan has left #webapps
23:33:01 [Josh_Soref]
... this is more powerful, and "easier in terms of security"
23:33:16 [Josh_Soref]
bryan: "how do you make this transparent?"
23:33:29 [Josh_Soref]
... look at XHR, the agent says "i want / i'll take these mime types"
23:33:42 [Josh_Soref]
... if we could take event source and say "i can accept these mime types"
23:33:53 [Josh_Soref]
... that would let me decide if it was safe to deliver it
23:34:07 [Josh_Soref]
... because i didn't want to change event source, i couldn't do that
23:34:14 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: i think that's an option on the table
23:34:25 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm hearing interest in doing something around this
23:34:34 [Josh_Soref]
... would anyone object to the group working on this?
23:34:40 [Josh_Soref]
... it's in charter already
23:34:47 [Josh_Soref]
[ Chatter ]
23:35:09 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: this feels different enough from what we talked about at mozilla
23:35:17 [Josh_Soref]
... it feels like a different deliverable
23:35:25 [Josh_Soref]
... if we can solve it by just adding a header
23:35:27 [Josh_Soref]
... great
23:35:58 [Josh_Soref]
shepazu: would you be comfortable having a line in the charter scoping it more tightly?
23:36:17 [Josh_Soref]
... why don't we three right a deliverable line for the charter?
23:36:30 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: to avoid waiting for rechartering
23:36:51 [Josh_Soref]
... we should agree on a scope
23:37:00 [Josh_Soref]
... bryan it'd be good if you could send use cases
23:37:14 [Josh_Soref]
... sicking, it'd be good if you could send something
23:37:23 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
23:37:27 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: weinig asked earlier if this is implementable onn iOS
23:37:35 [Josh_Soref]
... i believe as presented, the answer is no
23:37:50 [Josh_Soref]
... iOS doesn't give applications the ability to receive SMS
23:38:14 [Josh_Soref]
... to me, that says that a design that does not force the web page to choose a transport would be better
23:38:34 [Josh_Soref]
bryan: i've said "any available barer would be good"
23:38:51 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: ok, based on the email you all send, we'll scope the work
23:38:55 [Josh_Soref]
Topic: WebIDL
23:39:00 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: helo
23:39:04 [Josh_Soref]
23:39:18 [Josh_Soref]
... In this session, I want to let people bring up issues
23:39:32 [Josh_Soref]
... and discuss how we might go about testing
23:39:50 [Josh_Soref]
... and third, what are the time frames for implementers (smaug asked this)
23:39:52 [Wonsuk]
Wonsuk has joined #webapps
23:40:06 [richt]
richt has joined #webapps
23:40:10 [Josh_Soref]
AdamBarth: Adam Barth, Google
23:40:20 [Josh_Soref]
... do you mean consume the syntax?
23:40:20 [dom]
-> Thread on testing Web IDL
23:40:27 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
23:40:39 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: I don't mean specifically that, perhaps just conforming to its behavior
23:40:54 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: one thing we talked about in terms of testing WebIDL
23:41:07 [Josh_Soref]
... is to test it in terms of specs that are speced in WebIDL
23:41:12 [Josh_Soref]
... for instance Canvas
23:41:18 [Josh_Soref]
... uses ovberloading
23:41:24 [Josh_Soref]
... s/ovberloading/overloading/
23:41:27 [jihye]
jihye has joined #webapps
23:41:32 [Josh_Soref]
... and things like prototype chains
23:41:46 [Josh_Soref]
... testing people's implementations of generating code, i don't think it's worthwhile
23:41:59 [Josh_Soref]
... you could hand write all the bindings, and still be compliant
23:42:08 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: i agree, that's the only reasonable approach
23:42:25 [Josh_Soref]
... i think someone could come up with a set of properties for testing
23:42:30 [magnus]
magnus has joined #webapps
23:42:46 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: the way WebIDL is written, it's targeted at spec writers, not browser vendors
23:42:53 [Josh_Soref]
... it creates an indirect relationship
23:43:09 [Josh_Soref]
... indirect testing through testing of other specs seems the only way of testing it
23:43:24 [Josh_Soref]
... which unfortunately creates a circular dependeny for progressing on the REC track
23:43:38 [Josh_Soref]
23:44:01 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #webapps
23:44:02 [dom]
[I don't think see why this would be circular? surely we *can* create tests for specs that aren't in CR yet]
23:44:07 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: we always do that when we test XHR, we test JS
23:44:07 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: yes, we do
23:44:11 [dom]
23:44:21 [Josh_Soref]
jrossi2: in particularly
23:44:37 [Josh_Soref]
... when you test foo-spec, you test webidl
23:44:45 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: I agree
23:44:53 [anne]
anne has joined #webapps
23:44:57 [Josh_Soref]
... and as we march to LC, we need to mark things as AtRisk
23:45:04 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: we should just kill it
23:45:10 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: and the only one is modules
23:45:18 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: does that include namespace objects?
23:45:21 [Josh_Soref]
23:45:32 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
23:45:34 [Josh_Soref]
s/hheyyes/heycam: yes/
23:45:50 [Josh_Soref]
AdamBarth: you can look at the specs as testing it
23:45:53 [smaug]
smaug has joined #webapps
23:46:03 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: yes, but it's harder to test automatically
23:46:17 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: things written with ReSpec are pretty easy
23:46:24 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: Alex from Google
23:46:35 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm not sure if this is the right forum for this
23:46:46 [Josh_Soref]
... i think the entire java language indings should be dropped
23:46:49 [chrisdavidmills]
chrisdavidmills has joined #webapps
23:46:52 [Josh_Soref]
23:47:07 [Josh_Soref]
... second is there are several instances where webidl doesn't serve JS well
23:47:17 [Josh_Soref]
... 1. a TC-39 meeting
23:47:23 [Josh_Soref]
... several months ago
23:47:30 [Josh_Soref]
... interface objects which are reified
23:47:38 [Josh_Soref]
... do not act like function objects
23:47:41 [gsnedders]
One option for WebIDL testing is some sort of tests designed to be run in a browser-specific way against the interface generation
23:47:47 [Josh_Soref]
... do not behave normally, they aren't callable
23:47:55 [Josh_Soref]
[ scribe lost thoughts ]
23:48:00 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: I agree with this
23:48:15 [Josh_Soref]
... it's unlikely authors will be doing 'throw typeerror'
23:48:21 [Josh_Soref]
... things which are unnewable
23:48:33 [Josh_Soref]
... things where it doesn't make sense to be able to new them
23:48:34 [anne]
new Math()
23:48:40 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: i take the concern
23:48:44 [Josh_Soref]
... it's a risk
23:48:53 [Josh_Soref]
... the idiomatic way of doing that in js
23:48:59 [Josh_Soref]
... is mixins
23:49:14 [anne]
(gives a TypeError)
23:49:15 [Josh_Soref]
... the artifact way of doing that would be still newable
23:49:39 [Josh_Soref]
... the reality is that today, webidl doesn't specify something "reasonable" that could be impleemtned yourself in JS
23:49:50 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: that's not necessarily the goal of WebIDL
23:49:55 [MikeSmith]
23:50:12 [Josh_Soref]
... the goal of WebIDL is to define how things are implemented today
23:50:20 [Josh_Soref]
... and how they should be impleemnted
23:50:30 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: thenI suggest webidl is mischartered
23:50:38 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
23:50:54 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: javascript doesn't have a way to subclass things other than Object
23:51:08 [Josh_Soref]
... fortunately, almost everything is Objects
23:51:18 [Josh_Soref]
... I know you suggested something using
23:51:37 [Josh_Soref]
... but I didn't hear any inmplemetners interested in doing that
23:51:46 [Josh_Soref]
... and it seemed like something for TC-39 to do
23:51:58 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: i should put on my TC-39 hat
23:52:11 [Josh_Soref]
... and note that this discussion was something that happened @ TC-39
23:52:31 [Josh_Soref]
... and brendan and I agree that everything you can do to an interface, should be newable
23:52:39 [Josh_Soref]
... and yes, Arrays are odd
23:52:48 [Josh_Soref]
... and you sdhould throw things back at uws
23:52:56 [Josh_Soref]
... and there are things in ES6, proxies
23:53:02 [Josh_Soref]
... which should address it
23:53:12 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: what acts as normal JS is a matter of definition
23:53:24 [Josh_Soref]
... for example, the array class, and even the string classs
23:53:34 [Josh_Soref]
... has built in behavior and doesn't allow you to subclass
23:53:44 [Josh_Soref]
... and we're following those models
23:54:00 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: you're still failing
23:54:10 [Josh_Soref]
... since your objects claim to chain to Objects
23:54:18 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: but Array claims to chain to Object
23:54:30 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: but everything that WebIDL defines has intrinsic behavior
23:54:36 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: but that's how it works
23:54:49 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: the fact is that TC-39 hasn't solved this problem for any of these things
23:55:01 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: it's actually more, bz had examples
23:55:13 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: Math is an Object, not a Function
23:55:44 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: In the Spec, they are all Function objects, they are defined such that when called they throw type error
23:55:50 [Josh_Soref]
... which you can do in JS
23:56:11 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: do we still have a separate constructor property in WebIDL?
23:56:21 [Josh_Soref]
... throwing by default is a bug
23:56:29 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: moving beyond low level semantics
23:56:44 [Josh_Soref]
... heycam wrote an example, "new Node" doesn't make sense
23:56:58 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: every DOM object that's an object is a specific Subclass of Node
23:57:12 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: but that invariant is controlled by AppendNode
23:57:30 [heycam]
The spec says "Interface objects are always function objects."
23:57:40 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: but if it's several weeks of work in order to do something which no one can do anything useful with, then it's a waste of time
23:57:48 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: what's the argument for making node
23:58:05 [Josh_Soref]
sicking: all the intrinsic behavior of Nodes is based on which Node subclass it is
23:58:16 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: then calling it and newing it throws
23:58:28 [sangwhan]
sangwhan has joined #webapps
23:58:30 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: is it worth it to handing back a non useful thing?
23:58:35 [mixedpuppy]
mixedpuppy has joined #webapps
23:58:43 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: the answer is no
23:58:58 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: i'm not saying that you should turn off the ability to new/call
23:59:07 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm asking you to turn off the default
23:59:19 [Josh_Soref]
anne: then you'd require a lot of specs to change most of the specs
23:59:35 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: i'd argue that for html element types, it's mostly a bug
23:59:47 [Josh_Soref]
jrossi2: no, there's more than one interface per element
23:59:58 [Josh_Soref]
anne: because the tags all share an interface
00:00:09 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: so you can't create a tag name
00:00:17 [smaug]
smaug has joined #webapps
00:00:19 [Josh_Soref]
... you haven't thought about it hard enough
00:00:37 [Josh_Soref]
anne: we have thought about constructors a lot, especially because you brought it up
00:00:45 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: there are two separate issues
00:00:49 [Josh_Soref]
... one is New
00:00:57 [anne]
wrong or not, without use cases this is not going to fly
00:01:01 [Josh_Soref]
... and the other is subclassabilitiy
00:01:13 [Josh_Soref]
... in js, only Object supports Subclassing
00:01:30 [Josh_Soref]
[ mjs and AlexR argue ]
00:01:43 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: you should fix JS first before we change
00:02:04 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: we have misfeatures in DOM based on document.createElement
00:02:18 [magnus]
magnus has joined #webapps
00:02:29 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: the goal of WebIDL is to describe the actual semantics of DOM bindings and to get browsers consistent
00:03:09 [Josh_Soref]
... it is not the goal of WebIDL to transform the philosophy of how DOM bindings are built
00:03:36 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: the issue of default, shouldn't be the way of forcing the default
00:03:54 [Josh_Soref]
... because as anne says, people will just put no constructor everywhere
00:04:00 [Josh_Soref]
00:04:06 [Josh_Soref]
anne: that's makework
00:04:23 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: creating an instance ..
00:04:23 [MOIBA]
MOIBA has joined #webapps
00:04:38 [Josh_Soref]
... in the same idiom as anything else i can in that system
00:04:48 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: that's something whicih as mjs said
00:04:58 [Josh_Soref]
00:05:15 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: will there be a WebIDL version which changes this?
00:05:33 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: no
00:05:43 [Josh_Soref]
[ We are at an impass ]
00:05:53 [Josh_Soref]
[ Should we drop Java? ]
00:06:02 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: oh, i didn't respond to that
00:06:06 [Josh_Soref]
... maybe
00:06:21 [Josh_Soref]
... if we particularly don't care about other bindings
00:06:33 [Josh_Soref]
... and i'm sure AlexR would argue we shouldn't
00:06:48 [gsnedders]
I keep on grimacing everytime subclassing is mentioned… because JS doesn't scarcely has classes. :\
00:06:49 [Josh_Soref]
... should we actually alter WebIDL to reflect something closer to JS
00:07:03 [Josh_Soref]
... that is something to consider, but it would take some time to do
00:07:18 [Josh_Soref]
Marcos: have you done the bindings for WebIDL in java?
00:07:29 [morrita]
morrita has joined #webapps
00:07:30 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: one project I'm involved in has a Java based DOM
00:07:41 [Josh_Soref]
shepazu: i wanted to talk about process very briefly
00:07:43 [darin]
darin has joined #webapps
00:08:14 [gsnedders]
Does it look as if anyone will have met CR exist criteria for the Java bindings by the time they have been met for the JS bindings? IMO that's the relevant matter.
00:08:18 [Josh_Soref]
... dropping Java would mean we don't need 2 java implementations to get to REC
00:08:31 [gsnedders]
The Java bindings are fine provided they don't hold up the spec.
00:08:45 [gsnedders]
(They can always be split out into a separate spec)
00:08:53 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: getting two interoperable implementations of java bindings to test all of the features of webidl
00:09:04 [Josh_Soref]
... would keep the spec from REC forever
00:09:22 [Josh_Soref]
shepazu: the Staff view on process
00:09:49 [jcdufourd]
jcdufourd has joined #webapps
00:10:05 [Josh_Soref]
... is that if for each feature we have 2 specs in CR
00:10:29 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: the plan is to only have 1 spec consuming some of these items
00:10:40 [Josh_Soref]
shepazu: we can be fine about that
00:10:53 [Josh_Soref]
... don't let the process for a normal spec drag us down
00:11:08 [Josh_Soref]
... we can come to an agreement on the exit criteria
00:11:19 [Josh_Soref]
... we're flexible on how we judge the passs criteria
00:11:28 [gsnedders]
Can someone ask what the staff view is on impls of the bindings?
00:11:34 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: i think we need actual implementations of specs using this feature
00:11:59 [Josh_Soref]
... part of what we're evaluating is to ensure that all of the details of what it says happen are actually practical/possible
00:12:13 [dom]
(I think Java bindings should be split into a different document)
00:12:19 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: i had a bunch of questions
00:12:34 [Josh_Soref]
... 1. should long long stay in the spec? given its wierd behavior in javaascript
00:12:50 [Josh_Soref]
... given the inability of js beingable to represent numbers consistently
00:13:03 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: the issue being numbers in js over 2^53 get squished into a double
00:13:10 [Josh_Soref]
... we talked about creating a class
00:13:19 [Josh_Soref]
anne: it's used in progress events
00:13:32 [ernesto_jimenez]
ernesto_jimenez has joined #webapps
00:13:34 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: the loss of precision happens in a javascript parser
00:13:46 [Josh_Soref]
... it's more of an issue if we lose that detail in a movie
00:13:57 [Josh_Soref]
... the progress events of loading a movie from xhr
00:14:05 [Josh_Soref]
... i'm more curious about your opinion
00:14:15 [gsnedders]
bigints should be readded to WebIDL after they're in ES
00:14:31 [anne]
Josh_Soref: I worry about data loss with this
00:14:41 [mjs]
mjs has joined #webapps
00:14:44 [anne]
Josh_Soref: nobody else worries about it :(
00:14:44 [gsnedders]
(i.e., they should be removed in the short-term)
00:14:56 [anne]
(roughly what Josh_Soref said)
00:15:20 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: 2. should we treat an undefined value for a key in a dictionary the same as non existing
00:15:33 [Josh_Soref]
... that would be fine with apple, especially if mozilla is ok
00:15:46 [Josh_Soref]
... what we do currently is inconsistent for our dictionaries
00:15:58 [Josh_Soref]
... etierh way sounds fine, it's usually a programmer error
00:16:14 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: sicbrought up cases like that where you deliberately get something as undefined
00:16:23 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: so that sounds like a use case
00:16:36 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: sicking said it's consistent with missing arguments to a function
00:16:37 [mjs]
00:16:44 [Josh_Soref]
s/sicbrought/sicking brought/
00:17:10 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: we're making the argument that people compare to argument instead of checking
00:17:18 [gsnedders]
I think someone needs to look through ES and see where [[HasOwnProperty]] is used and where undefined is used
00:17:20 [Josh_Soref]
[ see brendan's argument on list? ]
00:17:35 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: the other one discussed this week is remove FunctionOnly for callback
00:17:40 [davidb]
davidb has joined #webapps
00:17:51 [Josh_Soref]
... implementers have been inconsistent wrt how they use that
00:18:03 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: this might be a case where using interfaces resulted in
00:18:15 [Josh_Soref]
... creating an object with the property called handleEvent
00:18:27 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: i was actually saying allow both in all circumstances
00:18:39 [Josh_Soref]
... it's not like we can make addEventListener handle this
00:18:46 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: i did it as the default
00:18:55 [Josh_Soref]
jrossi2: i found the legacy handleEvent all wierd
00:19:00 [JeffH]
JeffH has joined #webapps
00:19:08 [Josh_Soref]
... and developers would like to support it everywhere
00:19:19 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: in webkit, we allow both
00:19:32 [Josh_Soref]
anne: it is defined as Callback FunctionOnly InterfaceObject
00:19:56 [Josh_Soref]
... i think it's removed everywere except onFoo
00:20:13 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: WebKit allows it everywhere, so
00:20:32 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: I'd like to point out that in my years, i never heard of that
00:20:42 [Josh_Soref]
... i'd rather default to FunctionOnly
00:20:59 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: my preference would be that if Object style is supported
00:21:06 [shan]
shan has joined #webapps
00:21:17 [Josh_Soref]
... is that we attempt to allow same name as event name in addition to handle event
00:21:27 [Josh_Soref]
... so that you can have different colors
00:21:42 [Josh_Soref]
... handleEvent is the thing that doesn't do nicely for all event handlers
00:21:57 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: if that's the direction we want to go, then we need to support Object style
00:22:25 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: so you want to remove FuinctionOnly from the spec so you can only do both
00:22:40 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: i didn't realize that hixie was using it for attribute event listeners
00:22:52 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: i could inroduce function to actually mean function
00:22:59 [Josh_Soref]
anne: we could add eventhandelr for that
00:23:15 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
00:23:39 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: i'll make the change about allowing typedefs to put some extended attributes on a type so whenever you use a typedef you get the attributes from them
00:24:02 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: next...
00:24:11 [Josh_Soref]
... i ask this every time i see you
00:24:23 [Josh_Soref]
... do people/do other specs use Sequence, and Array?
00:24:28 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: now there are
00:24:37 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: the next thing, an implementation issue
00:24:51 [Josh_Soref]
... is iteration order in for-in of properties on interfaces defined?
00:25:00 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: we were trying to defer to TC-39
00:25:10 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: TC-39 doesn't define them for host objects
00:25:17 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
00:25:23 [Josh_Soref]
... in webkit, it's a random order
00:25:27 [gsnedders]
Does ES5 not define them as undefined for host objects?
00:25:40 [gsnedders]
Like, does the definition as undefined not apply for all objects?
00:25:47 [Josh_Soref]
... i've not heard of any bugs regarding iteration order
00:25:54 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: yes, we've heard of bugs
00:26:06 [Josh_Soref]
... we end up breaking them every time we ship IE
00:26:14 [Josh_Soref]
... it doesn't break many sies
00:26:23 [Josh_Soref]
... more often than not, it's a testcase
00:26:24 [mmielke]
mmielke has joined #webapps
00:26:39 [Josh_Soref]
... i would not want them to be defined, because it would be particularly hard
00:26:43 [Linuz]
Linuz has joined #webapps
00:26:50 [Josh_Soref]
... in the spec, there's some mention of ordering
00:26:58 [Josh_Soref]
... named and indexed properties
00:27:06 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: pragmatic question
00:27:12 [Josh_Soref]
... ordering/lookup
00:27:19 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
00:27:19 [Josh_Soref]
... on Window, in the browser
00:27:33 [Josh_Soref]
... ... are you comfortable with the hooks on Window
00:27:49 [Josh_Soref]
... in webkit first look at the this, and then look at the that, and ...
00:27:51 [jihye]
jihye has joined #webapps
00:28:02 [Josh_Soref]
... there are multiple catchalls that have to be iimplemented in order
00:28:13 [Josh_Soref]
... does anyone know if that's speced anywhere?
00:28:31 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: yes, between a combination of things in HTML and WebIDL, it should be completely defined
00:28:32 [rniwa]
rniwa has joined #webapps
00:28:35 [Josh_Soref]
jrossi2: correctly?
00:28:54 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: there's a bug that lists the order, and Travis_MSFT checkked it, and it didn't seem to hit any problems
00:29:05 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: it seems like we need lots of test cases for it
00:29:22 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
00:29:34 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: i'm waiting for firefox to implement that part of the spec (sic)
00:29:45 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: the only problem we could hit is "var location;"
00:29:51 [Josh_Soref]
00:30:11 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: one question for people
00:30:56 [Josh_Soref]
... the approach of having idl attributes mapped to accessor properties
00:31:06 [Josh_Soref]
...there's an issue Travis_MSFT identified
00:31:20 [heycam]
assigning to Element.prototype.onsomething
00:31:24 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
00:31:27 [Josh_Soref]
...there's an issue travwith an old version of prototype.js breeaking
00:31:37 [heycam]
since on* handlers are now accessor properties on the prototype that throw if their this object is wrong, this was a breaking change for some sites
00:31:47 [heycam]
where the previous implementation was to have those properties as data properties on the instances rahter than the prototype
00:31:47 [Josh_Soref]
... because it checks the this of something
00:32:06 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: are people happy with that approach?
00:32:11 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: yes
00:32:23 [Josh_Soref]
... i particularly value it for overloads
00:32:35 [Josh_Soref]
... it's easy to replace functionality when you need to
00:32:39 [Josh_Soref]
trackbot: yes
00:32:39 [trackbot]
Sorry, Josh_Soref, I don't understand 'trackbot: yes'. Please refer to for help
00:32:54 [Josh_Soref]
00:33:02 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: yes, no issue
00:33:13 [Josh_Soref]
... we're worried about performance
00:33:22 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: array.length has two sides
00:33:31 [Josh_Soref]
... it's a getter/setter pair
00:33:34 [ihilerio]
ihilerio has joined #webapps
00:33:41 [Josh_Soref]
... that can be modeled as getter/setter today
00:34:01 [Josh_Soref]
... second, if you write to an index property beyond current length, there's a magical put
00:34:09 [Josh_Soref]
... shrinking can be repaired
00:34:15 [Josh_Soref]
... growing requires morework
00:34:27 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
00:34:31 [Josh_Soref]
weinig: will length be moved to the prototype be moved to use getter/setter
00:34:42 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: it isn't clear how it will be resolved
00:35:06 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: earlier in the discussion, we brought up the idea with a more JS focussed thing which might replace WebIDL
00:35:12 [Josh_Soref]
... not right away
00:35:20 [Josh_Soref]
... we didn't have people chime in
00:35:27 [Josh_Soref]
[ what would it look like? ]
00:35:42 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: something where the actual constructs in JS would sound like JS
00:35:48 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: why not use JS?
00:35:58 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: because it wouldn't be very concise
00:36:09 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: javascript isn't very good for doing that
00:36:19 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: it's a tricky thing to contemplate
00:36:28 [jihye]
jihye has left #webapps
00:36:29 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
00:36:37 [Josh_Soref]
... if you contemplate things the way ECMA does it, you have to be more verbose
00:36:48 [Josh_Soref]
... on the other end of the thing, you
00:37:04 [Josh_Soref]
... it might be an interesting exercise, but i'd like to finish webidl first
00:37:09 [jihye]
jihye has joined #webapps
00:37:20 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: there's some value that webidl is somewhat decoupled from js
00:37:32 [Josh_Soref]
... js is the only langauge that's relevant for api specs
00:37:44 [Josh_Soref]
... maybe someday every browser owill have python or dart
00:37:59 [Josh_Soref]
... if it does, then we will regret it if we define things too tightly
00:38:00 [heycam]
Josh_Soref: one of the things which DAP was looking at was the ability to specify SOAP replacement
00:38:17 [heycam]
berjon: json-rpc using webidl
00:38:17 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: having designed DOM for DART, the right interface will be a new way of doing things
00:38:25 [Josh_Soref]
... we wound up doing something WebIDL
00:38:27 [tpod]
tpod has joined #webapps
00:38:28 [heycam]
Josh_Soref: they wanted to define an API for things where the implementaiton might not be a host object, it might be JS
00:38:33 [heycam]
... but they want to define it in Web IDL
00:38:43 [heycam]
... and in doing that, we were toying with the idea of writing a WebIDL to JSON binding
00:39:20 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: you're talking about using WebIDL to define a ReSTful interface
00:39:32 [Josh_Soref]
... i haven't seen a lot of discussion about that
00:39:33 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
00:39:49 [Josh_Soref]
... outside a bunch of people mentioning it on the DAP list
00:39:59 [Rossen]
Rossen has joined #webapps
00:40:03 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: it's actually feedback from webkit that brought this up iniitally
00:40:12 [Josh_Soref]
... define a mapping to json objects
00:40:20 [Josh_Soref]
... and define a mapping to json ipc
00:40:29 [Josh_Soref]
... it would be defined separately
00:40:47 [Josh_Soref]
... the way forward on that, is that i'll finish my JS prototype of it
00:40:56 [Josh_Soref]
... and see if it flies or crases
00:41:31 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: there is a value in having a base description of what the apis are
00:41:35 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
00:41:45 [Josh_Soref]
... in most implemenetations those are in C+++
00:41:58 [Josh_Soref]
... and those will correspond fairly closely to the IDL
00:42:18 [Josh_Soref]
... but at the same time, having something that is too close to C++ doesn't serve JS very well
00:42:33 [ifette]
ifette has joined #webapps
00:42:33 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: in webkit today, we generate mu;multiple bindings from idl
00:42:47 [Josh_Soref]
... they are just used ffor portions of the api exposed
00:43:00 [Josh_Soref]
... ObjC, C++ bindings, mapping to various frameworks
00:43:09 [Josh_Soref]
... possibly Python and Gobject
00:43:32 [Josh_Soref]
... in some cases, people haffve specifically mentioned a desire to align with the relatively well known JS APs
00:43:47 [Josh_Soref]
... as a value relatively close to the JS for users of their language
00:44:04 [Josh_Soref]
... there may be value for a single interface description with mappings to languages
00:44:14 [Josh_Soref]
AlexR: mappings doesn't mean design centered
00:44:25 [Josh_Soref]
... if we are designing a multilanguage thing
00:44:35 [Josh_Soref]
... then we have a responsibility to all of them
00:44:51 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: i think that's a straw man
00:45:01 [Josh_Soref]
... we are designing w/ js very much
00:45:12 [Josh_Soref]
... as much as i'd like to see a v2
00:45:23 [Josh_Soref]
... we're not going to change the course very much
00:45:33 [Josh_Soref]
... if you want a v2, bring a sketch
00:45:51 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: a bunch of things are collapsing number types or renaming some keywords
00:46:20 [Josh_Soref]
mjs: the number types are sueful because they define error checking at the interface between the js interface and the underlying implementation
00:46:34 [mixedpuppy]
mixedpuppy has joined #webapps
00:46:43 [Josh_Soref]
... having a single number type would require each spec to explain what happens when one passses a non interger
00:46:58 [Josh_Soref]
... the case of i only accept integers in this range is fairly common
00:47:14 [Josh_Soref]
Marcos: i'd like to see more examples in the spec
00:47:27 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: i try to include one example per construct
00:47:42 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
00:47:47 [Josh_Soref]
Marcos: i'm doing a review of it
00:47:55 [Josh_Soref]
anne: are we doing another LC?
00:48:05 [Josh_Soref]
... and if we do, could we add String Enumerations
00:48:10 [Josh_Soref]
... as a replacement for string constants
00:48:19 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: I talked to the WebPerf guys
00:48:25 [Josh_Soref]
... and they're happy with dropping that
00:48:52 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: wrt LC, do you have to if you make normative changes?
00:49:05 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: if you make changes which would invalidate a review, then you're supposed to go back to LC
00:49:48 [Josh_Soref]
... normally we would have to go to LC, especially if we made this change
00:49:57 [Josh_Soref]
... LC isn't a big deal, it's just process
00:50:15 [Josh_Soref]
... we can have a 3 week last call, and if everyone is happy, just move to CR
00:50:17 [Josh_Soref]
... and start testing
00:50:34 [Josh_Soref]
... does anyone want to be the testing chief for webidl?
00:50:40 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: i thought that was only for new specs
00:51:12 [Josh_Soref]
Marcos: HTML5 tests most of it, right?
00:51:19 [Josh_Soref]
jrossi2: that's irrelevant, we need an example of each thing
00:51:22 [anne]
heycam, what about AllowAny?
00:51:34 [anne]
heycam, I guess you have that recorded somewhere...
00:51:47 [Josh_Soref]
Josh_Soref: can't we just create a table for each feature of WebIDL and an interface in a given spec for it
00:52:13 [Josh_Soref]
Travis_MSFT: i think we solve the Example requirement and Testsuite by correlating to Spec items
00:52:53 [Josh_Soref]
ACTION: Travis_MSFT to lead testing coordination for WebIDL
00:52:53 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Travis_MSFT
00:53:02 [JonathanJ]
rrsagent, draft minutes
00:53:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate JonathanJ
00:53:29 [MikeSmith]
trackbot, status?
00:53:50 [Josh_Soref]
ACTION: Travis to lead testing coordination for WebIDL
00:53:51 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-638 - Lead testing coordination for WebIDL [on Travis Leithead - due 2011-11-09].
00:54:24 [Josh_Soref]
heycam: AllowAny is in the list of things from the LC feedback
00:54:36 [MikeSmith]
00:54:36 [trackbot]
ACTION-638 -- Travis Leithead to lead testing coordination for WebIDL -- due 2011-11-09 -- OPEN
00:54:36 [trackbot]
00:54:37 [Josh_Soref]
... it had implications relating to override
00:54:49 [Josh_Soref]
anne: I wasn't clear where it was used, apart from XHR
00:54:50 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
00:56:26 [Josh_Soref]
[ heycam talks about overloads ]
00:56:51 [ifette]
ifette has joined #webapps
00:57:22 [Josh_Soref]
[ specifically String and Number versions with AllowAny ]
00:58:34 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
00:58:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MikeSmith
00:58:40 [Josh_Soref]
ACTION darobin to ACTION rafaelw (or the Google AC) to send how to handle single pass not emptying all mutation queues to the list
00:58:40 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - darobin
00:58:51 [Josh_Soref]
ACTION boarlicker to ACTION rafaelw (or the Google AC) to send how to handle single pass not emptying all mutation queues to the list
00:58:52 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-639 - ACTION rafaelw (or the Google AC) to send how to handle single pass not emptying all mutation queues to the list [on Robin Berjon - due 2011-11-09].
00:59:13 [tantek]
tantek has joined #webapps
00:59:15 [Josh_Soref]
darobin: any other issues?
01:09:39 [ysr]
ysr has joined #webapps
01:12:58 [cyril]
cyril has joined #webapps
01:14:05 [davida]
davida has joined #webapps
01:29:29 [myakura_]
myakura_ has joined #webapps
01:35:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, tpac, in RWC_WAPI(WebAppsWG)12:00PM
01:35:03 [Zakim]
RWC_WAPI(WebAppsWG)12:00PM has ended
01:35:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were tpac, Olli_Pettay, Ms2ger
01:35:36 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
01:37:47 [miketaylr]
miketaylr has joined #webapps
01:37:49 [ihilerio]
ihilerio has left #webapps
01:40:41 [myakura_]
myakura_ has joined #webapps
01:58:04 [MOIBA]
MOIBA has joined #webapps
02:00:21 [sejinpark]
sejinpark has left #webapps
02:11:51 [MikeSmith_]
MikeSmith_ has joined #webapps
02:27:52 [tcelik]
tcelik has joined #webapps
02:31:25 [weinig]
weinig has joined #webapps
02:38:32 [ojan]
ojan has joined #webapps
02:47:13 [morrita]
morrita has joined #webapps
02:48:42 [tpod]
tpod has joined #webapps
03:20:40 [dveditz]
dveditz has joined #webapps
03:29:03 [DavidKim]
DavidKim has joined #webapps
03:44:09 [jdaggett_]
jdaggett_ has joined #webapps
03:52:25 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #webapps
03:55:56 [jrossi2]
jrossi2 has joined #webapps
04:11:17 [darin]
darin has joined #webapps
04:43:59 [ysr]
ysr has joined #webapps
04:56:36 [lgombos]
lgombos has joined #webapps
05:13:39 [stakagi]
stakagi has joined #webapps
05:20:05 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #webapps
05:40:18 [stakagi]
stakagi has joined #webapps
05:40:50 [ojan]
ojan has joined #webapps
05:47:36 [tantek]
tantek has joined #webapps
05:48:22 [dowan]
dowan has joined #webapps
05:48:38 [rniwa]
rniwa has joined #webapps
05:52:03 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #webapps
05:56:40 [howard]
howard has joined #webapps
06:06:54 [darin_]
darin_ has joined #webapps
06:19:23 [howard]
howard has joined #webapps
06:37:25 [jarek]
jarek has joined #webapps
06:38:24 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
06:39:35 [Marcos]
Marcos has joined #webapps
06:43:58 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
06:49:34 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
06:53:42 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
07:00:47 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
07:11:04 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
07:18:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webapps
07:19:45 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
07:23:50 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
07:26:00 [myakura]
myakura has joined #webapps
07:27:41 [lgombos]
lgombos has joined #webapps
07:32:31 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
07:37:02 [kensaku]
kensaku has joined #webapps
07:38:04 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
07:43:41 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
07:49:33 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
07:53:41 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
07:57:53 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
08:01:57 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
08:07:37 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
08:11:56 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
08:16:09 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
08:20:19 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
08:20:23 [ysr]
ysr has joined #webapps
08:27:35 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
08:31:41 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
08:37:18 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
08:41:24 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
08:47:02 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
08:52:10 [miketaylr]
miketaylr has joined #webapps
08:52:38 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
08:56:41 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
09:01:24 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
09:03:49 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
09:07:51 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
09:09:36 [Ms2ger]
Ms2ger has joined #webapps
09:11:57 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
09:16:01 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
09:20:04 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
09:24:18 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
09:26:47 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
09:32:30 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
09:37:00 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
09:39:25 [fukuno]
fukuno has joined #webapps
09:45:40 [fukuno_]
fukuno_ has joined #webapps
09:45:42 [tmpsantos]
tmpsantos has joined #webapps
10:26:08 [sangwhan]
sangwhan has joined #webapps
10:58:13 [smaug]
smaug has joined #webapps
11:09:49 [Ms2ger]
RRSAgent, make minutes
11:09:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ms2ger
11:12:42 [Ms2ger]
11:12:47 [Ms2ger]
RRSAgent, make minutes
11:12:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ms2ger
11:13:22 [Ms2ger]
RRSAgent, please excuse us
11:13:22 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in :
11:13:22 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Art and Charles to make a proposal about how to appoint a person to be assigned for testing for a spec. [1]
11:13:22 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
11:13:22 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Travis_MSFT to lead testing coordination for WebIDL [2]
11:13:22 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
11:13:22 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Travis to lead testing coordination for WebIDL [3]
11:13:22 [RRSAgent]
recorded in