IRC log of browserext on 2016-09-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

01:25:20 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #browserext

01:25:20 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/09/09-browserext-irc

01:26:30 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #browserext

01:26:34 [Florian]

Meeting: Browser Extension CG teleconf

01:26:45 [Florian]

Scribenick: Florian

01:26:48 [Florian]

Chair: Florian

01:26:55 [Florian]

present+ Florian

01:27:24 [Florian]

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-browserext/2016Sep/0000.html

01:29:40 [Florian]

RRSAgent, make log public

01:31:16 [mikepie]

present+ mikepie

01:31:44 [kmag]

present+ kmag

01:36:17 [Florian]

Topic: Agenda

01:36:37 [Florian]

Florian: Any other item you would like to add to the agenda?

01:36:53 [Florian]

mikepie: nope

01:37:00 [Florian]

Topic: TPAC

01:37:09 [Florian]

https://github.com/browserext/browserext.github.io/wiki/2016-TPAC-Agenda

01:37:26 [Florian]

Florian: This is a wikipage to prepare for TPAC

01:37:42 [Florian]

Florian: please add topics you want to discuss, and your name if you plan to attend

01:38:08 [Florian]

Florian: should be publicly writteable

01:38:24 [Florian]

mikepie: looks editable to me

01:38:34 [Florian]

Topic: Liaison with Testing and Tools WG/WebDriver

01:39:01 [Florian]

mikepie: I will be able to attend the testing sessions on Monday / Tuesday

01:39:28 [Florian]

mikepie: John Jansen from MS will there and able to represent us

01:39:42 [Florian]

mikepie: we'll request that this topic be added when the chairs make a call for the agenda

01:40:06 [Florian]

Florian: this hasn't been brought to that group yet, has it?

01:40:11 [Florian]

mikepie: only as a side comment maybe

01:40:40 [Florian]

mikepie: I'll check if the link I have is the latest version, and then add to our own agenda as well

01:41:10 [Florian]

Florian: so we wait for feedback from that group before there is anything more to discuss here, right?

01:41:11 [Florian]

mikepie: right

01:41:20 [Florian]

Topic: https://github.com/browserext/browserext/pull/4

01:42:19 [Florian]

Florian: I've done a light review. I think it can be merged before my comments are addressed and then we track them individually, but if you want to fix them before, that's great too

01:42:25 [Florian]

kmag: I'll review today

01:42:58 [Florian]

mikepie: I try to follow the proposal around the web IDL, looking for feedback on that

01:43:14 [Florian]

mikepie: There a huge hole: the callback functions aren't defined yet

01:43:24 [Florian]

kmag: might be a good topic for tpac

01:44:02 [Florian]

Florian: kmag, do you want merge-then-comment, or comment-fix-then-merge?

01:44:06 [Florian]

kmag: I'd like to comment first

01:44:15 [Florian]

mikepie: Do we really need the extension object?

01:44:39 [Florian]

mikepie: much of the APIs that aren't yet deprecated in Chrome are duplicated

01:44:48 [Florian]

mikepie: I think getURL is the only thing left

01:45:22 [Florian]

kmag: I think Chrome is moving to deprecate, but getURL is the big chunk that's left and hard to remove

01:45:44 [Florian]

mikepie: For now I think we can leave it in, but we'll need to come back to it

01:46:33 [Florian]

Florian: We can spec AND depreacate, if this isn't the way forward, but is still something UAs need for compat reasons

01:46:44 [Florian]

kmag: we try not to support deprecated stuff

01:48:30 [Florian]

kmag: I don't think we need getBackgroundPage and the like. These are the kind of things we may come back to, but don't need in the first spec

01:49:19 [Florian]

Florian: do you want to go through the comments I've made in https://github.com/browserext/browserext/pull/4#issuecomment-245791954

01:49:22 [Florian]

mikepie: sure

01:50:44 [Florian]

mikepie: comment 1 about titles, I started with something like what you suggested, but changed cause it felt long. Happy to change back

01:50:52 [Florian]

Florian: Please do, would be easier

01:52:09 [Florian]

mikepie: comment 2, I think this is normative, and add details about what happens if you try anyway

01:52:22 [Florian]

kmag: we should define that as a CSP ruleset, rather than prose

01:52:30 [Florian]

mikepie: I'll look at that

01:53:41 [Florian]

Florian: comment 3, you say two things cannot be set at the same time. What happens if you try then?

01:53:49 [Florian]

kmag: that's browser specific, we support both

01:54:04 [Florian]

mikepie: I think Chrome and Edge reject the manifest if you have both

01:54:13 [Florian]

mikepie: I'll make sure the language is clear

01:54:48 [Florian]

Florian: Since Chrome and Edge differ from Mozilla, does one side plan to align with the other?

01:55:30 [Florian]

mikepie: I'll put some language around that

01:55:53 [Florian]

Florian: Yes, please spec it one way, and add an issue about not all browsers doing it at the moment

01:56:18 [Florian]

mikepie: Comment 4: CheckAnyPermissions is defined in MDN, what do we do about that

01:56:43 [Florian]

kmag: Should be in the IDL spec eventually, link to MDN for now is fine.

01:57:15 [Florian]

Florian: Agreed. Put an inline issue to remind ourselves to have a normative source eventually

01:57:57 [Florian]

Florian: comment 5 and 6 are about the IDL-explaining examples. I liked having one, wasn't sure why there was two

01:58:53 [Florian]

mikepie: The second one got a value pulled from the manifest, and in the permissions, there's an array.

01:59:05 [Florian]

Florian: can't we just keep the second example, and it covers everything?

01:59:25 [Florian]

mikepie: Can do that

02:00:44 [Florian]

mikepie: I've heard that this kind of example wasn't necessary / w3c like, so I can remove

02:01:36 [Florian]

Florian: there are different styles in writing specs. Some prefer to the point specs, with as little fluff as necessary, other prefer making them more readable and self explanatory to novices

02:01:52 [Florian]

Florian: do as you prefer. I prefer having examples and explanations

02:02:03 [Florian]

mikepie: I just noticed I messed up the section numbering. will fix.

02:03:13 [Florian]

mikepie: in the IDL, I've used optional in several places, but I don't think that's permitted.

02:03:24 [Florian]

kmag: the IDL way to that is to add a question mark

02:03:27 [Florian]

mikepie: will do that

02:04:17 [Florian]

Topic: Status update on https://browserext.github.io/native-messaging/

02:05:21 [Florian]

kmag: I haven't been involved with the spec much. Hoped Andrew would be there, but he isn't. Happy to talk about the open issues

02:05:37 [Florian]

Florian: Issue list: https://github.com/browserext/native-messaging/issues

02:06:18 [Florian]

https://github.com/browserext/native-messaging/issues/1

02:07:53 [Florian]

kmag: I think all these issues belong together, and they seem to pertain mostly to web payments. It is not clear yet to me how they are related to what we're doing.

02:10:08 [Florian]

Florian: It seems to me that what is proposed is a different API for a specific use case, not a generic solution. Maybe the specialized API is better for that use case, but I don't see how it addresses the generic concern.

02:10:21 [Florian]

mikepie: I think it is more a question about mobile

02:11:28 [Florian]

RESOLUTION: Close issue 1 as wontfix, because this does not seem to address the generic solution, only a specialized use case.

02:11:42 [Florian]

https://github.com/browserext/native-messaging/issues/2

02:12:37 [Florian]

mikepie: this is a proposal to allow native messagine to web pages, not just extensions

02:12:44 [Florian]

s/mikepie/kmag/

02:13:27 [Florian]

kmag: doesn't seem related to extensions, and the security aspects seem underspecified

02:13:37 [Florian]

RESOLUTION: Close as out of scope

02:14:12 [Florian]

https://github.com/browserext/native-messaging/issues/3

02:14:29 [Florian]

kmag: this is a follow up to number 2.

02:14:41 [Florian]

kmag: not relevant in the context of extensions

02:15:10 [Florian]

mikepie: agree. issue 4 seems to be the same. I don't see how it relates to extensions

02:15:53 [Florian]

RESOLUTION: close 3 and 4, out of scope for extensions. Redirect to the WebPlatform WG.

02:17:08 [Florian]

https://github.com/browserext/native-messaging/issues/5

02:18:12 [Florian]

kmag: not sure this is needed as a special parameter. Such information can be communicated later

02:18:34 [Florian]

mikepie: doing it this way constrains the format, later can be anything

02:18:45 [Florian]

kmag: this may be about command line parameters.

02:19:08 [Florian]

kmag: doesn't seem necessary, you can do that with a message

02:19:29 [Florian]

mikepie: initialization can send any data it wants, in any format it wants, so this isn't necessary

02:19:54 [Florian]

RESOLUTION: Close as wontfix, this can be achieved with existing communication mechanisms

02:21:07 [Florian]

Florian: kmag, when do you think aswan can have a draft for the messaging spec?

02:21:25 [Florian]

kmag: I'll check with him. Will let you know if we cannot have it before tpac

02:22:27 [Florian]

Florian: That's the end of the agenda. We're adjourned. See you at TPAC.

02:22:36 [Florian]

RRSAgent, make log public

02:22:43 [Florian]

RRSAgent, draft minutes

02:22:43 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/09-browserext-minutes.html Florian

02:25:32 [Florian]

RRSAgent, bye

02:25:32 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items