tony: looking at CR.
... readiness
tonuy: we have an untriaged issue.
jeffH: will issue #1302 delay us for PR?
agl: no PRs are filed.
... mozilla and apple say they want a PR.
jeffH: if it is a problem, we can push to L3
akshay: on #1302 mozilla and
chrome have two different takes on the issue
... is this a convergence?
jeffH: we could add a single new rule.
akshay: chrome and firefox throw
an exception - they are not identival
... we should write a PR here.
tony: or move to L3.
... is anyone from apple on the call today. No.
wendy: seeing a number of people weighing in, it sounds like we need a reasoned response to it.
jbradlley: does mozilla have to write the PR, they need to say which error they support.
dan-moz: it is what error is thrown.
jeffH: it looks like a simple type error
akshay: can we go forward with that.
jeffH: these are simple
exceptions.
... it's two different flavors of the error.
... throw a type error here?
jbradley: should be simple enough that the conformance test and spec are aligned, then it should go away.
dan-moz: I think we would prefer
a dom exception
... figure out what mozilla is doing.
... I have to ask
tony: want to get to this as soon
as possible.
... agl can you do the PR. no.
jeffH: I can do it.
agl: I would prefer to keep Google out of this.
tony: that leaves mozilla doing
this.
... or we move it.
... this is holding up the CR
dan-moz: I will look into it,
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1529
tony: this one has to be looked
at.
... jeffH signed off on it.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1528
tony: think this is the same boat
as the other one
... jeffH has some questions.
https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1526
agl: I can write this up. won't be breaking, but technical change.
jbradley: I think agl is suggesting the most reasonable thing to do.
tony: so agl work on the PR as
discussed.
... so we would be down to the one mozilla is looking at.
... can we move to CR after closing #1302, we would build a new
document and update wd-04
wendy: OK. there is no technical difference between the two.
tony: we will have CR to close
the editorial issues.
... will work on updating list of editors, contributors.
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Present: wseltzer jeffh jbarclay davidturner davidwaite dveditz agl akshay bill jbradley nadalin nsteele rae sbweeden jfontana selfissued No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jfontana Inferring Scribes: jfontana WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webauthn/2020Dec/0003.html WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]