Noam Rosenthal

82 Followers
118 Following
37 Posts
Working on webperf stuff at Google Chrome
Opinions are often wrong

A question about data protection - are you OK with those hashes being sharable? Because despite not being sent to the server they would appear when sharing the URL peer to peer...

Aside from that, ignoring the :~:... stuff when finding a scroll target sounds like a good idea. Worth filing an issue on https://github.com/whatwg/html

GitHub - whatwg/html: HTML Standard

HTML Standard. Contribute to whatwg/html development by creating an account on GitHub.

GitHub
@simon it's not, because those can have their own parameter, e.g. circle(50%) square()
@kizu Yes, I'm OK with this. I mainly want to make sure we're not pushing ourself to an un-intuitive corner for border-shape in order to be consistent with something that's perhaps intuitive for border listification.

@kizu ship it!(*)

* (% a few years of discussions)

@kizu wouldn't this be confusing if at some point we decide to list border-shape pairs as well? It's about consistency in borders rather than consistency in general.

(btw I'm fine with what you've said, but want to make the conclusion explicit)

When seeing a border described as "circle() square()", do you imagine is as:
- A circle surrounding a square (outside-in)
- A circle surrounded by a square (inside-out)

See first comment for illustration

Outside-in
39.6%
Inside-out
60.4%
Poll ended at .
Blink: Intent to Prototype: Scoped view transitions

Blink: Intent to Prototype: S...
Intent to Prototype: Scoped view transitions

@bramus @MaxArt2501 yea, we'll have more proper documentation for this as we go along with the releases. But the main idea is that for backward compat, existing components will receive the same callbacks as before, as if they were disconnected+connected, and they can override this behavior and do something special using connectedMoveCallback.
@simevidas Yes, so far to "move" something around the DOM meant "to remove it and then to insert it at the new position".