[12:01:05] ?pepteam [12:01:05] arschmitz jdalton jrossi jrossi1 jrossi2 jrossi3 jrossi9billion M4rius scott_gonzalez snover [12:01:12] jzaefferer [12:01:26] hello [12:02:23] one thing to discuss is this: https://github.com/jquery/PEP/issues/214 [12:03:38] Yes, do we want to polyfill the on* attributes? [12:03:51] Well, not the attributes, but the properties. [12:04:11] I assume we don't want to go down the road of supporting the attributes. [12:04:24] We highly discourage their use anyway. [12:05:26] I guess we're not gonna get much of a response with nobody else being here... [12:06:03] I'm -1 on attributes, but +1 on properties. [12:07:40] word [12:08:03] hey jdalton [12:08:10] We're talking about https://github.com/jquery/PEP/issues/214 [12:08:38] As mentioned in the issue, I think we can handle attributes and properties differently. [12:08:44] I'm -1 on attributes and +1 on properties. [12:09:08] Because attributes are a bit messier and we always discourage inline event handlers anyway. [12:14:44] which ones are the properties, which ones are attributes? [12:15:04] the interfaces quoted there all have "attribute" as their type [12:15:09] sorry I was late (connectivity issues), were you discussing https://github.com/jquery/PEP/issues/214 ? [12:15:26] yeah [12:16:18] would it help to have data on the attribute usage in the wild? [12:17:27] jzaefferer: There's all attributes, which are also represented as properties. [12:17:38] I'm saying we'd just implement them as properties, not as attributes. [12:17:52] that would probably be fine [12:18:30] Really nobody should be using on* attributes at all. [12:18:37] so then setAttribute('onpointerdown','function() { }') wouldn't work [12:18:45] i think [12:18:47] but that's ok [12:19:05] Right, but who would do that instead of just .onpointerdown = function() {} [12:19:10] right [12:19:17] Then you don't have to worry about the craziness of attribute escaping. [12:19:26] I think it's totally fine to scope it to props [12:19:36] call out the attr stuff in the readme [12:19:38] And we don't need to eval(). [12:19:42] but nobody will care [12:19:43] yeah [12:19:49] which is good in case we're running in CSP [12:20:02] Ok, so I think that's resolved. [12:20:49] jzaefferer and I spent some time going through the open PRs and issues yesterday. [12:21:06] jzaefferer is going to work through a bunch of the smaller issues to get the numbers down. [12:21:22] We've already landed the fix for using PEP in node: https://github.com/jquery/PEP/issues/223 [12:21:30] Along with a few other things. [12:21:40] I was going to look at a quick fix for https://github.com/jquery/PEP/issues/194 [12:21:43] jzaefferer is working on getting WIP builds on the CDN. [12:22:13] ok, when do you think you can work on that? [12:22:24] I'd like to get a release out now that we have the package.json update in master. [12:22:50] I need to get a device to test with first [12:22:55] but I think we have one [12:23:14] I'm working from home today, but perhaps tomorrow I can look at this [12:23:18] ok [12:23:38] or go to the ATT store to test :-p [12:23:39] So unless there are any objections, let's shoot for a release before next week's meeting. [12:23:50] woo [12:23:50] SGTM [12:24:22] We have this PR: https://github.com/jquery/PEP/pull/195 [12:24:26] Which edits a W3C test. [12:24:40] So we'll wait a few days and see if we get a response to https://github.com/jquery/PEP/pull/195/files#r43264520 [12:25:08] If not, we should just submit the change to WPT. [12:25:25] agreed [12:25:53] That's everything from the agenda. [12:26:00] Does anyone have anything else to discuss? [12:27:39] I guess that's all for today. [12:27:41] Thanks everyone. [14:04:14] agcolom: apsdehal: gabrielschulhof: jasperdegroot: cgack meeting time [14:04:19] Hi [14:04:24] howdy [14:05:17] On holiday with the family and about to have dinner... I'll update the PR and issue counts on the notes but prob cannot really attend properly... [14:05:23] hi [14:05:35] enjoy your vacation Anne [14:05:44] agcolom: enjoy [14:05:49] Hey! [14:06:09] thanks :-) [14:06:17] lets get started [14:07:58] i just gave navbar the thumbs up [14:08:03] i think we are good to merge [14:08:31] notes: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xGEVtftLDEHAA37YYlA23J_EZwIRyMUaseBY790byPM/edit#gid=1883740404 [14:08:36] gabrielschulhof: want to give an update on your work with the bootstrap? [14:09:01] awesome, i'll get that merged soon-ish [14:09:11] Yeah. [14:09:48] I have to make my way through the remaining tests and implement the rest of the data-* parameters, like for pushState and ... what was the other one? [14:09:57] Oh, ns. [14:10:12] which should be part of the backcompat not exposed directly [14:10:33] How do you mean? [14:10:41] ns is deprecated [14:10:54] cgack: you will get merge conflict with demos. Please check the header and footer markup on the navbar demo page and don't break the demos menu :) [14:10:59] so it should be enabled by doing data-backcompat="true" [14:11:08] Oh, OK. Gotcha. [14:11:15] jasperdegroot: I'll do my best [14:11:17] data-backcompat was already there. [14:11:20] cgack: maybe merge and push again to your branch [14:11:31] so we can do one last review of the demos [14:11:33] OK, so then just pushState. [14:11:34] merge 1.5-dev or something else? [14:11:48] cgack: rebase with 1.5-dev [14:11:55] right on. will do [14:12:00] yeah, just rebase [14:12:01] and then force push your branch [14:12:14] actually push to a branch on the main repo [14:12:23] so it goes on to view since its demos we care about [14:12:50] okay, i'll push my branch to upstream after rebase so we can get some eyes on it [14:13:04] apsdehal: great i thought it was but i had not checked and gabrial had mentioned ns missing [14:13:41] I had done some hacks to fit everything. Like that ../jquery.setPushState.js stuff [14:13:55] I need to recheck the code once to confirm [14:14:34] apsdehal: great just cordinate with gabrielschulhof on that this is a priority and blocking selectmenu [14:14:54] ok [14:15:15] I will have a look at the latest branch pushed by gabrielschulhof [14:15:37] apsdehal: Excellent! [14:17:58] gabrielschulhof: i assume nothing new on select menu [14:18:29] No, unfortunately. [14:18:37] ok [14:18:52] there has been a lot of activity the last 2 weeks on ui [14:18:57] some of which relates to us [14:19:00] grunt-qunit-istanbul is also still stuck. [14:19:18] lots of fixes for some stuff on widgets [14:19:34] gabrielschulhof: im ok with just using a commit sha for now on that [14:19:45] lets not let that be a blocker [14:19:53] Yeah, I moved it to that. [14:20:02] That's how I pushed the branch apsdehal will be looking at. [14:20:30] ok [14:20:37] lets just go with that for now [14:21:20] on ui there has also been a lot of work on download builder [14:21:27] some of which gets it closer to supporting mobile [14:21:31] though its not there yet [14:23:03] so one issue i wanted to discuss [14:23:08] https://github.com/jquery/jquery-mobile/pull/8321 [14:23:20] my personal opinion is that there is no reason to do this [14:23:29] since we dont care about php [14:23:35] yeah, I thought the same [14:23:58] and this will cause it to run all the current tests on each [14:24:03] so its will take hours to finish [14:25:43] *whew* ... yeah! [14:26:10] ... and like, we're client-side ... seriously, we use php out of necessity ... [14:26:19] yup [14:26:26] just on the demo pages, but we don't test those [14:26:29] its mostly just to run the demo tests [14:26:42] oh we do test those [14:26:45] jasperdegroot: no we do test them thats why we use it on travis [14:26:47] sorry [14:27:04] but we are not testingthe php [14:27:09] right [14:27:25] no need to test all the phps [14:27:34] yeah i think thats crazy [14:27:54] i mean node versions i would do if it were not so slow [14:28:00] since it effects the build [14:28:05] but not php [14:28:13] speaking of demos ... [14:28:35] I have been working on converting the menu from collapsible to accordion [14:28:48] im sure thats some work [14:28:48] which has been ... interesting :) [14:28:58] yeah [14:28:59] and i would say i woul not worry about making them exactly the same [14:29:25] they are not a direct replacement its a whole new widget with its own limitations [14:29:38] question: are we not planning on adding enhanced option to accordion? [14:29:43] that said we can potentially extend it to add in some things if we think they are important [14:29:54] not right off its a lot of work for almost nothing [14:29:58] its basicly only the icons [14:30:44] and the changes would have to be in UI [14:31:35] I can add all the classes in the markup but there is no option enhanced like we had with collapsible [14:31:53] enhanced has nothing to do with classes any more [14:32:02] huh [14:32:19] enhanced = true means that all markup is already in place [14:32:24] right? [14:32:29] yes [14:32:45] but classes are added no matter what now [14:32:55] because they have to be for tracking with classes option [14:33:06] so adding them in the markup won't speed up anything? [14:33:14] but core is smart enough if the class is already there it wont re add it [14:33:20] ok [14:33:35] so all the classes option does now is handle generated markup [14:33:39] but does it make a difference in performance? [14:33:48] small yes [14:33:59] but no different then before [14:34:08] this wont change perf from 1.4 [14:34:17] I see [14:34:35] you could add the classes your self before too [14:34:39] with out enhanced [14:34:45] and it would not re add them [14:34:53] I know [14:35:07] but _addClass has to always run [14:35:08] but the whole idea behind the enhanced option is to improve performance [14:35:12] or the classes option owont work [14:35:18] yea [14:35:31] it in reality does little we found out [14:35:37] jasperdegroot: I think the performance improves by reducing the number of DOM manips - not so much by adding classes. [14:35:46] gabrielschulhof: exactly [14:35:52] So DOM manip is no longer a big issue? [14:35:52] which we dont do that much of actually [14:36:11] we changed many widget to reduce dom manip [14:36:23] button is just addint a span but you can still use enhanced [14:36:28] same with checkbox radio [14:36:28] Yeah, and we do a lot of DOM manip on disconnected chunks now. [14:36:36] controlgrouop now is classes only [14:36:44] accordion is only icon spans [14:36:51] collapsible was crazy [14:36:52] yeah accordion doesn't do any DOM manip either [14:37:00] just adds the classes [14:37:04] checkbox radio did before does not now [14:37:14] so we actually fixed most of the bad places [14:37:24] so it has made the option not do all that much [14:37:26] then maybe I should omit the classes in the markup if it doesn't make much difference anyway [14:37:33] but it's also a showcase [14:37:34] jasperdegroot: ah wait [14:37:35] Well, listview still does a lot, but only because it tends to be large and repetitive. [14:37:39] so thats not entirely true [14:37:51] adding the classes makes a difference [14:37:58] but thats not effected by the enhanced option [14:38:00] but very small [14:38:11] well it depends [14:38:21] in some cases it can be big its very use case specific [14:38:24] yeah I see your point about the enhanced option [14:38:27] if you add a class then get demensions [14:38:32] ok [14:38:33] that causes a reflow [14:38:40] so do that a bunch [14:38:55] where as if your classes are all there already you reduce content flashes [14:39:04] yes good point [14:39:07] and can POTENTIALLY make a big perf difference too [14:39:18] ok gotcha [14:39:29] yeah we dont want to confuse class addition with enhanced [14:39:42] they are now ( and really always should have been ) 2 different htings [14:40:33] I don't think we made that clear [14:40:48] no we didnt we directly said they were one in the same [14:40:51] and coded them as such [14:40:55] yup [14:40:58] Well, I always wrote that enhanced = ( dom structure + classes ) a priori [14:41:00] but that was not correct [14:41:04] s/wrote/documented/ [14:41:04] Correction, Well, I always documented that enhanced = ( dom structure + classes ) a priori [14:41:20] Well, I'll be ... ^ [14:41:23] haha [14:41:26] lol i think thats new [14:41:40] I saw that gitter has that feature [14:41:41] Motivates you to write correct regex. [14:41:59] Does it also say "Unterminated s statement"? [14:41:59] but didn't know we have it here on IRC now :) [14:42:13] s/it/the bot [14:42:13] Correction, but didn't know we have the bot here on IRC now :) [14:42:20] hehe [14:42:33] Bah! Forgiving. [14:42:44] ok where were we [14:42:50] ... and it applies to the last statement, not the last thing /you/ said ... [14:42:53] Anyway ... [14:42:56] lol [14:42:58] one other question about the demos [14:43:03] shoot [14:43:22] I was about to work on CSS to move the icon in the menu from left to right side [14:43:38] but then I thought... what about moving the menu to the right side of the page [14:44:03] I had some small layout/style improvements in mind anyway [14:44:21] but any objections to moving the menu? [14:44:22] i would have to see it [14:44:28] ok [14:44:35] but i have no general objectsion what ever looks best to the majority [14:45:11] I'll show it if it's not good I'll move it back and change the icon position with CSS [14:45:32] s/it if/it, and if/ [14:45:32] Correction, I'll show it, and if it's not good I'll move it back and change the icon position with CSS [14:45:39] well done bot :) [14:45:47] sounds good to me [14:46:16] jasperdegroot: arschmitz i pushed navbar to its own branch on view -> http://view.jquerymobile.com/7705-navbar-classes-option/demos/ if ya'll wanna take a look [14:46:45] arschmitz: did you already know why the quick links in the demos are buggy... when you click on the link it scrolls to the section and then back to top [14:46:51] or would you have to look into it? [14:46:55] gabrielschulhof: Where should I push when I make changes, to my PR or the new branch you created? [14:46:56] cgack: awesome thank you [14:47:07] cgack: great, I take a look [14:47:51] arschmitz: jasperdegroot I'll wait for an update on the PR before I squash and merge the PR [14:48:22] cgack: I already checked the issues I noticed after accordion merge and this looks good [14:48:37] so go ahead and merge [14:48:44] sweet! [14:48:54] apsdehal: Update your repo from upstream, then checkout your branch, then git reset --hard pr-8265-rebase and git push -f to your clone. [14:49:06] ok [14:49:18] apsdehal: That'll update your PR to contain my branch, and it'll let you make subsequent changes that'll appear in your PR. [14:49:22] there is an issue in the menu because of an unsolved merge conflict while merging accordion but I fixed that in 1.5-demos-issues [14:49:30] so just leave it in there [14:50:09] I will rebase that branch against 1.5-dev after you merged [14:51:49] done, pr is updated to pr-8265-rebase branch noew [14:52:01] s/noew/now [14:52:01] Correction, done, pr is updated to pr-8265-rebase branch now [14:52:14] apsdehal: Awesome! [14:53:00] It is throwing missing QUnit errors. [14:53:15] apsdehal: Yes, because some test suites still include qunit via script tag. [14:53:45] apsdehal: qunit.js must not appear in a script tag in the original markup if requirejs is used. [14:54:04] Ok, can you list out once again all the changes left? [14:55:57] 1. Remove all script tags containing qunit.js. 2. Remove all scripts that run $.testHelper.asyncLoad() and replace them with a script tag that loads bootstrap.js 3. Make a data-* parameter for pushState() so, whenever you encounter a script that calls $.testHelper.setPushState(), instead of that you add, like, data-push-state="true" to bootstrap.js [14:56:09] ... and /it'll/ then call $.testHelper.setPushState() [14:56:38] arschmitz: Anything I missed? ^ [14:56:45] i dont think so [14:57:00] once thats done we can both pull it and go through and see if there is anything else [14:57:22] :+1: [14:58:35] apsdehal: feel free to ping us with issues this is absolute top priority [14:59:00] Ok, I have note all the changes left, and I will push soon the fixes. [14:59:04] i think i got my IRC client fixed and stable again so i should actually get your messages [14:59:21] Thats cool [14:59:55] ok does any one have anything else? [15:00:56] I'm good [15:01:17] ok see everyone back on dev