Noam Rosenthal
@nomster.bsky.social
Web platform engineer @ Chrome
Monday morning so I'll try to join the chat room if the plane wifi allows :)
November 9, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Monday morning so I'll try to join the chat room if the plane wifi allows :)
Ooh wasn't on my list TBH!
Will check the schedule to see if I can make it
Thanks!
Will check the schedule to see if I can make it
Thanks!
November 9, 2025 at 4:21 PM
Ooh wasn't on my list TBH!
Will check the schedule to see if I can make it
Thanks!
Will check the schedule to see if I can make it
Thanks!
YUP.
See you there!
See you there!
November 9, 2025 at 3:05 PM
YUP.
See you there!
See you there!
Yes I have some more materials for the "are devs asking for this" part. Thanks for raising this!
November 8, 2025 at 1:07 PM
Yes I have some more materials for the "are devs asking for this" part. Thanks for raising this!
Oh maybe I will come to say hi
November 7, 2025 at 12:57 PM
Oh maybe I will come to say hi
You can link to github.com/WICG/declara... as current incubation for "Partial Page Replacement".
GitHub - WICG/declarative-partial-updates
Contribute to WICG/declarative-partial-updates development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com
November 6, 2025 at 12:48 PM
You can link to github.com/WICG/declara... as current incubation for "Partial Page Replacement".
Responded there, thanks!
November 5, 2025 at 5:57 PM
Responded there, thanks!
Those void tags are different from <p> etc from the OP which have exotic per-tag rules.
October 28, 2025 at 9:01 PM
Those void tags are different from <p> etc from the OP which have exotic per-tag rules.
The self-closing aspect of those are a bunch of bespoke rules in the HTML parser, which is more involved than "self closing". e.g. html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/pa...
The HTML parser doesn't know specifics about each custom-element, which can be defined after parsing.
Simple is better here...
The HTML parser doesn't know specifics about each custom-element, which can be defined after parsing.
Simple is better here...
HTML Standard
html.spec.whatwg.org
October 28, 2025 at 9:00 PM
The self-closing aspect of those are a bunch of bespoke rules in the HTML parser, which is more involved than "self closing". e.g. html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/pa...
The HTML parser doesn't know specifics about each custom-element, which can be defined after parsing.
Simple is better here...
The HTML parser doesn't know specifics about each custom-element, which can be defined after parsing.
Simple is better here...
Please open issues (or even PRs) on github!
I often conduct technical reviews to mdn articles of features I'm working on. It's easy to miss details.
I often conduct technical reviews to mdn articles of features I'm working on. It's easy to miss details.
October 19, 2025 at 2:20 PM
Please open issues (or even PRs) on github!
I often conduct technical reviews to mdn articles of features I'm working on. It's easy to miss details.
I often conduct technical reviews to mdn articles of features I'm working on. It's easy to miss details.
The "/" here is not actually parsed... What this would require is for the HTML parser to know in advance which custom-elements are self-closing (or some solution along those lines). Not worth the complexity and compat implications.
October 19, 2025 at 9:21 AM
The "/" here is not actually parsed... What this would require is for the HTML parser to know in advance which custom-elements are self-closing (or some solution along those lines). Not worth the complexity and compat implications.
Yea it's a problematic feature for the open web. Extensions that are constrained to a list of URLs can probably provide something like this though without exposing your identity to *all* the websites out there.
October 13, 2025 at 1:00 PM
Yea it's a problematic feature for the open web. Extensions that are constrained to a list of URLs can probably provide something like this though without exposing your identity to *all* the websites out there.
Yea also the other browsers kind of went in that direction. The thinking right now is to have everything available at a lower level like ElementInternals and let these "behaves like (button/input/img/...)" mixins emerge from user land libs.
October 10, 2025 at 6:02 PM
Yea also the other browsers kind of went in that direction. The thinking right now is to have everything available at a lower level like ElementInternals and let these "behaves like (button/input/img/...)" mixins emerge from user land libs.
It's probably a matter of playing with cw/ccw and large/small to choose between the 4 possible arcs from A to B.
October 10, 2025 at 1:04 PM
It's probably a matter of playing with cw/ccw and large/small to choose between the 4 possible arcs from A to B.
But it has a PWA as well... I have both installed for comparison.
October 6, 2025 at 8:54 PM
But it has a PWA as well... I have both installed for comparison.
Awesome, seems like you're all sorted!
September 24, 2025 at 8:35 AM
Awesome, seems like you're all sorted!
It's a question of whether tick should mean "ASAP, but definitely after all the microtasks, but definitely before the next paint" vs. "as late as possible, but before next paint, but ASAP if painting is suppressed for some reason"
I am not well versed in Svelte enough to say what's "better" :)
I am not well versed in Svelte enough to say what's "better" :)
September 24, 2025 at 8:02 AM
It's a question of whether tick should mean "ASAP, but definitely after all the microtasks, but definitely before the next paint" vs. "as late as possible, but before next paint, but ASAP if painting is suppressed for some reason"
I am not well versed in Svelte enough to say what's "better" :)
I am not well versed in Svelte enough to say what's "better" :)
Of course, but the comment says "in almost all cases requestAnimationFrame will fire first" which is incorrect.
This would mean that you would now often have multiple ticks in the same frame in the normal (no view transition) case.
This would mean that you would now often have multiple ticks in the same frame in the normal (no view transition) case.
September 24, 2025 at 8:00 AM
Of course, but the comment says "in almost all cases requestAnimationFrame will fire first" which is incorrect.
This would mean that you would now often have multiple ticks in the same frame in the normal (no view transition) case.
This would mean that you would now often have multiple ticks in the same frame in the normal (no view transition) case.
rAF wouldn't always beat setTimeout(f, 0). you can get multiple timeout calls in the same frame.
September 24, 2025 at 7:02 AM
rAF wouldn't always beat setTimeout(f, 0). you can get multiple timeout calls in the same frame.
If you were using rAF up until now then the difference won't be concrete/noticeable I guess.
September 23, 2025 at 9:02 PM
If you were using rAF up until now then the difference won't be concrete/noticeable I guess.
... also, we take feedback from web developers and framework authors very seriously, so please keep at it!
September 23, 2025 at 8:23 PM
... also, we take feedback from web developers and framework authors very seriously, so please keep at it!
Ah yes, makes sense.
I would suggest calling scheduler.yield() there in case you are waiting on a VT callback, falling back to setTimeout if that's not supported in the browser.
I would suggest calling scheduler.yield() there in case you are waiting on a VT callback, falling back to setTimeout if that's not supported in the browser.
September 23, 2025 at 8:22 PM
Ah yes, makes sense.
I would suggest calling scheduler.yield() there in case you are waiting on a VT callback, falling back to setTimeout if that's not supported in the browser.
I would suggest calling scheduler.yield() there in case you are waiting on a VT callback, falling back to setTimeout if that's not supported in the browser.