| 00:04 | <jgraham> | G0k: I'm not aware of any off the top of my head |
| 00:05 | <jgraham> | But I have rather less than encyclopedic knowledge on the subject |
| 00:06 | <G0k> | k |
| 01:37 | Hixie | learns about setAttributeNodeNS |
| 01:37 | <Hixie> | wtf |
| 03:06 | <weinig> | Hixie: for real, even the DOM 3 spec doesn't seem to really understand what it is for |
| 04:15 | <Hixie> | 41 tests so far |
| 04:17 | <MacDome> | sah |
| 04:17 | <MacDome> | sigh |
| 04:17 | <MacDome> | rather |
| 04:17 | <Hixie> | hm? |
| 04:19 | <MacDome> | Hixie: was just looking at our current failure status |
| 04:19 | <Hixie> | did it get worse? |
| 04:19 | <MacDome> | yeah, 87 instead of 88 |
| 04:19 | <Hixie> | hehe |
| 04:19 | <MacDome> | Hixie: some of these are intentionally "broken" in Safari: http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6179 |
| 04:19 | <Hixie> | hmm, 59 tests still for me to write |
| 04:22 | <Hixie> | MacDome: i'm willing to take keywords out if you think some should be taken out |
| 04:23 | <Hixie> | MacDome: what do you suggest? |
| 04:23 | <MacDome> | Hixie: well, that bug links to various test cases which FF and WK prepared to test reserved words, and we tested against IE to match IE |
| 04:23 | <Hixie> | i removd the future reserved words |
| 04:24 | <MacDome> | I believe we match IE: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=206492&action=view |
| 04:25 | <MacDome> | interesting: http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/ECMAScript_DontEnum_attribute |
| 04:29 | <Hixie> | interesting indeed |
| 04:36 | <MacDome> | Hixie: did you find some list of what .constructor properties should be DontDelete or ReadOnly? |
| 04:36 | <MacDome> | they're all DontEnum |
| 04:37 | <Hixie> | i only tested Function's |
| 04:37 | <MacDome> | Hixie: I'll make a more comprehensive test and fix them all if I can find a list |
| 04:40 | MacDome | is confused by what (new Function).prototype would mean |
| 04:40 | <MacDome> | I guess that's the function prototype, which is differnet from the function constructor |
| 04:41 | <MacDome> | but is (new Function).prototype == Function.prototype? I would think not. |
| 04:41 | MacDome | always gets turned around by JS |
| 04:43 | <kig> | new Function().prototype, the prototype property of the newly-created function object (i.e. the prototype to be used when the function is used as a constructor) |
| 04:43 | <kig> | ...i think |
| 04:44 | <Hixie> | (new Function).prototype is null, no? |
| 04:44 | <Hixie> | or am i thinking of (new function() { }).prototype |
| 04:45 | takkaria | chuckles |
| 04:45 | <kig> | it's an empty object |
| 04:46 | <kig> | (at least in firefox) |
| 04:46 | <kig> | new Function().__proto__ == Function.prototype => true, new Function().prototype == Function.prototype => false |
| 04:47 | <MacDome> | yeah |
| 04:47 | <MacDome> | Hixie: so you're grabbing at (function() {}).prototype |
| 04:48 | <MacDome> | ah |
| 04:54 | MacDome | doesn't know what (function() {}).prototype means |
| 04:55 | <Hixie> | i've no idea what specifically you are talking about, btw |
| 04:58 | <MacDome> | Hixie: I'm just tryign to relearn prototypes in JS for the 18th time. /me goes back to reading http://mckoss.com/jscript/object.htm |
| 04:58 | MacDome | gets confused by .constructor vs. .prototype vs. .__proto__ |
| 05:00 | MacDome | thinks .__proto__ == .contructor.prototype |
| 05:15 | <Hixie> | __proto__ is [[Prototype]] in the spec |
| 06:37 | <Hixie> | 46 done, 54 to go |
| 07:37 | <heycam> | Hixie, what spec is __proto__ in? i couldn't see it in ecma-262. |
| 07:37 | <heycam> | is it a JavaScript-specific thing? |
| 07:37 | <Hixie> | it's proprietary, yes |
| 07:38 | <heycam> | which spec? |
| 07:42 | heycam | returns to beer |
| 07:55 | <Hixie> | it's proprietary, as in, no spec |
| 09:00 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: Validator.nu is now non-XML-character-proof: http://validator.nu/?out=xhtml&doc=http%3A%2F%2Fgolem.ph.utexas.edu%2Finstiki%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%2500&showsource=yes |
| 13:52 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Looks like that site is now non-XML-character-proof (at least to some extent) so it doesn't work as a demo any more :'-( |
| 13:57 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: By the way, when a page like http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/instiki/search?query=%00 returns XHTML in the error response, it would be very helpful if the validator could validate that XHTML (instead of simply complaining about the HTTP status) |
| 13:59 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: yeah, validating error pages is on the feature request list |
| 15:16 | <hsivonen> | what's the point of SVG Print? |
| 15:21 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Replacing PostScript in printers? (That's just a totally uninformed guess based on the name) |
| 15:29 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: is there a good technical reason to seek to replace PostScript or PDF as the means of driving printers? |
| 15:31 | <hsivonen> | It seems to me that a RIP that eats PDF 1.4 is the peak of development as far as driving printers goes |
| 15:34 | <Philip`> | Looks like Canon is quite involved in editing SVG Print - is it something that's been driven by them, or do other companies care too? |
| 15:47 | <mpt> | So Adobe pushed SVG as an alternative to Flash/Flex, until they bought Macromedia |
| 15:48 | <mpt> | Now Canon is pushing SVG Print as an alternative to PDF? |
| 15:50 | <hsivonen> | and HP has been involved in XHTML-Print... |
| 15:50 | <mpt> | My irony meter is warbling |
| 15:55 | <hsivonen> | seeking to replace Flash makes sense because Flash is a single-vendor technology |
| 15:55 | <hsivonen> | seeking to replace PDF makes no sense |
| 15:56 | <hsivonen> | since PDF is a remarkably interoperably implemented multivendor technology in practice |
| 15:56 | <hsivonen> | even if the spec comes from a single vendor |
| 16:07 | <mpt> | So the next illogical step would be for Quark to jump on board |
| 22:44 | gsnedders | wonders why he has no email from whatwg@whatwg since the 20th |
| 22:51 | <Lachy__> | gsnedders, check that you're still subscribed and then check that there isn't some spam filter blocking it somewhere |
| 22:52 | <gsnedders> | broken gmail filters trying to apply non-existant labels, and archiving it. |
| 22:52 | <Lachy__> | ok |
| 22:52 | <gsnedders> | fix the filters and everything appears |
| 23:24 | <jgraham> | So... slightly further off topic than the keyboard discussion in public-html; does anyone have any good/bad experience with the in ear sound isolating styl earbud headphones |
| 23:24 | <jgraham> | ? |
| 23:25 | <jgraham> | (add extra letters where required) |
| 23:26 | <anne-mac> | i bought a set and they didn't really stay in my ear so I gave them away... |
| 23:26 | <anne-mac> | (if you're referring the ones sold for the iPod among other things) |
| 23:26 | <jgraham> | do you remember which ones? |
| 23:27 | <jgraham> | (things like http://www.westone.com/content/215.html http://www.shure.com/PersonalAudio/Products/Earphones/ESeries/us_pa_E2c_content ) |
| 23:27 | <anne-mac> | http://www.amazon.com/Apple-M9394G-B-iPod-Headphones/dp/B0001AP8CE |
| 23:29 | <anne-mac> | my experience was similar to this one: http://www.amazon.com/review/R12VD3WYE1JU5/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm |
| 23:29 | <anne-mac> | although I did not bring them back |
| 23:30 | <takkaria> | jgraham: I have some shure e2cs |
| 23:31 | <jgraham> | Yeah, the general issue with these things seems to be finding ones that fit comfortably. |
| 23:31 | <takkaria> | they're pretty good |
| 23:31 | <takkaria> | they come with three different sizes of three different materials of earbud |
| 23:31 | <jgraham> | takkaria: Do they provide noticeable reduction in background noise? |
| 23:32 | <takkaria> | yup |
| 23:32 | jgraham | cares more about reducing background noise than about perfect audio quality |
| 23:32 | <takkaria> | they allow me to walk around town happily without my ipod ast full volume |
| 23:32 | <jgraham> | Excellent |
| 23:33 | <takkaria> | around the middle of Manchester, nothing less |
| 23:33 | <takkaria> | I know other people who've had good luck with the e2cs, no-one who's used the apple ones |
| 23:34 | jgraham | tries hard to avoid making some remark about the general danger of walking around manchester, let alone with one sense compromised |
| 23:34 | <inimino> | I tried some Ultimate Ears ones but they did not fit my ear canals |
| 23:34 | <jgraham> | My interest in the Westone ones stems from a site that said they were the most comfortable fit for most people |
| 23:35 | <takkaria> | nothing dangerous about walking round manchester |
| 23:35 | <takkaria> | cycling is a different matter, but I don't wear earphones for that. :) |
| 23:35 | <jgraham> | Unfortunately, they seem to be relatively hard to find in the UK |
| 23:35 | <jgraham> | takkaria: :) |
| 23:38 | <jgraham> | Thanks everyone :) |
| 23:48 | <takkaria> | np |
| 23:59 | <virtuelv> | jgraham: have you looked into the Shure headphones? |