| 01:30 | <Hixie> | 5 tests to go |
| 01:30 | <SadEagle> | aha, hi Hixie. |
| 01:30 | <SadEagle> | I gotta some feedback/questions on some of the traversal ones, do you have time for that |
| 01:30 | <Hixie> | not right now, can you send mail? |
| 01:30 | <Hixie> | ian⊙hc |
| 01:31 | <jwalden> | SadEagle: curious, which ones, on the chance I know why they work? |
| 01:33 | <SadEagle> | test 02, this step: expect(10, i.nextNode(), t3); // filter 4 |
| 01:33 | <SadEagle> | I don't see why that filter should ever run, since it's at the end of the physical list at that point (// B 1 2 [3] *, as commented) |
| 01:35 | <SadEagle> | Though, I am not sure the entire design of that test, and #1 really, is kosher due to "However, the exact timing of these filter calls may vary from one DOM implementation to another" |
| 01:36 | <jwalden> | SadEagle: ah, sorry -- was hoping it was treewalker, which I actually do understand (and which Gecko *does* implement) :-) |
| 01:36 | <SadEagle> | jwalden: those work fine for me :-) |
| 01:52 | <Hixie> | SadEagle: fixed |
| 01:53 | <SadEagle> | thanks |
| 01:57 | jwalden | is sad SVG made it into acid3 |
| 01:57 | jwalden | would have preferred an SVG acid test |
| 01:57 | <Hixie> | me too |
| 01:57 | <Hixie> | but i have tests to fill, and those were the tests people sent |
| 01:58 | <jwalden> | also, testing NamedNodeMap seems...less than truly useful :-\ |
| 01:58 | <jwalden> | ([gs]et|has)Attribute is what people will actually use |
| 01:58 | <Hixie> | send better tests, and they can replace the ones there :-) |
| 01:59 | <jwalden> | I totally would, if I knew where people were hitting real bugs |
| 01:59 | <Hixie> | ditto |
| 01:59 | <jwalden> | care for any tests for HTML5 postMessage? I have some that completely trash at least Safari ;-) |
| 01:59 | <jwalden> | (I know you don't, now) |
| 02:00 | SadEagle | could make totally useless ES262 tests that don't work anywhere :-) |
| 02:00 | <Hixie> | the rules for what can be in the test are at ln.hixie.ch |
| 02:00 | <Hixie> | e4x doesn't quite make the cut |
| 02:01 | <Hixie> | (es3 does, of course) |
| 02:02 | <jwalden> | Hixie: seriously, you don't want E4X even if it did make the cut |
| 02:02 | Hixie | likes e4x, actually |
| 02:02 | <jwalden> | it looks nice |
| 02:02 | <Hixie> | it would be so much better than innerHTML |
| 02:02 | <jwalden> | until you realize that 60-70% of the bugs that get filed against your implementation are bugs in the specification |
| 02:03 | <jwalden> | and that the spec isn't rigorously written to ensure XML type-safety |
| 02:03 | <jwalden> | or serialization validity |
| 02:03 | <jwalden> | or many other things |
| 02:03 | <SadEagle> | Hixie: your node traversal tests seems to assume that the nodefilter implementation doesn't move reference node to the candidate position before calling the filter. I am not sure that's justified (the spec is rather vague on effects of non-pure filters) |
| 02:03 | <Hixie> | jwalden: i'm not familiar with the spec itself, but the idea certainly would be better than innerHTML |
| 02:04 | <jwalden> | Hixie: the syntax might work, more or less, but I think you need a clean base on which to build it; E4X is fundamentally flawed, and I would welcome a replacement that didn't suck |
| 02:04 | <Hixie> | SadEagle: surely moving the reference node before you knew if that node was rejected or not would make no sense? |
| 02:04 | <Hixie> | jwalden: i can't speak to that |
| 02:04 | <jwalden> | sure |
| 02:04 | <jwalden> | just trying to educate |
| 02:04 | <jwalden> | ask brendan about it sometime |
| 02:04 | <Hixie> | :-) |
| 02:05 | <SadEagle> | Hixie: it makes a huge amount of sense from implementation robustness POV, and it's indistinguishable unless filters do iffy stuff. |
| 02:05 | <SadEagle> | hmm, might not be so bad, actually. |
| 02:05 | <Hixie> | SadEagle: what would be different? |
| 02:06 | <SadEagle> | could you please elaborate on that question? |
| 02:07 | <SadEagle> | actually, please ignore me for a bit. My head isn't working well right now, so I am likely wasting both of our's time |
| 02:07 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 02:08 | <Hixie> | i just meant what test result would be different |
| 02:09 | <SadEagle> | I'll defer that for a while to avoid any overly wrong answers... |
| 02:09 | <Hixie> | hehe |
| 02:09 | <othermaciej> | jwalden: if E4X style APIs are super convenient, it might be nice to use them on an in-tree DOM |
| 02:09 | <othermaciej> | E4X bundles together a couple of different things which make it an awkward fit with other web APIs |
| 02:10 | <jwalden> | othermaciej: quite possibly; the specification of those APIs is most but not all of the problem |
| 02:11 | <othermaciej> | 1) inline checked syntax for markup in JavaScript; 2) separate object model for XML documents/fragments; 3) simple (but to me kind of icky) API for manipulation and querying of XML chunklets |
| 02:11 | <othermaciej> | I think the sweet spot would be a cleaned up version of 1 and 3 without 2 |
| 02:11 | <Hixie> | agreed |
| 02:47 | <jwalden> | oh, Hixie: I may have some postMessage tests for you to host somewhere, if I can work out a reasonable way to export them and make them runnable in any browser; I'll keep you posted |
| 02:59 | <Hixie> | jwalden: cool. you're probably best off talking to anne about tests, he's got testsuites.org or whatever it's called |
| 02:59 | <Hixie> | or just submit them ot the html5 wg |
| 02:59 | <Hixie> | there's some sort of cvs system for tests there |
| 02:59 | <jwalden> | Hixie: problem is they require proxy mucking, due to the cross-domain requirement, so it's not quite as simple as "visit this page" |
| 03:00 | <jwalden> | but easy enough to handle, given the right tools |
| 03:00 | <jwalden> | and ability to tweak proxy autoconfig |
| 03:00 | <Hixie> | ah |
| 03:01 | <jwalden> | Hixie: I make liberal use of the reservations of example.com and example.org :-) |
| 03:01 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 03:01 | <Hixie> | my cross-site tests use another.domain.libpr0n.com and hixie.ch |
| 03:05 | <Ketsuban> | I don't suppose I could ask for some CSS selector assistance? |
| 03:06 | <Ketsuban> | I know it's not strictly on-topic, but #html is silent and this place isn't. :P |
| 03:07 | <othermaciej> | maybe #css would be a good place to ask about CSS |
| 03:09 | <Ketsuban> | I only realised that channel existed after I'd already asked here. Now I feel stupid. :P |
| 06:30 | <Hixie> | bed time |
| 06:30 | <Hixie> | nn |
| 06:51 | <MacDome> | holy crap |
| 06:51 | <othermaciej> | MacDome: eh? |
| 06:51 | <MacDome> | those are some wicked SVG tests |
| 06:52 | <othermaciej> | in acid3? |
| 06:52 | <MacDome> | definitely living up to the directory name of "evil" |
| 06:52 | <MacDome> | although verging on "useless" |
| 06:52 | <MacDome> | but having good SVG font and animation support across all browsers could be very good for the web |
| 06:52 | <MacDome> | at least the bleeding edge bwe |
| 06:52 | <MacDome> | web |
| 06:54 | <MacDome> | I'm surprised that Safari 3.0.4 fails so badly on those SVG tests |
| 06:54 | <MacDome> | othermaciej: it's sad that most of the compat issues for the web are not the specified ones |
| 06:55 | <MacDome> | at least that's what I've seen in my limited experiance |
| 06:55 | <othermaciej> | MacDome: maybe you should submit tests that actually affect compat |
| 06:55 | <MacDome> | othermaciej: I agree, I think that's a good idea |
| 06:55 | <MacDome> | any of the bugs from help.improve.safari would be good candidates :) |
| 06:55 | <othermaciej> | I'm guessing these tests are effective in part due to testing some not-universally-implemented features |
| 06:56 | <MacDome> | assuming they can actually be found in a spec |
| 06:56 | <othermaciej> | testing the edge cases might be more effective than just testing a very basic case |
| 07:01 | <MacDome> | othermaciej: odd that getSVGDocument would fail on <object> |
| 07:01 | <MacDome> | I'm quite certain I implemented that... at least for <embed> |
| 07:01 | <othermaciej> | MacDome: it's a dumb API anyway, they should just use contentDocument |
| 07:01 | <MacDome> | supposedly that's failing too |
| 07:02 | <MacDome> | maybe it's expecting a "Document" instead of an "SVGDocument" |
| 07:02 | <othermaciej> | for an <object> containing SVG? |
| 07:02 | <MacDome> | I'll have to look at it |
| 07:02 | <MacDome> | for an object pointing to an SVG |
| 07:02 | <MacDome> | I haven't looked at the test yet |
| 07:02 | <MacDome> | (in detail) |
| 07:02 | <MacDome> | I expect that Hixie and I may have to go a couple rounds on it :) |
| 07:02 | <othermaciej> | I do see a getSVGDocument() call |
| 07:03 | <othermaciej> | in the IDL |
| 07:03 | <othermaciej> | but it checks for the document being an SVGDocument, not a document |
| 07:03 | <othermaciej> | (not sure if that is what's happening here) |
| 07:03 | <MacDome> | it was one of the first things I remember adding when SVG moved into WebCore from DrawCore :) |
| 07:04 | <MacDome> | othermaciej: this might be our problem: |
| 07:04 | <MacDome> | Unsafe JavaScript attempt to access frame with URL data:image/svg+xml;base64, |
| 07:04 | <MacDome> | othermaciej: I see 4 of those in the console log |
| 07:04 | <MacDome> | othermaciej: I'm surprised data: urls aren't special cased |
| 07:05 | <othermaciej> | MacDome: they are special cased to deny all access |
| 07:05 | <othermaciej> | in both WebKit and Gecko |
| 07:05 | <othermaciej> | they have no privs and no access |
| 07:05 | <othermaciej> | so I think the test is invalid |
| 07:05 | <othermaciej> | unless something specifies the security model for data: URLs |
| 07:06 | <othermaciej> | (it's actually really hard to get a model that allows any form of access and is secure) |
| 07:08 | <MacDome> | othermaciej: well I filed it as http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16968, you and Hixie and weinig can debate it out there |
| 07:19 | <MacDome> | othermaciej: so why is it unsafe to allow access to data urls? |
| 07:20 | <MacDome> | because it's impossible to know where the data came from? |
| 07:20 | <othermaciej> | MacDome: well, the tempting model is to treat it like about:blank or javascript: URLs |
| 07:21 | <othermaciej> | MacDome: treating it like javascript: URLs would mean you have to prevent ever navigating a frame you don't have access to, to a data: URL |
| 07:21 | <othermaciej> | like we do for javascript: |
| 07:21 | MacDome | doesn't know enough about the problem... but it seems to me like a data: url would be very similar to a javascript: url |
| 07:21 | <othermaciej> | I think there are complications |
| 07:21 | <othermaciej> | weinig and I drew it up on the whiteboard |
| 07:21 | <othermaciej> | hi weinig |
| 07:21 | <weinig> | hi othermaciej |
| 07:22 | <weinig> | what did we draw? |
| 07:22 | <MacDome> | weinig: perfect timing! |
| 07:22 | <weinig> | :) |
| 07:22 | <MacDome> | weinig: we were just discussing http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16968 and why we deny all data: url access |
| 07:22 | <othermaciej> | weinig: I was explaining why we ended up with a no-access policy for data: URLs |
| 07:22 | <weinig> | ah |
| 07:22 | <othermaciej> | MacDome: we actually tried to have something more generous, one reason we backed of was Firefox denying all access to/from data: URLs |
| 07:23 | <MacDome> | the opera guys who wrote those tests seem to assume that a js generated iframe with a data: url SVG document contents should be accessible |
| 07:23 | <MacDome> | but it would be easy to rewrite the test to use separate files |
| 07:23 | <othermaciej> | or, ironically, a javascript: URL would work |
| 07:23 | <othermaciej> | no, wait, ti wouldn't |
| 07:24 | <othermaciej> | you can't use 'em for svg |
| 07:24 | <othermaciej> | they are assumed text/html w/ a string result |
| 07:24 | othermaciej | eats his chicken soup |
| 07:24 | <weinig> | yum |
| 07:25 | <MacDome> | well, weinig, one of you two should comment in the bug, to motivate hixie to change the test :) |
| 07:33 | <othermaciej> | I don't think any qualifying spec defines the security policy so you could certainly claim the test as written is not justified by specs |
| 07:33 | <othermaciej> | (HTML5 does define the security policy, but I don't recall what it says about special cases for data:, javascript: and about: URIs) |
| 07:56 | <hsivonen> | I find it interesting that the IE version switch syntax gets announced on ALA instead of the IE blog |
| 07:58 | <takkaria> | my reaction that article, I think, is "ew" |
| 08:00 | <takkaria> | and being able to set it as a HTTP header is horrible from a save-to-disk perspective |
| 08:11 | <roc> | from an implementation point of view, it seems to me they're making life very hard for themselves |
| 08:11 | <jwalden> | hsivonen: I'm cynically not surprised, except that I'd have expected the blog post much later so people would blow their tops on a site other than the IE blog |
| 08:11 | <jwalden> | this is only an hour or two of difference |
| 08:24 | <jwalden> | anyone know whether Opera's implementing array extras, e.g. forEach and friends? |
| 08:33 | <othermaciej> | roc: they seem to be willing to ship as many separate engines as it takes |
| 08:33 | <othermaciej> | in some ways, that is easier than carefully navigating between the rocks of standards and compatibility |
| 08:34 | <othermaciej> | changing the IE user agent string would probably be the best way to dodge the compat legacy |
| 08:34 | <othermaciej> | for the public web |
| 08:34 | <othermaciej> | but it would kill them on IE-only intranet sites |
| 08:40 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: Intranet Explorer could have a different UA string for an admin-set intranet zone |
| 09:03 | <virtuelv_> | sigh |
| 09:03 | <virtuelv_> | (I'm reading a list apart) |
| 09:13 | <roc> | othermaciej: shipping many separate "engines" isn't easy |
| 09:13 | <roc> | there's footprint |
| 09:14 | <roc> | which components are separated? layout presumably. style system? DOM? JS engine? |
| 09:14 | <othermaciej> | roc: clearly it's not what I would choose as a strategy, given the choice |
| 09:14 | <roc> | different versions have to interact due to iframes etc |
| 09:15 | <roc> | you still have to fix crasher and security bugs in each version |
| 09:15 | <roc> | the burden gets heavier and heavier with each release |
| 09:18 | <mpt> | Like successive editions of the Oxford English Dictionary |
| 09:18 | <roc> | mmm, thinking about security just makes me queasy |
| 09:18 | <roc> | talk about attack surface |
| 09:18 | <mpt> | each of them trying to include all words that have been used in the history of Modern English |
| 09:19 | <roc> | well |
| 09:20 | <roc> | it's more like each edition has to include a complete copy of the previous edition, plus all the words currently in use |
| 09:20 | <MikeSmith> | we should eliminate all the useless words from English |
| 09:20 | <MikeSmith> | make them non-conformant for authors |
| 09:21 | <MikeSmith> | reduce the complexity of the spec |
| 09:21 | <takkaria> | MikeSmith: isn't that pretty much what already happens? |
| 09:21 | <roc> | I understand why they're doing what they're doing |
| 09:21 | <takkaria> | as in, their use is non-comformant, people still have to understand them |
| 09:21 | <MikeSmith> | takkaria - yeah, but that's mostly just through stupidity |
| 09:22 | <roc> | but it still seems non-viable for the long term |
| 09:22 | <mpt> | They're doing it because it'll make IE8 easier, and they won't be around when the developers of IE17 are cursing them. |
| 09:23 | <roc> | maybe they're betting that the Web is going to grind to a halt |
| 09:23 | <roc> | but they bet that before and lost |
| 09:23 | <mpt> | Well, the same compatibility factors would apply to successive versions of Silverlight, no? |
| 09:24 | <mpt> | or whatever the Hypercard du jour is |
| 09:24 | <roc> | I don't know what their compat plan for Silverlight is |
| 09:26 | <roc> | maybe they'll just do side-by-side; interaction between Silverlight versions is probably very limited |
| 09:26 | <roc> | mpt, are you still in Nelson? |
| 09:27 | <roc> | maybe MS has some magic technology that makes multiple engines easier than it looks |
| 09:28 | <roc> | but the only thing I can think of is some tool that stitches together common code to reduce footprint |
| 09:29 | <jgraham> | I would have thought the backwards compatibility problems for Silverlight would be relatively easy to solve since they can always define Silverline n+1 to be easy to implement in the Silverlight n codebase |
| 09:29 | <roc> | other way around? |
| 09:29 | <mpt> | roc, no, London |
| 09:30 | <jgraham> | I mean they can decide Silverlight n+1 will only have features that they can implement easily given their existing Silverlight n code |
| 09:30 | <roc> | ah yes, sure. |
| 09:31 | <mpt> | jgraham, yeah, but then Silvernight n+m would become unreasonably complicated with all its inherited quirks (similar to how de-facto-HTML would have become in the absence of HTML5, and to some extent is even in HTML5) |
| 09:32 | <mpt> | Any language is subject to exactly the same dynamics, I think |
| 09:32 | <annevk> | hmm, the anti-competitive, infinite amount of quirks mode switches, has been announced, bah |
| 09:32 | <mpt> | whether markup, programming, or human |
| 09:32 | <jgraham> | mpt: Perhaps. (How) has Flash managed to avoid the issue? |
| 09:32 | <mpt> | jgraham, it's too soon to say. ;-) |
| 09:33 | <mpt> | Flash is half the age of HTML |
| 09:33 | <roc> | annevk: why anti-compeitive? |
| 09:33 | <roc> | Flash does ship duplicate components of some stuff |
| 09:35 | <annevk> | of sites start to rely on this behavior we have to emulate it, but hopefully not |
| 09:35 | <jgraham> | annevk: it kind of seems like they've taken the least-bad approach |
| 09:35 | <jgraham> | from our point of view |
| 09:36 | <annevk> | but i'd expect for intranets it's definitely anti-competitive |
| 09:41 | <takkaria> | annevk: given that more people are using other browsers than IE thesedays, I would hope that it shouldn't make too much of a difference |
| 09:42 | <hsivonen> | oops. I forgot to announce the new HTML parser release |
| 09:44 | <roc> | I think we don't track IE quirks closely enough for this tag to matter |
| 09:44 | <hsivonen> | are people going to XTech this year? |
| 09:50 | <annevk> | i was hoping to |
| 09:52 | <takkaria> | grr. anyone know how to disable the new security certificate warnings in firefox3? |
| 09:53 | <Philip`> | Fixed the security certificates? |
| 09:53 | <Philip`> | Uh |
| 09:53 | <Philip`> | Fix the security certificates? |
| 09:53 | <takkaria> | not my server, but it's not letting me check my webmail as a result |
| 09:54 | <Philip`> | Oh |
| 09:54 | <takkaria> | googling doesn't seem to give me much in the way of help, but persevence may be the key |
| 09:54 | Philip` | knows little about it |
| 10:03 | <jgraham> | takkaria: Which version, exactly? I thought they added a "Add to whitelist" type button recently, but it might have been after the last beta |
| 10:06 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: re:XTech I suspect not, but I'm not really sure yet |
| 10:09 | Philip` | wonders what happens if he sends two X-UA-Compatible HTTP headers for a page |
| 10:09 | <hsivonen> | I won't be presenting and haven't arranged funding, so I'm most likely not going to XTech |
| 10:10 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: see, that's wrong with the mindset on this channel. constantly breaking things with edge cases. :-) |
| 10:10 | <takkaria> | jgraham: beta 2 |
| 10:12 | <roc> | Philip`: the latest trunk builds have a way to get around it |
| 10:13 | <Philip`> | roc: Do you mean "takkaria: "? |
| 10:13 | <roc> | er sorry yes |
| 10:15 | Philip` | also wonders about <meta http-equiv=x-ua-compatible content=ie8> and <meta http-equiv=x-ua-compatible content=IE=8;IE=7> and hopes Microsoft will define this properly somewhere |
| 10:18 | <takkaria> | I think you're a little too hopeful there |
| 10:18 | <annevk> | how do DOCTYPEs and x-ua-compatible work together? |
| 10:19 | <annevk> | can you trigger standards mode without the DOCTYPE? |
| 10:21 | hsivonen | notes that http-equiv=x-ua-compatible is invalid as HTML5 given the current draft |
| 10:22 | <annevk> | good |
| 10:24 | <Philip`> | The HTTP header isn't invalid for HTML5, though |
| 10:24 | <takkaria> | I wonder if IE8 will do XHTML and if it will, how that will interact with the meta tag |
| 10:38 | <Philip`> | I guess we'll just have to wait for a (beta?) release and reverse-engineer it |
| 11:12 | <MikeSmith> | Is it me, or does it seem kind of odd that the Web Standards Project didn't reckon it was worth having a real public discussion about this before they cooked it up? |
| 11:12 | <MikeSmith> | [[ |
| 11:12 | <MikeSmith> | Microsoft reached out to The Web Standards Project (of which I am a member) and to several other standards-aware developers, and asked for our help in coming up with a better method of allowing developers to “opt in” to proper standards support. The goal was to find a method that was more explicit than the DOCTYPE switch, and could be implemented in any browser, not just IE. |
| 11:12 | <MikeSmith> | ]] |
| 11:13 | <annevk> | they were probably all made to sign nda's and happily obliged so they could get a paid visit to MS |
| 11:13 | <MikeSmith> | So they have a discussion about it behind closed doors and the best they can come up with it meta@http-equiv |
| 11:14 | <annevk> | it's just insane that the group that advocated Acid2 now lets MS get away with not supporting it |
| 11:14 | <MikeSmith> | something they were well aware was not conformant with the current HTML5 spec |
| 11:14 | <annevk> | i doubt wasp is aware of html5 in so much detail |
| 11:14 | <takkaria> | I wonder if we'll have a round of "WaSP is dead to me" posts now |
| 11:15 | <MikeSmith> | [[ |
| 11:15 | <annevk> | so far all the standardistas are advocating this insanity |
| 11:15 | <MikeSmith> | We considered many syntax options, including a conditional comment-like syntax, processing instructions a la the XML prolog, and even HTML profiles such as those adopted by the Microformats community, but few seemed to fit the job as well as the meta element. |
| 11:15 | <MikeSmith> | ]] |
| 11:15 | <MikeSmith> | what advantages does meta@http-equiv have over a PI? |
| 11:15 | <annevk> | they apparently never thought about whether this is the right solution |
| 11:16 | <MikeSmith> | a real brain trust |
| 11:16 | <annevk> | i'm so amazed Eric Meyer suggests that this would lead browsers to introduce new features faster |
| 11:16 | <annevk> | if anything, it's the exact opposite of that |
| 11:17 | <annevk> | having to test features in various modes increases the amount of work quadratically (maybe a bit less) |
| 11:18 | <MikeSmith> | aside from discussion about whether it's a good idea or not, it'll be interesting to hear their rationale for the choice of meta@equiv over the alternatives |
| 11:18 | <MikeSmith> | particuarly the alternative of just using a PI |
| 11:18 | <annevk> | PI doesn't work in HTML |
| 11:19 | <MikeSmith> | a specific PI would |
| 11:20 | <MikeSmith> | for their browser |
| 11:20 | <MikeSmith> | concern about making it implementable by other browsers seems like not particularly important |
| 11:20 | <annevk> | that would be even less compatible with the HTML language though |
| 11:21 | <annevk> | I think they did have that concern is they're trying to get other browsers to join this crazyness |
| 11:21 | <annevk> | see the various examples in the Alist Apart article about ="IE7;FF3" |
| 11:21 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, well, having a unilateral decision made about it ahead of time |
| 11:22 | <MikeSmith> | that's doesn't seem likely to motivate other browser vendors to support |
| 11:23 | <annevk> | it's a good thing that IE doesn't have its 90% market share anymore |
| 11:24 | <annevk> | that would've made this even worse |
| 11:24 | <annevk> | but it's still pretty bad |
| 11:30 | <Camaban> | I'm hoping that at the very least, everyone else ignores it |
| 11:31 | <annevk> | afaict that's pretty much guaranteed as far as earlier statements of Safari, Mozilla, and Opera representatives count |
| 11:31 | <annevk> | regarding this subject |
| 11:31 | <annevk> | but please do tell if anyone is reconsidering their position |
| 11:32 | <Camaban> | good, I'm not keen on seeing things borked in Opera because someone couldn't be arsed testing in it, and gave it some default old rendering version to use |
| 11:33 | <Philip`> | The real problem is that Opera and Safari don't have nice short acronyms, unlike IE and FF/Fx |
| 11:33 | <Camaban> | lol |
| 11:34 | <Philip`> | (Calling them "S" and "O" just sounds stupid) |
| 11:34 | <Camaban> | not to mention Opera mini/mobile/wii |
| 11:34 | <Philip`> | and also there's the problem that SeaMonkey and Camino would be unhappy with "FF3" |
| 11:35 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: I wrote preper docs for &out=gnu: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Validator.nu_GNU_Output |
| 11:36 | <Philip`> | (Will other Trident browsers/embedders have to make use of the "IE7" flags too?) |
| 11:36 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen - looks great |
| 11:36 | <MikeSmith> | you might want to add a link to http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Errors |
| 11:37 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: oops. yeah |
| 11:37 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: fixed |
| 11:39 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen - cool. So I hope some other people will try this with URIs and test the error messages with Emacs or whatever |
| 11:39 | Philip` | doesn't like C code with ^L control characters in it |
| 11:39 | <MikeSmith> | so that I don't have to :) |
| 11:40 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: I guess I should add support for this format to html5check.py |
| 11:40 | <Lachy> | damn, that ALA article about IE's bug mode switch is sad. |
| 11:41 | <Lachy> | especially at the end where he says "I, for one, hope other browser vendors join Microsoft in implementing this functionality." - that would be a complete disaster and I hope no other browsers resort to it |
| 11:42 | <Camaban> | Lachy: I kind of think Meyer's article is worse. Starting off going WTF like everyone else, and then seemingly arguing in favour of it (with reservations) |
| 11:42 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: there seems to be a notable disconnect between how ALA-famous designers and how people close to browser vendors see this issue |
| 11:43 | <Camaban> | hsivonen: or people who actually believed in the idea of browser sniffing being bad the first time |
| 11:44 | <Lachy> | where's Meyer's article? |
| 11:44 | <Camaban> | it's the 2nd of this weeks ala articles |
| 11:44 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen - having it supported in html5check.py would certainly seem to make a lot of sense :) |
| 11:45 | <Camaban> | I've only very briefly scanned it, but it seems he goes from WTF to kind of supporting it in the space of one article |
| 11:46 | <Lachy> | I'll have to read Eric's later. I'm going to have to write a rebuttal against the technique later and explain why it's a really bad idea and needs to be used as a temporary work around only |
| 11:47 | <Lachy> | and why no other browser should ever implement it |
| 11:47 | <Philip`> | It would be good to suggest a better idea too |
| 11:49 | <Lachy> | I have suggested a better idea before. Use the bug mode switch for HTML4/XHTML1 DOCTYPES, and always use full standards mode with the HTML5 DOCTYPE |
| 11:49 | <Camaban> | I'm slightly apathetic about that, MS got themselves into this situation by doing things badly before, now they want us to bail them out |
| 11:49 | <Camaban> | though as a front end coder, I do have a vested interest in IE getting it's act together I guess |
| 11:50 | <Lachy> | that allows MS to use the time it will take to transition from HTML4 to HTML5 in order to get IE on par with other browsers and then allow for progressive enhancement |
| 11:50 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: if you suggest that, you need a plausible story why IE8 to IE9 with the HTML5 doctype already around the Web wouldn't cause a situation similar to IE6 to IE7 |
| 11:50 | <Camaban> | I'm not convinced I want to use HTML5 yet, so please don't go suggesting borking HTMl4 and XHTML1 |
| 11:51 | <Lachy> | unfortunately, we need to discourage wide adoption of the HTML5 DOCTYPE until IE is ready for it |
| 11:51 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: yes, indeed. ( http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/#html5 ) |
| 11:55 | <Lachy> | Aaron's article didn't mention that unknown doctypes incl. <!DOCTYPE html> would make the meta redundant for IE8. I wonder if that was a strategic decision to avoid encouraging early adoption |
| 11:57 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: if it was a strategic decision, what's the strategy behind announcing the meta before shipping IE8 beta? |
| 11:59 | <Lachy> | hsivonen, I have no idea |
| 12:03 | <Lachy> | so how will this affect Acid3? As a matter of principle, I hope Hixie doesn't add the meta element, but that means IE will never support it as-is |
| 12:03 | <madmoose> | Nor acid2. |
| 12:03 | <Lachy> | indeed |
| 12:03 | <madmoose> | Despite their claims to the contrary. |
| 12:07 | <annevk> | it should affect acid3 as much as acid2 |
| 12:10 | <Philip`> | http://www.alistapart.com/articles/fromswitchestotargets - "If a page doesn’t have any version-targting information, then the DOCTYPE will be used as a proxy for version targeting. For example, all the HTML4 and XHTML1 DOCTYPEs will be targeted to IE7 by default. In the future, HTML5 DOCTYPEs might by default be targeted to IE9 or IE10, depending on how things shake out." |
| 12:13 | <Philip`> | <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> is used little enough that maybe it could be not included in the list of "HTML4 and XHTML1 DOCTYPEs", and so Acid2 would get handled differently |
| 12:13 | <gsnedders> | wow. so much has happened last night. |
| 12:16 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders - you pinged me here yesterday but I was away |
| 12:16 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: in #html-wg, did I not? |
| 12:16 | <gsnedders> | I saw there, but I pinged you here as well? |
| 12:16 | <gsnedders> | I can't remember :) |
| 12:19 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders - I guess it was on #html-wg mayve |
| 12:19 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: I saw your response, though |
| 12:21 | <MikeSmith> | oh, OK |
| 12:45 | <Philip`> | Does anyone happen to have a mechanism for automatically detecting browsers' doctype-sniffing behaviours on various inputs? |
| 12:54 | <annevk> | I have one but it doesn't work in IE |
| 12:54 | <annevk> | http://tc.labs.opera.com/html/parsing/doctype/001.htm |
| 12:54 | <Philip`> | Ah, thanks, but IE is the more interesting case to test :-) |
| 12:55 | <annevk> | my IE doesn't let itself easily debug |
| 12:56 | <Philip`> | In IE6 I get a mixture of Errors and Quirks Mode |
| 12:57 | <annevk> | yeah, me to |
| 12:57 | <annevk> | too |
| 12:59 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: http://about.validator.nu/html5check.py |
| 12:59 | <hsivonen> | Now we need someone to script emacs to pipe the current buffer to python html5check.py -geh |
| 13:07 | <hsivonen> | annevk: what's the implementation status of Method-Check using OPTIONS? |
| 13:21 | <Philip`> | <meta http-equiv="x-ua-compatible" content="ie=edge;ff=feist;o=guts"> |
| 13:22 | <Dashiva> | funn |
| 13:22 | <hsivonen> | :-) |
| 13:23 | <hsivonen> | am I the only one who thinks using = in the attribute value is a bad design choice? |
| 13:23 | <krijnh> | Why can't IE8 just use the HTML5 doctype as a switch and replace IE with MSIE in conditional comments and move on? |
| 13:24 | <Dashiva> | krijnh: Because they're committed to an incomplete implementation, so they'd need a new switch for IE9 |
| 13:24 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Why do you think that? |
| 13:24 | <krijnh> | <!--[if IE]> would just become <!--[if IEnewandimproved]> |
| 13:25 | <krijnh> | Dashiva: all browsers have that issue, why can't they just ship and keep updating/bug fixing |
| 13:26 | <Dashiva> | krijnh: That's what everyone else is wondering too |
| 13:26 | <krijnh> | Then what is everyone else missing? |
| 13:27 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: see what happened with charset= when people omitted quotes |
| 13:27 | <Philip`> | People build big complex fragile intranet applications on IE6; they don't build such things on Firefox or Opera or Safari |
| 13:27 | <Philip`> | which seems like a significant difference |
| 13:27 | <hsivonen> | krijnh: Boeing, Chevron, etc. |
| 13:28 | <krijnh> | They can still do that, don't they? |
| 13:28 | <krijnh> | Just use the same doctypes we use now, same conditional comments, if needed |
| 13:28 | <krijnh> | IE8 should of course still include IE6/7 engines, that's pretty logical |
| 13:29 | <Dashiva> | But they probably want people to make big complex fragile intranet applications in IE8 too |
| 13:29 | <krijnh> | You can already do amazingly complex things in IE6/7 |
| 13:29 | <krijnh> | Just not using standards :) |
| 13:30 | <hsivonen> | krijnh: if the same intranet has insanely complex stuff depending on IE 5.5, IE 7 and IE 8, switching to Firefox, Safari or Opera will be even harder |
| 13:31 | <Dashiva> | Please note the topic, common sense doesn't work. You have to consider business sense |
| 13:31 | <krijnh> | Why should you switch to a non-MS UA in an intranet |
| 13:32 | <krijnh> | Dashiva: I know, but I don't get it from that point either :) |
| 13:32 | <hsivonen> | krijnh: say you wan to upgrade from Windows XP to Ubuntu? |
| 13:32 | <krijnh> | hsivonen: and I'm in a huge corporation, where intranets apply? |
| 13:32 | <krijnh> | With sysadmins and stuff |
| 13:33 | <krijnh> | I think I'm not really into switching to Ubuntu then |
| 13:33 | <hsivonen> | krijnh: some corporations are into switching to RedHat, though |
| 13:33 | <hsivonen> | or SuSE |
| 13:34 | <Camaban> | some run a lot of mac's, and IE/mac is hardly useful anymore |
| 13:34 | <krijnh> | Yeah, well then they shouldn't have bought or developed IE only intranet apps |
| 13:35 | <krijnh> | I'm fine with a meta thing for IE, I just don't get why Fx and Opera also should be included |
| 13:35 | <Camaban> | so as to make it look like a generic internet thing, rather than jsut catering to IE's failings? |
| 13:36 | <krijnh> | We're catering to IEs failings every day |
| 13:36 | <krijnh> | Why should that be different in the near future? :) |
| 13:37 | <annevk> | hsivonen, it will be in Firefox 3 as i understand it |
| 13:37 | Camaban | shrugs |
| 13:37 | <krijnh> | That's the perfect world we live in, no? |
| 13:37 | <Camaban> | at the moment I generally fix IE6 using liberal use of haslayout, other than that, I don't get 'too' many problems |
| 13:38 | <krijnh> | Me neither |
| 13:38 | <hsivonen> | annevk: have you seen it in the nightlies yet? |
| 13:38 | <krijnh> | Camaban: I just consider that part of our job |
| 13:38 | <annevk> | hsivonen, I hope Jonas is on top of it |
| 13:39 | <Camaban> | krijnh: it's only part of our job due to IE's previous failings |
| 13:39 | <Camaban> | between IE6 and 7, Opera released 4 major versions |
| 13:39 | <krijnh> | Camaban: I know, we'll have to live with that |
| 13:40 | <Camaban> | if MS are now struggling with how to update their browser, while not screwing up the stuff that their old software did, I'm thinking that's their issue, not somehting to be used to lump us with extra restrictions |
| 13:40 | <Camaban> | the reason for HTMl specs in the first place is so that this kind of thing shouldn't be our job |
| 13:41 | <krijnh> | We wouldn't have a job in a perfect world.. |
| 13:41 | <annevk> | hsivonen, if you could push them as well that would be appreciated |
| 13:41 | <annevk> | hsivonen, btw, as seen on public-appformats we may need to change the Access-Control header slightly |
| 13:41 | <Camaban> | oh we would, there's plenty in web development beyond getting a site to work cross browser |
| 13:42 | <krijnh> | In a perfect world there wouldn't be browsers ;) |
| 13:42 | <krijnh> | Anyway |
| 13:43 | <annevk> | in a perfect world humanity wouldn't exist |
| 13:43 | <hsivonen> | annevk: I'll ask sicking |
| 13:43 | <annevk> | cool |
| 13:43 | <annevk> | perfect world arguments are kind of silly |
| 13:43 | <Camaban> | and as Opera/Mozila etc... have managed to do fairly well in the last few years, wanting IE to match them in terms of support is hardly requesting a perfect world |
| 13:47 | <hsivonen> | does someone have a WHATWG blog post about the W3C WD drafted? |
| 13:47 | <Lachy> | hsivonen, I don't |
| 13:47 | <hsivonen> | what about a Slashdot submission? |
| 13:48 | <Lachy> | I could submit to slashdot |
| 13:48 | <Lachy> | what time is the spec going live? |
| 14:04 | <annevk> | interesting |
| 14:04 | <annevk> | WaSP will host Acid3: http://www.webstandards.org/2008/01/16/whats-the-best-test-for-acid3/ |
| 14:04 | <annevk> | Lachy, in theory 5PM your time |
| 14:05 | <Lachy> | ok, I'll do it as soon as the press release is published |
| 14:51 | <Philip`> | Hmph, Opera doesn't call onload for iframes if I have lots of them :-( |
| 14:53 | <Philip`> | Oh, actually, that was because I had infinitely recursing iframes |
| 15:02 | <krijnh> | Ow, wait, it's almost April 1 ... |
| 15:03 | <krijnh> | annevk: nice post |
| 15:09 | <zcorpan_> | Hixie: ping |
| 15:15 | <Philip`> | <!doctype html 2> = quirks, <!doctype html 1> = standards |
| 15:15 | <Philip`> | (in IE) |
| 15:16 | <Philip`> | (<!doctype html 5> = standards too - you're just not allowed 2, 3 or 4) |
| 15:19 | <zcorpan_> | <!doctype dtd html 4.> |
| 15:21 | <zcorpan_> | <!doctype dtd html 4. transitional//> |
| 15:22 | <Philip`> | <!doctype transitional// dtd html 4.> |
| 15:22 | <Philip`> | (It just does substring matches) |
| 15:25 | <Philip`> | <!doctype netsc dtd xhtml> vs <!doctype netsc dtd html> |
| 15:25 | Philip` | wants to find a good way to work out which order it's doing the substring comparisons in |
| 15:28 | <Philip`> | Oh, that's trivial for pairs |
| 15:48 | <Lachy> | MikeSmith, is everything still on schedule to publish in the next 5 minutes? |
| 15:48 | <MikeSmith> | Lachy - roughly |
| 15:54 | <Philip`> | http://philip.html5.org/docs/quirks.txt |
| 15:56 | <Philip`> | I don't think that's entirely complete, but I don't know any cases it's wrong on |
| 15:56 | <annevk> | HTML5 is published |
| 15:56 | <annevk> | http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ |
| 15:56 | <annevk> | http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/ |
| 15:56 | <annevk> | we can party now |
| 15:57 | <krijnh> | Congrats :) |
| 15:57 | <jdandrea> | w00t! |
| 15:59 | <mpt> | awesome |
| 16:01 | <Philip`> | (Argh, it's more complex with some " Frameset//" bits...) |
| 16:04 | mpt | wonders if there should be a "roughshod" content model for <ins>, <del>, and <m> |
| 16:05 | Lachy | submitted it to slashdot |
| 16:06 | <annevk> | oh, who's doing the WHATWG blog entry? |
| 16:07 | <annevk> | "Moments ago the join effort of the W3C HTML WG and WHATWG resulted in publication of two documents in the W3C Technical Report space: ... and ..." |
| 16:07 | <Lachy> | maybe hsivonen? |
| 16:07 | <Lachy> | if not, you can. |
| 16:08 | <hsivonen> | I just submitted to Slashdot. |
| 16:09 | <annevk> | ok, i'll try |
| 16:09 | <Philip`> | annevk: http://tc.labs.opera.com/html/parsing/doctype/001.htm has some DOCYTPEs |
| 16:09 | <hsivonen> | that would be nice. afk |
| 16:09 | <Lachy> | hsivonen, I told you I would (and did already) |
| 16:09 | <Lachy> | oh well |
| 16:10 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: I was following the wrong channel, so I didn't notice you were on the case. |
| 16:11 | <hsivonen> | well, having two entries in the pipeline doesn't hurt |
| 16:11 | <hsivonen> | afk for real |
| 16:11 | <annevk> | bye |
| 16:16 | <annevk> | Lachy, you can publish drafts right? |
| 16:16 | <annevk> | I submitted something for review |
| 16:19 | <annevk> | "The WHATWG version of this specification is available under a more permissive license." is interesting |
| 16:20 | <jgraham_mibbit> | annevk: in your blog post s/join/joint/ |
| 16:21 | <jgraham_mibbit> | You should probably repeat the bit about it being a FPWD in the body too because people don't read titles |
| 16:22 | <annevk> | kk |
| 16:22 | <annevk> | can you allow me to post? |
| 16:23 | <annevk> | euhm, i can't find the post I drafted anymore |
| 16:24 | <jgraham_mibbit> | Dunno. I thought I could post without review before but maybe I was mistaken |
| 16:25 | <jgraham_mibbit> | http://blog.whatwg.org/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=131 |
| 16:25 | <jgraham_mibbit> | I think |
| 16:26 | <hsivonen> | I wonder if we are going to make it to the digg front page |
| 16:26 | <annevk> | made some changes |
| 16:26 | <annevk> | if someone can press publish, allow me to publish, etc. that would be cool |
| 16:27 | <hsivonen> | annevk: I can press publish |
| 16:27 | <annevk> | ok, i think it's ready now |
| 16:28 | <annevk> | so go ahead :) |
| 16:28 | <hsivonen> | I already pressed the button. did I do it too early? |
| 16:28 | <hsivonen> | the blog is already slow |
| 16:29 | <annevk> | seems to be there now, sorry |
| 16:30 | <annevk> | it has an awesome long URI |
| 16:30 | <annevk> | oops |
| 16:30 | <tndH> | the tags got eaten in Lachy's /. post, at least on http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=480454 |
| 16:30 | <tndH> | though i suppose that's why /. has editors ;) |
| 16:30 | <virtuelv> | draft now public? |
| 16:31 | <annevk> | http://blog.whatwg.org/html-5-published-as-w3c-first-public-working-draft |
| 16:31 | <annevk> | maybe I should translate it to Dutch |
| 16:31 | <krijnh> | Yeah :) |
| 16:32 | <annevk> | and everyone here who knows another language than English should do the same so we have a lot of national announcements available on the WHATWG blog |
| 16:32 | <virtuelv> | http://reddit.com/r/programming/info/668qq/details/ |
| 16:42 | Philip` | wishes he could set Gmail to never put WHATWG messages into the Spam folder |
| 16:47 | <annevk> | zcorpan_, I have a hard time understanding how your ignoring is different from mine |
| 16:56 | <zcorpan_> | http://digg.com/design/W3C_HTML5_draft_published_2 |
| 17:08 | gsnedders | wonders if the IE team will still be alive tomorrow |
| 17:08 | jgraham_mibbit | wonders why they wouldn't be |
| 17:08 | <Camaban> | depends if they can run faster than the WaSP team |
| 17:09 | <Philip`> | That won't help them, since wasps can fly |
| 17:09 | <annevk> | hmm, I get e-mails for comments on my WHATWG blog post? |
| 17:09 | <annevk> | and I can't seem to disable that |
| 17:11 | <Lachy_> | My post got accepted to slashdot, should be published soon |
| 17:19 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: what post? |
| 17:59 | <Philip`> | Rather than <meta>, I think IE should look for a <img src="iexplore.gif" alt="Best viewed in IE $n!"> and fall back to the appropriate rendering mode |
| 18:02 | <gsnedders> | :D |
| 18:18 | <hsivonen> | yay. Lachy's post on slashdot's front page |
| 18:26 | <annevk> | html5-diff is not updated though |
| 18:26 | <annevk> | it's a fpwd too |
| 18:26 | <annevk> | oh well |
| 18:36 | <gsnedders> | http://pastebin.ca/868809 if anyone wants to read over it (and bug me about it making no sense) |
| 18:54 | <Lachy_> | http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/22/175243 |
| 18:56 | <takkaria> | Lachy_: nice to see people missing the point so earlyon |
| 18:57 | <jdandrea> | I don't even think they really read it. I think those commenters just like to hear themselves complain. |
| 19:12 | <zcorpan_> | hmm. the ie8 meta tag should, for reasonable compat with other browsers, only have an effect if the page has a doctype that triggers full standards mode in other browsers |
| 19:12 | <zcorpan_> | i.e. no doctype and quirky doctypes override the meta |
| 19:13 | <zcorpan_> | otherwise pages start to use the ie8 meta with no doctype and expect standards mode |
| 19:14 | <Hixie> | i expect, in 5 years, to see a large number of pages say <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge" /> |
| 19:14 | <Hixie> | (though i expect a majority not to have the flag at all) |
| 19:14 | <zcorpan_> | right |
| 19:14 | <zcorpan_> | at which point they might be tempted to introduce a new switch mechanism |
| 19:15 | <Ketsuban> | I expect <!--[if IE]><meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge"><![endif--> and <!--[if IE]><meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge" /><![endif--> depending on DOCTYPE. =P |
| 19:15 | <Ketsuban> | <![endif]-->* |
| 19:16 | <zcorpan_> | why the cc? |
| 19:16 | <Ketsuban> | Because it's a pointless piece of code if other UAs don't implement it. |
| 19:16 | <Philip`> | To hide it from HTML5 validators |
| 19:17 | <zcorpan_> | people don't hide <meta noimagetoolbar> with cc |
| 19:17 | <Ketsuban> | I'd love it if other UAs had conditional comments too - if I had a penny for every time I've wanted <!--[if Opera]>...<![endif]--> I'd be richer than I am. |
| 19:18 | <zcorpan_> | if you file a bug everytime you wanted a cc for opera, perhaps you wouldn't need it anymore :) |
| 19:19 | <zcorpan_> | (i.e. not about the lack of cc, but for the reason you want to use a cc) |
| 19:19 | <Ketsuban> | I do file bugs, but that's only a future fix for any problems, and sometimes the problem I've run into is an undefined or ambiguous case in the specification. :P |
| 19:19 | <Philip`> | Ketsuban: Use <![CDATA[ stuff that only Opera should display ]]> and it'll be an invisible comment in Firefox :-) |
| 19:20 | <zcorpan_> | that doesn't work if what you want to include contains > |
| 19:21 | <Ketsuban> | At any rate what I have now works in Firefox and IE7, should work in Opera 9.5, works in Opera 9.25 with the exception of the known quantisation error for values > 20.47em, probably works in Safari and Konqueror but hasn't been tested. |
| 19:21 | <Philip`> | zcorpan_: It does work, as long as it doesn't contain a > after two more ]s than [s |
| 19:21 | <zcorpan_> | Philip`: > will truncate the comment in firefox |
| 19:22 | <Philip`> | Oh |
| 19:22 | <Philip`> | Good point :-) |
| 19:23 | <zcorpan_> | furthermore you can't use markup in cdata, which makes it not very interesting even if it didn't truncate the comment in fx |
| 19:23 | <zcorpan_> | (and you can't use cdata sections in <script> or <style>, either) |
| 19:23 | <Philip`> | Okay, maybe it's not an absolutely perfect solution :-( |
| 19:24 | <zcorpan_> | works if you want to say "ZOMG i couldn't be bothered to test in opera" :) |
| 19:26 | <Philip`> | <![CDATA[ Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better browser. ]]> |
| 19:27 | <Ketsuban> | I already have a big ugly red <div> telling users of IE6 and below to upgrade to IE7. :P |
| 19:33 | <Hixie> | i wonder if the timing of the IE8 quirks mode switch was timed to match the release of html5 |
| 19:40 | <jasonw22> | is html5 support planned for ie8? |
| 19:42 | <roc> | It would be useful if there was some comment from Webkit people on the Safari blog about the new IE switch |
| 19:43 | <Hixie> | jasonw22: html5 likely won't be done by the time ie8 ships |
| 19:43 | <Hixie> | roc: i believe they are working on it, but i could be wrong |
| 19:43 | <roc> | cool |
| 19:43 | <Hixie> | othermaciej would know |
| 19:45 | <jasonw22> | Hixie, I guess I just didn't understand what you meant, "i wonder if the timing of the IE8 quirks mode switch was timed to match the release of html5" |
| 19:49 | <hdh> | he means the first W3C stamped WD |
| 19:53 | <Hixie> | right |
| 19:53 | <Hixie> | we released the first "public" working draft today |
| 19:54 | <jasonw22> | ah, got it |
| 19:58 | <Hixie> | holy crap, the html5 press release didn't once mention xhtml |
| 19:58 | <Hixie> | and only once mentioned xml |
| 20:01 | <gsnedders> | http://pastebin.ca/868809 — any comments? |
| 20:04 | <roc> | yeah. Just because there's not much wikipedia Theora content now doesn't mean there couldn't be in the future |
| 20:06 | <gsnedders> | roc: people aren't going to create content unless decoders are widespread |
| 20:06 | <roc> | people with an agenda might |
| 20:06 | <roc> | NBC is going to stream Olympics footage via Silverlight, that's not widespread |
| 20:07 | <gsnedders> | So I have an agenda? I would only use a codec if I can rely on it being supported for the vast majority of my site's users |
| 20:07 | <gsnedders> | (and even then only a standardised codec) |
| 20:07 | <Philip`> | Hmm, now I can emulate IE's quirks-mode algorithm for the ~550 unique doctypes on ~15K pages, except for <!doctype html public "-//"AOL Hometown//html 3.0 transitional//en"> ... |
| 20:08 | <roc> | wasn't I clear? |
| 20:08 | <Philip`> | Oh, and that's just broken because it's got odd quotes, which I'm not trying to handle |
| 20:08 | <roc> | Microsoft has an agenda -> Microsoft pays content vendors to use Silverlight even though people have to download the viewer |
| 20:09 | <roc> | Wikipedia has an agenda -> publishes Theora content even though people have to download the viewer (actually though, they don't, the Java viewer is OK) |
| 20:09 | <gsnedders> | roc: I took the comments to be only partially related, and the former to be related to Theora too |
| 20:10 | <Philip`> | Does anyone happen to know why "strings -el mshtml.dll" shows "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd"; amongst a list of doctype-detection strings? As far as I can tell, it's not actually used for anything... |
| 20:13 | <roc> | so it doesn't follow that technical superiority is a cast-iron requirement. It's possible that Wikipedia and other sites might just start using Theora for ideological reasons and that could drive client vendors to support it. |
| 20:18 | <Philip`> | Exception in thread "pool-1-thread-153" java.lang.StackOverflowError at java.util.regex.Pattern$Loop.match(Pattern.java:4179) at java.util.regex.Pattern$GroupTail.match(Pattern.java:4111) ... |
| 20:18 | <Philip`> | Hmm |
| 20:29 | <Philip`> | Oops, I was wrong about the AOL Hometown thing, that was just a bug in my code :-( |
| 20:30 | <Philip`> | I'm slightly sure that http://philip.html5.org/docs/quirks.txt is now correct |
| 20:36 | <webben> | I'm vaguely remembering someone providing some stats about doctype distribution. |
| 20:36 | <webben> | I'm trying to put a rough figure on how much of the web depends on standards vs quirks mode. |
| 20:37 | <Philip`> | I can give you information about 15K pages from dmoz.org, and what proportion IE treats as standards vs quirks |
| 20:37 | <jasonw22> | http://ejohn.org/blog/meta-madness/ |
| 20:41 | <webben> | Philip`: is that info online already or do you mean you'd need to run your tests? |
| 20:46 | <Philip`> | webben: It's not online in a summarised form anywhere, but I've already got the data and can stick it in a table easily |
| 20:47 | <webben> | Philip`: Are you able to differentiate between IE7 and IE6 (e.g. for quirks mode triggered by XML prolog)? |
| 20:47 | <webben> | I'd be interested to see that :) |
| 20:49 | <Philip`> | webben: Hmm, I'd have to modify my code (which would be easy iff someone can say exactly what to change it to) and re-run it (which would take about thirty seconds), so it could be possible |
| 20:52 | <webben> | Did they change anything about standards/quirks in IE7 other than not switching to quirks when there's an XML prolog? |
| 20:55 | <gsnedders> | webben: nope |
| 20:55 | <webben> | Philip`: Any other info you'd need? |
| 20:56 | <gsnedders> | dunno if anything apart from XML prologs get through before it, though, FWIW |
| 20:56 | <Philip`> | webben: I'll say nope too, and with more justification since I've just tried IE7 on a few hundred doctypes and it does the same as IE6 |
| 20:56 | <Philip`> | (when considering just the part inside the <!doctype...> string) |
| 20:57 | <Philip`> | webben: It would be helpful to know what an XML prolog is |
| 20:57 | <webben> | hehe |
| 20:57 | <webben> | I see. |
| 20:57 | <webben> | How much stuff is that looks vaguely like an XML prolog, but isn't? |
| 20:57 | <Philip`> | Compare e.g. <?xml ""'?> vs <?xml "" '?> |
| 20:57 | <webben> | *is there |
| 20:57 | <annevk> | I think he meant XML declaration |
| 20:57 | <gsnedders> | is <?…?> an XML prolog |
| 20:57 | <webben> | oh |
| 20:57 | <webben> | yeah I mean the declaration |
| 20:58 | <webben> | I think that is the prolog |
| 20:58 | <webben> | isn't the generic term processing instruction? |
| 20:58 | <annevk> | the XML prolog is everything up to including the DOCTYPE |
| 20:58 | <webben> | oh right, okay |
| 20:58 | <annevk> | well, everything until the root element start tag |
| 20:59 | gsnedders | starts to correct annevk on that but gets beaten |
| 20:59 | <Philip`> | webben: http://philip.html5.org/data/pis.html is stuff that looks vaguely like an XML prolog or whatever it's called |
| 20:59 | <annevk> | webben, you're not the only one btw: http://www.google.com/search?q=xml+prolog+declaration |
| 20:59 | <webben> | gsnedders: Yeah, that's what the spec says: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-prolog-dtd |
| 21:01 | annevk | curses BNF |
| 21:01 | <webben> | I see distinguishing doctype and prolog is an MSism: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb250496.aspx |
| 21:02 | <webben> | how /very/ helpful of them |
| 21:02 | <Philip`> | So... It looks like /^(\s|<\?xml [^>]*>)*$doctype/i is a reasonable approximation for what IE7 accepts |
| 21:03 | <Philip`> | and $doctype is (?xi) <!doctype [^>\\s]* ( ( \\s+ | \"[^\"]*\" | '[^']*' ) [^>\\s]* )* > as exactly as I can make out |
| 21:03 | <Philip`> | Uh, but with the double-slashes unslashed |
| 21:03 | <webben> | Regular expressions: how to make anything instantly more confusing ;) |
| 21:03 | <Philip`> | and the slash-quotes unslashed too |
| 21:03 | <annevk> | if someone can convert all BNF in http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/ and tell me the result that would be cool :) |
| 21:04 | <Philip`> | I added whitespace to the doctype one for readabilty :-p |
| 21:04 | <webben> | annevk: convert it into what? Human? |
| 21:05 | <Philip`> | Hmm, actually, I think detecting IE7 vs IE6 would take too much time for me to bother with tonight, since I'd have to change all my string matching and everything |
| 21:06 | <webben> | fair enough ... it's worth knowing the difference (at least AFAI am concerned) |
| 21:07 | <Philip`> | I'll see if I can work on that during the day tomorrow |
| 21:08 | <webben> | awesome :) |
| 21:09 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=426306&cid=22143528 |
| 21:09 | <jgraham> | lol |
| 21:10 | <Philip`> | Counting doctypes (not pages), I see 3598 IE-quirks, 4165 IE-standards |
| 21:11 | <Philip`> | and then something like 7-8K pages with no doctype being quirks |
| 21:11 | <Philip`> | so actually I do need to change all my string matching and everything before being able to get more useful numbers for that |
| 21:12 | <Philip`> | but still it'll be about half with no doctype, and half of the remainder with quirky doctype |
| 21:16 | <webben> | Philip`: interesting, thanks for that :) |
| 21:21 | <Philip`> | webben: http://philip.html5.org/data/doctypes.txt is the individual counts, after replacing all whitespace by spaces so it displays better |
| 21:26 | <annevk> | sorry, to ABNF |
| 21:26 | <annevk> | oops |
| 21:35 | <Philip`> | http://www.zeldman.com/2008/01/22/in-defense-of-version-targeting/ |
| 21:43 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: "What's wrong with it?" — it belongs in 1999! :P |
| 21:45 | <Hixie> | well i agree it's a bit late, but there's not much i can do about that |
| 21:48 | <gsnedders> | sad that half the comments clearly haven't even read the PR yet alone the spec itself |
| 21:49 | <inimino> | congrats on WD publication, all |
| 21:50 | <gsnedders> | FWIW, for those who don't follow me on Twitter (i.e., most of you): "FPWD of HTML 5 published. Sometimes I wondered if this day would ever come." |
| 21:52 | <Hixie> | you know, i'm amused |
| 21:52 | <Hixie> | when whatwg got slashdotted, the comments were quite positive |
| 21:53 | <Hixie> | e.g. last october when we published html5 |
| 21:53 | <Hixie> | but now that the w3c gets slashdotted, the comments are quite negative |
| 21:53 | <Hixie> | i wonder if maybe we were better off without hte w3c stamp |
| 21:53 | <ray> | maybe you're better off not reading the slashdot comments :) |
| 21:54 | <Dashiva> | Well, there are also the comments saying "Finally Opera and Mozilla and Adobe will have to implementing standards" :) |
| 21:54 | <Dashiva> | *to start |
| 21:56 | <gsnedders> | life in the HTML WG is fun |
| 21:56 | <Philip`> | Has anybody actually told the HTML WG that the spec has been published now? |
| 21:57 | <Hixie> | oh btw, http://www.acidtests.org/ |
| 21:57 | <gsnedders> | I don't think so, actually. |
| 21:57 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: lovin' the references thrown around the page :) |
| 21:58 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: how is "Content-Type" tested in Acid3? |
| 21:58 | <othermaciej> | roc: what sort of comment did you have in mind? |
| 21:58 | <roc> | I dunno |
| 21:58 | <roc> | whether you think it's a good idea |
| 21:58 | <roc> | whether you'll implement it |
| 21:58 | <annevk> | Hixie, nice |
| 21:58 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: several ways |
| 21:58 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: mostly near <object> |
| 21:59 | <roc> | Aaron Gustafson said "I hope other browsers implement this!" so I think it's a good idea to let him know we won't |
| 22:03 | <hdh> | http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/ie8-versioning-mechanism.html label the ALA article as "WASP article" |
| 22:03 | <Philip`> | In IE: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3Cbody%3E%0D%0A%3Cscript%3Edocument.createElement('bar')%3C%2Fscript%3E%0D%0A%3Cfoo%3Efoo%3C%2Ffoo%3E%0D%0A%3Cbar%3Ebar%3C%2Fbar%3E%0D%0A%3Cbaz%3Ebaz%3C%2Fbaz%3E%0D%0A |
| 22:04 | <Philip`> | <bar> gets parsed like a recognised element |
| 22:04 | <Hixie> | woah |
| 22:05 | <Hixie> | freaky |
| 22:05 | <Philip`> | (via http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/01/22/Best-Standards-Support#c1201006277 ) |
| 22:05 | <Hixie> | http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3Cbody%3E%0D%0A%3Cscript%3Edocument.createElement('bar')%3C%2Fscript%3E%0D%0A%3Cfoo%3Efoo%3C%2Ffoo%3E%0D%0A%3Cbar%3Ebar%3C%2Fbar%3E%0D%0A%3Cbaz%3Ebaz%3C%2Fbaz%3E%0D%0A |
| 22:05 | <Hixie> | well well well |
| 22:05 | <Hixie> | this changes matters |
| 22:05 | <annevk> | you're not going to host the tests on acidtests.org? |
| 22:08 | <Hixie> | acid3 probably will be |
| 22:08 | <Philip`> | <script>/* HTML5 compatibility toolkit */ document.createElement('section'); document.createElement('header'); ...</script> |
| 22:10 | <Hixie> | Philip`: actually i'm not sure this really changes much at all, except that it means our life is going ot be way easier |
| 22:11 | <Philip`> | Also excanvas should just do a document.createElement('canvas') instead of its funny tree-reconstruction tricks |
| 22:11 | Philip` | wonders why nobody knew about this before |
| 22:12 | <Philip`> | s/nobody/a very small though non-zero number of people/ |
| 22:19 | <othermaciej> | roc: we usually say more what we *are* going to do (or more specifically what we already *have* done) than what we're not going to do, but I'll see if there is something useful to say |
| 22:19 | <othermaciej> | roc: has anyone from Mozilla posted on the topic? |
| 22:21 | <othermaciej> | roc: for what it's worth, unofficially, we want to stick to just quirks and standards mode and not lock in new modes |
| 22:21 | <roc> | yeah |
| 22:21 | <roc> | I posted |
| 22:21 | <Philip`> | No Dashboard compatibility mode? |
| 22:22 | <roc> | http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2008/01/post_2.html |
| 22:22 | <roc> | http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2008/01/slipping_the_ba.html |
| 22:22 | <roc> | it's not an official position, but Mozilla doesn't usually have official positions :-) |
| 22:23 | <othermaciej> | roc: and I think the whole thing is a bad idea, but I'm not sure publicly criticizing Microsoft's browser strategy is necessarily appropriate for the webkit blog |
| 22:23 | <Philip`> | Is "post_2" just what happens when you auto-URLify "<META HTTP-EQUIV="X-BALL-CHAIN">"? :-) |
| 22:23 | <roc> | something like that yeah |
| 22:23 | <roc> | othermaciej: I understand |
| 22:24 | <roc> | maybe a response in some other forum then |
| 22:24 | <othermaciej> | Philip`: we do also have the Dashboard quirks mode, but I hope that can be phased out because it sucks to have a mode that's not just anti-standards but also anti-web-compatibility |
| 22:25 | <gsnedders> | Dashboard quirks mode? |
| 22:25 | <jacobolus> | Philip`: is there any reason whatsoever for people to use a quirky doctype? |
| 22:25 | <roc> | I didn't really slam their strategy the way others are slamming it. I think it's dumb for them but hopefully it won't affect us too much if we just ignore it. |
| 22:25 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: thanks for the pointer |
| 22:26 | <jacobolus> | Philip`: or do they just do it for fun? |
| 22:26 | <Philip`> | jacobolus: I'd assume (based on no evidence or experience) that most people copy and paste the quirky doctype from somewhere, without understanding what it's for |
| 22:27 | <roc> | but Microsoft and the ALA people were playing it up as some sort of generous cross-browser approach to compatibility and I think we should make it clear it's not |
| 22:27 | <Philip`> | jacobolus: but some people might legitimately want compatibility with IE5.5, so they need to make other browsers act as much like IE5.5 as possible, and they still want to use validators, so they use a quirky doctype |
| 22:28 | <jacobolus> | ah, validators. okay |
| 22:29 | <gsnedders> | They need some way to not break existing content, as so blatantly caused issues with naïve assumptions that all IE versions forever and ever will have the same bugs as happened with IE7 |
| 22:29 | <Philip`> | jacobolus: I've got no idea if anybody actually uses that reason, though |
| 22:30 | <jacobolus> | Philip`: seems like that's a bug in the validator then though; it should just assume no doctype = quirks, no? |
| 22:30 | <Philip`> | jacobolus: The (W3C) validator doesn't know about quirks at all, so it couldn't assume something like that |
| 22:30 | <jacobolus> | Philip`: I guess it just seems surprising that ~half the pages with doctypes would have quirks doctypes, if that does nothing useful |
| 22:32 | <jacobolus> | so does adding quirks doctype do anything useful for the w3c validator? it just treats it the same as any doctype? |
| 22:33 | <gsnedders> | jacobolus: for the spec'd ones, yeah |
| 22:33 | <Philip`> | jacobolus: 98% of pages have <head> even though that does nothing useful (since it's optional and almost never has attributes) |
| 22:33 | <jacobolus> | fair enough :) |
| 22:33 | <gsnedders> | jacobolus: for the non-standards ones it throws an error |
| 22:34 | <jacobolus> | Philip`: but people are told to use <head>. Does anyone recommend using a quirks doctype? |
| 22:36 | <jacobolus> | don't bother answering that. :) |
| 22:37 | <Philip`> | jacobolus: People recommend using HTML4 Transitional, which is quirks |
| 22:38 | <Philip`> | though I've not seen anybody recommending <!DOCTYPE !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC \"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN\"> so that was presumably all down to the site's author |
| 22:42 | <annevk> | heh |
| 22:42 | <jacobolus> | :D |
| 22:42 | <annevk> | i got two comments on HTML5 by private e-mail |
| 22:42 | <annevk> | (from one person) |
| 22:42 | <annevk> | both were CSS requests |
| 22:54 | <annevk> | (got another e-mail from him saying his friend pointed out those were CSS3 features) |
| 22:54 | <jacobolus> | annevk: is http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/ already implemented by opera? |
| 22:55 | <annevk> | no |
| 22:55 | <annevk> | hopefully in due course |
| 22:56 | <jacobolus> | so only upcoming mozilla browsers have it so far? |
| 22:57 | <annevk> | othermaciej, the WebKit blog could say that you don't plan to support this in WebKit |
| 22:58 | <annevk> | jacobolus, yeah, and they have bugs :) |
| 22:58 | <annevk> | (and the spec is still changing slightly now and then :-() |
| 23:00 | <zcorpan_> | Philip`: ie7 skips PIs that start with "<?xml " (last being U+0020)... and then you have the funny > in quotes parsing |
| 23:00 | <zcorpan_> | <?xml "> |
| 23:00 | <zcorpan_> | <?xml ">"> |
| 23:03 | <Philip`> | where "funny > in quotes parsing" means |
| 23:03 | <Philip`> | (?xi) <\?xml [ ] [^>\s]* ( ( \s+ | "[^\"]*" | '[^']*' ) [^>\s]* )* > |
| 23:03 | <Philip`> | ? |
| 23:03 | <Philip`> | Oops |
| 23:03 | <Philip`> | (?xi) <\?xml [ ] [^>\s]* ( ( \s+ | "[^"]*" | '[^']*' ) [^>\s]* )* > |
| 23:04 | <Philip`> | (That's what it seems to do for <!doctype>, and <?xml > looks about the same) |
| 23:05 | <zcorpan_> | well, not sure. ie reparses if you hit an unexpected EOF |
| 23:05 | <zcorpan_> | so <?xml "> might be equivalent to <?xml "> |
| 23:05 | <othermaciej> | vote up HTML5 on reddit: http://reddit.com/r/programming |
| 23:06 | <Philip`> | Is it possible to get an unexpected EOF inside the <?xml..., while still having a doctype and some actual content in your page? |
| 23:07 | <zcorpan_> | possible, yes. likely? no |
| 23:08 | <Philip`> | Hmm, I think I'll be happy enough to ignore the EOF reparsing case :-) |
| 23:08 | <zcorpan_> | sounds reasonable :) |
| 23:09 | <annevk> | roc, nice posts btw |
| 23:09 | <annevk> | I should probably do one with a list of arguments too :) |
| 23:14 | <zcorpan_> | perhaps we should try to make them use an attribute on <html> instead of a meta |
| 23:14 | <Philip`> | That would be invalid HTML4 |
| 23:15 | <zcorpan_> | there's a version='' attribute |
| 23:16 | <Philip`> | Not in Strict |
| 23:17 | <zcorpan_> | hmm, you're right |
| 23:18 | <Philip`> | (I'm only right because I looked it up to check :-) ) |