| 01:51 | <RytoEX> | Good evening! Does anyone have any idea why HTML5 no longer supports colspan="0" on the TD element? What was the thought/discussion process that led to that decision? Thanks! |
| 15:28 | <AryehGregor> | zcorpan, currently the spec says to change all existing links that overlap the selection, then make sure the whole selection is a link. So if you do execcommand('createlink', false, 'x') on <a href=y>fo[o</a>b<a href=z>ar</a>ba]z, you get <a href=x>fo[obarba]</a>z. |
| 15:29 | <AryehGregor> | The behavior you describe doesn't make as much sense to me. |
| 15:29 | <AryehGregor> | Likewise, per spec, if you do it on <a href=y>f[]oo</a>, it becomes <a href=x>f[]oo</a>. |
| 15:29 | <AryehGregor> | This matches IE and word processors, IIRC (check comments in spec to be sure). |
| 16:20 | <aho> | are there any browsers which support video files in img tags? (w/o audio of course) |
| 16:21 | <aho> | i'm really tired of those gigantic animated gifs |
| 16:23 | <rillian> | I don't think so |
| 16:56 | <zewt> | that's what <video> is for, not <img>, heh |
| 17:06 | <aho> | zewt, yes |
| 17:07 | <aho> | but it's a fact that people use gifs for this |
| 17:08 | <aho> | video files would be easily 10 times smaller while looking much better |
| 17:08 | <aho> | additionally, they would use less ram |
| 17:08 | <aho> | (gifs are completely decompressed) |
| 17:10 | <Philip`> | Adding a new mechanism for displaying videos wouldn't change any of those facts |
| 17:12 | <zewt> | aho: yes, and that's what <video> is for :) |
| 17:12 | <aho> | well, people use gifs for these things, because many boards only allow images |
| 17:13 | <zewt> | i don't think <img> should be a double for <video> to work around boards not allowing <video> tags yet :) |
| 17:13 | <aho> | yes, idealism is a great thing :> |
| 17:14 | <zewt> | not idealism at all; and on the web platform, impatience is not a great thing :) |
| 17:14 | <zewt> | (also, I don't *want* people to be able to insert videos into their forum signatures) |
| 17:15 | <aho> | but you'd be fine with animated gifs which are 10 times larger? |
| 17:15 | <zewt> | much lower CPU usage |
| 17:15 | <zewt> | vs. firing up a decoder framework |
| 17:15 | <zewt> | (or 100 of them for everyone's separate videosig) |
| 17:17 | <zewt> | video decoders are hardly optimized for dozens of simultaneous 10-frame 128x128 videos |
| 17:19 | <aho> | http://www.lolbrary.com/lolpics/684/rolling-out-the-tarp-fail-6684.gif |
| 17:19 | <aho> | 3,673,639 bytes |
| 17:19 | <zewt> | and if someone puts that in their sig on a forum it should be cleared and they should be banned from setting sigs |
| 17:20 | <aho> | no one used that as sig |
| 17:21 | <zewt> | so? if that shows up for any reason on a forum the person who caused it to show up should be smacked and it deleted, heh |
| 17:21 | <aho> | well, it's from a pure "what people *are* doing" point of view |
| 17:21 | <annevk> | zewt, I think encoding < and > is encouraged by the URI specifications |
| 17:21 | <aho> | just like people are using gigantig png32 images because there isn't anything better |
| 17:22 | <aho> | *gigantic |
| 17:22 | <annevk> | zewt, but the URI specifications, well... |
| 17:22 | <zewt> | so again, if you want <video> support in forums, get it added directly--html shouldn't be smushing all functionality into a single tag so developers don't need to do any work, heh |
| 17:22 | <aho> | if no better alternative is offered, people will continue to use the awful option |
| 17:22 | <zewt> | annevk: i've never read it; really I don't even know why we have separate "URL" and "URI" and the whole thing seems nonsense |
| 17:23 | <aho> | and we're back to idealism. yes, <video> support would be nice :> |
| 17:23 | <zewt> | no, telling developers to implement something isn't "idealism", please stop calling it that |
| 17:24 | <zewt> | annevk: any idea *why* it would encourage escaping them? |
| 17:25 | <aho> | why not? it's "the right way"™ |
| 17:25 | <zewt> | uh, no it isn't |
| 17:25 | <zewt> | how is conflating <img> with <video> "right"? heh |
| 17:25 | <zewt> | or are you saying that doing things the right way is always idealism? heh |
| 17:26 | <aho> | derailed. <video> support everyhwere... that's idealistic.... that's "the right way" |
| 17:26 | <Philip`> | Maybe someone should write a guide to safely whitelisting a subset of <video> (which presumably shouldn't be hard), then point web developers at that |
| 17:26 | <aho> | not the realistic one :> |
| 17:26 | <zewt> | there's nothing at all unrealistic about adding support for a <video> tag to forums which already support <img> and a bunch of other tags |
| 17:27 | <aho> | it's unrealistic to see that kind of change within the next 10 years |
| 17:27 | <aho> | it just wont happen :) |
| 17:28 | <Philip`> | It doesn't need to be supported by every site before it'll be useful |
| 17:28 | <zewt> | adding the tag to phpbb and other forum software should take a few days; a few years for major forum sites to upgrade to it |
| 17:28 | <Philip`> | (unless adding features to browsers, where you need every widely-used browser version to support it before it's useful) |
| 17:28 | <zewt> | (as for proprietary, one-off forums; they're their own problem) |
| 17:28 | <Philip`> | s/unless/unlike/ |
| 17:29 | <aho> | so far some forums support youtube |
| 17:29 | <aho> | that's it |
| 17:29 | <zewt> | you're suggesting either 1: adding a crippled subset of <video> to <img> or 2: massively complicating <img> (forever) so one particular type of website can be lazy, heh |
| 17:30 | <zewt> | of course nobody's using video *yet*, since it's still a mess (codecs) |
| 17:30 | <zewt> | (sledgehammering it into img wouldn't change that) |
| 17:30 | <aho> | you can also put animated svgs into img |
| 17:30 | <aho> | i dont really see the difference |
| 17:30 | <zewt> | heh surprised http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14108 wasn't closed as WONTFIX |
| 17:31 | <aho> | figure out the mime type... do the appropriate thing |
| 17:31 | <aho> | it already does that |
| 17:33 | <zewt> | that's essentially legacy |
| 17:33 | <zewt> | (as far as I'm concerned, anyway) |
| 17:34 | <zewt> | i dunno, but i'd be a bit annoyed if I ran a site allowing embedded images and suddenly users could embed videos, heh |
| 17:36 | <aho> | well... nothing would have changed, really. the only difference is better quality and smaller files |
| 17:36 | <zewt> | and much higher CPU use, and possibly audio |
| 17:36 | <aho> | as i said, there wouldn't be any audio |
| 17:36 | <zewt> | also for the sort of things you want video files for you often want to be able to pause and resume and seek, which img would never give you |
| 17:37 | <aho> | just like there is no js execution for svgs |
| 17:38 | <aho> | pause, resume, seek, audio, etc... gotta use <video> then |
| 17:38 | <zewt> | and unless the codec situation somehow clears up (heh) you'll need some way to supply alternate links with fallback codecs; that'd need site support regardless |
| 17:43 | <aho> | basically, i just hate large animated gifs. that's all there is to it |
| 22:20 | <gsnedders> | Was NaCL ever bundled into Chrome? |
