| 00:21 | <Hixie> | didn't we decide, like, ten years ago, that the "$" syntax in selectors was a bad idea and :matches()/:has() were a better solution? |
| 00:23 | <TabAtkins> | I thought so, yes. |
| 00:24 | <Hixie> | someone should tell fantasai |
| 00:24 | <TabAtkins> | I plan to. |
| 00:24 | <Hixie> | excellent |
| 00:24 | TabAtkins | is writing ALL THE EMAILS today. |
| 00:24 | <TabAtkins> | Fridays are often my most productive day, in terms of emails written. |
| 00:24 | <TabAtkins> | It's the promise of free beer at the end that does it. |
| 00:27 | <hober> | indeed |
| 02:30 | <michaelw> | HTML5 chapter 3.4 used to have a section on innerHTML, where'd that go? |
| 02:42 | <Hixie> | michaelw: DOM Parsing |
| 02:42 | <Hixie> | michaelw: there's a link in the spec, search for [DOMPARS |
| 02:43 | <michaelw> | ah, thanks! |
| 02:43 | <michaelw> | Hixie: the fragment parsing algo is in both documents? |
| 02:43 | <Hixie> | fragment parsing is in HTML |
| 02:44 | <Hixie> | DOM Parsing references HTML and vice versa |
| 02:44 | <michaelw> | Hixie: DOMPARSING, sec 3.1 reads: "The following steps form the fragment parsing algorithm" |
| 02:44 | <Hixie> | (not sure why it was split out, but if people want to take over fixing parts of tehe spec, i'm not one to complain :-) ) |
| 02:44 | Hixie | looks |
| 02:45 | <Hixie> | that's a bit confusing, but it's not duplicated |
| 02:45 | <Hixie> | the DOM Parsing spec defines the "fragment parsing algorithm" |
| 02:45 | <Hixie> | HTML defines the "HTML fragment parsing algorithm", which the DOM Parsing one references |
| 02:46 | <michaelw> | ah, I see |
| 02:51 | <michaelw> | Hixie: nodes that come from the HTML fragment parsing algorithm have as owner document the document created for that algorithm, correct? |
| 02:54 | <Hixie> | come again? |
| 02:56 | <michaelw> | the fragment parsing algorithm creates a new document in step 1, node that are then created by the parser with the fragment algo have that document as owner document. |
| 02:56 | <Hixie> | ah, then yes. |
| 02:56 | <michaelw> | hmm |
| 02:57 | <Hixie> | it's almost certainly changed by the caller of the algorithm though. |
| 02:57 | <Hixie> | e.g. the one in DOM Parsing does some adoption to a DocumentFragment from some other document, iirc |
| 02:58 | <michaelw> | yeah, thought so, but where is that written? |
| 02:58 | <michaelw> | aha |
| 02:59 | <michaelw> | DOM4 says "Nodes are implicitly adopted across document boundaries." |
| 02:59 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 03:05 | <michaelw> | Hixie: the above appears to imply there is no way that a node ends up in one document and has an ownerdocument of another? |
| 03:05 | <michaelw> | er, what happened to my grammar |
| 03:06 | <michaelw> | I meant "ends up in one document and has a different owner document" |
| 03:08 | <Hixie> | correct |
| 07:01 | <annevk> | is anyone working on fullscreen already? |
| 07:01 | <annevk> | maybe I should start doing that soonish |
| 10:19 | <annevk> | Ms2ger, do you also think DOM4 should import all of the event loop stuff? |
| 10:20 | <Ms2ger> | If it's necessary, I guess yes |
| 10:24 | <annevk> | I wonder if that can be done without getting some dependency |
| 10:25 | <Ms2ger> | I think someone at Mozilla was working on fullscreen... |
| 10:26 | <Ms2ger> | Did you see http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/dc.html, btw? |
| 10:27 | <Ms2ger> | tantek, probably |
| 10:28 | <annevk> | okay, that works for me, just someone has to do it already |
| 10:28 | <annevk> | the WebApps WG agreed? |
| 10:28 | <annevk> | why is this deviating from our normal CfC? |
| 10:29 | <annevk> | oh well, at some point that'll blow up |
| 10:29 | <annevk> | some pretty poor communication with the rest of the WG |
| 10:35 | <annevk> | DOM4 has only a couple issues left |
| 10:35 | <annevk> | that's nice |
| 10:36 | <annevk> | should prolly look again into event handlers to see what the options are |
| 15:53 | <BenoitRen> | Hi everyone. |
| 15:54 | <BenoitRen> | I made this page a couple years ago when the HTML5 dialog element wasn't deprecated yet: http://www.pscave.com/pso/script/battletraining.shtml |
| 15:55 | <BenoitRen> | The spec has since dropped the element and recommended a different way to mark up conversations. But it doesn't work for this instance. |
| 15:56 | <BenoitRen> | A large part of the game script doesn't consist of conversations, but of monologues, which are often given in parts. Like when you first talk to A, (s)he says X, and when you talk to him/her a second time, (s)he says Y. |
| 15:57 | <annevk> | You should probably change it still as <dialog> is going to mean something else |
| 15:57 | <BenoitRen> | Oh, I do want to change it. My problem is that I don't know how. :( |
| 15:58 | <BenoitRen> | As it's HTML4, I didn't actually use the dialog element, but dl along with its siblings. |
| 15:58 | <BenoitRen> | It's the same idea, of course. |
| 15:59 | <annevk> | If http://www.whatwg.org/C#conversations does not work for you could you maybe file a bug on the specification? |
| 16:00 | <annevk> | You can ask e.g. if an example can be added for your specific scenario |
| 16:04 | <BenoitRen> | Yes, I guess I can do that. |
| 16:16 | <BenoitRen> | Comment submitted. I hope it was sent, as I don't see a confirmation. |
| 16:17 | <Ms2ger> | BenoitRen, http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14353 |
| 16:18 | <BenoitRen> | Ms2ger: Thanks. :) |
| 16:39 | <annevk> | thanks BenoitRen |
| 16:39 | <BenoitRen> | No problem, annevk. |
| 17:30 | <BenoitRen> | I just remembered something else. Is there a guideline for marking up a message board? I've been struggling with that for ages. |
| 18:44 | <BenoitRen> | Bye. |