| 06:45 | <rniwa> | good evening everyone |
| 06:47 | <rniwa> | Hixie: yt? |
| 11:01 | <hsivonen> | people sure paste weird stuff into the comment form on the spec |
| 11:14 | <finnala^> | Like what? |
| 11:17 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: it's almost like the "ctrl-v" thread in various forums |
| 11:18 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: ctrl-v thread? |
| 11:18 | <hsivonen> | finnala^: like an iPhone crash dump |
| 11:20 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: e.g. http://www.webforum.nu/showthread.php?t=108702 |
| 11:22 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: that's a meme I haven't seen before |
| 11:25 | <hsivonen> | http://thecodinghumanist.com/blog/archives/2011/11/15/the-kindle-fire-user-agent-string |
| 11:25 | <hsivonen> | Amazon has the good sense not to put "Android" in their UA string |
| 11:26 | <finnala^> | hsivonen: Sounds like fun reading. |
| 12:01 | <erlehmann> | hsivonen, lies. HNNNNGGG. are there so many sites relying on user agent LIES? |
| 12:02 | <hsivonen> | erlehmann: there seem to be many sites that give feature phone content to browsers that have "Android" in the UA string but that don't match the UA string of the Android stock browser on a well-known device like Nexus One |
| 12:03 | <hsivonen> | the logic seems to be: |
| 12:03 | <hsivonen> | if (UA string that the author tested) { |
| 12:03 | <hsivonen> | iPhone_site(); |
| 12:03 | <hsivonen> | } else if (mobile traits) { |
| 12:04 | <hsivonen> | feature_phone_site(); |
| 12:04 | <hsivonen> | } else { |
| 12:04 | <hsivonen> | desktop_site(); |
| 12:04 | <hsivonen> | } |
| 12:04 | <hsivonen> | and "Android" counts as a mobile trait |
| 12:04 | <erlehmann> | hsivonen, i see their fail and reach for my media queries. |
| 12:05 | <hsivonen> | the user experience of Firefox on tablets goes up tremendously by faking the UA string of desktop Linux Firefox |
| 12:06 | <hsivonen> | my understanding so far is that eliminating the substring "Android" is the key |
| 12:08 | <erlehmann> | hsivonen, is there a concerted effort to KILL AND MAIM javascript frameworks who encourage this stupid UA testing? |
| 12:08 | <hsivonen> | erlehmann: it's probably most often server-side code than JS |
| 12:09 | <erlehmann> | hsivonen, is there a concerted effort to KILL AND MAIM server-side code frameworks who encourage etc. pp.? |
| 12:09 | <hsivonen> | erlehmann: not to my knowledge |
| 14:03 | <jgraham> | AryehGregor: Would it be a problem for you if we move testharness.js and other related bits to its own repo and make it owned by the testing IG rather than the HTMLWG? |
| 14:49 | <karlcow> | MikeSmith: I can't find anymore your demo of Japanese script layout |
| 15:05 | <timeless> | script layout? |
| 15:05 | <timeless> | that reminds me, i was supposed to file a bug about some CJK IMEs today |
| 15:12 | <AryehGregor> | jgraham, it makes sense. Does it have any practical implications either way? |
| 15:21 | <karlcow> | timeless: I remember that Mike Smith had made a demo where you could see the text vertical or horizontal |
| 15:26 | <karlcow> | hmm maybe it was using a rotate on ruby. not sure |
| 15:57 | <jgraham> | AryehGregor: Depending on the setup it might mean that you have to join the IG to push |
| 15:58 | <jgraham> | (at the moment you have to be in HTML or WebApps AIUI) |
| 16:14 | <jarek> | is there any difference between "@namespace blah url(http://blah.com);"; and "@namespace blah 'blah';"? |
| 16:15 | <annevk> | no |
| 16:16 | <annevk> | oh sorry |
| 16:16 | <annevk> | yes |
| 16:16 | <annevk> | the namespace is different |
| 16:16 | <annevk> | if you wanted to ask whether there was a difference between using quotes and the URL function, there is none |
| 16:18 | <jarek> | annevk: I thought that all namespeaces should have URI form, what's the point in allowing strings? |
| 16:19 | <annevk> | we should probably not have allowed the URL function, because it behaves very differently from e.g. background:url(...) |
| 16:19 | <annevk> | while namespaces are URLs |
| 16:19 | <annevk> | they are universally treated as strings |
| 16:19 | <annevk> | they are not resolved |
| 16:20 | <annevk> | and compared codepoint for codepoint |
| 16:20 | <annevk> | very different from URLs |
| 16:21 | <annevk> | e.g. www.w3.org cannot use "/1999/xhtml" as namespace for documents they publish |
| 16:21 | <annevk> | that is distinct from the "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; namespace |
| 16:22 | <jarek> | annevk: I see, thanks for clarification |
| 16:30 | <timeless> | and of course if it wasn't the case that the strings were not resolved, then if w3c had used /1999/xhtml then anyone doing copy+paste would break if they hosted anywhere outside www.w3.org :) |
| 16:37 | <dglazkov> | good morning, Whatwg! |
| 17:13 | <annevk> | morning dglazkov |
| 17:13 | <annevk> | for attributes there's: |
| 17:13 | <annevk> | * remove |
| 17:14 | <annevk> | * create an append |
| 17:14 | <annevk> | and* |
| 17:14 | <annevk> | * change value |
| 17:14 | <annevk> | change value is either by qualified name or namespace and local name |
| 17:15 | <annevk> | create and append is by local name and optionally a namespace and prefix |
| 17:16 | <annevk> | remove is the same as change value |
| 17:20 | <annevk> | Lachy: any progress on wiki updates? |
| 17:22 | <Lachy> | annevk, no. I need to discuss it with AryehGregor and get his help to set it up |
| 17:25 | <annevk> | can you remove the ability for people to register for now? |
| 17:25 | <annevk> | it sucks, but that at least makes http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges useful again and reduces make work for me |
| 18:00 | <Lachy> | annevk, we could probably set up this extension too later. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ConfirmAccount |
| 18:00 | <Lachy> | But I'll go and disable account creation entirely for now |
| 18:43 | <annevk> | thanks hober |
| 18:43 | <annevk> | re: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0705.html |
| 20:20 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: yt? |
| 21:22 | <Hixie> | so the spec has: |
| 21:22 | <Hixie> | [TreatNullAs=EmptyString] attribute DOMString alinkColor; |
| 21:22 | <Hixie> | to which the webidl checker says: |
| 21:22 | <Hixie> | 1 Line 0 of IDL #0:Extended attribute TreatNullAs used on Document.alinkColor without required âStringâ argument. |
| 21:23 | <Hixie> | is that just a webidl checker bug? |
| 21:24 | <timeless> | that *sounds* like a bug |
| 21:25 | <timeless> | dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#TreatNullAs -- The [TreatNullAs] extended attribute MUST take the identifier EmptyString. |
| 21:27 | <Hixie> | yeah that was my conclusion too |
| 21:27 | <Hixie> | ok i'll just ignore for now then |
| 21:51 | <annevk> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2011OctDec/0239.html o_O |
| 21:51 | <zewt> | first-class-citizens only |
| 21:52 | <miketaylr> | O_o |
| 22:09 | <tantek> | annevk - just saw that. shall I take a shot at replying? essentially that for the purposes of more liberal licensing we are pursuing fullscreen outside of the current CSSWG charter, with the intent to contribute to a community group with liberal licensing as described in the draft. |
| 22:10 | <annevk> | tantek: I changed the style sheet |
| 22:10 | <tantek> | since editor-ship hours appear to be one of the limiting factors of W3C spec development, it seems reasonable that editors (who contribute the content) have the right to choose their licensing. |
| 22:12 | <annevk> | tantek: such a reply wfm |
| 22:12 | <tantek> | sure, different style sheet helps |
| 22:12 | <tantek> | ok |
| 22:13 | <glazou> | tantek: you can choose the way you want ; but those terms are not compatible with an AC vote without prior discussion |
| 22:13 | <tantek> | glazou - they are compatible in a CG |
| 22:13 | <glazou> | unburry the tomahawk if you wish |
| 22:13 | <tantek> | expressly noted, please see this for details: http://tantek.com/2011/240/b1/w3c-community-groups-opportunities-suggestions-challenges |
| 22:14 | <glazou> | but this document MUST be changed or nixed right now |
| 22:14 | <annevk> | bullshit |
| 22:14 | <glazou> | it's **curently** under AC vote and PR observation |
| 22:14 | <annevk> | this document isn't |
| 22:14 | <tantek> | glazou - why must the current document be changed? |
| 22:14 | <glazou> | because it lists licensing terms that were never given to ACs |
| 22:14 | <tantek> | I'll repeat: for the purposes of more liberal licensing Anne and I are pursuing Fullscreen outside of the current CSSWG charter, with the intent to contribute to a community group with liberal licensing as described in the draft. |
| 22:15 | <annevk> | glazou: this draft was not developed at the W3C or by the AC |
| 22:15 | <glazou> | fine |
| 22:15 | <tantek> | glazou - that's not a requirement of CGs. |
| 22:15 | <glazou> | then don't put in dev.w3.org |
| 22:15 | <glazou> | then keep it inside CG |
| 22:15 | <glazou> | not in WG charter |
| 22:15 | <tantek> | CGs allow for additional licensing that ACs have never seen before. |
| 22:15 | <glazou> | no problem |
| 22:15 | <glazou> | but it's in WG charter |
| 22:15 | <annevk> | there's other CG documents hosted on dcvs.w3.org |
| 22:15 | <glazou> | and that is currently voted |
| 22:15 | <glazou> | annevk: they're not in WG charter |
| 22:15 | <tantek> | glazou I raised that question in my blog post about CGs a while ago |
| 22:15 | <glazou> | I don't care about other docs |
| 22:15 | <tantek> | so far it is unanswered |
| 22:16 | <annevk> | a couple of words on the charter does not give you ownership of something I wrote glazou |
| 22:16 | <annevk> | that's nonsense |
| 22:16 | <tantek> | above URL |
| 22:16 | <hober> | editing is in a wg charter, two wgs even |
| 22:16 | <tantek> | "How should community groups coordinate (if at all) with existing working groups in areas of overlap?" |
| 22:16 | <glazou> | annevk: you're such a young fanatic not caring about IPR it's something exhausting |
| 22:16 | <glazou> | sometimes |
| 22:16 | <zewt> | ... |
| 22:16 | <glazou> | tantek: that's unanswered ATM |
| 22:17 | <tantek> | glazou and as such, you cannot make conclusive demands. |
| 22:17 | <tantek> | we are in unexplored territory, so Anne and I are exploring. |
| 22:17 | <glazou> | tantek: trust me I can, this item was forwarded by W3C staff |
| 22:17 | <annevk> | glazou: having just skimmed through your email I really do not think I'm the fanatic here |
| 22:17 | <tantek> | glazou - I encourage you to tell that W3C staff person to write their own blog post about it |
| 22:17 | <tantek> | if they can stand by their words in public |
| 22:18 | <tantek> | I certainly did |
| 22:18 | <annevk> | I changed the style sheet and I think I'll go back to Zelda |
| 22:18 | <glazou> | tantek: a blog entry is not communication with the ACs |
| 22:18 | <tantek> | glazou: and private W3C staff communications are an anathema to open standards development. |
| 22:18 | <glazou> | that is NOT enough |
| 22:18 | <glazou> | since this document is in the WG charter |
| 22:18 | <tantek> | a public blog post better helps open standards development than a private email. |
| 22:18 | <glazou> | I will then ask it to be removed from the charter |
| 22:18 | <tantek> | glazou - the charter simply says what the CSS WG *may* work on |
| 22:19 | <tantek> | it doesn't have any jurisdiction on anything outside of CSS WG. |
| 22:19 | <glazou> | and then ACs vote on that also based on IPR |
| 22:20 | <tantek> | glazou, I'll send my explanation about to w3c-css-wg which you are welcome to forward to the W3C staff person |
| 22:20 | <glazou> | and I'll send link to this channel's log |
| 22:21 | <glazou> | thanks for the nice present |
| 22:22 | <annevk> | I'm not sure what you are getting upset about. I didn't even know this was in the CSS WG charter. |
| 22:22 | <annevk> | I only discussed this document and working on the document on the WHATWG list and asked someone for some space to host it. |
| 22:25 | <krijn> | Just checking here: http://twitter.com/krijnhoetmer/status/141281791314108416 wasn't supposed to be a secret, was it? |
| 22:26 | <zewt> | mental note: if I ever want to get lots of people to click a link, put "is this a secret?" next to the URL |
| 22:26 | <krijn> | Yeah, always works :) |
| 22:26 | <annevk> | krijn: dude only in #secrettreehouse |
| 22:26 | <krijn> | I'm banned there! |
| 22:29 | <tantek> | glazou - I prefer discussions of document licensing are done in public forums. |
| 22:29 | <tantek> | hence my blogging about it. |
| 22:29 | <tantek> | I'll add that to my reply to your member-only w3c-css-wg email ;) |
| 22:36 | <tantek> | posted: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2011OctDec/0240.html |
| 22:50 | <tantek> | glazou - FWIW, I do think working with both CGs and more open licenses will help overall W3C draft/group efficiency, including in the CSSWG. There's no reason for GRRRRRs or advocating violence[1]. [1]https://twitter.com/glazou/status/141273032923688960 |
| 23:01 | <annevk> | o_O |
| 23:05 | <Hixie> | http://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/ is live |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | in other news, i just dropped the webrtc part of the whatwg spec |
| 23:12 | <zewt> | what was the problem with that? |
| 23:12 | <Hixie> | w3c forked it and development moved there |
| 23:12 | <zewt> | heh |
| 23:13 | <Hixie> | (but don't forget kids, forking is bad!) |
| 23:15 | <hober> | do as i say, not as i do? |
| 23:17 | <tantek> | Hixie, why not take the positive approach? "W3C forks WebRTC spec, demonstrating the utility of forkability!" |
| 23:19 | <Hixie> | i only have so much positive energy, my snark has to come out somewhere |
| 23:19 | <Hixie> | and #whatwg is it :-) |
| 23:19 | <zewt> | because it's impossible to eliminate the irony from that statement :P |
| 23:22 | <annevk> | tantek: you might not know they made a restrictive fork |
| 23:23 | <annevk> | tantek: only the parts Hixie originally wrote are under the permissive license |
| 23:23 | <annevk> | which is fine in a way, but since that is now the only copy being developed further... |
| 23:23 | <zewt> | it basically looks like they're going "allowing forks is bad, watch, we'll show you why" |
| 23:25 | <zewt> | personally i've come to hate the GPL and use permissive licenses for all of my own open source work, so that sort of thing irritates me in another way (encourages people to use restrictive licenses like the GPL) |
| 23:25 | <tantek> | zewt, yeah |
| 23:25 | <zewt> | (for a weak value of "hate", to be fair; enough that I don't invest myself in GPL projects beyond trivial patches) |
| 23:26 | <Hixie> | GPL isn't have as restrictive as the license they used here, fwiw |
| 23:26 | <zewt> | it isn't restrictive compared to proprietary licenses, but it's very restrictive as an open source license |
| 23:30 | <tantek> | …and I've used up my "arguing with people on the internet" time quota for today: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2011OctDec/0242.html (wasted on member-only space at that :( ) |
| 23:30 | <tantek> | per xkcd.com/386 |
| 23:30 | <tantek> | back to answering #microformats questions. |
| 23:31 | <Hixie> | two e-mails is your quota? man, you're stingy |
| 23:31 | <Hixie> | :-P |
| 23:32 | <Hixie> | tantek: in other news, you heard anything from the chairs about <time> recently? |
| 23:32 | <tantek> | I think we're still on W3C Thanksgiving break |
| 23:33 | <tantek> | or so I thought per https://twitter.com/glazou/status/141273910976069632 ;) |
| 23:33 | <tantek> | Hixie, in all seriousness I was going to ping the public-html list again for people who still have questions/objections to my change proposals, in the hopes of adding more explanation to help convince folks. |
| 23:33 | <Hixie> | is there anyone not convinced? |
| 23:34 | <tantek> | since Sam has requested that I work on building more consensus before calling for consensus on the change proposals |
| 23:34 | <Hixie> | o...k |
| 23:34 | <tantek> | yeah |
| 23:34 | <annevk> | I think there was at least one person who wanted to keep pubdate or some such |
| 23:34 | <Hixie> | ah ok |
| 23:34 | <tantek> | last I saw there was someone with a counter proposal for a global "content" attribute |
| 23:34 | <tantek> | annevk - yes I need to debunk that email |
| 23:34 | <tantek> | / blog post |
| 23:35 | <tantek> | there are people that hypothetically want pubdate but don't seem to have used it in practice |
| 23:35 | <Hixie> | oh lordy, that's all we need |
| 23:35 | <Hixie> | a global attribute for this |
| 23:35 | <annevk> | oh |
| 23:35 | <annevk> | http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/ still says November 4 |
| 23:35 | <tantek> | in practical use, any use of pubdate is supersetted with hAtom |
| 23:35 | <tantek> | e.g. Readability.com parsing/consuming |
| 23:36 | <tantek> | pubdate by itself has only been "theoretically" useful, not actually |
| 23:37 | <tantek> | so that's fine, just need to add more FAQs to the change proposals |
| 23:38 | <tantek> | which is probably a good thing - will hopefully help avert people walking down the same mistaken paths again sometime in the future when context has been forgotten |
| 23:38 | <Hixie> | annevk: yeah, the revert caused a conflict (unsurprisingly), and rather than spend the hours it would take to fix that, i have just made the <time> proposal and stopped doing work on html |
| 23:38 | <Hixie> | annevk: since i have a ton of work on WebVTT and other specs to do instead, it's not a big deal |
| 23:39 | tantek | waits for someone to contact WebMonkey to update everyone on the drama. ;) |
| 23:39 | <Hixie> | tantek: yeah, in practice the expected consumers of pubdate -- namely, search engines -- have used schema.org and microformats instead |
| 23:39 | <Hixie> | tantek: so not much point having pubdate=""... |
| 23:39 | <Hixie> | annevk: i didn't expect it would take quite so long for the chairs to move on the <time> issue though, given how urgently they wanted it reverted |
| 23:40 | <annevk> | ironyfreezone |
| 23:41 | <annevk> | anyway, nn, been a long day :) |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | nn :-) |
| 23:42 | <necolas> | Hixie: am i correct in saying that this is not an option? http://ikelewis.com/the-future.html (the "test" is flawed anyway) |
| 23:43 | <Hixie> | an option? |
| 23:44 | <necolas> | as in, can <img> be repurposed like that in theory? |
| 23:45 | <necolas> | iirc, i was previously told it could not be |
| 23:54 | <Hixie> | <img> parsing is pretty much a lost cause, but we can probably do something else to solve the same use case |
| 23:54 | <Hixie> | <img> used to have a lowsrc="" attribute |
| 23:54 | <Hixie> | not many people used it though so we dropped it |
| 23:55 | <Hixie> | so before readding it or something like it, we'd need to have evidence that people actually want this solved this time :-) |
| 23:58 | <necolas> | Hixie: that's what i thought w.r.t. <img> and wanted to confirm it before people took it too seriously. there is interest in solving the "responsive image" problem, but it's not clear if something like <video> for images (+ use of 'media' attribute) is a good solution. thanks :) |