| 01:24 | <TabAtkins> | heycam: You're spamming my inbox. >_< |
| 01:25 | <heycam> | TabAtkins, sorry. :( couldn't find a way to do the change in bulk all at once... |
| 01:25 | <TabAtkins> | Just ask MikeSmith! |
| 01:25 | <heycam> | ah |
| 01:25 | <heycam> | well, at most 24 more bugs for me to triage, so... |
| 01:32 | <heycam> | bug spam finished |
| 01:32 | <TabAtkins> | GPHemsley: How did you get the idea that :matches() only takes two arguments? I don't see any possible way to do that, unless you're absorbing syntax by example only. |
| 06:53 | <zcorpan> | "The move towards the ReSpec is on purpose - it's the baseline for CG specs." ? |
| 06:55 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Rebasing tracked branches works differently. In theory https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/rebasetrackingreview?review=103 should work, although I seem to be doing it wrong. |
| 06:56 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: o_O |
| 08:22 | <jgraham> | Bah. The spec got less good as documentation when the Location API moved into URL, because now I can't tell which bits are implemented and which bits are future possibilities |
| 08:22 | <jgraham> | Bah. The spec got less good as documentation when the Location API moved into URL, because now I can't tell which bits are implemented and which bits are future possibilities |
| 08:22 | <jgraham> | We really needc to get better at marking things |
| 08:22 | <jgraham> | Somehow |
| 08:43 | <SteveF> | MikeSmith: ping |
| 09:08 | <MikeSmith> | SteveF: hey |
| 09:09 | <SteveF> | MikseSmith: hi can you add users to the w3c github repo? |
| 09:09 | <MikeSmith> | trash |
| 09:09 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 09:10 | <MikeSmith> | (Autocomplete: |
| 09:10 | <zcorpan> | annevk: yt? |
| 09:10 | <SteveF> | MikeSmith: can I ask you to add a few for the html-api-map? |
| 09:18 | <MikeSmith> | yup |
| 09:38 | <SteveF> | MikeSmith: do you need only usernames? or email as well? |
| 09:39 | <MikeSmith> | SteveF: just the usernames |
| 09:41 | <SteveF> | MikeSmith: for https://github.com/w3c/html-api-map can you add asurkov and jasonkiss -thanks and FYI we now have surkov on the editors team which is great |
| 09:42 | <MikeSmith> | SteveF: ah cool yeah, getting him on is great |
| 09:43 | <SteveF> | MikeSmith: yep |
| 09:51 | <MikeSmith> | SteveF: ok, ALex and Jason have push perms for that repo now |
| 09:51 | <SteveF> | MikeSmith: thanks! |
| 11:07 | <annevk> | zcorpan: yeah |
| 11:08 | annevk | curses [v1] |
| 11:11 | <zcorpan> | annevk: i was going to ask about Fetch and CORS-same-origin, context: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2013Jun/0073.html |
| 11:12 | <zcorpan> | annevk: if we want to spec the other way of doing it, a response would need an origin |
| 11:14 | <annevk> | so why do we want a different model there? |
| 11:14 | <annevk> | (interesting testcase btw) |
| 11:14 | <annevk> | (interesting testcase btw) |
| 11:21 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: I can't get that to trigger the rebase, even with having created a duplicate branch with a different name |
| 11:23 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Oh, now I'm getting "failed to check conflicts status" |
| 11:23 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Oh, now I'm getting "failed to check conflicts status" |
| 11:31 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: And this time I got an error message (yay!) |
| 11:31 | <jgraham> | It looks like critic needs to run as a user that git knows about |
| 11:32 | <jgraham> | I can fix, but maybe not right now |
| 11:36 | <zcorpan> | annevk: i don't think we want a different model there |
| 11:36 | <annevk> | zcorpan: I asked bz the same question in the thread |
| 11:37 | <annevk> | I think it'd be nice if we could explain things in terms of Response / CORS Response / Tainted Response (new tentative names) |
| 11:40 | <annevk> | jgraham: how did you tell before? |
| 11:40 | <annevk> | (re: Location) |
| 11:42 | <jgraham> | annevk: Well before there wasn't much new stuff in the spec, right? |
| 11:42 | <jgraham> | It is possible that I'm just confused ofc |
| 11:43 | <Onderhond> | Hey guys. |
| 11:43 | <Onderhond> | Is there any reason why the spec is so strict when it comes to nesting headers/footers in header/footers? |
| 11:44 | <annevk> | jgraham: there's not much new stuff now though |
| 11:44 | <annevk> | jgraham: there's not much new stuff now though |
| 12:21 | <jgraham> | Anyone from Moz. know who the right person to ask about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0216.html is? |
| 12:22 | <jgraham> | annevk: ^ |
| 12:23 | <annevk> | jgraham: see pm, dunno if I can share his email address |
| 12:23 | <annevk> | in public |
| 12:23 | <jgraham> | OK |
| 12:23 | <jgraham> | Thanks |
| 12:23 | <jgraham> | Thanks |
| 12:46 | <codepython777> | anyone knows how to use html5 to validate a page source? |
| 12:47 | <webben> | codepython777: http://validator.nu/ |
| 12:50 | <SteveF> | codepython777: or http://validator.w3.org/nu/ if you are concerned about conforming to HTML5 as against the whatwg living standard |
| 12:58 | <codepython777> | I'm looking to validate html in python or programmatically |
| 12:58 | <codepython777> | validator seems to be asking us not to validate on the webpage |
| 13:03 | <codepython777> | does anyone know if this can be done using html5-python? validation of html5? |
| 13:05 | <gsnedders> | codepython777: Someone implemented such a thing years ago, but it'll be massively out of date now and probably not work |
| 13:06 | <codepython777> | gsnedders: how do i programmatically take a source page (html 5) and validate it? |
| 13:06 | <gsnedders> | codepython777: I'd use the validator.nu code and call into the JVM either using Jython or through the JNI or possibly through some sort of RPC. |
| 13:07 | <codepython777> | gsnedders: you mean run it locally? |
| 13:07 | <gsnedders> | codepython777: Yeah. I mean, if you aren't requesting that much you could use it remotely. |
| 13:08 | <codepython777> | where is the code for it? |
| 13:08 | <gsnedders> | codepython777: http://about.validator.nu/ has stuff about the RESTful API as well as where the code is etc |
| 13:14 | <codepython777> | trying the api, thanks |
| 13:16 | <zcorpan> | Onderhond: what's the use case for such nesting? |
| 13:18 | <Onderhond> | Imagine a newslist in a fat footer? |
| 13:18 | <jgraham> | web-platform-tests needs some sort of basi formatting policy |
| 13:18 | <jgraham> | *basic |
| 13:18 | <jgraham> | Like no trailing whitespace |
| 13:18 | <jgraham> | And no tabs for indentation |
| 13:18 | <GPHemsley> | TabAtkins: Examples do play a big part in how I absorb syntax, yes. But I don't recall seeing anything else to contradict that, either. But, given your reaction, I must have missed something. |
| 13:21 | <zcorpan> | Onderhond: why wouldn't that just be a section in the footer? |
| 13:22 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: why? |
| 13:24 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: To decrease the cognitive burden of reading other people's tests |
| 13:24 | <jgraham> | Also, because trailing whitespace makes for messy diffs |
| 13:24 | <zcorpan> | ok |
| 13:37 | <Onderhond> | zcorpan: it is a section in the footer, but the section has it's own header and footer |
| 13:37 | <Onderhond> | the "read all" link is in the footer fe |
| 13:38 | <Onderhond> | *its |
| 13:38 | <zcorpan> | Onderhond: send that use case to the list |
| 13:40 | <Onderhond> | Will do! |
| 14:45 | <codepython777> | interesting: so validator.nu's own source does not validate! |
| 14:46 | <codepython777> | is there a page in the world that validates on validator.nu? :) |
| 14:50 | <miketaylr> | doubt it |
| 14:51 | <jgraham> | http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fvalidator.nu%2F |
| 14:51 | <jgraham> | "The document validates according to the specified schema(s) and to additional constraints checked by the validator." |
| 15:41 | <dglazkov> | good morning, Whatwg! |
| 16:45 | <TabAtkins> | GPHemsley: I'm just curious as to how you reached that point *at all*. The very first sentence of that section says "taking a selector list as its argument". |
| 16:45 | <TabAtkins> | (It needs a proper grammar definition, I agree.) |
| 17:43 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Retry your rebase? |
| 17:43 | <jgraham> | (might not work still) |
| 17:44 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Still fails. |
| 18:26 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: The two recent reviews should be 30s jobs, FWIW |
| 19:12 | <GPHemsley> | TabAtkins: Without a formal definition, I skipped right to the example. I didn't really read the prose. |
| 19:14 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Try again? |
| 21:16 | <Hixie> | who's a blog admin these days? |
| 21:18 | <Hixie> | GPHemsley: any idea what the "lb" guy is saying, on the wiki account request alias? |
| 21:52 | <GPHemsley> | Hixie: Nope. :) |
| 21:53 | <GPHemsley> | Hixie: (If I haven't addressed something after a few days, it's because I don't know the best way forward—or because I know my preference will differ from yours.) |
| 21:53 | <GPHemsley> | But I'm guessing he needs to update a bunch of things about his initials |
| 21:54 | <GPHemsley> | Hixie: (Which is to say, I tend to handle the easy ones quickly.) |
| 21:55 | <GPHemsley> | Basically: If you follow the instructions, I'll give you your username ASAP. If you don't, I let Hixie get around to it at some point. |
| 21:56 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 22:53 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Rebasing seems to have changed, uh, nothing. |
| 22:53 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Or rather it's now able to track it again, but the commits shown are wrong |