| 00:02 | <hober> | alphabetical except for DOMContentLoaded? |
| 00:02 | <annevk> | smola: sorry it's all a bit slow, I'm in the midst of meetings (and should really be asleep now) |
| 00:03 | <annevk> | Hixie: cssom-view should prolly define scroll, dunno about resize |
| 00:03 | <Hixie> | html now says "some spec one day will" or something |
| 00:03 | <annevk> | Hixie: CSS in general really ought to own the whole scrolling concept |
| 00:03 | <jwalden> | hmm; http://www.w3.org/ "Learn how to program Web applications with W3C’s Mobile Web 2 online course" |
| 00:04 | <Hixie> | annevk: i'd hope |
| 02:11 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: yay for http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#events-0 |
| 02:15 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: hmm how come it's not in the multipage version? just didn't regenerate it yet? |
| 07:24 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom-view/#events |
| 07:25 | <zcorpan> | smola: ? |
| 07:26 | <smola> | zcorpan: morning; I just wondered where should I report problems with web-platforms-tests |
| 07:26 | <smola> | GitHub Issues or somewhere else |
| 07:26 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: excellent, cool |
| 07:26 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: done |
| 07:26 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: dunno why it didn't take before |
| 07:26 | <MikeSmith> | thanks |
| 07:27 | <zcorpan> | smola: github issues |
| 07:27 | <smola> | zcorpan: alright, thanks |
| 07:29 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: help http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2014Jan/0014.html |
| 07:31 | <Hixie> | i'm too tired to work out the answer. ask me again tomorrow? :-) |
| 07:31 | <Hixie> | or copy some place in HTML that does it already... :-) |
| 07:32 | <zcorpan> | ok |
| 07:42 | <zcorpan> | i think we want incumbent-settings-object although that's different from xhr |
| 08:30 | <annevk-cloud> | New APIs should not copy from XHR |
| 08:32 | <darobin> | it would be fun |
| 08:34 | <darobin> | element.onmousestatechange = function () { if (element.mouseState !== 17) return; ... } |
| 08:34 | <darobin> | actually, that'd make for a nice April Fool's spec |
| 09:57 | <zcorpan> | annevk-cloud: you may want to review the Beacon spec, i think it has copied much of its stuff from xhr |
| 11:04 | <jgraham> | Wow, even the innerHTML getter seems to be full of interop fail |
| 11:22 | <annevk> | Reliable way to find out about why a feature could not be implemented. Search for the feature and "Boris Zbarsky" |
| 11:22 | <annevk> | jamesr__: so that email is about Event.systemTime |
| 11:23 | <annevk> | jamesr__: if you are just talking about the typedef, I think that could be directly in IDL |
| 11:23 | <annevk> | jamesr__: DOMTimeStamp is defined there too |
| 11:35 | <jgraham> | annevk: heh |
| 11:55 | <SimonSapin> | darobin: careful of Poe's law… |
| 12:02 | <darobin> | SimonSapin: Poe's law is part of what makes it fun :) |
| 13:25 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, fun |
| 13:25 | <Ms2ger> | darobin, you realize that the CSSWG decided to reference an April Fools RFC? |
| 13:26 | <darobin> | Ms2ger: I know, RFC 6919 |
| 13:26 | <darobin> | honestly, I don't understand why referencing that isn't a requirement for all documents |
| 14:04 | <SimonSapin> | april fools or not, the definition of "may wish to" is perfect for this case |
| 16:06 | <Hixie> | SimonSapin: we shouldn't be publishing specs that contain "behaviour which is regarded as ridiculous", and we certainly shouldn't be making compromises to expedite going through W3C process. Though I understand that that is a liability of working with the w3c. |
| 16:09 | <SimonSapin> | Hixie: this was not about W3C process, it was about two working group members that could not agree after endless discussion on a topic that is so minor that is was judged not worth blocking the rest of the spec. |
| 16:10 | <SimonSapin> | IIRC it only affects a handful of code points, and only with broken fonts |
| 16:10 | <jgraham> | There are non-W3C processes where two members couldn't hold the group hostage like that |
| 16:11 | <jgraham> | e.g. anything that is not consensus based |
| 16:11 | <Hixie> | that couldn't happen in the whatwg. the editor gets final say on what the spec says. |
| 16:11 | <Hixie> | it's only because of the w3c's unhealthy obsession with "consensus" that it could happen |
| 16:11 | <Hixie> | what jgraham said. |
| 16:12 | <SimonSapin> | well, the two in this case are co-editors |
| 16:13 | <Hixie> | ah, well. there are whatwg specs with co-editors. but i think that's a mistake. |
| 17:25 | tantek | dials into HTMLWG telcon, hears discussion of longdesc. What year is it? |
| 17:25 | <Ms2ger> | You're dialing into an HTMLWG telcon |
| 17:25 | <Ms2ger> | 2001? |
| 17:27 | <annevk-cloud> | Sounds like someone is looking for a support forum |
| 17:36 | <Domenic_> | where should i direct web developers asking for background on "what is this DRM hubbub with the w3c" |
| 17:36 | Ms2ger | sticks his head in the sand |
| 17:36 | <Domenic_> | all i can think of is a few brendan eich posts which IIRC kind of assume you know what's going on already |
| 17:38 | <tantek> | Domenic_ - you could direct them to W3C blog posts on the subject |
| 17:42 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic_: http://longtermlaziness.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/the-w3c-is-a-restaurant/ |
| 17:47 | <tantek> | good post MikeSmith |
| 17:49 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: thanks I paid David Bruant to write it and then he still managed to only get 80% of it right |
| 17:50 | <MikeSmith> | but I think I got good value for my money |
| 17:50 | <tantek> | it's a decent analogy |
| 17:53 | <Hixie> | it's a decent analogy except many restaurants would correctly turn away someone who came in waving a confederate flag or wearing a KKK hat |
| 17:54 | <Ms2ger> | Which reminds me that I noticed this morning that my university buys boxes of white chalk with "K" all along the outside |
| 17:54 | <Ms2ger> | And they are just wide enough to put three K's side by side |
| 18:04 | <jgraham> | It's a terrible analogy |
| 18:04 | <MikeSmith> | Ms2ger: don't bring that box into the restaurant that Hixie mentions. They might misunderstand. Especially if you stand on the box and wave your confederate flag. |
| 18:04 | <jgraham> | Argument by naology generally is |
| 18:04 | <jgraham> | *analogy |
| 18:04 | <Ms2ger> | MikeSmith, or they might laugh at me. It's not a large box :) |
| 18:05 | <jgraham> | At a resturant the resturant is in full control over the food + etc. The W3C isn't like that at all |
| 18:07 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: put your money where your mouth is and pay David to write your side of the story |
| 18:08 | <jgraham> | Personally I see the W3C as like a standards organisation. One that has hired a lot of people who want to keep their jobs and so is likely to take decisions that will maintain its sources of income. |
| 18:09 | <MikeSmith> | well that sounds pretty unique |
| 18:09 | <MikeSmith> | there aren't much organizations like that |
| 18:09 | <MikeSmith> | sounds pretty crazy |
| 18:09 | <Ms2ger> | Do you like your job? ;) |
| 18:10 | <MikeSmith> | you want me to answer that question honestly? |
| 18:10 | <MikeSmith> | wait |
| 18:10 | <MikeSmith> | remind me what's my job |
| 18:11 | <Ms2ger> | Talking to monks |
| 18:11 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: Fortunately the preponderance of other organisations that work in similar ways — not all of them standards organisations, even! — makes it easy to understand the W3C by comparison to the behaviour of those other organisations with which we are more familiar in my model. No such thing can be said of the "resturant" model. |
| 18:13 | <MikeSmith> | but I like David's restaurant |
| 18:13 | <MikeSmith> | you're right that all analogies suck |
| 18:13 | <MikeSmith> | some just suck less than others |
| 18:14 | <astearns> | a restaurant is not a for-profit organization? |
| 18:15 | <astearns> | arguments by analogy devolve pretty quickly to arguments over the analogy |
| 18:15 | <MikeSmith> | astearns: that's a feature |
| 18:17 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: it's sometimes hard to find anybody who's made a point reasonably well who's not resorted to using an analogy |
| 18:18 | <SteveF> | MikeSmith: "remind me what's my job" MPAA fluffer |
| 18:21 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: I dunno, it's usually just a case of waiting for hsivonen |
| 18:24 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: oh but as I recall hsivonen recently got accused of using a bad analogy |
| 18:25 | <MikeSmith> | "emotive" even |
| 18:26 | <smola> | I feel like some cases in URL parsing in browsers were implemented just as an amusement... |
| 18:26 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: Hmm, point |
| 18:26 | <jgraham> | I had forgotten that. Too much ice cream I guess. |
| 18:26 | <smola> | %ef%bc%85%ef%bc%94%ef%bc%91.com -> \uff05\uff14\uff11.com (%41 in full-width characters) -> %41.com -> a.com |
| 18:26 | <Domenic_> | annevk-cloud: is Mozilla at least implementing the URL spec's parsing algorithm? |
| 18:32 | <MikeSmith> | SteveF: applied for that job but was told another prominent WG member had already taken it. so oh well |
| 18:33 | <MikeSmith> | Ms2ger: btw I think that guy wasn't really a monk. Look at his shoes. |
| 18:34 | MikeSmith | goes back to fiddling with the w3c-test.org server to make CSS WG drafts disappear |
| 18:36 | <Hixie> | oh, bummer |
| 18:36 | <Hixie> | SimonSapin's bug about charset="" is next on my list |
| 18:36 | <Hixie> | quick, someone give me an excuse to do something else |
| 18:38 | <SimonSapin> | smola: amazing. Does it work across browsers? |
| 18:38 | <Hixie> | i guess i should jsut do all the CSSOM bugs at once |
| 18:38 | <smola> | SimonSapin: yes it does |
| 18:38 | <smola> | SimonSapin: Chrome and Firefox at least |
| 18:39 | <SimonSapin> | annevk-cloud: I don’t know if that’s in the URL spec ^ |
| 18:39 | <SimonSapin> | not sure it should, either |
| 18:39 | <smola> | it isn't, I'm reporting it |
| 18:41 | <smola> | %ef%bc%85%ef%bc%94%ef%bc%91.com is even weirder |
| 18:41 | <smola> | SimonSapin: well, I can hardly imagine how can you get \uff05\uff14\uff11.com (manually entering %41.com instead of a.com in a CJK system)... but the second case, |
| 18:41 | <smola> | (swap the order of these sentences :p) |
| 18:42 | <smola> | I wonder if browsers work on any number of iterations of this encoding |
| 18:43 | <smola> | nope, if you repeat the process they do not work |
| 18:54 | <smaug____> | annevk-cloud: ping |
| 18:56 | <annevk-cloud> | Not today, sorry |
| 19:05 | <Hixie> | SimonSapin: ping https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24205 -- are we talking at cross-purposes? I don't understand your last comment. |
| 19:07 | <SimonSapin> | Hixie: as I understand the algorithm in the current spec, <meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="fr and some random stuff"> will set the language to "fr" |
| 19:07 | <Hixie> | right |
| 19:07 | <Hixie> | that is as intended |
| 19:07 | <Hixie> | why would we not want that? |
| 19:08 | <SimonSapin> | I’d rather have it not set the language, like when there is a comma |
| 19:08 | <SimonSapin> | and I think browsers do that |
| 19:09 | <Hixie> | browsers seem to set it to the whole string |
| 19:09 | <Hixie> | as in "fr and some random stuff" |
| 19:10 | <Hixie> | the reason for aborting when there's a comma is that if there's a comma, it indicates the pragma is being used in some way like the HTTP header, and not like the pragma, and therefore doing anything with it is going to be bogus. |
| 19:11 | <SimonSapin> | ok, I got my testing wrong |
| 19:11 | <SimonSapin> | Chrome uses the whole thing, but not firefox |
| 19:13 | <SimonSapin> | well if that’s intentional, ok |
| 19:13 | <Hixie> | i can't tell if firefox is using content-language at all |
| 19:14 | <SimonSapin> | yes data:text/html,<meta http-equiv="content-language" content="fr"><style>body:lang(fr){background:green |
| 19:15 | <SimonSapin> | Hixie: I’m happy with just adding a note "Ignore the rest of the string" to show that this is intentional |
| 19:16 | <Hixie> | ah, typo in my test |
| 19:16 | <Hixie> | looks like firefox is setting the language to _seomthing_ when you have a bogus content-language |
| 19:16 | <Hixie> | but i can't work out what |
| 19:16 | <Hixie> | it's not "und", it's not leaving it set to the previous value |
| 19:16 | <SimonSapin> | "Ignore the rest of <var>input</var>" |
| 19:16 | <Hixie> | maybe "" but :lang() can't match that? |
| 19:16 | <Hixie> | k |
| 19:16 | <SimonSapin> | no, :lang() only takes idents, not strings |
| 19:16 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: As I just wrote on GitHub, uh, yeah, firstChunk is going to be horrible. |
| 19:17 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: Maybe we should just go for special-casing every single thing that's broken :( |
| 19:17 | <Hixie> | SimonSapin: right, but i'm trying to figure out how we could determine what the language was otherwise |
| 19:17 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: Could try avoid reading at all by doing isinstance(source, io.TextIO)/etc. |
| 19:17 | <Hixie> | not that it really matters |
| 19:17 | <Hixie> | but i presume it's internally the empty string |
| 19:18 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: But that doesn't work in general. But at least avoids hitting 200007 in Python 3. |
| 19:18 | <SimonSapin> | gsnedders: hum, do we really care about unicode streams? :) |
| 19:19 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: Yes. Consider TEXT fields in a database, for example. |
| 19:21 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: (Avoids hitting 200007 with urllib.response.HTTPResponse in Python 3, that is.) |
| 19:23 | <Hixie> | "When a ProcessingInstruction node node is inserted to a document, removed from a document, becomes part of the prolog, is no longer part of the prolog, ..." |
| 19:23 | <Hixie> | don't the first two there subsume the last two entirely? |
| 19:28 | <Ms2ger> | Hixie, can it become part of the prolog by removing a node from before it? |
| 19:59 | <Hixie> | Ms2ger: i guess you could remove the root element? |
| 19:59 | <Hixie> | Ms2ger: but it'd still be part of the document... |
| 20:00 | <Ms2ger> | I dunno, what's the prolog? :) |
| 20:00 | <Ms2ger> | Except a sucky programming language |
| 20:02 | <jarek> | are there any plans to have standarized UI guidelines? |
| 20:02 | <jarek> | I mean something more advanced than CSS3 UI spec |
| 20:03 | <Ms2ger> | In general, browsers compete on UI |
| 20:04 | <jarek> | e.g. something akin to Human Interface Guidelines |
| 20:04 | <jarek> | by Apple |
| 20:05 | <jarek> | yeah, Mozilla works on pseudo-standard components in form of x-tags |
| 20:05 | <jarek> | and Google works on Polymer widgets |
| 20:06 | <jory> | Is there a spec re: viewport meta tag behaviour, or is it still just something that everyone kind of has implemented the same way? |
| 20:06 | <Ms2ger> | There's something in css |
| 20:07 | <Ms2ger> | http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-device-adapt/ |
| 20:09 | <jory> | Thanks Ms2ger |
| 20:12 | <jory> | One thing that I don't think is covered is the behaviour of the browser when the tag is added after the document has loaded. |
| 20:13 | <Ms2ger> | Quite possible |
| 20:13 | <jory> | Such edge cases. Many behaviours. |
| 20:14 | <Ms2ger> | Wow? |
| 20:15 | <jory> | Quite wow. |
| 20:15 | <jory> | heh |
| 21:37 | <zcorpan> | https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24257 is crazy |
| 21:52 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: being part of the document isn't enough to make xml-stylesheet "work". it needs to be in the prolog. hence the need to run the steps again if the root element is moved |
| 21:53 | <Hixie> | the steps run regardless of whether it's in the prolog |
| 21:54 | <Hixie> | and the steps don't mention the prolog |
| 21:54 | <Hixie> | (i filed a bug on this btw) |
| 21:55 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: it's mentioned in the xml-stylesheet spec |
| 21:56 | <Hixie> | xml-ss overrides cssom somehow? |
| 21:56 | <zcorpan> | no |
| 21:56 | <zcorpan> | cssom says "If node is not an xml-stylesheet processing instruction, terminate these steps." |
| 21:56 | <zcorpan> | -> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/#dt-xml-stylesheet |
| 21:57 | <zcorpan> | -> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/#dt-potential-xml-stylesheet |
| 21:57 | <zcorpan> | apologize for the infoset gibberish, but it's there |
| 21:58 | <zcorpan> | <root/><?xml-stylesheet?> isn't an "xml-stylesheet processing instruction" |
| 21:58 | <Ms2ger> | Sounds like we need an xmlss.spec.whatwg.org ;) |
| 21:59 | <zcorpan> | it would have been less painful than doing it in the xml core wg |
| 22:18 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: oh. then why the bit about the document? |
| 22:20 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: hmm. maybe it's not necessary |
| 22:22 | Ms2ger | wonders if jgraham feels like making a graph of the number of open w-p-t reviews |
| 22:26 | <zcorpan> | if i remove that, i can also remove the "part of the doctype" check (i guess it was no-op already since dom doesn't support that) |
| 22:34 | <zcorpan> | hmm. dvcs down :-( |
| 22:34 | zcorpan | tries again tomorrow |
| 22:40 | <Ms2ger> | MikeSmith, ^ |
| 22:51 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: do we really want to refetch <link rel=stylesheet> if type="text/css" is added or removed? |
| 22:51 | <Hixie> | (given that the default is text/css?) |
| 22:51 | <Hixie> | also, are you handling _all_ rel=stylesheet links? including e.g. xslt? |
| 22:52 | <Hixie> | or should i only send you type=text/css ones? |
| 22:53 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: re first question, maybe not |
| 22:54 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: cssom only handles css. though xslt doesn't work with <link> |
| 22:54 | <Hixie> | i'm pretending that there might be some other style sheet language some day |
| 22:55 | <Ms2ger> | Why? |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | i'll only send you the stuff if it's text/css. that means i'll keep the quirk, btw. |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | why what? |
| 22:56 | <zcorpan> | why do you need to keep the quirk? |
| 22:57 | <Ms2ger> | <Hixie> i'm pretending that there might be some other style sheet language some day |
| 22:57 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: because i can't send it to you until i know it's css, and i don't know it's css until i've applied the quirk |
| 22:57 | <Hixie> | Ms2ger: seems like the responsible thing to do |
| 22:58 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: ok |
| 23:02 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: bedtime for me, but feel free to dump questions here, i'll check tomorrow |
| 23:03 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: roger |
| 23:03 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: nn |
| 23:03 | <zcorpan> | night |
| 23:16 | <Hixie> | is there a "destroy a css style sheet"? hmm... |