| 00:03 | <Hixie> | what should happen when you have a dialog with two subdialogs, one of which is always focused, and you call .blur() on that focused subdialog? |
| 00:03 | <Hixie> | i'm leaning towards "do nothing". |
| 00:04 | <Hixie> | similarly, what should happen when you try to blur() the first control in a dialog? |
| 00:04 | <Hixie> | (if you blur() the second control, the first gets focus) |
| 00:04 | <Hixie> | (if you blur() a control not in a dialog, the viewport gets focus) |
| 00:04 | <Hixie> | (if you blur() a dialog that has sibling form controls, they get focus) |
| 00:45 | <Hixie> | ok, i'm about 50% done. |
| 00:45 | <Hixie> | still got to do the APIs, and managing DOM mutations (like the currently focused control being removed or made inert dynamically) |
| 01:06 | <SimonSapin> | Most non-annotated arrows represent "subclassing", eg. a block box is both block-level and a block container |
| 01:07 | <SimonSapin> | the XORs don’t really make sense, but eh, I only drew that during my fifth reading of the spec |
| 01:54 | <SamB> | did you guys HAVE to require that damned T between the date and the time? |
| 01:56 | <TabAtkins> | It's useful to match iso8601 <http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime>;, so yes. |
| 02:34 | <Hixie> | SamB: require where? |
| 02:35 | SamB | just doesn't think that counts as human-readable |
| 02:35 | SamB | greatly prefers a space between the date and the time |
| 02:35 | <SamB> | Hixie: in datetimes |
| 02:36 | <Hixie> | like in <time>? |
| 02:37 | <SamB> | well, essentially, http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/datatypes.html#form.data.datetime-local |
| 02:37 | <Hixie> | jesus wept, don't read the w3c version |
| 02:38 | <Hixie> | wait that's not even the w3c spec |
| 02:39 | <gavinc> | SamB: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/common-microsyntaxes.html#local-dates-and-times or http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#valid-local-date-and-time-string is what your looking for |
| 02:39 | <Hixie> | SamB: i recommend reading an actual normative spec, ideally the whatwg one. :-) |
| 02:39 | <Hixie> | where in the whatwg one does it require a T for something author-written? |
| 02:40 | <SamB> | I did think that seemed odd |
| 02:40 | <SamB> | ah, okay, that looks a lot nicer now |
| 02:40 | SamB | glares at google |
| 03:11 | SamB | grumbles about heathens with their weeks that start on monday |
| 03:13 | <SamB> | you know, I don't see a definition for Monday ;-P |
| 10:40 | <Ms2ger> | Hixie, you would mark things as "at risk" because if they don't get implemented, you would theoretically not be able to get the spec to rec, which is when you get the patent protection |
| 15:44 | <Ms2ger> | http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/164131 |
| 15:47 | <mathiasbynens> | where did the “8.8 million lines” number come from? https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/commit/0e1e0ebf18aaac177366c797cfb1ae11011e55a1 lists 399 deletions |
| 15:51 | mathiasbynens | never gets inside jokes |
| 16:58 | <Ms2ger> | foolip, btw, if you ever feel like giving audio_004.htm and friends better names, go for it ;) |
| 17:36 | <SimonSapin> | mathiasbynens: This, I guess http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/16/google-has-already-removed-8-8m-lines-of-webkit-code-from-blink/ |
| 17:41 | <mathiasbynens> | SimonSapin: hah, got it |