| 01:24 | <benschwarz> | hey @ Hixie - someone just hit me up on IRC saying "The file http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/images/robots.jpeg has wrong MIME-type text/html. The web-server config have to be corrected." |
| 01:26 | <TabAtkins> | Chrome's network tab says it's image/jpeg. |
| 01:30 | <benschwarz> | TabAtkins: heh. I didn't check |
| 01:31 | <benschwarz> | so does curl |
| 01:31 | <benschwarz> | it also says Content-Language: en-GB-x-Hixie |
| 01:36 | <benschwarz> | TabAtkins: this time next week we get to kick back in sunny Melbourne |
| 02:09 | <TabAtkins> | benschwarz: Yessssss |
| 02:09 | <TabAtkins> | benschwarz: And I found nail polish that appears to be the exact shade of the cssconf.au page background. ^_^ |
| 02:09 | <benschwarz> | we saw ! |
| 02:10 | <benschwarz> | we posted it in our hipchat |
| 02:10 | <benschwarz> | we're thinking a booth setup |
| 02:10 | <benschwarz> | where we get our nails did' |
| 02:10 | <TabAtkins> | +1 |
| 02:22 | <zewt> | hate@hipchat |
| 03:44 | <Hixie> | benschwarz: weird, dunno why they're asking you. anyway, i fixed those earlier today when someone was asking about it. |
| 04:42 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: thanks for the rel="shortcut icon" change. I'll implement it in the validator this week |
| 04:42 | <Hixie> | np |
| 04:42 | <Hixie> | sorry i've been slow recently. i should be back on more reliably next week. |
| 04:43 | <Hixie> | (then i disappear again for a week, iirc) |
| 05:56 | <zcorpan> | hober: http://status.modern.ie/#/ says picture is under consideration. but it's not clear to me if that means anything. looks like they just copy stuff from chromestatus |
| 05:57 | <zcorpan> | hober: also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2014Jan/0037.html |
| 08:21 | <ondras> | can someone please point me to the spec where :host pseudo-class is defined? |
| 08:30 | <MikeSmith> | ondras: TabAtkins |
| 08:31 | <MikeSmith> | scoping spec |
| 08:35 | <ondras> | MikeSmith: okay thanks |
| 08:35 | <ondras> | TabAtkins: ? |
| 08:35 | <MikeSmith> | his spec |
| 08:37 | <ondras> | MikeSmith: well where can I find it then? |
| 08:38 | <Ms2ger> | http://drafts.csswg.org/css-scoping/ |
| 08:39 | <Ms2ger> | zcorpan, re "The harness should do as little as possible."... Didn't you suggest adding the div id=log? :) |
| 08:39 | <Ms2ger> | (I know, not nearly as intrusive as a script) |
| 08:40 | <zcorpan> | Ms2ger: yeah. i realize that adding a div can confuse things, but it's easy to opt-out |
| 08:40 | <Ms2ger> | And we already add the stylesheet, I think |
| 08:40 | <zcorpan> | also it only does that after the tests have finished |
| 08:41 | <Ms2ger> | Anyway, just throwing that out there :) |
| 08:41 | <zcorpan> | at which point it can do whatever, it won't affect the tests' result |
| 08:41 | <zcorpan> | maybe it could inject *report at that point also |
| 08:42 | <Ms2ger> | I think report wants to be running earlier |
| 08:42 | <zcorpan> | yeah |
| 08:42 | Ms2ger | goes back to work |
| 11:45 | <manus> | Hello! I have a couple quick questions around tabindex and various notions of focus, specifically regarding behaviors/rules for overflowed elements.. would here be an appropriate place to ask them? |
| 11:45 | <manus> | I've already done a bit of googling and light reading and testing and am still slightly confused about something. |
| 11:46 | <MikeSmith> | manus: fine to just go ahead and ask here |
| 11:48 | <manus> | Cool, thanks MikeSmith. Is there any defined/documented behavior for keyboard focus (as opposed to "normal" focus) for elements such as scrollable divs? |
| 11:48 | <manus> | I made a jsfiddle here: http://jsbin.com/sizofuse/7/edit?html,output |
| 11:49 | <manus> | and results are surprising, especially when tabindex is involved, and when nesting scrollable divs |
| 11:50 | <manus> | I've noticed browsers implementing different behaviors, and I just wanted to know if there's a part of this that hsa been, or will ever be, standardized |
| 11:50 | <MikeSmith> | SteveF: ↑☃ |
| 11:51 | <MikeSmith> | manus: no clue personally but if you hang out here for a bit somebody might be able to give you an informed answer |
| 11:52 | <manus> | Thanks, MikeSmith! I'll lurk here for a while, though may be away to lunch at some point |
| 11:54 | <jgraham> | So I think that generally the order in which various things get focus is supposed to be standardised, and the focus model itself is getting standardised, although I don't exactly know what would make scrollables different |
| 11:56 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: fyi I landed support to make rel="shortcut icon" checking match the current spec |
| 11:56 | <MikeSmith> | https://github.com/validator/syntax/commit/6befdd67ecf87754fc592cc0ac526d5c9c3c3345#diff-2 |
| 11:56 | <MikeSmith> | and pushed to http://validator.w3.org/nu/ |
| 11:57 | <manus> | jgraham: thanks for a response. I think scrollables have a different notion of focus, in terms of, for example, keyboard scrolling. if you click a div that has scrollable content, does it have "focus" from a standards perspective? are there different kinds of focus in play here? |
| 11:58 | <jgraham> | manus: I don't know too much about this :) |
| 11:58 | <jgraham> | Hixie was working on it, but you will have to wait another 4-5 hours for him to be around, I guess |
| 11:58 | <manus> | jgraham: ok, thanks anyway. :] It's just that current browser implementations don't agree, and I want to file a bug somewhere, but I don't know if this behavior is even specified |
| 11:59 | <jgraham> | manus++ for wanting to file a bug ;) |
| 12:03 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: "Error: Bad value shortcut icon for attribute rel on element link: If the shortcut keyword is present, the rel attribute's entire value must be shortcut icon. The string shortcut is not an absolute URL. " |
| 12:03 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 12:03 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: i follow the message up to the last sentence |
| 12:03 | <MikeSmith> | that's because RDFa I think |
| 12:03 | <zcorpan> | @_@ |
| 12:04 | <MikeSmith> | yeah RDFa tokens in rel to be absolute URLs |
| 12:04 | <MikeSmith> | the checkers emits two separate error messages |
| 12:05 | <MikeSmith> | from two different datatype-checking classes that are unaware of each other |
| 12:05 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: but why doesn't it pretend that "shortcut" is registered keyword? |
| 12:06 | <zcorpan> | it doesn't complain that "icon" isn't a URL |
| 12:07 | <MikeSmith> | right, because it only proceeds with the absolute-URL check if the keyword check fails |
| 12:07 | <MikeSmith> | and if the keyword check fails the code in that class throws |
| 12:08 | <MikeSmith> | I don't have any means after it throws to proceed as if "shortcut" is registered |
| 12:08 | <zcorpan> | ok.. "Bad value icon shortcut for attribute rel on element link: If the shortcut keyword is present, the rel attribute's entire value must be shortcut icon. The string icon is not an absolute URL." |
| 12:09 | <MikeSmith> | hmm that's not good |
| 12:10 | <zcorpan> | ":" seems to pass the URL check |
| 12:11 | <MikeSmith> | sadly, RDFa |
| 12:11 | <MikeSmith> | that passes because it's a valid CURIE |
| 12:12 | <MikeSmith> | per the gigasmic mess that the RDFa specs are |
| 12:13 | <zcorpan> | do you support CURIEs? |
| 12:13 | <MikeSmith> | the W3C service does |
| 12:14 | <MikeSmith> | for whatever attributes where the RDFa says they're allowed |
| 12:15 | <zcorpan> | ;_; |
| 12:15 | <MikeSmith> | yup |
| 12:15 | <zcorpan> | anyway, it'd be nice if the url/curie checker somehow skipped the tokens that are registered keywords |
| 12:16 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I will see if I can make it do that somehow |
| 12:16 | <zcorpan> | maybe ax them out of the list before passing on to that checker or something |
| 12:18 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: rel=":}]%" also validates so it doesn't seem like it checks the url part much |
| 12:21 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: is safe_curie supported? where is that expected instead of curie? |
| 13:34 | <SteveF> | zcorpan: windows Progressive Disclosure Controls http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa511487.aspx |
| 13:40 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: sorry lost my connection for a while |
| 13:41 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: safe_curie is supported yeah |
| 13:42 | <MikeSmith> | and I guess the reason rel=":}]%" validates is because ":}]%" is valid curie per RDFa |
| 13:43 | <MikeSmith> | prefixless curie I guess |
| 13:43 | <MikeSmith> | I vaguely recall something about prefix-lacking curies being allowed in RDFa |
| 13:45 | <MikeSmith> | so anyway I think the validator is not checking ":}]%" as a URL in that case but instead as a curie |
| 13:45 | <MikeSmith> | and the validator considers it a valid curie |
| 13:46 | <MikeSmith> | rightly or wrongly |
| 13:46 | <MikeSmith> | but I think rightly, since I'm just using whatever production for curie is given in the current RDFa spec |
| 16:17 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: the part after the colon is "url" stuff so i figured % was not allowed |
| 18:41 | <annevk> | Realms are actually interesting I just realized. They're a way to get a global without a browsing context... I wonder if that's going to lead to a bunch of issues |
| 18:42 | <annevk> | I think we carefully check for "associated browsing context" mostly. But if we have checks for "associated global" instead that might be trouble |
| 21:32 | <cbiesinger> | Hixie: hey |
| 21:33 | <cbiesinger> | Hixie: I was wondering if there's any progress on https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24724 ? |
| 23:05 | <annevk> | cbiesinger: it came up here the other day, doubt it |
| 23:05 | <annevk> | cbiesinger: Hixie would be available more next week btw |
| 23:06 | <smaug____> | cbiesinger: why would you want to merge microtask and stable state |
| 23:06 | <smaug____> | they are conceptually very different |
| 23:07 | <annevk> | smaug____: to have less concepts |
| 23:07 | <smaug____> | though, perhaps something which is using stable state could use microtask stuff |
| 23:08 | <smaug____> | I can see use cases for running something at the end of the current task |
| 23:08 | <smaug____> | for perf reasons for example |
