| 06:35 | <zcorpan> | "Polyglot markup begins a comment with either "<!" or "<!--"." |
| 06:36 | <zcorpan> | <! polyglot is easy !> |
| 10:48 | <SteveF> | zcorpan: are we reaching some agreement re summary/details? |
| 10:59 | <zcorpan> | SteveF: maybe |
| 11:04 | <krit> | zcorpan: ping |
| 11:04 | <zcorpan> | krit: pong |
| 11:04 | <krit> | zcorpan: Do you think you need to do more edits on DOMPoint, Quad, Rect on http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/geometry/Overview.html? |
| 11:05 | <krit> | zcorpan: otherwise I finish the DOMMatrix stuff and we are closer to FPWD, what do you think? |
| 11:08 | <zcorpan> | krit: we might want to fix https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24219 although i guess it doesn't need to block fpwd. i also recall some markup bugs in the switch to bikeshed but same there |
| 11:09 | <krit> | zcorpan: didn't know that we have a bug tracker for the spec already :P |
| 11:09 | <zcorpan> | krit: the spec links to it :-) |
| 11:09 | <krit> | zcorpan: :O |
| 11:10 | <krit> | zcorpan: I will go over the issues before asking for FPWD |
| 11:30 | <zcorpan> | krit: there's little incentive to implement mathml if the geometry spec doesn't use it :-P |
| 11:31 | <krit> | zcorpan: :) |
| 12:11 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25140 stevef proposes <details><summary id=x> <label for=x>Foo</label> </summary> ... </details> for giving a label to the disclosure triangle to get a bigger click area |
| 12:14 | <SteveF> | Hixie: zcorpan: and also to provide an unambiguous accessible name for the triangle when summary includes controls with their own label text |
| 13:58 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: pushed some rel-handling updates to http://validator.w3.org/nu/ |
| 13:59 | <MikeSmith> | saner error messages for rel="icon shortcut" etc |
| 14:02 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: does it just never mention anything about url/curie? just say that it's not registered? |
| 14:03 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: yeah never mentions |
| 14:03 | <MikeSmith> | only says "keyword not registered" |
| 14:03 | <zcorpan> | clever |
| 14:05 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: the curie support means that a url will basically always be treated as a curie (except if the scheme doesn't match Name) right? |
| 14:05 | <MikeSmith> | hmm yeah |
| 14:06 | <MikeSmith> | I guess it does |
| 14:06 | <MikeSmith> | hadn't thought about that |
| 14:06 | <MikeSmith> | but dunno anyway to get around it given the rdfa requirements |
| 14:07 | <zcorpan> | i think that was pointed out as a flaw way back when curie was a thing, but the response was safe_curie which didn't actually fix the problem |
| 14:07 | <zcorpan> | the whole thing is just a fuckup |
| 14:07 | <jgraham> | People still care about RDFa? |
| 14:07 | <jgraham> | Who knew |
| 14:07 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: yeah safe_curie which is now "deprecated" |
| 14:08 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: I don't care but I have to make the validator care |
| 14:08 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: now that'll fix the problem :-) |
| 14:08 | <scor> | jgraham: http://schema.org/LocalBusiness (see examples at the bottom) |
| 14:08 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: One would hope you only have to make the validator care if people care. But I suppose it is also possible that people think that other people care (but those other people don't actually) |
| 14:09 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: I guess you haven't had any time to look at the unstable tests? |
| 14:10 | <jgraham> | (not a criticism of course, just a question) |
| 14:10 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: no, sorry |
| 14:10 | <zcorpan> | i was busy eating chocolate |
| 14:10 | <jgraham> | OK, I guess I will have another look at some |
| 14:10 | <jgraham> | heh |
| 14:11 | <jgraham> | I am bothered by the ones that always seem to be unstable in automation and always seem to work fine on my machine |
| 14:11 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: I only care because otherwise my fan-mail stream gets tainted with "why you no rdfa" screeching |
| 14:13 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: so I guess I don't need to have the code even do any valid-url check at all in this case, since it's already first checking if the tokens are valid curiess |
| 14:13 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: i think so |
| 14:17 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: ok sad but I guess that'll make the code slightly happier since it hates dealing with rdfa so much I have to always manhandle all the rdfa handling into it |
| 14:18 | <MikeSmith> | I think this guy is reading my mind https://twitter.com/mqsiuser/status/452085394813636609 |
| 14:19 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders might also find that more acutely relevant |
| 14:22 | <jgraham> | That's an amazing non-sequitr in that post |
| 14:22 | <jgraham> | I *didn't* study computer science and still got the same outcome |
| 14:25 | <Ms2ger> | ...wat |
| 14:26 | <jgraham> | ? |
| 14:27 | <zcorpan> | so that means everyone will have to work with w3c's bullshit standards for decades. since everyone will either have studied computer science, or not |
| 14:27 | <Ms2ger> | The tweet |
| 14:28 | <zcorpan> | but that's silly and therefore jgraham is a fool |
| 14:28 | <jgraham> | I think that it means that the existence of Bullshit W3C Standards, and your choice of whether to work with them or not, are mostly independent of your choice of degree |
| 14:28 | <MikeSmith> | it's the double hurt of him both wasting his time studying computer science and then having to try to apply that science to teach his computer how to handle RDFa |
| 14:29 | <MikeSmith> | his computer keeps saying But this is not science you promised me science |
| 14:29 | <jgraham> | You would have thought that computers, out of all entities, would know that computer science is not science |
| 14:30 | <MikeSmith> | and clearly he's talking about RDFa there even tough maybe he's not even read the RDFa "family of specifications" yet |
| 14:30 | <jgraham> | It's like a highly specialised branch of Mathematics that thinks "Science" is neat branding |
| 14:30 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 14:30 | <MikeSmith> | there's even "Web Science" now |
| 14:31 | <zcorpan> | is there HTML5 Science? |
| 14:32 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: there was but the lab exploded |
| 14:33 | <zcorpan> | they found <plaintext> and couldn't get out of it? |
| 14:40 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 14:45 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: on the plus side now I guess I really ought to write a bunch of validator tests for rel and you will have the fun of reviewing them |
| 14:45 | <MikeSmith> | so every cloud has a silver lining |
| 14:45 | <MikeSmith> | even the rdfa cloud |
| 16:25 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: Do you know what RelaxNG cannot express in html? Is it just the restrictions on valid attribute values? Can it express all the various content model constraints (if not, why not)? |
| 16:25 | <gsnedders> | (Anyone else feel free to answer, ofc) |
| 16:30 | <darobin> | gsnedders: one thing it can't do is wildcard on names |
| 16:30 | <darobin> | so data-* for instance |
| 16:30 | <MikeSmith> | bingo |
| 16:33 | <gsnedders> | Anything else? |
| 16:33 | <MikeSmith> | exclusions |
| 16:34 | <MikeSmith> | like old SGML exclusions |
| 16:34 | <gsnedders> | What exclusions? |
| 16:34 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., footnote can contain all flow content except footnote |
| 16:34 | <MikeSmith> | etc |
| 16:35 | <gsnedders> | Well you can enumerate all of them no? |
| 16:35 | <gsnedders> | So surely that poses no problem? |
| 16:35 | <MikeSmith> | it's a practical problem |
| 16:36 | <MikeSmith> | anyway lemme get you a URL |
| 16:37 | <gsnedders> | Ergh, train running late, cut back to Edinburgh. Yay for n extra change. |
| 16:37 | <gsnedders> | *an |
| 16:37 | <MikeSmith> | https://github.com/validator/syntax/blob/master/non-schema/java/src/org/whattf/checker/schematronequiv/Assertions.java |
| 16:38 | <MikeSmith> | ah required ancestors |
| 16:38 | <MikeSmith> | that's one |
| 16:38 | <gsnedders> | Ah, right. I guess again technicaly possible, but that really does get ugly. |
| 16:39 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 16:43 | gsnedders | wonders about trying to programmatically generating a schema, and wonders if that'll be any quicker thn just doing the whole thing manually in Python |
| 16:43 | <MikeSmith> | I'd vote for doing it all manually in python |
| 16:44 | <MikeSmith> | but it depends on what your goal is |
| 16:44 | <MikeSmith> | if for example your goal is to have good error messages, then don't use RelaxNG |
| 16:45 | <MikeSmith> | or don't use any grammar-based schema |
| 16:45 | <MikeSmith> | me wonders what you'd want to programmatically generate a schema for |
| 16:46 | <MikeSmith> | for validating something, obviously |
| 16:48 | <MikeSmith> | but unless you have some large complex set of contraints to check I wouldn't think using RelaxNG will buy you anything |
| 16:49 | <darobin> | gsnedders: yes, required ancestors and exclusions are possible but extremely painful |
| 16:49 | SamB | contemplates trying to add support for good error messages to relaxng ... |
| 16:49 | <darobin> | for instance I wrote the initial RNG for SVG, and doing something like that changing the content model of something because it was inside <a> was pretty painful |
| 16:50 | <SamB> | and yeah, not every constraint fits well at the grammatical level |
| 16:51 | <MikeSmith> | which is where assertions-based checking like schematron can be a win |
| 16:54 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders: anyway would be fun to hear what you're needing to do |
| 16:55 | <SamB> | RelaxNG Compact schemas are of course handy for editing XML in Emacs |
| 16:56 | <SamB> | even if they don't capture every constraint |
| 16:57 | <MikeSmith> | SamB: you should add that quote to http://twoproblems.com/ |
| 16:57 | <SamB> | what, you don't like completion? |
| 16:58 | <darobin> | any sentence involving Emacs makes for a good twoproblems :) |
| 17:11 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: In principle we want to trigger a DataLossWarning in html5lib.HTMLSerializer whenever we won't roundtrip, which is most malformed trees, but not all… I'm not really sure what I want to do. :) |
| 17:46 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders: that sounds great but seems like it'd have no use at all for a schema |
| 17:48 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: Yeah, indeed. I want the API contract to be "only guarantees roundtrip for trees that match the content model restrictions" |
| 17:49 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: But the error messages should probably be better |
| 17:49 | SamB | ponders how you you could implmement such that you can be confident in its correctness, without actually reparsing as you go |
| 17:49 | SamB | bemoans his spelling/word-dropping ... |
| 17:51 | <gsnedders> | I'm not aiming to prove this correct. :) |
| 17:51 | <MikeSmith> | I wonder what's the value of "only guarantees roundtrip for trees that match the content model restrictions" |
| 17:52 | <MikeSmith> | what do you gain from that |
| 17:52 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 17:52 | <SamB> | gsnedders: well, by "be confident" I mean be reasonably sure you haven't screwed it up |
| 17:52 | <MikeSmith> | yeah for some subset of the content-model restrictions I can see why |
| 17:53 | <gsnedders> | SamB: We have enough parser tests that if they roundtrip or error correctly I'd be confident. |
| 17:53 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: omitting tags is especially hard in that case |
| 17:55 | <SamB> | anyway, I certainly wasn't suggesting that you actually, say, convince coq that you'd either emit a warning or achieve = trees ;-P |
| 17:55 | <MikeSmith> | oh you having it roundtripping the absence of end tags and start tags? |
| 17:56 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: Well, it'd be good for the ommitabletags filter to raise DataLossWarning when it cannot guarantee safety |
| 18:38 | <MikeSmith> | "whatwag" overheard just now at extensible web summit |
| 18:38 | <MikeSmith> | I like it |
| 18:41 | <hober> | i pronounce it "what wee gee", i think due to annevk saying it that way |
| 18:41 | <Ms2ger> | I thought whatwig was canonical? |
| 18:41 | <annevk> | yes, per Hixie that's the way |
| 18:41 | <annevk> | no |
| 18:44 | <jgraham> | WHAT WAG? WebHypertext Application Technology Wifes and Girlfriends? (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAGs in case someone was about to suggest that was sexist) |
| 18:44 | <Ms2ger> | That's sexi... Oh |
| 18:44 | <TabAtkins> | I do What-Wig. |
| 18:45 | <MikeSmith> | I was thinking "wag" more like in the Elizabethan-era sense |
| 18:48 | <MikeSmith> | meaning a wit |
| 18:58 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: Well that's just silly |