01:28
<MikeSmith>
GPHemsley: yeah I properly specified an e-mail address
01:29
<MikeSmith>
GPHemsley: the second one was me re-trying with a different username and the same e-mail address
04:04
<estellevw>
my understanding was that the datetime input type was removed from the spec in favor of datetime-local, but I still see it in the whatwg specs: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/forms.html#date-and-time-state-(type=datetime)
04:04
<estellevw>
with chrome supporting all of the date/times except "datetime" itself.
04:04
<estellevw>
Anyone know the status?
04:05
<tantek>
estellevw - lots is being dropped from W3C HTML5 in the pursuit to actually exit CR with tests and interoperability
04:05
<tantek>
WHATWG HTML still has anything that anyone has at least some interest in.
04:05
<tantek>
so it's more "live" as a result
04:05
<tantek>
and don't even get me started on *all* the confusion around datetime vs. datetime-local etc.
04:05
<estellevw>
The w3c actually only has time and date listed, not week, month or anthing else
04:06
<tantek>
that's right, like I said, lots being dropped for lack of interest, implementation, or real world use
04:07
<estellevw>
all the other 12 new imput types have wide ranging support,
04:10
<estellevw>
thanks tantek. Also, it was good to see you last night.
04:11
<tantek>
estellevw: it was good to see you too. and chat about all the things. this stuff all matters.
06:01
<TabAtkins>
zcorpan: There were two threads, one about changing the overloads and one about adding a "within" attr to the ScrollOptions dict.
06:20
<TabAtkins>
jgraham: gsnedders: I know for a fact that it'll parse unknown elements just fine - I use them on occasion in Bikeshed (temporarily)
06:21
<SamB>
TabAtkins: is that not a (secret) requirement of the HTML spec?
06:22
<TabAtkins>
It is indeed.
08:12
<Ms2ger>
b.innerHTML = "<input type='radio' checked='checked' name='t'/>", l.checkClone = b.cloneNode(!0).cloneNode(!0).lastChild.checked
08:12
<Ms2ger>
Wat
11:29
<metaspike>
hihi
13:04
<gsnedders>
TabAtkins: yes, it'll parse unknown elements, but that isn't the same as what the spec requires for template AFAIK
16:27
<TabAtkins>
gsnedders: Ah, yes, template definitely requires special parsing.
17:21
<caitp>
you might find this amusing --- or maybe not --- https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/w3c-stop-letting-google-propose-and-monopolize-internet-standards-without-ensuring-fair-and-adequate-discussion
18:30
<TabAtkins>
caitp: Hahahahahahaha, and also the reddit screencap from further down shows that achen2345 person is cray-cray.
19:26
<annevk>
GPHemsley: are you planning on replying to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2014Jul/0118.html at some point?
20:15
<annevk>
Did anyone here know gb18030 has a BOM as well?
20:15
<annevk>
Bytes 84 31 95 33; need to test that
21:01
<GPHemsley>
annevk: Hmm... it seems my e-mail filters have failed me. Thanks for the heads-up.
21:09
<GPHemsley>
(even knowing that the e-mail exists, I'm having trouble getting a search/filter to match it)
22:05
<Streusel>
How does one go about removing a metaextension?
22:35
<GPHemsley>
annevk: I responded, but I basically punted it back to you.
23:08
<MikeSmith>
Streusel: you just remove it and note the reason in the comment when you submit the change
23:08
<Streusel>
alright
23:09
<MikeSmith>
which by the way please actually do write a comment when you make any changes
23:10
<Streusel>
noted