00:25
<MikeSmith>
Hixie: thanks for the heads-up about https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25572 (Don't remove script elements when checking noscript)
00:26
<MikeSmith>
Hixie: as far as providing a way to catch certain specific errors and encourage users to comment on the relevant bug, yeah, it's doable
00:27
<MikeSmith>
in the case of the specific nested footer bug, I can imagine the way we'd handle it is just in the JS code rather than in the in server-side valiator code
00:29
<MikeSmith>
just do a match for the error message and append an additional sentence with a hyperlink to the bug or wherever
05:10
<TabAtkins>
SamB: background-size has "cover" and "contain", if you want backgrounds. object-fit has the same keywords, for replaced elements (support is spotty, though)
05:10
<TabAtkins>
Scaling to fit *in* a box would be "contain".
05:27
<Hixie>
MikeSmith: qv also https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25549
05:27
<Hixie>
MikeSmith: also fyi https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25532, though that's purely editorial
05:28
<Hixie>
really hope to regen soon, hopefully tomorrow
05:29
<MikeSmith>
Hixie: thanks looking now
05:30
<MikeSmith>
Hixie: yup actually already saw those
05:30
<MikeSmith>
I really do read all my bugmail
05:30
<MikeSmith>
but thanks for the heads-up about them
05:31
<Hixie>
np
05:31
<Hixie>
i'm just mentioning them since the diffs won't be specific about them
05:38
<Hixie>
MikeSmith: i would be very interested in the feedback on nested <footer>. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12990
05:41
<MikeSmith>
Hixie: I'd have no strong feeling to just allowing nested footer. It seems like something people are just going to end up doing regardless, and either just ignorning the validator errors, or replacing it with <div class=footer> or something to get around the errors
05:41
<MikeSmith>
Hixie: but I'd be glad to add sentence to the current nested-footer error
05:42
<MikeSmith>
with a link to the bug
05:44
<Hixie>
i'm mostly curious about whether the people doing it are doing it on purpose or not. i mean, there's lots of things that are borderline-arguably-ok, but where most people who do it will in fact have done it by mistake
05:46
<MikeSmith>
Hixie: ah yeah, ok, I see your point
05:47
<MikeSmith>
Hixie: so, what should the added text in the error message say?
05:49
<Hixie>
MikeSmith: i dunno, something like "Do you have opinions on whether this error message is useful? _Please comment on this bug_."
05:54
<MikeSmith>
ok
09:35
<annevk>
Is it "resize to user-agent-defined dimensions" or "user agent-defined dimensions"?
09:38
<jgraham>
Don't forget "user agent defined dimensions", "user-agent defined dimensions", "user agent defined-dimensions" or "user agent-defined-dimensions" :p
09:38
<jgraham>
(the first and third look the most sensible to me)
09:40
<annevk>
foolip: so I think my main problem is that I don't know how to define it sanely
09:41
<annevk>
foolip: once you return from requestFullscreen() and the need arises to resize, all the things could have happened
09:41
<annevk>
foolip: and since it's asynchronous there's no guarantees unless you have something like a storage mutex indeed
10:50
<hsivonen>
annevk: possibly of interest: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1012431 (percent-escaping host name in URL)
10:50
<annevk>
hsivonen: there's an open bug somewhere
10:55
<hsivonen>
annevk: not sure
10:55
<hsivonen>
annevk: also not sure who should be considered to be in error
10:55
<annevk>
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/fragment-links.js changed and now html.py from whatwg/xref fails
10:56
<annevk>
hsivonen: per the URL Standard we should first remove percent encoding and then run the thing through IDNA for host names
10:57
<annevk>
hsivonen: http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-host-parser
10:59
<annevk>
I can only find https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=956463 but that's a duplicate for sure
11:12
<annevk>
Hixie: on top of that fragment-links.js breakage, you also changed a bunch of fragment identifiers for British English...
11:15
<annevk>
Hixie: dude and you're not even consistent
11:15
<annevk>
Hixie: "serializing simple colour values"
11:17
<JakeA>
annevk: so, we've got these ServiceWorker instances. You can get at them in pages and serviceworkers. Having === work within a page is useful. Is there a way to avoid expandos?
11:17
<annevk>
JakeA: if you want === to work you need to tie them to the lifetime of the document
11:18
<JakeA>
annevk: These live within a serviceworker registration so their lifetime is beyond that of a document, but their lifetime is defined
11:19
<annevk>
JakeA: objects don't live longer than a document
11:19
<annevk>
JakeA: underlying concepts might
11:19
<annevk>
JakeA: the spec should distinguish between the two
11:20
<JakeA>
Gotcha, cheers
13:37
<hsivonen>
annevk: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309671
13:38
<annevk>
hsivonen: cool, I'll mark the older one as DUPE
17:47
<yk>
warning
17:47
<yk>
you may be watched
17:47
<yk>
do usa&israel use the internet(facebook,youtube,twitter, chat rooms ..ect)to spy??
17:47
<yk>
do usa&israel use the internet 2 collect informations,,can we call that spying??
17:47
<yk>
do they record&analyse everything we do on the internet,,can they harm you using these informations??
21:10
<scheib>
Howdy, a few of us Chrome folk are actively starting work on Bluetooth now. We've proposed a W3C Community Group: http://www.w3.org/community/blog/2014/07/30/proposed-group-web-bluetooth-community-group/
22:23
<GPHemsley>
I guess yk didn't know that this channel is already publicly logged in at least two separate places...
22:26
<Hixie>
maybe he just wanted to make sure we knew
22:26
<Hixie>
though honestly i wish israel paid more attention to #whatwg
22:26
<Hixie>
because (a) it would be fantastic to get their feedback, and (b) maybe it would take their attention away from their current activities.
22:42
SamB
wonders how dumb it would be to replace an img with an image ...
23:18
<Hixie>
annevk: ping https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26081