02:31
<jxs>
hey there folks, is there any info on why there are html5 specs on whatwg and 5.1 on w3c and the relation between them?
02:50
<zewt_>
w3c wants their specs to look newer, so they use a bigger number
03:23
<tripu>
jxs: here is some information about that: http://www.w3.org/html/landscape/
03:26
<jxs>
thanks :)
05:05
<MikeSmith>
Hixie: I think the HTML spec should explicitly disallow comments in the media attribute
05:05
<MikeSmith>
If you want, I can file a bug for it
05:06
<MikeSmith>
or come to think of it maybe I already did (at least I know I did for sizes)
05:09
<MikeSmith>
Hixie: and to be clear I mean the document-conformance criteria
05:11
<MikeSmith>
there's no good reason for Web developers to put CSS comments into attribute values
05:12
<MikeSmith>
but if/when some developers find out they're allowed, they'll start putting some in just because they can
06:52
<zcorpan>
MikeSmith: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26195
07:44
<hsivonen>
annevk: various github.io things get CSS blocked as mixed content for me
07:44
<hsivonen>
annevk: not exactly a run-of-the-mill FOUC
07:57
<MikeSmith>
hsivonen: annevk the http://sideshowbarker.github.io/console-spec/ FOUC is just due to respec I think
07:58
<MikeSmith>
zcorpan: ah ok thanks (/me is not caught up on e-mail)
07:59
<MikeSmith>
I guess my answer to the question "what's the value of disallowing them?" is "what's the value in allowing them?"
08:00
<MikeSmith>
an HTML attribute value is not a CSS stylesheet
08:03
<hsivonen>
MikeSmith, annevk: Maybe https everywhere rewrites github.io to https for me
08:03
<hsivonen>
MikeSmith: and yes, it seems more plausible that the non-http FOUC would be respec than Gecko
08:04
<annevk>
hsivonen: oh yeah, it's definitely respec; I just meant to point out it still exists
08:04
<annevk>
hsivonen: seems that HTTPS Everywhere is doing that for you
08:05
<hsivonen>
does html5lib have tests for https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17924 yet?
08:06
<hsivonen>
annevk: that sort of existence is quite a bit different than the sort of existence I meant
08:10
<MikeSmith>
hsivonen: https://github.com/html5lib/html5lib-tests/blob/master/tree-construction/tests9.dat#L34 maybe?
08:10
<MikeSmith>
<!DOCTYPE html><math><annotation-xml><svg><u>
08:13
<hsivonen>
MikeSmith: that's a full doc
08:13
MikeSmith
wonders if gsnedders and jgraham__ think that the html5lib test files having names like tests9.dat is any better than bad 001.html naming convention
08:13
<hsivonen>
MikeSmith: looking for fragment parsing tests
08:13
<MikeSmith>
hsivonen: ah yeah
08:15
<MikeSmith>
hsivonen: grepping through the tests localy I find probably there are none
08:42
<zcorpan>
hsivonen: wanna drop <isindex> parsing in gecko?
08:57
<foolip_>
zcorpan: great success: http://www.chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/426
08:57
<foolip>
your move
08:58
<zcorpan>
foolip: thanks!
08:58
<zcorpan>
foolip: it's data from stable i assume?
08:58
<foolip>
zcorpan: yes, it was in M37
08:58
<foolip>
it would have moved by now if it was going to
08:59
<foolip>
but it may just rise to something like 0.0001% in the coming week
08:59
<foolip>
in any event, ~0
08:59
<foolip>
this is what another M36 counter looks like: http://www.chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/427
09:00
<zcorpan>
foolip: what does the @charset counter look for again?
09:02
<foolip>
zcorpan: CSSCharsetRuleEncoding counts any read or write to CSSCharsetRule.encoding
09:03
<foolip>
it doesn't directly prove that removing the entire CSSCharsetRule is safe, but makes it seem plausible
09:06
<zcorpan>
the problematic bit is likely sites doing indexed access to other rules
09:08
<zcorpan>
i can look into the spec side of this next week
09:14
<foolip>
zcorpan: yep, that's the risky bit, and with no good way of measuring AFAICT
09:15
<zcorpan>
yeah
09:55
<Ms2ger>
zcorpan, r? https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/2485
09:57
<zcorpan>
Ms2ger: done
09:57
<Ms2ger>
Ta
09:59
<annevk>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0002.html lol
09:59
<Ms2ger>
TL;DR sounds like "I didn't read the email I replied to"
10:02
<Ms2ger>
MikeSmith, if you have better names for tests#.dat... ;)
10:04
<MikeSmith>
math-svg.dat
10:04
<Ms2ger>
Well, sure
10:04
<Ms2ger>
But they're not all that clear-cut
10:04
<MikeSmith>
sure
10:12
<jgraham>
Yeah, the tests-*.dat aren't grouped in any particular way so in general it's hard to name them. I think the first is the real problem
10:22
<zcorpan>
your license doesn't say i can't put dogshit on your doormat
10:35
<jgraham>
Yeah, I wonder if people are guenuinely unable to understand the difference between the spirit and the letter of a license or if they're just being disingenuous
11:05
<MikeSmith>
jgraham: I think neither. I think they've rationalized it because they don't want to think of themselves as people who do hostile, hypocritical things. Therefore because they're good people, what they're doing can't actually be bad.
11:05
<MikeSmith>
there must be some clinical term for that kind of thinking
11:06
<MikeSmith>
in other news, "Nicholas Cage is no replacement for kittens"
11:41
<hsivonen>
should I be reading public-w3process?
11:41
<hsivonen>
gmail decided to land that thread (that annevk linked to above) in my inbox despite my filters saying it belongs under W3C
12:19
<hsivonen>
I'm so behind the times that my html5lib checkout has a .hg directory :-(
12:21
<hsivonen>
zcorpan: I don't see dropping <isindex> as a particular win at this time
12:21
<hsivonen>
though it's kinda sad that it's one more thing the Tor Browser Bundle folks need to worry about
12:22
<zcorpan>
hsivonen: ok. yeah i don't disagree
12:23
<hsivonen>
I don't dare to just review that SVG innerHTML stuff by reading the patch
12:23
<hsivonen>
time to write some tests
12:24
<gsnedders>
MikeSmith: well the html5lib tests don't have any meaningful division, so while the tests could do with being rearranged it's not really high priority
12:24
<gsnedders>
MikeSmith: and it means files can't just be renamed
12:25
<Ms2ger>
hsivonen, sounds like a good outcome :)
12:26
<hsivonen>
looks like Blink doesn't actually have code for http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7917&to=7918
12:26
<hsivonen>
at least I'm not the only one failing to track the spec
12:28
<Ms2ger>
:/
12:28
<Ms2ger>
I've thought about having a bot just file a "write a test for this" for every changeset
12:28
<gsnedders>
Somewhere a long way down on my to-do list is writing test cases for all changes to the parser
12:30
<hsivonen>
where does blink deal with putting the innerHTML of SVG elements into the SVG namespace?
12:40
<hsivonen>
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/a8a0a83498e1d5f7014c79cffa7e45fda6a8b08a%5E!/#F18
12:42
<hsivonen>
I'm unamused by http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7767&to=7768 . Clearly, I've had the parser swapped out for too long.
12:48
<hsivonen>
I was about to complain that the Blink developer didn't add html5lib tests for that changeset and then I realized the html5lib test format's existing harnesses probably don't support non-HTML context elements
12:52
<gsnedders>
hsivonen: we should probably just support the svg:foo syntax there, I guess
12:52
<gsnedders>
hsivonen: there's also a lot of blink html5lib tests that need upstreamed, but it's a bit ambiguous as to license in the Blink (and WebKit) repo so I don't want to just grab them myself
12:54
<zcorpan>
context element is the #document-fragment in https://github.com/html5lib/html5lib-tests/blob/master/tree-construction/tests_innerHTML_1.dat ?
12:54
<gsnedders>
yeah
12:56
<zcorpan>
gsnedders: isn't it better to use a space like in the expected output?
12:56
<gsnedders>
zcorpan: I was meanaing the same as the expected output, just misremembering what that was :)
12:56
<zcorpan>
ah
12:57
gsnedders
is on pretty poor on-train wifi
13:13
<hsivonen>
annevk: fun times in the "[Encoding] false statement" thread
13:17
<foolip>
hsivonen: link?
13:17
<hsivonen>
foolip: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2014JulSep/
13:18
<foolip>
hsivonen: thanks!
13:23
<foolip>
I don't understand how annevk has the energy for participating in these kinds of discussions
13:29
<annevk>
foolip: cute baby helps
13:29
<foolip>
:)
14:35
<MikeSmith>
annevk: is implementation of the URL spec in blink stalled on something?
14:36
<MikeSmith>
I see https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=303152 with no updates for more than 2 months
14:37
<MikeSmith>
and https://codereview.chromium.org/143313002/ waiting on action from sof? or review?
14:42
<smaug____>
MikeSmith: wouldn't it be better to ask arv?
14:44
<MikeSmith>
smaug____: I can't tell from chromium bug tracker and review tool who's the assignee, reviewer
14:46
<MikeSmith>
the UI of that stuff seems to be some kind of (reverse) intelligence test
16:20
<annevk>
MikeSmith: there's many different parts of the URL spec
16:21
<annevk>
But e.g. new URL("test:test") works in dev
17:53
<smaug____>
HTML spec's attribute handling is so hard to follow
17:54
<smaug____>
"Each input, select, and textarea element has an autofill hint set, an autofill scope, an autofill field name, and an IDL-exposed autofill value." but then..."The subsections that define each type also clearly define in normative "bookkeeping" sections which of these feature apply, and which do not apply, to each type."
17:55
<smaug____>
and "autocomplete" doesn't apply to type="hidden"
17:55
<smaug____>
Hixie: ^
17:56
<smaug____>
ahaa, "When an attribute doesn't apply to an input element, user agents must ignore the attribute, regardless of the requirements and definitions below."
17:56
<Hixie>
yes?
17:56
<smaug____>
almost unreadable spec
17:57
<Hixie>
file bugs
17:57
<smaug____>
but nothing new there :)
17:58
<Hixie>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25471 may be of relevance for the specific case you are referring to, btw
17:58
<Hixie>
i'm half-way through the relevant edit
17:59
<Hixie>
(it's unlikely to make the spec any clearer though)
18:45
<annevk>
Hixie: with DreamHost VPS do you still have their control panel or is it very low-level?
18:46
<annevk>
I'm somewhat curious whether I should get a VPS somewhere so I have more low-level control
18:46
<Hixie>
yes, it's identical except you get an additional control for how much extra money to give them, essentially
18:46
<Hixie>
and you get root
18:46
<Hixie>
(the control is really about how much RAM to reserve)