| 01:38 | <JonathanNeal> | Just stumbled upon performance and performance.now |
| 01:39 | <JonathanNeal> | Is there yet something like requestAnimationFrame that lets me specify a frame rate that will attempt to correct itself? Ala http://www.andrewduthie.com/post/a-self-correcting-setinterval-alternative/ |
| 05:59 | tantek | reads http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0002.html per annevk bringing it up here, also lol, and adds it to the collection of things to bring up to the AB |
| 06:52 | <zcorpan_> | maybe https://twitter.com/zcorpan/status/506695939982376960 illustrates why json in an attribute has problems https://twitter.com/zcorpan/status/506695939982376960 |
| 07:15 | <zcorpan_> | To: Ms. Anne Kesteren, Editor, and associates |
| 07:24 | <odinho> | hihi |
| 07:25 | <odinho> | why not mrs? they did the research? |
| 09:01 | <foolip> | marcosc_: "Just because you can stab someone with a kitchen knife in the face doesn't mean you should. |
| 09:03 | <foolip> | I'm pretty both the letter and the spirit of the law is to disallow that |
| 09:06 | <JakeA> | http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/browsers.html#read-html "After creating the Document object…" on navigation, why do we create the new document before unloading the old one? |
| 09:19 | <annevk> | Presumably for more seamless transitions |
| 09:28 | <JakeA> | annevk: means we can't activate a serviceworker script between navigations |
| 09:28 | <annevk> | wait why not? |
| 09:29 | <JakeA> | Because if the new doc overlaps with the old one, there's no point the old serviceworker script isn't in use |
| 10:04 | <jgraham> | odinho: Ms is more neutral than Mrs |
| 10:05 | <jgraham> | And yes, it does seem like there are more obvious examples of complying with the letter, but not the spirit, of the law than stabbing someone in the face |
| 10:05 | <jgraham> | Tax evasion, perhaps |
| 10:21 | <Philip`> | jgraham: I thought tax evasion was illegal too - maybe you mean tax avoidance? |
| 10:21 | <jgraham> | Good point |
| 10:22 | Philip` | prefers to just run headlong into tax |
| 10:22 | <jgraham> | I hear some people find your energentic approach too taxing |
| 10:22 | <jgraham> | *energetic |
| 11:57 | <zcorpan_> | i don't like it that people spend annevk's time on editorial fluff |
| 11:58 | <Ms2ger> | Could be arguing about how to write unicode code points... |
| 11:59 | <zcorpan_> | Ms2ger: at least that's terminology used in normative parts |
| 12:56 | <zcorpan_> | how about we use fetch-* that can be converted into JSON by like this <img src="foo" fetch-priority-dependency-id="i1" fetch-priority-weight="8"> -> {"priority":{"dependency":{"id":"i1"}, "weight":"8"}} |
| 13:36 | <Domenic> | So am I crazy in thinking ARIA is supposed to be an abstraction layer on top of native accessibility APIs? e.g. as in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2014Sep/0003.html |
| 13:38 | <Ms2ger> | ... crazy ... public-html ... |
| 13:38 | <Ms2ger> | Sounds right |
| 13:42 | <Domenic> | indeed :-S |
| 13:53 | <zcorpan_> | Domenic: it doesn't sound crazy, but i don't know about the details |
| 14:02 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: what zcorpan_ said |
| 14:03 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: I don't understand myself why it's not actually defined that way |
| 14:04 | jgraham | kind of assumed it was defined that way |
| 14:05 | <tobie> | Domenic: I wanted the accessibility tree exposed. |
| 14:06 | <Domenic> | tobie: what does that mean, exactly... |
| 14:06 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: but I can say from experience that among bad side effects it has is that when you contribute tests to a browser project for a Web-platform feature that affects how Web content ends up getting exposed to accessiblity software, you have to write tests that are completely platform-specific, and that rely on building and using special testing tools that run outside the browser binary |
| 14:07 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: it's not defined as such in any kind of testable way |
| 14:07 | <MikeSmith> | if there is any such abstraction, it's an abstract abstraction -- an untestable abstraction |
| 14:07 | <tobie> | MikeSmith: right, this would not be the case if an accessibility tree was agreed-upon and tested. |
| 14:08 | <tobie> | MikeSmith: it depends precisely what you want to test though. |
| 14:08 | <MikeSmith> | tobie: right and I myself don't understand why it's not what way |
| 14:09 | <tobie> | MikeSmith: my understanding is players in the field don't want standardization at that level |
| 14:09 | <MikeSmith> | really? |
| 14:09 | <MikeSmith> | I hadn't heard that at least |
| 14:10 | <MikeSmith> | I think SteveF at least has been advocating for an actually useful abstraction layer to be defined -- one that's exposed to JS and testable |
| 14:11 | <tobie> | yes please. |
| 14:15 | <tobie> | Domenic: ~ same as the DOM but for Aria roles. |
| 14:15 | <tobie> | Domenic: at least that's how I understand it. |
| 14:28 | <SteveF> | Domenic: suggest talking to Dominic Mazzoni at Google or pop into the irc://irc.mozilla.org/accessibility and talk to Dave bolter or Marco Zehe or alex surkov (to name a few) they all work on implementation side |
| 14:37 | <Domenic> | Thanks SteveF |
| 14:37 | <TabAtkins> | zcorpan: According to my experience, adding open-ended attributes is just playing twisted games with the web for my own amusement. |
| 14:38 | <zcorpan> | TabAtkins: elaborate? |
| 14:38 | <TabAtkins> | The attempt to do src-n. ^_^ |
| 14:40 | <zcorpan> | ah |
| 14:41 | <TabAtkins> | MikeSmith: Disallowing comments in media requires a special switch in the CSS parser for no good reason, and forks syntax. |
| 14:42 | <TabAtkins> | Comments are only an added difficulty if you're writing your own custom CSS "parser" that doesn't attempt to be complete or actually follow the Syntax spec. |
| 14:42 | <TabAtkins> | In Syntax it's just a few lines of code to handle them. |
| 14:42 | <MikeSmith> | I'm not writing a CSS parser at all |
| 14:42 | <Ms2ger> | TabAtkins, no |
| 14:42 | <MikeSmith> | I don't need to write a parser |
| 14:42 | <Ms2ger> | TabAtkins, UA conformance != author conformance |
| 14:43 | <TabAtkins> | Ms2ger: Sure. I'm not clear on whether MikeSmith is advocating just a user-conformance restriction or not. |
| 14:43 | <Ms2ger> | The logs seemed quite clear on yes |
| 14:44 | <TabAtkins> | I'm reading backwards, and hadn't read the entire thing yet. |
| 14:45 | <JonathanNeal> | Should anyone be concerned? This seems like a sad thing. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/08/google-to-drop-microsoft-designed-touch-web-spec-stick-with-apple-tech/ |
| 14:46 | <TabAtkins> | No. |
| 14:47 | <Domenic> | SteveF: is there a document like http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html that maps ARIA roles/etc. to platform accessibility stuff, instead of mapping HTML to platform accessibility stuff? |
| 14:47 | <TabAtkins> | It's an attempt to converge, it was discussed in a meeting with all browsers. MS isn't quite ready to drop pointer events yet, but we'll see. |
| 14:48 | <JonathanNeal> | TabAtkins: is there a desire by implementers to normalize events? If so, where is the traction these days; touch events? |
| 14:49 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, the hope is to have everything settle into one type of input-device-neutral event. |
| 14:51 | <JonathanNeal> | I was developing for a touch TV last week and handing off my work to other devs. I normalized all the touch/mouse/pointer events into pointer events, figuring that, by now, it was settled as the future. |
| 14:51 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: right now I'm just advocating for a document-conformance ban (aka authoring conformance), on CSS comments in HTML attributes (@sizes & @media) |
| 14:51 | <JonathanNeal> | Not a big deal to normalize them to some other convention, but still kind of a bummer. |
| 14:52 | <TabAtkins> | MikeSmith: I'm just with Hixie on this - I don't understand why they're bad. |
| 14:52 | <tobie> | Domenic: my understanding it that's precisely the part there's no agreement to standardize. |
| 14:52 | <SteveF> | Domenic: core mappings http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/implementation/aria-implementation.html SVG mappings http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/svg/svg-implementation.html |
| 14:53 | <tobie> | My understanding is obviously completely incorrect. |
| 14:54 | <Domenic> | SteveF: nice. So my job ... if I choose to go that route, which I am unsure on ... is to diff the capabilities provided by the latter with the the ones HTML uses, and get implementer buy-in to fill in the gaps. |
| 14:58 | <SteveF> | domenic: sounds about right note gaps include html specific accessible name calculation http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html#accessible-name-and-description-calculation which is not covered in ARIA also note the svg and html acc specs are very much work in progress, and the core mappings will also be changing as language specific stuff gets moved out |
| 14:59 | <Domenic> | SteveF: cool... the accessible name calculation thing is also important to note. |
| 15:01 | <SteveF> | Domenic: the html name calc has never been defined until i started to test and document and talk with implementers (still much to do on that) which unsurprisingly resulted in interop issues |
| 15:04 | <Domenic> | SteveF: awesome, this is real hard-core archeology work you are doing... |
| 15:09 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: outside of the document-conformance part I'm not sure why you have a hard time understanding why I'm not happy about needing to write and maintain and bugfix several hundred lines of code to implement a full CSS tokenizer when I'm not implementing a CSS parser nor processing CSS stylesheets but instead only want to help authors catch mistakes in one single HTML attribute value |
| 15:09 | <MikeSmith> | in other words, overkill |
| 15:09 | <MikeSmith> | in yet other words, code bloat |
| 15:12 | <TabAtkins> | MikeSmith: To properly parse an MQ, you have to implement most of Syntax already. And if you have a hacked-up parser, it's not hard to do a pre-pass to find and eliminate comments from the value, since they don't nest or do anything tricky. It's literally something like str.replace(/\/\*.*?\*\//g, ""). |
| 15:21 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: yeah in fact that pre-pass to just get rid of the comments is pretty much what I ended up doing. And it seems to working fine. I just get a little exhasperated sometimes with you continuing to tell me you don't understand why I don't deal with comments by writing a full CSS tokenizer, which is trivial to implement, etc. (if I just read and follow N different CSS specs) |
| 15:22 | <MikeSmith> | btw I think the way the microsyntax for @sizes is currently defined for authors in the HTML spec -- by referencing a CSS spec that references several other specs is also not exactly optimal either |
| 15:23 | <Hixie> | if i reference other specs, people complain it makes it hard to read. if i don't, people complain i'm making up new things instead of reusing existing things. |
| 15:23 | <Hixie> | i'm doomed either way. |
| 15:24 | <Hixie> | wait wait hold on |
| 15:24 | <Hixie> | do you mean <link sizes> or something else |
| 15:24 | <Hixie> | oh you mean the <picture> sizes |
| 15:25 | <Hixie> | blimey, yeah, that's quite the syntax right there |
| 15:25 | <Hixie> | i vote we don't support that use case natively |
| 15:25 | <Hixie> | do it with web components |
| 15:28 | <TabAtkins> | MikeSmith: A CSS parser is exactly one spec - Syntax. The definitions of various things, like <length>, are in other specs, but parsing is localized. |
| 15:28 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: Presumably authors care about things like length |
| 15:32 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: MikeSmith already has to care about those. He's complaining about correct parsing, though, which is located entirely in one spec. |
| 15:32 | <TabAtkins> | (As long as you're not trying to parse a selector, which hasn't yet been updated away from the 2.1 grammar.) |
| 15:32 | <TabAtkins> | (But he's not, as selectors dont' appear in MQs.) |
| 15:34 | <TabAtkins> | Hixie: Luckily we routed around you, because "just use Javascript" isn't an acceptable answer for that use-case. |
| 15:34 | <Hixie> | "luckily" |
| 15:34 | <Hixie> | you routed the web into a ditch imho :-) |
| 15:36 | <TabAtkins> | You're free to feel that; you also don't build responsive sites with variable-width images. |
| 15:37 | <Hixie> | not everything that someone does is something that should end up in the spec |
| 15:37 | <Hixie> | as people keep telling me :-) |
| 15:37 | <odinho> | Well, but this one thing is huge. |
| 15:37 | <Hixie> | huge is right |
| 15:38 | <odinho> | I will probably start up again a magazine website I was creating that I put on ice since that part of the site was so tricky. Now it is simple :) |
| 15:38 | <Hixie> | (just so we're clear, i'm ok with supporting responsive images. i just think <picture> is a terrible design.) |
| 15:38 | <Hixie> | "simple" |
| 15:39 | <TabAtkins> | The srcset syntax is much larger than the sizes syntax (because it's custom, while sizes is just a fairly simple syntax definition). |
| 15:40 | Hixie | pats TabAtkins on the head |
| 15:40 | <TabAtkins> | (The algo required for sizes parsing is just for forwards-compat, so we can fail on any one entry without accidentally invalidating the entire attribute for not matching the grammar.) |
| 15:40 | <Hixie> | this is all moot, since y'all are doing this anyway |
| 15:40 | <Hixie> | but just because i've given up arguing doesn't mean i think it's right :-) |
| 15:41 | <Ms2ger> | Hixie, HTMLWG would disagree |
| 15:41 | <TabAtkins> | I find it easier to convince myself whatever decision was taken was right, unless I plan on correcting it in the future. |
| 15:41 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: wow |
| 15:41 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: that way lies madness |
| 15:41 | <TabAtkins> | Nah, I've got the escape-hatch. |
| 15:41 | <Ms2ger> | "lies" is a good choice of word |
| 15:42 | <TabAtkins> | But more importantly, I've got better things to care about most of the time. |
| 15:42 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: there are plenty of things on the web that can never be changed that are nonetheless dumb |
| 15:42 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: e.g. "Referer:" |
| 15:42 | <TabAtkins> | "right" includes "eh, don't care". |
| 15:43 | <Hixie> | i think it's better to keep caring and keep thinking its wrong, so that the next time something comes along and someone says "hey, let's copy this existing solution", you can say "no, that solution was dumb" |
| 15:43 | <Hixie> | e.g. the way that when someone wanted to copy the <video> solution, i said "no, that's dumb" |
| 15:44 | <Hixie> | maybe if you had not convinced yourself <video>/<source> was either "eh, don't care" or "right", you wouldn't think <picture>/<source> was ok either :-) |
| 15:45 | <odinho> | <picture>/<source> is imho not really that important. It's @sizes and the new @srcset behaviour which is the important part. |
| 15:45 | <Hixie> | the fact that the design is so large that different people can care about different parts is kinda more evidence for my point that the design is poor |
| 15:45 | <odinho> | But <picture><source> just being a metadata driver for <img> is quite a nice way to it. |
| 15:46 | <odinho> | Hixie: They are for different things. |
| 15:47 | <Ms2ger> | One is for responsive images, one is for messing with browsers? |
| 15:48 | <TabAtkins> | I don't think <video>/<source> is right, which is why I think it was correct to oppose the original <picture> that copied it. |
| 15:49 | <TabAtkins> | It's been explained to you how new <picture> doesn't fail in the same ways. |
| 15:49 | <jgraham> | "this is big and ugly, you should do it with web components instead" <- I see Hixie has a finely developed sense of irony |
| 15:49 | <odinho> | @sizes+@srcset is for responsive images, -- <picture> enables format switching and forced art direction. |
| 15:50 | <Hixie> | jgraham: :-) |
| 15:50 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: it has multiple elements. that is the same way. :-) |
| 15:53 | <Hixie> | anyone know of any reason i shouldn't post a blog post encouraging people to sign the url standard patent commitment form? |
| 15:54 | <TabAtkins> | No. |
| 15:56 | <Domenic> | Hixie: I was going to but then I saw you say in IRC "I don't know why anyone would sign that form" |
| 15:56 | <Hixie> | when did i say that? |
| 15:56 | <Domenic> | I'll find the log... |
| 15:57 | <ShaneHudson> | TabAtkins: Have you been following Mark Boulton's thread on Twitter? https://twitter.com/markboulton/status/506832781092343808 A lot of people aren't happy with the grids spec |
| 15:57 | <TabAtkins> | ShaneHudson: I haven't, but I have been responding with Rachel. |
| 15:58 | <ShaneHudson> | TabAtkins: Ah excellent :) Just wanted to make sure you're aware of it |
| 15:58 | <Domenic> | Hixie: ah, this is what I was thinking of. http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20140829#l-918 |
| 15:59 | <Hixie> | Domenic: right i was saying that without an announcement, it's unclear to me why anyone joined the cg |
| 15:59 | <Domenic> | Hixie: I think I mentally did s/would/should |
| 15:59 | <Hixie> | Domenic: especially before the url standard patent commitment form was up (it's not like those 50 people joined because of the url standard) |
| 16:01 | <Hixie> | ok, i've published the blog post |
| 16:08 | <annevk> | darobin: I don't follow |
| 16:08 | <annevk> | darobin: the second paragraph does not state that the table that states that it's not GPL compatible is wrong |
| 16:09 | <annevk> | darobin: CC-BY not being GPL compatible is a deal breaker, I don't see why this is different |
| 16:09 | <tantek> | ooh more license fun |
| 16:10 | <annevk> | darobin: CC0 however has less hassle |
| 16:10 | <annevk> | tantek: "fun" |
| 16:10 | tantek | is really confused about all the objections to CC0 by people who don't actually write specs. |
| 16:10 | <annevk> | I wonder why I'm even replying at this point. This clearly wasn't though through |
| 16:10 | <annevk> | thought* |
| 16:10 | <tantek> | annevk - you're replying because you haven't documented an FAQ on a wiki? ;) |
| 16:11 | <tantek> | (happy to help with that btw - not just being snarky) |
| 16:11 | <annevk> | I have http://annevankesteren.nl/2013/03/zero |
| 16:12 | <tantek> | annevk - that's a good summary of the general "why" - I think we need specific FAQs now for the silly threads that keep popping up like the back/forth with glazou |
| 16:12 | <annevk> | tantek: oh my, those emails :-( |
| 16:12 | <annevk> | tantek: this was re https://twitter.com/robinberjon/status/506829057540243456 |
| 16:12 | <tantek> | annvek, you can also point to this, https://wiki.mozilla.org/Standards/license#CC0_OWFa_Preferred which has more weight since it is backed by Mozilla legal (I made sure of that) |
| 16:13 | <tantek> | wow darobin is confused - that's a nonsensical question |
| 16:14 | <annevk> | neat |
| 16:14 | <Ms2ger> | Who wants GPL compat? |
| 16:15 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: hsivonen |
| 16:15 | <Hixie> | anyone with gpl-licensed code, e.g. mozilla |
| 16:15 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: I think it was use case 0 in the long HTML WG licensing debate |
| 16:15 | <tantek> | Ms2ger - Mozilla *needs* GPL/MPL compat |
| 16:15 | <Ms2ger> | MPL, yes |
| 16:15 | <tantek> | per https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html#Licenses_Compatible_with_the_MPL |
| 16:15 | <Ms2ger> | I guess that implies GPL too |
| 16:16 | <tantek> | nope, don't make any "implies" such statements about licenses unless you're a lawyer |
| 16:16 | <Ms2ger> | Okay |
| 16:16 | <Ms2ger> | Then I'm not sure why we need GPL compat [IANAL] |
| 16:16 | tantek | has already had to do all the due diligence here. If you need a reference for folks, send them this: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Standards/license#CC0_OWFa_Preferred |
| 16:17 | <Hixie> | does glazou really not understand the difference between "legally permissible" and "bad idea"? |
| 16:18 | <Ms2ger> | It appears that he's trying to ignore the difference to fit his world view that the W3C is doing the right thing |
| 16:18 | <tantek> | seems too nuanced to interpret from an email thread IMO. |
| 16:19 | <Domenic> | need @WHATWG to tweet blog post, Hixie annevk |
| 16:20 | <Hixie> | ah, yeah, annevk, tweet tweet! |
| 16:20 | tantek | looks at blog.whatwg.org |
| 16:20 | <annevk> | Domenic: link? |
| 16:20 | <annevk> | oooh |
| 16:20 | <Domenic> | annevk: http://blog.whatwg.org/make-patent-commitments |
| 16:21 | <Domenic> | Well gosh I hope my AC rep approves my request to be nominated to participate in the WHATCG... |
| 16:21 | tantek | wonders if he ever signed up for the CG |
| 16:21 | <annevk> | tweeted |
| 16:22 | <tantek> | apparently I'm in the CG! woo! |
| 16:22 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic: I can't talk to our AC rep anymore, since anything I ask to be in, he tries to insist I sign up for with my @google.com address, rather than the @gmail.com one I've used for nearly a decade. |
| 16:23 | <Sample> | Q: Was not enabling instantiation of the File() object (Blob subclass), or the file type input being the only input that doesn't allow its value to be set, a conscious decision? I both can't comprehend why nor find any archived backstory online |
| 16:23 | <Domenic> | TabAtkins: uh oh, I will likely be in a similar boat |
| 16:23 | <TabAtkins> | The file type input, yes, that was a conscious security decision. |
| 16:24 | <TabAtkins> | Otherwise you could set it to well-known files, then submit a (hidden) form programmatically, and you get free access to the user's file system! |
| 16:24 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: is TV your AC rep? |
| 16:24 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Yup. |
| 16:25 | <Sample> | TabAtkins: set "what" to well-known files? I'm considering programmatic file creation (think instantiating an image binary through Blob of a dataURL) and populating the file input with that image. Yes, the form will submit to the SERVERS filesystem and the server can choose how to handle it |
| 16:26 | <Sample> | but what does that have to do with access to a user's file system? |
| 16:26 | <TabAtkins> | Sample: The value of <input type=file> is a path in the user's filesystem, and its contribution to submission is the file pointed to by that path. |
| 16:27 | <Sample> | ah, that's unfortunate =/ |
| 16:27 | <TabAtkins> | You can submit a programatically created image yourself, without use of <input type=file>. |
| 16:27 | <Sample> | TabAtkins: you can submit it in a SEPARATE request, which is unfortunate |
| 16:28 | <TabAtkins> | Sample: Nah, just jam the data url or a base64 or some other text-version of the image into an <input type=hidden>. |
| 16:29 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic: If you can get TV to accept your pre-existing email, let me know, so I can bludgeon him over the head with it. |
| 16:30 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic: If he tries to fob off "legal concerns" on you, I've talked to our legal, and they say that as long as it's clearly indicated that I'm a Google rep (and it is, there's a publicly-accessible list of W3C reps with their company affiliation), we're fine. |
| 16:31 | <Domenic> | TabAtkins: fun times. We'll see how it goes. |
| 16:31 | <TabAtkins> | (They *prefer* the added clarity of an @google.com address attached to my W3C emails, but don't require it.) |
| 16:34 | <Sample> | TabAtkins: in that case it's also unfortunate, the server does not receive a standard multipart request |
| 16:34 | <TabAtkins> | Sample: True fact. |
| 16:35 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: There's some way with your file submission API to trigger a multipart request with a blob, right? |
| 16:35 | <Sample> | TabAtkins: in a separate request, yes |
| 16:35 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: x = new FormData(); x.append("test", blob) |
| 16:35 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: xhr.send(x) |
| 16:35 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: That's what I thought, cool. Sample: ^^^ |
| 16:36 | <Sample> | TabAtkins: ideally a file input would accept a binary string so it could behave in a similar fashion to all other inputs and allow programmatic input population (like all other fields), sending a "normal looking" form request without violating any security concerns |
| 16:36 | <Sample> | TabAtkins: your example helps to demonstrate the problem however |
| 16:37 | <TabAtkins> | Sample: Unfortunately, legacy means it can't. Possibly you could add a new input type designed for that, though. |
| 16:37 | <TabAtkins> | <input type=blob> |
| 16:39 | <Sample> | perhaps. but just as easily a file input could parse its value for a "pointer" or a string representation of the data itself |
| 16:42 | <TabAtkins> | Having a bimodal input value is not generally a great idea. |
| 16:43 | <Sample> | yeah, I'd probably agree with you on that one. it's certainly unorthadox. in the case of <script> type identifies the MIME type, not so with inputs however |
| 16:45 | <TabAtkins> | In the case of <script>, type just tells you whether it's a JS file that should be executed or plain uninterpreted text, in practice. |
| 16:45 | <Hixie> | Domenic: i agree entirely with your last e-mail, but not sure what to make of it. do you think it contradicts something i said? |
| 16:45 | <Sample> | the unfortunate aspect of that though is that what we're really needing is input file to behave like other inputs and send its actual VALUE to the server |
| 16:46 | <Hixie> | Sample: what's the issue here? sorry, i wasn't paying attention earlier. |
| 16:47 | <Sample> | Hixie: you kind of have to scroll up (not too far). I'd summarize by repeating this line: |
| 16:48 | <Sample> | ideally a file input would accept a binary string so it could behave in a similar fashion to all other inputs and allow programmatic input population (like all other fields), sending a "normal looking" form request without violating any security concerns |
| 16:49 | <TabAtkins> | Hixie: He wants to make an image (in <canvas>, I presume), and then submit it in a standard multipart/form-data request. |
| 16:50 | <Hixie> | seems reasonable |
| 16:50 | <Hixie> | we can probably support that. there's no security issues that i can see. |
| 16:50 | <Hixie> | Sample: file a bug? whatwg.org/newbug |
| 16:50 | <TabAtkins> | Right, agreed. It's just the fact that <input type=file> doesn't handle it. |
| 16:51 | <Hixie> | if we can get browser vendors on board, it seems relatively straightforward |
| 16:51 | <Sample> | awesome =) |
| 16:51 | <Hixie> | oh actually nevermind |
| 16:51 | <Hixie> | there's already a bug |
| 16:51 | <Hixie> | https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22682 |
| 16:51 | <Hixie> | just looking for browser vendors |
| 16:52 | <Hixie> | in fact... |
| 16:52 | <Hixie> | looks like the problem isn't even that they don't want to implement it |
| 16:52 | <Hixie> | it looks like the problem is that they've implemented it in different ways |
| 16:52 | <Sample> | interesting |
| 16:52 | <annevk> | fortunately we're very good at handling those kind of problems |
| 16:52 | <annevk> | just takes us a decade |
| 16:53 | <Hixie> | by what criteria are you measuring "good"? :-) |
| 16:53 | <annevk> | fair, s/good/experienced/ |
| 16:57 | <Hixie> | hah |
| 16:57 | <Hixie> | that, certainly |
| 16:57 | <Sample> | isn't the point of specification to constrain the implementers, not visa versa? |
| 16:58 | <Hixie> | there's unfortunately a large gulf between the theory and the reality |
| 16:58 | <Domenic> | Hixie: I guess it contradicts the idea that the text in HTML's ARIA section should be preserved, which was implicit in your desire to move both the UA and author requirements at once |
| 16:58 | <TabAtkins> | Sample: Welcome to the web. ^_^ |
| 16:58 | <Hixie> | Domenic: i don't care what the text is |
| 16:58 | <Hixie> | Domenic: (that's part of why i'm fine with it leaving the HTML spec entirely) |
| 16:58 | <Domenic> | Hixie: OK, got it |
| 16:58 | <TabAtkins> | Sample: Specs are only as good as implementations allow them to be. Sometimes specs lead impls, other times they follow. When neither happens, they're specifictions, not specifications. |
| 17:00 | <jgraham> | Another way to look at it is that specifications can only constrain people who are happy with the constraints. We could, for example, write a specification saying "applications MUST be written in HTML |
| 17:00 | <jgraham> | " |
| 17:01 | <jgraham> | But the relevent people (non-HTML application authors) would ignore us. Or possibly laugh at us. |
| 17:01 | <Hixie> | "even the scripted parts and the parts on the server. no JS. no C++ or anything. Only HTML. And.... go." |
| 17:13 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26182 |
| 17:13 | <annevk> | I could tweet "Should we define window.console? {link}" |
| 17:15 | <Hixie> | "should we" is not at question |
| 17:15 | <Hixie> | the question is who "we" should be :-P |
| 17:15 | <annevk> | Hixie: "Who wants to define window.console? {link}"? |
| 17:15 | <Hixie> | more like it, yeah :-) |
| 17:15 | <Hixie> | i'm happy to do it, fwiw |
| 17:16 | <Hixie> | i mean, it would just start off as a no-op console.log() probably |
| 17:16 | <annevk> | yeah |
| 17:16 | <Domenic> | It *is* kind of a good teeth-cutting exercise for budding standards-people. |
| 17:16 | <annevk> | I'll tweet |
| 17:16 | <annevk> | give it a couple of days |
| 17:16 | <annevk> | if nobody bites... |
| 17:16 | <Hixie> | yeah it's a good one to do as your first spec |
| 17:16 | <Hixie> | because it's pretty non-controversial, the spec requirements are nearly void, and it's useful |
| 17:17 | <caitp> | until you bring console.table and other wackiness into it |
| 17:17 | <annevk> | https://twitter.com/WHATWG/status/506853217092001792 |
| 17:17 | <annevk> | Added the good place to start bit as a linked tweet |
| 17:18 | <Hixie> | wtf is console.table |
| 17:18 | <Hixie> | it's not in https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/console |
| 17:18 | <caitp> | some of the super extensions that people actually use in production |
| 17:18 | <caitp> | with polyfills |
| 17:19 | <annevk> | Hixie: I talked to Mike West, we should be able to get the certificate through StartSSL; a wildcard certificate for whatwg.org, with alternative name spec.whatwg.org |
| 17:19 | <annevk> | Hixie: then we can simply plug it across all our various domains |
| 17:19 | <Domenic> | oooh |
| 17:20 | <Hixie> | annevk: how much is that gonna cost and how hard will it be to renew? |
| 17:20 | <Domenic> | Is Mike West pulling the "I am talking with the W3C too; wouldn't it be nice if you guys were first?" trick on you? I found that funny. |
| 17:20 | <Hixie> | Domenic: ? |
| 17:21 | <Sample> | I wish there was a way of creating an enhancement proposal for this file input implementation problem that the 5(?) vendors could "sign off on", make it into the specification, and be implemented in the near future |
| 17:21 | <Domenic> | Mike is trying to encourage better SSL hygeine via a little friendly competition between standards orgs |
| 17:21 | <Hixie> | good luck with _that_ |
| 17:21 | <annevk> | Hixie: afaict 60 USD, can have 2 year validity, so less renewing |
| 17:21 | <Domenic> | Sample: there is; it is called emailing whatwg@. Usually you get one or two vendors at a time. |
| 17:21 | <Hixie> | annevk: well if mike's paying... |
| 17:21 | <annevk> | Hixie: I can pay |
| 17:21 | <Sample> | it's really unfortunate instead that someone has submitted some request to the vendor bugtracker and been implemented in some solitary arbitrary way |
| 17:22 | <annevk> | Hixie: I'll buy you something from your Amazon wishlist or some such :p |
| 17:22 | <Hixie> | annevk: just send me the cert, i'm not doing any of this other than plugging it into the dreamhost control panel :-P |
| 17:22 | <annevk> | Hixie: but you already have the account |
| 17:23 | <Hixie> | paying money for whatwg ssl certs imho is dumb |
| 17:23 | <Hixie> | what's the attack scenario we're worried about? |
| 17:23 | <annevk> | well, you designed our multi-level subdomain structure |
| 17:24 | <Hixie> | i can send you the credentials. here, i can even send them to you over IRC, to demonstrate the pointlessness of this entire exercise. |
| 17:24 | <jgraham> | I don't think there is an actual attack people are worried about, but they want to be seen to promote good practice (I am dubious that people are actually worried about "someone might MITM your content!" attack) |
| 17:24 | <annevk> | hehe |
| 17:24 | <annevk> | it makes sense for the wiki/forums/main spec; people tend to reuse passwords even though they know better |
| 17:24 | <Hixie> | hm, looks like startssl uses a client cert of some sort |
| 17:24 | <Hixie> | i've no idea where i put that |
| 17:25 | <annevk> | but yeah, promoting good practice and showing we can do this decade's utf-8 well |
| 17:25 | <jgraham> | Actually that's a fair point, there are some parts of the site with actual credentials |
| 17:25 | <Hixie> | let's shut them down :-P |
| 17:26 | <jgraham> | Seems strange ot shut the blog down minutes after you posted to it for the first time in over a year :p |
| 17:26 | <jgraham> | Also the mailing list |
| 17:26 | <Hixie> | well the people who have blog credentials all use good passwords, right? you're not reusing a password for the blog? |
| 17:27 | <Hixie> | the mailing list mails the passwords in the clear and they're not user-selected |
| 17:27 | <Hixie> | and, additionally, i have no control over that subdomain anyway. |
| 17:27 | <Domenic> | mailmain raaaaaage |
| 17:27 | <jgraham> | eah, mailman is pretty terrible |
| 17:27 | <Domenic> | the first time it sent me my password like that (for es-discuss) i flipped out |
| 17:28 | <Domenic> | https://twitter.com/esdiscuss/status/297336193429958658 |
| 17:28 | <jgraham> | If it wasn't then it would be a legitimate concern. I'm not really sure why it's still the last word in mailing list software |
| 17:28 | <Hixie> | Domenic: then you realised that it was a mailing list password and you realised it was a waste of rage? :_) |
| 17:28 | <Domenic> | Hixie: I am not good at apportioning my rage |
| 17:28 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 17:29 | <Domenic> | we got a biter https://twitter.com/terinjokes/status/506856084452040704 |
| 17:30 | <caitp> | a w00ter |
| 17:32 | <zcorpan> | w00t |
| 17:43 | <Domenic> | Hixie: "The only person from a W3C Member that can make this commitment is the Advisory Committee Representative." Seems at odds with the fact that lots of other Googlers have committed? |
| 17:46 | <Hixie> | Domenic: all googlers have committed. because our AC rep did. |
| 17:47 | <Hixie> | (members of w3c members can't commit patents, only their AC rep can) |
| 17:47 | <jgraham> | What if the employee personally held a patent? |
| 17:48 | <Hixie> | jgraham: ask the w3c :-) |
| 17:49 | <Domenic> | Hixie: ah got it. I guess it is just being eventually consistent. ("Domenic Denicola / Google, Inc. / No reply received ") |
| 17:49 | <Hixie> | might just be cos you joined after TV hit the button |
| 17:49 | <Domenic> | ya. i may be forever left out of the party :( |
| 17:50 | <Hixie> | doesn't really matter |
| 17:50 | <Hixie> | doesn't mean anything for us to be a "yes" |
| 17:51 | <annevk> | I wonder if I should try to count how many times figure heads promised to do something about URLs to each other |
| 17:51 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 17:52 | <annevk> | I talked with the IETF, I was nominated to be an IETF chair, I talked with the IESG (I don't think they ever got back to Ian and I in the end), Larry Masinter offered to do it, W3C and IETF had high-level talks without inviting people who know what is going on |
| 17:53 | <annevk> | There have been many many email threads, both public and private, just about jurisdiction. Meanwhile I wrote a specification and a basic test harness and they get all upset... |
| 17:53 | <annevk> | And then they plot to steal my work |
| 17:53 | <annevk> | Worse books have been written |
| 17:53 | <jgraham> | (technically not stealing) |
| 17:54 | <caitp> | if you turn it into a feature film, all your problems will be solved |
| 17:54 | <annevk> | Charles offered to do it, now Daniel Appelquist |
| 17:55 | <jgraham> | Turn it into a feature film? |
| 17:55 | <annevk> | Adam Barth got bogged down in politics trying to do it |
| 17:55 | <caitp> | the tone really doesn't come across on irc does it |
| 17:55 | <Hixie> | annevk: even before that there was DanC's copy of the HTML spec's URL text and his work on it |
| 17:55 | <annevk> | DanC! |
| 17:55 | <annevk> | Yes |
| 17:55 | <annevk> | How many people suffered, geez |
| 17:56 | <Hixie> | anyway. The URL standard now has more meaningful patent coverage than it ever did at the IETF |
| 17:56 | <Hixie> | so... now it's really just about the W3C being jealous or something. |
| 18:06 | <annevk> | Lol, "we cannot find consensus on your complaint so we decided to declare it off-topic" (paraphrasing) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Sep/0019.html |
| 18:18 | <annevk> | http://www.google.com/enterprise/ uses both for and For; do people just not care anymore? |
| 18:19 | <annevk> | (same with that email, first correct, WHATWG, then WHAT-WG o_O) |
| 18:20 | <caitp> | well they say variety is the spice of life |
| 18:21 | <annevk> | but but but |
| 18:21 | <caitp> | sitting in front of a computer screen criticising the spelling of strangers, probably not so much |
| 18:28 | <terinjokes> | interested in helping out with the window.console spec |
| 18:29 | <caitp> | w00t |
| 18:29 | <annevk> | Hixie: ^^ |
| 18:29 | <zcorpan> | wasn't danc's goal basically to rename url to web address? |
| 18:30 | <zcorpan> | terinjokes: awesomeness |
| 18:30 | <daurnimator> | terinjokes: *hi* |
| 18:30 | <terinjokes> | hrm, you seem like a familiar nick ;) |
| 18:31 | <Domenic> | terinjokes: I am happy to mentor on technical aspects of getting set up to produce WHATWG-style specs |
| 18:31 | <Domenic> | given that I recently went through similar stuff for streams and can help you avoid all my mistakes :) |
| 18:31 | <Domenic> | https://github.com/sideshowbarker/console-spec has not much content, but lots of good discussion in the issue tracker |
| 18:32 | <zcorpan> | annevk: i think chaals intentionally misspells it just to annoy you |
| 18:33 | <terinjokes> | Domenic: taking a look now |
| 18:33 | <annevk> | *shudder* |
| 18:34 | <Domenic> | terinjokes: Hixie and annevk probably have more info on what they were thinking for the spec to define. |
| 18:34 | <Domenic> | hmm that issue tracker is empty |
| 18:34 | <Domenic> | i thought i saw a full issue tracker somewhere... |
| 18:37 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: I thought paul_irish and some others had already set up another repo |
| 18:38 | <MikeSmith> | maybe I imagined that |
| 18:38 | <Domenic> | Ah, found it. https://github.com/DeveloperToolsWG/console-object |
| 18:38 | <terinjokes> | looking at that on too |
| 18:38 | <daurnimator> | btw, I just sent this: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2014-September/039071.html |
| 18:39 | <Domenic> | ok this has lots of stuff https://github.com/DeveloperToolsWG/console-object/blob/master/api.md |
| 18:39 | <Domenic> | too many SHOULDs |
| 18:43 | <caitp> | huh I didn't know console.log supported formatting specifiers, neat |
| 18:44 | <terinjokes> | caitp: it indeed does, at least in some places |
| 18:44 | <terinjokes> | (that was actually something I wanted to make sure was specified…) |
| 18:45 | <caitp> | it's kind of unfortunate that ES doesn't have something builtin for that sort of thing though, it would be useful for exception messages |
| 18:46 | <terinjokes> | I've notice that I pull in some printf implementation fairly often. When I need to generate a line, but not something that's exactly a template |
| 18:46 | <Domenic> | If the algorithm gets specified in enough detail and implemented interoperably, maybe it can be moved to ES. |
| 18:47 | <caitp> | String.prototype.format.call("Hello, %s!", "world") |
| 18:49 | <terinjokes> | Domenic: i'd gladly accept your advice :) |
| 18:50 | <Domenic> | terinjokes: for streams I am using TabAtkins's bikeshed preprocessor. You create a file like https://github.com/whatwg/streams/blob/master/index.bs and it spits out http://whatwg.github.io/streams/ |
| 18:51 | <Domenic> | terinjokes: I automate the deploy to gh-pages using Travis + a shell script. https://github.com/whatwg/streams/blob/master/deploy-gh-pages.sh https://github.com/whatwg/streams/blob/master/.travis.yml |
| 18:51 | <TabAtkins> | Bikeshed located at github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed |
| 18:51 | <Domenic> | terinjokes: I would advise not doing things in Markdown, as tempting as it is. Just go straight to Bikeshed. Otherwise you end up with a lot of stuff that you need to port later, which is a pain :( |
| 18:52 | <terinjokes> | i noticed when I did the Stickers API |
| 18:52 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic: Bikeshed is growing more and more Markdown. ^_^ |
| 18:52 | <Domenic> | TabAtkins: yaaaaay is there a changelog? |
| 18:53 | <Hixie> | terinjokes: sweet, thanks! |
| 18:53 | <Hixie> | terinjokes: let me know if you need any help with anything |
| 18:53 | <Sample> | TabAtkins: tangentially to where we left off, do you know at all why a File (Blob subclass) cannot be instantiated? |
| 18:53 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic: No (and I haven't updated docs yet), but this test more or less covers all of our support: https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed/blob/master/tests/markdown001.bs |
| 18:54 | <TabAtkins> | Sample: Presumably for the same reasons as why <input type=file> can't be editted. |
| 18:54 | <Domenic> | terinjokes: I haven't figured out what I want to do to get from the default github pages URL to streams.spec.whatwg.org. But I'm OK with that since my spec is not very presentable yet. |
| 18:56 | <terinjokes> | coolio. will get started on that this afternoon |
| 18:57 | <Hixie> | annevk: you should reply with "We don't have consensus that the W3C should continue copying the WHATWG's specs, so the copying will have to stop." |
| 18:59 | <Domenic> | oh burnnnnn |
| 19:00 | <boogyman> | It would be better if the two organizations could work out their differences so we have a unified specification, instead of a gobbled mess that implementors and authors wont need to "choose" one. |
| 19:00 | <boogyman> | s/wont/so |
| 19:00 | <Sample> | TabAtkins: hm, yeah you'd think they would go hand in hand somehow, but I absolutely don't see how they do. the (w3c) File API spec even seems to imply they can be instantiated I believe http://www.w3.org/TR/FileAPI/#file-constructor |
| 19:03 | <TabAtkins> | Sample: Ah, it can only be constructed from a Blob. That's fine. |
| 19:03 | <Sample> | though Chrome nor FF seem to allow it. Can't make sense of it |
| 19:03 | <Sample> | correct, Blobs can be constructed, which adds to my confusion |
| 19:03 | <TabAtkins> | Spotty support isn't a surprise. File bugs? |
| 19:03 | <TabAtkins> | Blobs can't be constructed *from a file path*, which is why it's safe to make a File from a Blob. |
| 19:03 | <caitp> | there was a blink-dev thread on shipping the File constructor recently, no? |
| 19:03 | <Sample> | Yeah, perhaps. I was just considering you guys might have some idea. Can't find any material on why it seems to be suggested in spec. but disallowed in practice |
| 19:04 | <caitp> | I recall that from the past 30 days |
| 19:04 | <Sample> | caitp: shipping as in getting rid of? |
| 19:04 | <caitp> | no |
| 19:04 | <TabAtkins> | The opposite. |
| 19:05 | <Sample> | ohh, as in it's simply not ready yet? |
| 19:05 | <TabAtkins> | "shipping" as in "making up fanfic about who you think they'd be best in a relationship with" |
| 19:05 | <TabAtkins> | No, still opposite. ^_^ |
| 19:05 | <Sample> | they implemneted File without constructability due to lack of time? |
| 19:05 | <TabAtkins> | "shipping" means "putting it in a stable brwoser" |
| 19:05 | <caitp> | "intent to ship" as in, make it usable by default, no prefix, no pref flag |
| 19:06 | <Sample> | so is our assumption here that the lack of being able to construct a File isn't intentional? |
| 19:06 | <caitp> | let me see if I can find the thread |
| 19:07 | <caitp> | you know that apple Mail is literally the worst thing ever? |
| 19:07 | <Domenic> | TabAtkins: how can I use the bilio.json with the curl bikeshed |
| 19:07 | <caitp> | Sample: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/blink-dev/intent$20to$20ship$20file$20constructor/blink-dev/81ihRnwHnoQ/gQnI8jFKbeQJ |
| 19:08 | <Sample> | caitp: Mission Control is also amazingly "one-button-mouseish" |
| 19:08 | <caitp> | give it a few weeks, it will probably be in the next milestone |
| 19:09 | <Sample> | caitp: Ah, nice. Thanks for finding that. I have no idea which lists/trackers to be searching for these kinds of answers |
| 19:26 | <Hixie> | boogyman: no kidding |
| 19:26 | <Hixie> | boogyman: any ideas how to do that? |
| 19:28 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic: You can't, which is why I have a bug on me to allow <pre class=biblio> inline. |
| 19:28 | <TabAtkins> | It's an easy patch, if you're so inclined. Otherwise I'll try to get to it soon - I'm doing a biblio refactoring right now. |
| 19:31 | <Domenic> | TabAtkins: I'll let you do it :P |
| 19:31 | <Domenic> | The reason I'm using curl anyway is because I haven't gotten all the Python and related thingies set up on my Windows machine... |
| 19:35 | <TabAtkins> | Makes sense. |
| 19:35 | <TabAtkins> | Protip: dont' use a windows machine (at least not exclusively) |
| 19:36 | <boogyman> | Hixie: Right now? have discussions about whom will be the primary contributor/spec maintainer for the different pieces, and work collaboratively. |
| 19:37 | <Hixie> | boogyman: as far as i can tell, the w3c doesn't want there to be _any_ spec that the whatwg maintains and that they don't |
| 19:38 | <Hixie> | publish |
| 19:38 | <boogyman> | so it's a philosophical difference. darn |
| 19:40 | <Hixie> | i mean, the url spec is the best example. Anne wrote that at the WHATWG after the W3C and the IETF both declined to write that spec. |
| 19:40 | <Hixie> | then once he was done, the W3C said "ok, now we'll publish it as our own" |
| 19:45 | <Hixie> | boogyman: honestly though, i would love to have a way out of this mess. Having multiple variants of specs for a technology is only mildly better than having one terrible spec for the technology. |
| 19:45 | <Hixie> | boogyman: i've tried various things over the years, but none have worked. |
| 19:49 | <Sample> | sounds like WHATWG has been assigned the role of the unattributed heros of web standards =D |
| 19:49 | <Sample> | very magnanimous |
| 19:50 | <Hixie> | i don't think anyone here considers themselves heroes |
| 19:51 | <caitp> | but that's no reason not to wear underwear outside of your trousers |
| 19:51 | <Sample> | I'm being facetious, but yeah in a sense at least you're enabling movement within the w3c, unfortunately to do so they're duplicating the standard they wouldn't have built without you and thus probably/possibly killing it's momentum |
| 20:46 | Hixie | finds himself in the department of redundancy department |
| 20:46 | <Hixie> | "Example: For instance, in the following example..." |
| 20:53 | <Hixie> | is it "each apple and each orange has" or "each apple and each orange have" ? |
| 20:54 | <Hixie> | http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1472/each-apple-and-each-orange-has-have suggests "has" but the reasoning is a bit dubious |
| 20:55 | <ShaneHudson> | I agree with the accepted answer. Has for singular, have for plural. |
| 20:56 | <Hixie> | yeah, i agree with the answer too |
| 20:56 | <Hixie> | but i can't figure out why it's right |
| 20:56 | <Hixie> | i guess it's a magical property of "each" that transcends the "and" |
| 20:57 | <jgraham> | "each apple and orange have" |
| 20:57 | <Hixie> | the specific case i have is "each input element to which the autocomplete attribute applies, and each select element, and each textarea element" |
| 20:57 | <Hixie> | uh, remove the first "and" |
| 20:58 | <jgraham> | I was going to say :) |
| 20:59 | <jgraham> | Maybe has is also OK |
| 20:59 | <Hixie> | i'm pretty sure "has" is technically correct |
| 21:00 | <Hixie> | but i don't see why |
| 21:00 | <Hixie> | other than "magic" |
| 21:00 | <ShaneHudson> | I think it depends on what comes after the has/have, but has would almost certainly work |
| 21:00 | <ShaneHudson> | That's the English language for you :P |
| 21:01 | <jgraham> | Well the claim about each being singular makes sense, but generally arguing about language on the basis of logic rather than "what sounds right to a native speaker" doesn't work |
| 21:01 | <jgraham> | c.f. double negation |
| 21:04 | <Hixie> | yeah... |
| 21:06 | <caitp> | then again native speakers don't really agree on this stuff very often |
| 21:06 | <caitp> | unless they live within a few blocks of each other |
| 21:08 | <gsnedders> | caitp: there's normally a lot more consensus than you might think |
| 21:09 | <caitp> | oh, I don't think I'd go that far. especially if you ever are in the business of dealing with the language of french canadians |
| 21:09 | <caitp> | there are just too many dialects |
| 21:10 | <gsnedders> | But most people have a concept of a standard form of whatever language — and can tell whether something is dialectal or not. |
| 21:10 | <caitp> | most people believe that their own dialect is the norm, and that other peoples dialects are dialects :p |
| 21:11 | <gsnedders> | There are certainly limits to this, mostly because languages and dialects are just both points on a continuum |
| 21:11 | <caitp> | it's kinda off topic for this channel though |
| 21:11 | <gsnedders> | traditionally this channel has been as much a social channel as it has been one for the web platform :P |
| 21:13 | <caitp> | well, I used to work for a company whose product would automatically telephone people to deliver messages (not for spam, but things like notifications of emergencies and stuff) |
| 21:13 | <caitp> | and the french canadians, they would be upset every week |
| 21:14 | <caitp> | you learn very fast that people are pretty bad at concensus --- one town will use different words, or stress the wrong syllables, or have a slgihtly different accent |
| 21:14 | <caitp> | and it just makes them unhappy about it :( |
| 21:15 | <Hixie> | this channel has no topic |
| 21:16 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: to try and rationalise this, consider the question here is really whether "each apple and each orange" is plural. it's the same as "each apple and orange" (given determiners can be moved outside of groups if they apply to all), and it's relatively obvious that that is singular (it's talking about each item, and each one is singular) |
| 21:16 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: (each apple) and (each orange) being the same as each (apple and orange) is interesting |
| 21:16 | <gsnedders> | caitp: varying that much and having that much disagreemnt? wow, that's unusual |
| 21:16 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: I'm sure Chomskyans have invented some ridiculously over-complicated logic for that ;P |
| 21:17 | <Hixie> | contrast (an apple) and (an orange) vs an (apple and orange) |
| 21:17 | <caitp> | welll, I guess you could argue that the unhappy minority is louder than the apathetic majority |
| 21:17 | <caitp> | but you hear from them very often :x |
| 21:17 | <gsnedders> | caitp: it's actually pretty hard to do any real linguistic study by asking people, because they'll say all kinds of things are wrong while frequently using them themselves |
| 21:18 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: those are the same to me |
| 21:18 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: what do you think the difference is there? in both cases that means to me you have one of each |
| 21:24 | <gsnedders> | caitp: equally, basically all written speech (inc. scripted stuff that's then spoken!) is totally different to all other speech |
| 21:24 | <gsnedders> | caitp: language is weird |
| 21:24 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: {an {apple and computer}} is not valid english, is it? |
| 21:24 | <caitp> | definitely |
| 21:25 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: i mean, {an {apple-and-computer}} is fine, but it means something different than {{an apple} and {a computer}} |
| 21:26 | <caitp> | there are some great books on the subject, I've read a good number of them. but despite the fact that you can usually get english speakers to agree on what a written english phrase means, you're still going to see disagreements about the wording |
| 21:26 | <gsnedders> | caitp: so you just get a huge corpus and see what most people do and run with it ;P |
| 21:26 | <caitp> | pretty much the best you can do, really |
| 21:26 | <caitp> | since concensus in language is a myht |
| 21:26 | <caitp> | or myth |
| 21:27 | <gsnedders> | well it's pretty obvious there is some concensus, as otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate anything |
| 21:27 | <gsnedders> | but total consensus? I don't think anyone would ever claim there is. |
| 21:28 | <caitp> | there are levels of agreement, but it can still isolate you geographically |
| 21:28 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: I dunno, looking through a few corpora, "an {noun} and {noun}" is always used with two related nouns |
| 21:28 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: in the same category |
| 21:28 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: for some definition of "category" |
| 21:29 | <Hixie> | example? |
| 21:30 | <gsnedders> | "education and training", "air and sea", "arts and crafts", "oil and gas", "understanding and appreciation", "orc and goblin", "ebb and flow", "explosion and fire" |
| 21:31 | <gsnedders> | (those are the most common hits in the BNC, excluding a couple of set phrases in certain types of language!) |
| 21:32 | <gsnedders> | they're all combinations where the two words have some obvious connection |
| 21:32 | <jgraham> | "orc and goblin"? |
| 21:32 | <gsnedders> | yes! |
| 21:32 | <jgraham> | Is most of this corpus actually the D&D rulebook? |
| 21:32 | <gsnedders> | High elves. King, Bill and Chambers, Andy. Nottingham: Games Workshop, 1993, pp. 4-81. 2395 s-units. |
| 21:32 | <gsnedders> | Warhammer armies: orcs & goblins. Nottingham: Games Workshop, 1993, pp. 3-97. 2333 s-units. |
| 21:33 | <jgraham> | Oh, so pretty much yes |
| 21:33 | <gsnedders> | that's where all four usages of that phrase comes from |
| 21:33 | <gsnedders> | none of these are used that much ;P |
| 21:34 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: the BNC is 100 million word corpus which is meant to be a representative sample of spoken and written British English of the time it was made (in the early 90s) |
| 21:34 | <gsnedders> | Getting ever moreso dated, though, obviously. |
| 21:35 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: but I guess we really want something more than this, really {pronoun} {noun} and {noun} {verb} |
| 21:38 | <gsnedders> | like we want the noun phrase to not be contained within another noun phrase |
| 21:38 | <gsnedders> | (like "an accident and emergency room") |
| 21:42 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: none of those are what i was saying |
| 21:43 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: since none start with "an" |
| 21:43 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: :-) |
| 21:43 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: I just omitted the an |
| 21:43 | <Hixie> | "an air and sea"? |
| 21:43 | <Hixie> | where do you see "an education and training" as a complete noun phrase? |
| 21:43 | <gsnedders> | I don't, hence why I started changing what I was looking for |
| 21:43 | <gsnedders> | ;P |
| 21:43 | <Hixie> | o_O |
| 21:44 | <Hixie> | "an understanding and appreciation" is a good one though |
| 21:44 | <Hixie> | though that's usually {an {understanding and appreciation} of ...} |
| 21:44 | <Hixie> | anyway |
| 21:45 | <Hixie> | english is weird, news at 11 |
| 21:45 | <gsnedders> | here's a better list: "a horse and card", "a husband and wife", "every nook and cranny", "a wife and mother", "a knife and fork" |
| 21:45 | <gsnedders> | s/card/cart/ |
| 21:46 | <Hixie> | weird |
| 21:50 | <Hixie> | annevk: i don't understand your definition of blob: origin |
| 21:50 | <Hixie> | what is a URL's scheme data. Is it just the URL? |
| 21:51 | <Hixie> | i get so confused by the way the URL spec uses the same term for the string and the object |
| 21:55 | <tantek> | sounds Lispy |
| 21:58 | <Sample> | sounds like poor writing =P |
| 22:54 | <terinjokes> | TabAtkins: are you noticing elsewhere that the creative commons logo doesn't seem to load? |
| 23:40 | <TabAtkins> | terinjokes: Yeah, it's not loading on any of the specs I use it in. |
| 23:40 | <terinjokes> | it seems to have resolved recently |
| 23:40 | <terinjokes> | at least from this location |
| 23:41 | <TabAtkins> | https://creativecommons.org/ seems to have trouble loading as well. |
| 23:41 | <TabAtkins> | Ah, it's Chrome's mixed-content policy. |
| 23:42 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, that's why they're not loading in my specs either. |
| 23:43 | <terinjokes> | strange internet things are happening today |