| 01:30 | <MikeSmith> | if you use https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/project/httparchive to create a query is there any way to publish a public URL for the results |
| 01:30 | <MikeSmith> | I mean using what's documented at http://bigqueri.es/t/analyzing-html-css-and-javascript-response-bodies/442 |
| 01:31 | <MikeSmith> | and I mean publish other than just by copying them to somewhere else |
| 01:46 | <MikeSmith> | ondras: was "exployer" a typo or intentional? |
| 01:46 | <MikeSmith> | ondras: either was it's a nice word |
| 01:49 | <jamesr__> | wow, a link to /TR/html401/ |
| 01:52 | <MikeSmith> | jamesr__: hopefully not from implementor citing it at least? |
| 01:52 | <jamesr__> | no |
| 01:52 | <jamesr__> | maybe a troll |
| 01:53 | <MikeSmith> | ah ok |
| 01:54 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: what's the proper spec-conformant way to specify vertical layout these days? |
| 01:55 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: I put together a simple demo years ago that works as expected in Chrome and Safari but not in Firefox with their experimental vertical-layout support enabled |
| 01:56 | <MikeSmith> | when I run it in Firefox I get a warning in the console "Unknown property 'glyph-orientation-vertical'. Declaration dropped." |
| 01:58 | <roc> | writing-mode:vertical-rl |
| 01:58 | <MikeSmith> | ah nm I hadn't looked at my source. It's using -webkit-writing-mode |
| 01:58 | <MikeSmith> | roc: thanks |
| 01:58 | <MikeSmith> | will update it right now |
| 01:58 | <MikeSmith> | http://people.w3.org/mike/demo/melos/ is the page |
| 01:59 | <roc> | don't forget to fix your -webkit prefixes on transitoin too |
| 02:00 | <MikeSmith> | roc: yup just did that too |
| 02:01 | <MikeSmith> | sweet it works in my nightly now |
| 02:01 | <MikeSmith> | basically |
| 02:02 | <MikeSmith> | (e.g., can't yet scroll horizontally when viewing the vertical version) |
| 02:03 | <roc> | hmm |
| 02:03 | <MikeSmith> | I guess that may well be something else I'm not specifying correctly per current spec |
| 02:04 | <roc> | I reviewed patches to make that work :-) |
| 02:04 | <roc> | possibly they haven't landed yet |
| 02:04 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK |
| 02:05 | <MikeSmith> | roc: or maybe it's landed and I've just not rebuilt since |
| 02:05 | <MikeSmith> | I haven't built this week yet |
| 02:05 | MikeSmith | rebuilds now |
| 02:07 | <MikeSmith> | ah I see now it seems to be laying it out in multiple vertical units that I have to scroll vertically to see |
| 02:07 | <roc> | erm |
| 02:08 | <roc> | BTW Chrome doesn't understand unprefixed writing-mode |
| 02:08 | <MikeSmith> | hmm yeah but it's also broken the text up in some odd way, and not rendering the last part of the doc |
| 02:08 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 02:08 | <MikeSmith> | geez |
| 02:08 | <MikeSmith> | wonder when they'll get around to changing that (and if there's a bug open9 |
| 02:09 | <roc> | depends on how buggy their implementation is :-) |
| 02:09 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 02:09 | MikeSmith | adds back the prefixed versions also for now |
| 02:13 | <roc> | MikeSmith: you should a bug about the scrolling thing. It's supposed to have been fixed for a while now. |
| 02:13 | <roc> | see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1093949 |
| 02:14 | <roc> | oh wait, that's not the bug |
| 02:18 | <roc> | MikeSmith: FWIW your page is really really broken for me on Chrome 41 on Linux |
| 02:18 | <roc> | lots of mispositioned glyphs |
| 02:20 | <MikeSmith> | roc: so shoudl I raise a new Layout bug? |
| 02:20 | <MikeSmith> | gecko bug I mean |
| 02:21 | MikeSmith | looks for glyph brokenness in Chrome |
| 02:22 | <MikeSmith> | roc: on my OSX Chromium build at least I see no broken glyphs |
| 02:22 | <roc> | ok |
| 02:22 | <MikeSmith> | unless you mean bad kerning? |
| 02:22 | <roc> | probably a LInux-specific issue then. |
| 02:22 | <roc> | no |
| 02:22 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK |
| 02:22 | <roc> | the breakage is obvious on Linux |
| 02:23 | <roc> | glyphs overpainting other glyphs |
| 02:23 | <MikeSmith> | oh wow yeah |
| 02:23 | <MikeSmith> | that sounds bad |
| 02:26 | <boogyman> | stable canary on W8 appears okay too. |
| 02:26 | <roc> | that's interesting. on Linux at least, Chrome doesn't remap the arrow keys to work visually/ |
| 02:26 | <roc> | so "down-arrow" moves one line to the left |
| 02:26 | <roc> | (if you make the doc editable) |
| 02:26 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 02:26 | MikeSmith | tries |
| 02:27 | <MikeSmith> | yeah same here |
| 02:27 | <MikeSmith> | down arrow takes me left |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | left arrow takes me up |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | etc |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | in Chromium |
| 02:28 | <jamesr__> | rotate your keyboard? |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | haha |
| 02:29 | <MikeSmith> | great example of overlooking the obvious simple solution |
| 02:29 | <MikeSmith> | true engineer :-) |
| 02:30 | <boogyman> | nah, you obviously should just rebuild your entire system :-O :p |
| 02:30 | <MikeSmith> | roc: in my Nightly I see the same unexpected arrow-key behavior as in Chromium |
| 02:30 | MikeSmith | tries to remember when he last built |
| 02:31 | <MikeSmith> | hmm yeah, 36.0a1 (2014-11-25) |
| 02:31 | <MikeSmith> | so it's been a long time |
| 02:31 | MikeSmith | stares at his mozilla-central build running |
| 02:32 | <MikeSmith> | I really need a faster machine |
| 02:35 | <roc> | or you could just download nightly :-) |
| 02:36 | <roc> | your page works if I wrap the content in a scrollable div and put vertical-rl on the div |
| 02:36 | <roc> | as is, it's totally broken in Firefox |
| 02:36 | <roc> | so you should file a bug |
| 02:36 | <MikeSmith> | OK will do |
| 02:36 | <roc> | thanks! |
| 02:36 | <roc> | Assign it to jfkthame |
| 02:36 | <MikeSmith> | cheers |
| 02:36 | <MikeSmith> | hai |
| 02:38 | <roc> | I was talking to Xidorn and Jonathan last week about vertical ruby and text-combine-upright, so that stuff should be done soon too |
| 02:38 | <MikeSmith> | oh wow |
| 02:38 | <MikeSmith> | great |
| 02:39 | <MikeSmith> | I didn't know they were working on that |
| 02:39 | <MikeSmith> | oh cool and I just got the OSX desktop notification thing that my build is complete |
| 02:39 | <roc> | I also saw Jonathan demo vertical IME. That was beautiful. |
| 02:40 | <MikeSmith> | nice |
| 02:40 | <MikeSmith> | that's going to make a lot of people happy here in Japan |
| 02:40 | <roc> | text-combine-upright is somewhat evil from a browser engine point of view. |
| 02:40 | <roc> | character-depending styling is tricky |
| 02:40 | <MikeSmith> | really? |
| 02:41 | <roc> | text-combine-upright is a character-dependent orientation change |
| 02:41 | <MikeSmith> | just in the absolute or you mean because it overturns some older design assumptions?_ |
| 02:41 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 02:42 | <roc> | we'll try reusing the machinery for RTL, which does character-dependent direction changes |
| 02:43 | <MikeSmith> | sounds like something Jonathan must be right at home with |
| 02:43 | <MikeSmith> | given the other stuff I know he's worked on |
| 02:47 | <MikeSmith> | roc: btw speaking of Jonathan, just found https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1108067 |
| 02:47 | <MikeSmith> | setting vertical writing-mode on the document element doesn't result in expected horizontal scrollbar |
| 02:47 | <MikeSmith> | from 12-05 |
| 02:49 | <roc> | sounds like it could be your bug |
| 02:50 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 02:53 | <MikeSmith> | found the IME-support-in-vertical-text enhancement bug too https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1076657 |
| 02:53 | MikeSmith | is Cc'ing himself on a bunch of bugs |
| 02:53 | <roc> | Jonathan has been busy :-) |
| 02:54 | <roc> | he also recently did multicol and some form controls. |
| 02:54 | <roc> | Looks like Chrome doesn't do form controls |
| 03:02 | <MikeSmith> | yeah saw the form-controls bug as well |
| 04:07 | <MikeSmith> | botie: inform roc I raised https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1108925 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1108923 but I couldn't assign either to Jonathan because I don't have enough editbugs perms to do that |
| 04:07 | <botie> | will do |
| 04:41 | <botie> | roc, at 2014-12-09 04:07 UTC, MikeSmith said: I raised https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1108925 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1108923 but I couldn't assign either to Jonathan because I don't have enough editbugs perms to do that |
| 08:17 | <annevk> | https://twitter.com/jochen_e/status/542204889909444608 foolip \o/ |
| 08:18 | <ondras> | MikeSmith: typo, but sounds nicely, right :) |
| 08:19 | <MikeSmith> | yay foolip |
| 08:19 | <MikeSmith> | ondras: yeah :) |
| 08:29 | <annevk> | Hixie: what's the latest in the ES Job vs HTML task/microtask mess? |
| 09:07 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: if there's opportunity still to slightly revise https://w3ctag.github.io/web-https/ I think it would be more effective if there were a separate section titled "Finding" at the very beginning of the document that contained just the text "Therefore, the TAG finds that the Web platform should be designed to actively prefer secure origins — typically, by encouraging use of HTTPS URLs instead of HT |
| 09:07 | <MikeSmith> | TP ones. Furthermore, the end-to-end nature of TLS encryption must not be compromised on the Web, in order to preserve this trust. |
| 09:07 | <MikeSmith> | (that part) |
| 09:08 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: or just replace the entire Abstract with just that text |
| 09:09 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: as it is now I have to read through 200+ or whatever other words to get to those two statement that are the actual point of the whole thing |
| 09:10 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: file that as an issue :) |
| 09:10 | <MikeSmith> | hai |
| 09:19 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: https://github.com/w3ctag/web-https/issues/4 |
| 09:42 | <foolip> | annevk: thanks :) |
| 09:59 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: note that "secure origin" is not really an accurate term |
| 09:59 | <annevk> | but I guess that doesn't matter much here, it's just a finding after all :p |
| 10:00 | <MikeSmith> | is there a term it could be replaced with? |
| 10:01 | <annevk> | hsivonen: how is https://twitter.com/RichSalz/status/542040814093086721 a good idea given utf-8? |
| 10:01 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: we haven't really come up with something yet |
| 10:01 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 11:21 | annevk | tries to find the forked URL spec |
| 11:21 | <annevk> | Is https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop/ it? |
| 11:22 | <annevk> | Last updated two days ago... |
| 11:45 | <annevk> | Okay, I filed some issues on https://github.com/webspecs/url/issues |
| 11:45 | <annevk> | Hopefully that helps rubys |
| 11:54 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: http://wilsonpage.co.uk/introducing-layout-boundaries/ has this come up in the CSS WG? |
| 12:25 | <hsivonen> | annevk: not clear that making RFC 20 a Standard is a good idea. I find it interesting that the IETF puts effort into tweaking the official status of that stuff. |
| 12:26 | <annevk> | hsivonen: yeah, fair |
| 15:00 | <JakeA> | wanderview: I guess you're looking at my post in Firefox Nightly? |
| 15:00 | <wanderview> | JakeA: yea |
| 15:01 | <JakeA> | The animations don't work in stable due to path.getTotalLength() throwing out weird numbers :( |
| 15:02 | <wanderview> | JakeA: they seem to work in FF 34 |
| 15:02 | <wanderview> | which just went to release last week I think |
| 15:03 | <JakeA> | wanderview: I think the getTotalLength bug is only there in some OSs and rendering modes |
| 15:03 | <JakeA> | I feature detect so it's ok |
| 15:03 | <JakeA> | I give it a line that I know then length of, and if it's off by >10, no anims |
| 15:03 | <JakeA> | Doesn't work on my Firefox 24 on OSX |
| 15:03 | <JakeA> | um 34 |
| 15:04 | <JakeA> | I think it's this https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1044449 |
| 15:05 | <wanderview> | JakeA: hmm... that bug's test case fails in my FF nightly... so maybe a related, but different issue |
| 15:05 | <JakeA> | Ahh well, the animations are working in nightly for me, so I guess a fix is on the way |
| 15:06 | <wanderview> | could be that the rendering prefs are different in nightly |
| 15:09 | <wanderview> | JakeA: works in mac FF 35 beta for me... so, soon |
| 15:10 | <JakeA> | wanderview: Looks like the bug's been there a while http://jakearchibald.com/2013/animated-line-drawing-svg/#comment-1389845471 - I didn't spot that comment at the time else I'd have been more proactive in making a ticket etc. But yeah, sounds like the issue doesn't happen for everyone |
| 15:15 | <wanderview> | hmm... I can't tell what changed to fix it :-\ but it seems in about 5 weeks it should be fixed when FF 35 goes to release |
| 15:16 | <JakeA> | \o/ |
| 15:28 | <wanderview> | JakeA: one pattern I've been thinking about is how to do a LRU cache... store last 100 photos looked at, etc |
| 15:28 | <wanderview> | JakeA: seems possible by using ordering out cache.keys()... when you get a match(), you clone and put() it again to refresh order |
| 15:29 | <wanderview> | JakeA: would be nice to be able to do "store up to 1MB of recently viewed photos", but we don't expose size |
| 15:34 | <JakeA> | wanderview: yeah, I've had that as a feature request for things like avatars |
| 16:03 | <wanderview> | JakeA: yea... or any kind of media app... music player, photo gallery, etc |
| 16:27 | <annevk> | Domenic: I got feedback from bz on Extensible Web Summit. It being co-located with conferences browser developers typically not attend makes it hard. Having a dedicated semi-yearly conference in e.g. the bay area for library, browser, and standards hackers might be better. |
| 16:28 | <Domenic> | Yeah, that makes sense… |
| 16:29 | <annevk> | Domenic: I would like to reboot this conference somehow. It's at least very important for Mozilla to have these kind of conversations with web developers and I'd like it if we could be more inclusive than just Mozilla and web developers. |
| 16:30 | <annevk> | Anyway, just a braindump, I should probably follow up on this myself |
| 16:30 | annevk | makes a note somewhere |
| 16:31 | <rniwa> | annevk: it’s kind of weird that we don’t invite regular web developers to TPAC… |
| 16:32 | <rniwa> | it appears to me that it’s most benefitial if we had a web-developer-oriented conference right before or after TPAC |
| 16:32 | <annevk> | rniwa: would you really want them to participate in a 60-person non-meeting? |
| 16:32 | <rniwa> | so that we can get some input from them... |
| 16:32 | <rniwa> | annevk: i’m not suggesting to invite them into TPAC meetings themselves |
| 16:32 | <annevk> | rniwa: but I have long argued for TPAC to be exactly what I want out of "Extensible Web Summit", namely a week long unconference... |
| 16:33 | <annevk> | rniwa: in which case it'd make perfect sense |
| 16:33 | <rniwa> | annevk: that’ll be nice although i would like to have the current meeting-style TPAC meetings as well |
| 16:33 | <rniwa> | annevk: but we can just cut back on the time spent discussing processes |
| 16:33 | <Domenic> | annevk: agreed on reboot |
| 16:33 | <rniwa> | like pub status, etc... |
| 16:34 | <rniwa> | and just discuss techinical stuff. |
| 16:34 | <annevk> | rniwa: really? I didn't realize people actually enjoyed these meetings |
| 16:34 | <rniwa> | annevk: I do enjoy them for the part we have techincal discussions |
| 16:34 | <rniwa> | annevk: some discussions are hard to have over emails. |
| 16:34 | <annevk> | rniwa: yeah, just technical stuff would be great, and I think you sort of make that happen by having unconference |
| 16:34 | <rniwa> | annevk: it’s not great when we start talking about issues and pub status, etc... |
| 16:35 | <annevk> | rniwa: since you organize those discussions yourself, rather than having them be facilitated by some chair that also has 30min anecdotes on the subject |
| 16:35 | <rniwa> | annevk: i wish they had just done that over emails |
| 16:35 | <rniwa> | annevk: but I think it’s nice to have a dedicated time for it |
| 16:36 | <rniwa> | annevk: with unconference, it’s hard to have a group meeting for each misc technical points |
| 16:36 | <rniwa> | annevk: whereas in WG meetings, we can just have an agenda for every topic we want to discuss |
| 16:36 | <rniwa> | annevk: and avoid the overhead of moving people around conference rooms |
| 16:36 | <annevk> | My idea of an unconference week would be lots of one hour slots. Each dedicated to a particular subject that needs discussion. E.g. new Indexed DB features. JSIDL. Layout API. Asynchronous iterators... |
| 16:36 | <rniwa> | annevk: but perhaps we can solve that problem in some other way |
| 16:37 | <annevk> | I guess we could organize the slots by topic so people don't have to move around much |
| 16:37 | <rniwa> | annevk: perhaps that’ll work but you’ll loose the opportunity to present your idea to the whole WG. |
| 16:37 | <annevk> | Well you'd just get a slot |
| 16:37 | <rniwa> | annevk: but I agree we can cut back on WG meeting times and have more unconferences |
| 16:37 | <annevk> | And if there's no interest maybe that's a good thing, so you're not wasting people's time :-) |
| 16:38 | <annevk> | But yeah, I'm not opposed to merging |
| 16:38 | <rniwa> | annevk: i dunno… this year’s TPAC rarely had any unconference meeting I wanted to attend. |
| 16:38 | <annevk> | I just find that 90% of the value of TPAC is hallways |
| 16:39 | <rniwa> | annevk: that’s true but TPAC’s uncoferences weren’t hallway talks either |
| 16:39 | <rniwa> | annevk: so I used most of my time on Wed to have hallway conversations instead |
| 16:39 | <annevk> | rniwa: could be that the W3C is no longer the place of development |
| 16:39 | <annevk> | rniwa: I haven't seen much come out of TPAC |
| 16:39 | <rniwa> | annevk: I don’t think it’s an issue with W3C per se |
| 16:40 | <rniwa> | annevk: it’s more of an issue with how TPAC meetings and conferences are organized |
| 16:40 | <jgraham> | FWIW the Mozilla all hands approach with entirely ad-hoc scheduling worked very well (not to say that nothing was scheduled in advance, but people were given the freedom to organise the meetings they wanted with the people they wanted at the times they wanted) |
| 16:40 | <annevk> | I didn't attend, so I'm not sure, but the summaries I got from fellow Mozillians didn't really sound like it was worth it, apart from the meeting people aspect |
| 16:41 | <jgraham> | The W3C would probably hate it because not having all Members in a room sitting around not doing much would decrease the appeal of Membership, or something |
| 16:41 | <rniwa> | I think the problem with TPAC’s unconferences is that we end up getting non-technical people as well as people who aren’t familiar with the suggested topic |
| 16:41 | <annevk> | I would like a meeting that is focused on technical stuff and has half a day or so for something social |
| 16:41 | <rniwa> | so each unconference ends up spending too much time explaining stuff |
| 16:41 | <annevk> | jgraham: yeah, #mozlandia was great |
| 16:42 | <jgraham> | I think the first step would be to ban all meetings large enough to require a microphone |
| 16:42 | <annevk> | jgraham++ |
| 16:42 | <rniwa> | jgraham: that might be a good start |
| 16:42 | <rniwa> | jgraham: even for topics in HTML & WebApps WG, you rarely need more than 7 people to participate... |
| 16:43 | <jgraham> | Yeah and having to run a microphone around means that you cut bandwidth by at least 50% |
| 16:43 | <annevk> | rniwa: right, that has been my observation as well, which is why I favor unconference as you can get more precise meetings with only those that need to be there |
| 16:43 | <annevk> | rniwa: and anyone else that wants to be there and listen in should be able to of course, but with topic-based discussion you can't get sidetracked |
| 16:43 | <jgraham> | Probably more because you suddenly can't have a conversation, you have to have a speaker queue and so on, so discussion kind of dies |
| 16:44 | <annevk> | rniwa: compare mailing list discussion with issue/Bugzilla discussion |
| 16:44 | <annevk> | rniwa: it's somewhat similar |
| 16:44 | <rniwa> | annevk: yeah |
| 16:44 | <annevk> | rniwa: large group meetings inspire permathreads; unconference insprires getting shit done |
| 16:44 | <rniwa> | annevk: I guess if we dismentled WG meetings, then unconference meetings could be more technical as well |
| 16:44 | <rniwa> | because thigns that would have otherwise happend in WG meetings would happen in those unconference meetings |
| 16:44 | <annevk> | yup |
| 16:44 | <tantek> | github issues are even better than bugzilla in my experience |
| 16:45 | <tantek> | a badly run WG meeting is merely a sign of a bad chair |
| 16:45 | <rniwa> | tantek: I like how commits are associated with issues in Github |
| 16:45 | <tantek> | rniwa - indeed |
| 16:45 | <rniwa> | tantek: or a bad WG... |
| 16:45 | <tantek> | rniwa - what is a bad WG? |
| 16:45 | <tantek> | you mean charter? |
| 16:46 | rniwa | eyes at a certain WG which has exactly one company in it… |
| 16:46 | <tantek> | annevk - the social web wg f2f (first one so only one data point) at TPAC was quite productive and resolved several issues that have been permathreads in past mailing lists (like Activity Streams) - so it is possible to run a WG meeting well, but perhaps it is difficult to do so. |
| 16:47 | <tantek> | oh dear a one company WG? WTF. |
| 16:48 | <tantek> | one key thing: as co-chair I have refused to read the mailing list (except when people explicitly paste URLs in IRC) and I have refused to email the agenda to the mailing list - since the agenda is developed and available on the wiki. |
| 16:48 | <jgraham> | I don't think a technical discussion in a room with 50 people and a microphone can ever go well |
| 16:48 | <tantek> | jgraham: we had about 20-25. perhaps you're right. |
| 16:48 | <rniwa> | jgraham: it could if roughly 45 people never speaks LOL |
| 16:48 | <rniwa> | that’s what happend at WebApps WG TPAC meetings this year |
| 16:48 | <annevk> | WGs don't work for something as big as the web |
| 16:49 | <tantek> | have either of you gone to IETF meetings? how do those compare to W3C WG f2f? |
| 16:50 | <Domenic> | what's the one-company WG? pointer events? |
| 16:52 | <annevk> | tantek: they're max two hours which helps |
| 16:53 | <annevk> | tantek: but same experience, hallway rules |
| 16:53 | <annevk> | And when hallway rules rather than the "formal" track, the whole thing is run in the wrong way imo |
| 17:43 | <annevk> | JakeA: is ServiceWorkerClient exposes outside of service workers? |
| 17:43 | <annevk> | JakeA: is that the reason for the ServiceWorker prefix? |
| 17:43 | <JakeA> | annevk: at the moment yeah, but I want to rename them & split them into WindowClient, WorkerClient & SharedWorkerClient |
| 17:43 | <JakeA> | Just haven't had time to properly think it though |
| 17:44 | <annevk> | JakeA: okay, if that's still the plan all sounds good |
| 17:44 | <JakeA> | Will aim to start a ticket on it tomorrow |
| 17:44 | <annevk> | JakeA: do I need to do anything to get the API generality thing resolved? |
| 17:59 | <JakeA> | annevk: Alex was calling for more evidence. I'm pretty happy now we have a backwards-compatible adoption path though |
| 18:02 | <annevk> | JakeA: in private? I thought we got past that |
| 18:03 | <JakeA> | annevk: hm, I'm pretty sure slightlyoff_ was still demanding examples of sites that needed multiple scopes |
| 18:03 | <JakeA> | I think moving scopes was agreed |
| 18:03 | <annevk> | JakeA: hmm |
| 18:04 | <annevk> | JakeA: that's not evident from the issue |
| 18:08 | <JakeA> | annevk: I'll chase him for a position |
| 18:09 | <annevk> | JakeA: thanks, that we can add most of these things in a backwards compatible way seems good, although the design is not necessarily optimal |
| 18:14 | <annevk> | I don't like quora, but http://www.quora.com/What-was-the-one-line-JavaScript-that-president-Obama-wrote-as-part-of-the-Hour-of-Code-2014 is cool |
| 18:52 | <JonathanNeal> | ondras: thank you again for your help yesterday. |
| 18:55 | <robwu_nl> | Is the blur event supposed to be triggered upon node removal? See https://crbug.com/439484 for context. |
| 18:58 | <JonathanNeal> | robwu_nl: that seems addressed in the example @ https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/interaction.html#focus-fixup-rule-one |
| 18:59 | <caitp> | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=559561 for example |
| 18:59 | <caitp> | surprised it's taking so long to land that fix |
| 19:00 | <JonathanNeal> | Reported 2010 |
| 19:00 | <JonathanNeal> | I wonder if it’s possible to see the moment when the bug hit the event horizon and was lost for all time? |
| 19:01 | <JonathanNeal> | *and went into stasis |
| 19:01 | <caitp> | well, the comments are saying webkit was doing some weird things in that case, maybe it still is, maybe blink still is too |
| 19:02 | <JonathanNeal> | then isn’t that what the spec is for? |
| 19:07 | <caitp> | interestingly I get a stack overflow trying to attach the removed input to a new element in blink |
| 19:09 | <caitp> | http://jsfiddle.net/8wdckaaq/ slightly different variation, it still does weird things |
| 19:09 | <caitp> | these models are problematic because they don't really make a lot of sense when you take into consideration all of the things that can happen |
| 19:24 | <ondras> | JonathanNeal: no problem. It was a new and interesting topic for me as well. |
| 19:25 | <robwu_nl> | JonathanNeal: Don't the focus fixup rules apply to the to-be-focused area instead of the unfocused area? Step 2 defines "old chain", step 3 are the fixup steps - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/interaction.html#processing-model-6:currently-focused-area-of-a-top-level-browsing-context-12 |
| 21:18 | <wanderview> | JakeA: did something change in TrainedToThrill so it no longer gives random images when you click it's (in-page) refresh button? |
| 21:19 | <JakeA> | wanderview: it was never supposed to do that, but there's something odd with Flickr's search that makes it often do that |
| 21:19 | <wanderview> | JakeA: ok... it used to happen for me a lot... not getting it now... wondered if I broke something in our SW impl |
| 21:20 | <wanderview> | thanks |
| 21:39 | <wanderview> | hmm... could have something to do with it pulling duplicates of the same image |
| 22:08 | <polumetis> | NickServ identify spring12 |
| 22:09 | <ondras> | .) |
| 22:11 | <wanderview> | JakeA: yea... our maple build actually is failing to intercept all the flikr requests :-\ |
| 22:28 | <JakeA> | wanderview: just the images, or the API too? |
| 22:28 | <wanderview> | JakeA: our onfetch() seems broken at the moment... not seeing it fire for anything |
| 22:29 | <wanderview> | JakeA: we store the main trained-to-thrill scripts because you do an addAll() in the install step instead of onfetch for those |
| 22:30 | <wanderview> | JakeA: sorry I didn't catch this before telling you it worked the other day :-\ amazing thing is it still loads and stay up on refresh when I disconnect my ethernet interface |
| 22:33 | wanderview | send email to team... drops mic... eats dinner |
| 22:40 | <JakeA> | wanderview: no worries, haven't had a chance to play with maple yet. Addy gave it a spin though and couldn't quite get it working. That might explain it |