| 04:57 | <JonathanNeal> | before i use the wrong word, is xml a syntax or a language or both? |
| 04:58 | <JonathanNeal> | the acronym is language, but i dunno, me bad at english |
| 05:53 | <Hixie> | JonathanNeal: it's a metalanguage that defines a syntax for defining language grammars for new languages based on annotated trees and a syntax for expressing those languages |
| 06:02 | <bret> | JonathanNeal: a markup language no? |
| 06:03 | <Hixie> | you could describe it as a markup language, depending on how you defined "markup language" |
| 10:50 | <zcorpan> | intredasting http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kerwin-file-scheme-13.txt |
| 10:55 | <ondras> | On an OpenVMS Files-11 system, append a slash "/" to the URI, and encode the device name as the first segment as per step 5 |
| 10:55 | <ondras> | heh |
| 12:10 | <annevk> | better link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kerwin-file-scheme-13 |
| 12:11 | <annevk> | I'm not sure why the IETF keeps maintaining so many different canonical links, especially when everything not tools.ietf.org is so poor |
| 12:30 | <foolip> | annevk: sorry about isSameNode(), now the ball is with you :/ |
| 12:30 | <annevk> | foolip: I hope you're okay with me just leaving the bug open |
| 12:31 | <annevk> | foolip: there doesn't seem to be a compelling need to make a decision at this point |
| 12:31 | <foolip> | annevk: indefinitely, or what input do you need to resolve it either way? |
| 12:32 | <annevk> | foolip: I guess compat issues for Gecko |
| 12:32 | <annevk> | foolip: or maybe compat issues for a new browser |
| 12:32 | <Ms2ger> | We killed it, didn't we? |
| 12:32 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: yup |
| 12:32 | <Ms2ger> | Then I'd prefer leaving it out of the spec :) |
| 12:32 | <foolip> | Ms2ger: yes, but my attempt to remove it in Blink was not met with the usual enthusiasm |
| 12:33 | <Ms2ger> | There's usual enthusiasm? |
| 12:33 | <foolip> | I'd say so, yes, when some crufty unused stuff is removed |
| 12:34 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: if there's a r+ patch on a bug, it needs a checkin-needed keyword right? |
| 12:34 | <Ms2ger> | Typically yes |
| 12:35 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340494 |
| 12:35 | annevk | just added it |
| 12:36 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, ... why is that bug closed? |
| 12:36 | <foolip> | annevk: you can leave it open, but I'd suggest finding out if IE or Safari are going to remove it |
| 12:36 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: hmm not sure, maybe that patch should have gone in a new bug |
| 12:36 | <annevk> | foolip: is Travis on the cc? |
| 12:36 | <foolip> | annevk: nope |
| 12:40 | <annevk> | foolip: okay, added and added hober and left a comment with what I'm inclined to do about this |
| 12:40 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: ta |
| 12:41 | <foolip> | annevk: thanks |
| 12:57 | <Ms2ger> | foolip, do you have tests for https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1109486 ? |
| 12:58 | <foolip> | Ms2ger: just the test in https://codereview.chromium.org/791783002/ |
| 12:59 | <foolip> | we can't run serve.py tests (yet) so it's some silly cgi script |
| 12:59 | <Ms2ger> | Want to submit one? |
| 13:00 | <Ms2ger> | Not having to write tests is usually a nice carrot ;) |
| 13:01 | <foolip> | how trivial is it to echo the Content-Type header using serve.py? |
| 13:02 | <foolip> | Ms2ger: I'm afraid a per-spec test wouldn't pass in either Gecko or Blink because we both use application/xml unconditionally |
| 13:03 | <foolip> | I guess I could write a test using an XMLDocument to avoid that though |
| 13:03 | <Ms2ger> | Trivial |
| 13:03 | <Ms2ger> | I suspect .headers would work too |
| 13:04 | <Ms2ger> | Having HTML and XML tested both would be even better ;) |
| 13:04 | <foolip> | Ms2ger: then will you put back isSameNode() :P ? |
| 13:05 | <foolip> | so anyway, I'm trying to write a test for you |
| 13:05 | <Ms2ger> | No :) |
| 13:05 | <Ms2ger> | And thanks a lot |
| 13:06 | Ms2ger | should go out and buy chocolate for the holidays |
| 13:07 | <foolip> | Ms2ger: looks like web-platform-tests/XMLHttpRequest/send-entity-body-document.htm is already testing this |
| 13:07 | <foolip> | that was easy :) |
| 13:08 | <Ms2ger> | Ha |
| 13:10 | <jgraham> | foolip: So what do we have to do to get Chromium running tests with the proper server? |
| 13:11 | <foolip> | jgraham: I don't know, maybe setting up the hosts is non-trivial, or maybe nobody has tried it yet |
| 13:12 | <jgraham> | fwiw we use autoproxy instead of the hosts on infra |
| 13:12 | <foolip> | it sure would be nice, right now tests are being rewritten by a script to make paths non-absolute... |
| 13:28 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: in http://html5doctor.com/html5-check-it-before-you-wreck-it-with-miketm-smith/ "Should pre-HTML5 doctypes be flagged with a warning, in the W3C Validator, now HTML5 is a REC?" - the html4 doctypes are conforming, at least the ones that trigger standards mode |
| 13:28 | <Ms2ger> | Lol rec |
| 13:29 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: next question: "Nothing changed in browsers." isn't quite true, the gecko html parser had problems with it that went away when switching to html5 parser |
| 13:38 | MikeSmith | wonders what mechanism the html5 doctors have for printing retractions |
| 13:39 | MikeSmith | reminds himself to qualify more statements with "as far as I know" or "don't trust what I'm telling you" |
| 13:47 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: the transitional one is not conforming, right? |
| 13:47 | <MikeSmith> | it see like that's the one most often used |
| 13:48 | <MikeSmith> | the validator errors for that one still |
| 13:50 | <MikeSmith> | I thought we had been emitting a warning about the conformant ones but I guess not |
| 13:51 | <MikeSmith> | last I saw the spec said not to use those in documents |
| 13:51 | <MikeSmith> | should not not use |
| 13:51 | <MikeSmith> | *not |
| 13:53 | <Ms2ger> | MikeSmith, I think that changed to reduce warning fatigue |
| 13:53 | <MikeSmith> | ah ok |
| 13:53 | <Ms2ger> | And no real negative effect |
| 13:54 | <MikeSmith> | I guess I should actually check actual facts sometimes before I say things |
| 14:10 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: right, transitional doesn't trigger standards mode |
| 14:10 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: facts are overrated :-) |
| 14:11 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: I will quote you on that |
| 14:11 | <MikeSmith> | but I will misstate it when I quote you |
| 14:12 | <annevk> | Domenic: www-tag continues to amaze |
| 14:13 | <zcorpan> | looking forward to it |
| 14:14 | <MikeSmith> | about URL still? |
| 14:14 | <annevk> | Domenic: first saying how you could rely on free public caching and then demanding 24/7 phone support |
| 14:14 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: TLS |
| 14:14 | <MikeSmith> | ah even better |
| 14:17 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: someone is claiming that the move to HTTPS is killing independent hosting providers |
| 14:18 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: he's sort of a known troll though |
| 14:20 | <MikeSmith> | coming out from the woodwork and all that I guess |
| 14:20 | <annevk> | http://www.certificate-transparency.org/ not going over TLS o_O |
| 14:21 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: he pops up every now and then and considers himself a spokesperson for the independent developer |
| 14:25 | MikeSmith | briefly peruses the www-tag thread |
| 14:26 | <MikeSmith> | ah yeah that guy |
| 14:28 | <zcorpan> | Ms2ger: the "caching is allowed" check can never fail, right? |
| 14:29 | <Ms2ger> | zcorpan, it's not intended to be able to |
| 14:29 | <Ms2ger> | Covering all conformance reqs and all; I probably wouldn't write it today |
| 14:31 | <zcorpan> | should we replace it with a comment saying it can't be tested? |
| 14:33 | <Ms2ger> | *shrug* |
| 14:33 | <zcorpan> | yeah |
| 14:34 | <zcorpan> | ok let's leave it :-) |
| 15:39 | <krijnhoetmerbot> | zcorpan: done (I think) |
| 15:42 | <krijnhoetmerbot> | (For new logs that is, not for cached older ones) |
| 15:55 | <annevk> | krijnhoetmerbot: when will TLS arrive? |
| 15:55 | <krijnhoetmerbot> | Not on this machine I'm affraid |
| 15:55 | <annevk> | krijnhoetmerbot: I can help you out with a certificate if that's the problem |
| 15:55 | <krijnhoetmerbot> | *afraid |
| 15:55 | <annevk> | I see |
| 16:01 | <Domenic> | topic should probably be updated to https://whatwg.org/ instead of http://www.whatwg.org/ |
| 16:16 | <annevk> | hmm, MikeSmith has to make that change I guess, seems locked |
| 16:20 | <krijnhoetmerbot> | Also added previous/next day links to the logs, yay |
| 16:22 | <krijnhoetmerbot> | Will regenerate last month's cache |
| 16:23 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: no www anymore :) |
| 16:23 | <MikeSmith> | ah |
| 16:32 | <annevk> | jgraham: what's the status of the service worker test infrastructure? |
| 16:34 | <jgraham> | annevk: I think some infrastructure that Google used to write some tests landed |
| 16:34 | <annevk> | wanderview: ^^ |
| 16:36 | <wanderview> | thanks... it would be great to the blink tests uplifted then... easiest way to get it into our tree |
| 16:39 | <jgraham> | https://github.com/w3c/testharness.js/pull/82 and https://github.com/w3c/testharness.js/pull/93 |
| 16:40 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: I guess you've been talking with whoever wrote http://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/prefer-secure-origins-for-powerful-new-features (Mike West) about revising it to use some concept/term other than "secure origin"? |
| 16:41 | <MikeSmith> | though the definition of what a "secure origin" is there doesn't seem obviously way off to me from what should be needed |
| 16:41 | <MikeSmith> | *Mike West? |
| 16:41 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I work with him on https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/ |
| 16:42 | <MikeSmith> | (not sure who wrote the document but I was guessing it was him( |
| 16:42 | MikeSmith | looks |
| 16:42 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I don't care much for the original Chromium documents |
| 16:42 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: maybe the TAG draft should reference https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/powerfulfeatures/ instead |
| 16:42 | <MikeSmith> | then |
| 16:43 | <MikeSmith> | should I raise a github issue for that? |
| 16:43 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I guess you should |
| 16:43 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: or just PR it |
| 16:43 | <MikeSmith> | hai |
| 16:43 | <MikeSmith> | hmm yeah that's better I suppose |
| 16:45 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: btw "Requirements for Powerful Features" by itself is kind of an ambiguous title |
| 16:46 | <MikeSmith> | it could be about any kind of powerful feature at all |
| 16:46 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I have tried to bikeshed the terminology around this for a while and stopped caring |
| 16:46 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I only care about getting it grounded in first principles at this point, hopefully someone else can fix the other issues |
| 16:47 | <MikeSmith> | makes sense |
| 17:51 | <zcorpan_> | krijnhoetmerbot: very nice. thanks |
| 17:55 | <krijnhoetmerbot> | zcorpan_: np! |
| 18:21 | <wanderview> | JakeA: you mean if script does two XHRs or two Fetch() calls to the same URL, is the network layer smart enough to realize and only do one actual request? is that ok to do? for example, REST API endpoints could have side effects, etc |
| 18:22 | <wanderview> | seems its up to content to set the cache headers properly... so second fetch() goes to http cache |
| 18:22 | <wanderview> | and we live the race of two simultaneous network events |
| 18:22 | <JakeA> | wanderview: hmm, but it doesn't know the headers yet. Does Gecko wait on the pending response |
| 18:22 | <JakeA> | ahh ok |
| 18:23 | <JakeA> | Yeah, I don't think we can solve this with magic |
| 18:23 | <wanderview> | JakeA: I mean... I don't think the network layer can do that without eating potentially significant network calls to REST endpoints, etc |
| 18:23 | <JakeA> | wanderview: yeah, it seems like something you'd *sometimes* want to do rather than all the time |
| 18:24 | <wanderview> | yea, and I think the cache headers are the way to control that |
| 18:29 | <JakeA> | wanderview: if tab 1 requests "/hi", then tab 2 requests "/h1", will the request in tab 2 wait for headers to arrive for the tab 1 request to see if they're a match? |
| 18:29 | <JakeA> | I mean cachable |
| 18:30 | <wanderview> | JakeA: I don't know... that seems like something without a clear tradeoff... good in some cases and bad in others... my guess is they opt for the simple case and just do the second network request |
| 18:31 | <JakeA> | Makes sense. Not sure what Chrome does |
| 18:34 | <wanderview> | it would also probably have to be "wait X amount of time for request 1 headers, and do request 2 if that times out" |
| 18:38 | <wanderview> | JakeA: ok... wow... we actually do have some waiting/request coalescing for <img> elements... everything else races |
| 18:39 | <JakeA> | wanderview: I think the img stuff is actually in the spec |
| 18:39 | <wanderview> | ah... ok |
| 18:39 | <JakeA> | Good to know though |
| 19:05 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Re: layout boundaries, that's what http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-containment/ is all about (but even stronger) |
| 20:55 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: can we combine that with local resize events to get something like element queries? |
| 21:23 | <annevk> | Domenic: jreschke appears to have been coopted: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-objsec-01 |
| 21:25 | <Domenic> | annevk: I am so confused. |
| 21:28 | <annevk> | Domenic: ah, where it says "Intermediary-aware" you want to read "MITM" |
| 21:29 | <Domenic> | oh, i seeee |
| 21:29 | <annevk> | Domenic: basically at the moment the IETF is not requiring authenticated encrypted connections for HTTP/2.0 |
| 21:29 | <annevk> | Domenic: as I understand it, Google will require TLS, Mozilla will require OE, and Microsoft might not require either (support the same mess as HTTP/1.1) |
| 21:30 | <annevk> | Domenic: the telcons are in favor of a HTTP/1.1-like setup so they can continue tracking you and injecting ads |
| 21:32 | <Domenic> | but of course |
| 21:32 | <Domenic> | it's unfortunate the incentives here are in favor of microsoft's position |
| 21:33 | <jamesr__> | what's OE? |
| 21:33 | <annevk> | Ok, so https://twitter.com/hillbrad/status/542740425933852672 is paraphrasing |
| 21:33 | <annevk> | jamesr__: MITM encryption |
| 21:34 | <annevk> | jamesr__: or less offensive, it'd be Opportunistic Encryption |
| 21:34 | <jamesr__> | annevk: you said two things, but they seem to be in conflict |
| 21:35 | <jamesr__> | i see. encrypt if everybody in the middle says it's OK to do so |
| 21:35 | <annevk> | jamesr__: it's encryption without authentication |
| 21:36 | <jamesr__> | pay the CPU cost and complexity of encryption without actually protecting you from attackers. coolbeans |
| 21:36 | <annevk> | jamesr__: I've been trying to understand why this is a thing we want the web to invest effort in for a while now |
| 21:37 | <annevk> | jamesr__: I believe the argument is that more encryption is better than none and that for Mozilla this was not a lot of effort to support |
| 21:37 | <annevk> | jamesr__: and that authenticated encryption comes with a lot of baggage around Referer and Mixed Content... |
| 21:38 | <annevk> | jamesr__: which is all true, but that still doesn't mean it's a good idea, but obviously not everyone at Mozilla is aligned on that |
| 21:53 | <annevk> | Whoa, Flash download is without TLS |
| 21:53 | <Hixie> | is it a signed binary? |
| 21:54 | <annevk> | I'm not sure how I can tell |
| 21:55 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Actually, scratch that, I forgot that containment is about containing the painting effects of an element to within its boundaries, not stopping layout from leaking out. |
| 21:55 | <TabAtkins> | Stopping layout from leaking out is, more or less, what element queries will end up doing. |
| 21:55 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: are we still calling it element queries? |
| 21:55 | <annevk> | I guess it kind of makes sense... |
| 21:56 | <TabAtkins> | As EQ is just a combination of 1) some way of telling an element to stop paying attention to its contents for layout, and 2) some way for the contents of such an element to query the size of said element, likely via a selector. |
| 22:01 | <smaug____> | I wonder where Web Performance WG spec bugs should go |
| 22:02 | <annevk> | the /dev/null mailing list they run? |
| 22:02 | <smaug____> | ah, github :( |