02:29
<MikeSmith>
TLS 1.0 support is disabled for whatwg.org, right?
02:29
<MikeSmith>
ah no I mean the other way around
02:30
<MikeSmith>
1.1 and 1.2 not supported
06:41
<annevk>
MikeSmith: should get fixed this quarter by DreamHost
07:23
<MikeSmith>
annevk: ah ok yeah I vaguely remember asking about this earlier
07:23
<annevk>
MikeSmith: sorry you had to fix all that URL bug spam
07:23
<MikeSmith>
no worries
07:23
<MikeSmith>
I should have caught it before I did
07:23
<annevk>
MikeSmith: I initially thought a bunch of actual work happened
07:23
<MikeSmith>
I wasn't checking my e-mail earlier today
07:23
<MikeSmith>
hahah
07:24
<MikeSmith>
yah me too
07:24
<annevk>
so naïve
07:24
<MikeSmith>
haha
07:24
<MikeSmith>
no, you're an optimist
07:24
<MikeSmith>
glass half full and all that
07:24
<MikeSmith>
most of the time
07:24
<MikeSmith>
that's why people love you
07:26
<MikeSmith>
annevk: so btw are you aware of any trend with sites disabling TLS 1.0 support?
07:26
<MikeSmith>
or any guidance that suggests doing that?
07:27
<MikeSmith>
I understand sites disabling SSLv3
07:27
<annevk>
MikeSmith: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Server_Side_TLS#Modern_compatibility
07:27
MikeSmith
looks
07:28
<annevk>
MikeSmith: Adam Langley keeps saying this btw: "This seems like a good moment to reiterate that everything less than TLS 1.2 with an AEAD cipher suite is cryptographically broken."
07:29
<MikeSmith>
that seems pretty drastic
07:29
<MikeSmith>
and I hope it's not true
07:30
<MikeSmith>
I wonder there's some risk of boy-who-cried-wolf right now around some of the rhetoric with regard to TLS
07:31
<MikeSmith>
it alienates some people who would otherwise be more receptive and open-minded
07:31
<annevk>
Adam Langley knows what he's talking about, but cryptographically broken doesn't mean that attacks are necessarily feasible I believe
07:31
<MikeSmith>
or maybe it's needed to wake more people up, I dunno
07:31
<MikeSmith>
ok
07:31
<annevk>
There's certainly a lot of weird rhetoric found on www-tag...
07:32
<MikeSmith>
well that's crazy town out there
07:32
<MikeSmith>
those two guys
07:32
<MikeSmith>
it's like a comedy act
07:33
<annevk>
The biggest hurdle is Mixed Content
07:33
<MikeSmith>
yup
07:34
<MikeSmith>
certainly I know that for trying to move all of w3.org to TLS that's a major issue
07:34
<MikeSmith>
but there are other costly content-migration issues with it
07:35
<MikeSmith>
that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, or can't be
07:36
<annevk>
But W3C doesn't have that much embedded stuff, does it?
07:36
<annevk>
Most resources seem same-origin
07:37
<annevk>
W3C could at least start by not redirecting away from HTTPS
07:38
<MikeSmith>
yeah w3c doesn't have nearly has much embedded content per page as other sites (as far as the mixed-content issue goes) but it still has tons of pages with small amounts
07:38
<MikeSmith>
especially stylesheets
07:39
<MikeSmith>
yeah I don't understand why w3c is still redirecting away from HTTPS
07:40
<MikeSmith>
but I do know that the w3c systems team is having a lot of discussions about how to deal with this stuff, and deployment plans for the coming months
07:41
<MikeSmith>
anyway, about TLS 1.0 on the server side, in practice right now, disabling TLS 1.0 server support means that a lot of clients aren't going to be able to access your content, right?
07:42
<MikeSmith>
(let alone disabling TLS 1.1 support)
07:43
<MikeSmith>
in other news I see that WebKit is planning to remove their Shared Workers code (after having stopped shipping it some time back)
07:44
<MikeSmith>
dunno how big of a difference any of that is, given no support for Shared Workers on any mobile UAs, nor in IE
07:44
<Ms2ger>
Not even in Servo
07:45
<annevk>
If they ever want service workers... But from that email it seemed like the current implementation was not going to work for that anyway
07:45
<annevk>
MikeSmith: not sure what TLSv10 is needed for
07:46
<MikeSmith>
annevk: I thought it was that some UAs still only have TLSv10 support, and no v11 or v12 support
07:48
<MikeSmith>
hmm I see nobody even asked for Shared Workers support at https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/257854-internet-explorer-platform?query=Shared
07:49
<MikeSmith>
though Service Worker got a ton of votes
07:49
<MikeSmith>
https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/257854-internet-explorer-platform?query=worker
08:14
<hemanth>
meow
08:36
<MikeSmith>
opensearch plugin this looks pretty cool
08:36
<MikeSmith>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27754 from Domenic
08:36
<MikeSmith>
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Creating_OpenSearch_plugins_for_Firefox
08:39
<MikeSmith>
works in Chrome too http://browserfame.com/2071/opensearch-plugin-chrome
08:39
<MikeSmith>
though the UI isn't as discoverable
09:39
<annevk>
http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/ is dead
09:39
<annevk>
namespaces \o/
09:41
<annevk>
http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1
12:14
<annevk>
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163050 "Create New HTML Tag: <BLINQUEE>"
12:14
<annevk>
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
12:14
<annevk>
Whiteboard: notfixed
12:14
<annevk>
(via smontagu on another server)
12:22
<hemanth>
meow
12:53
<hemanth>
annevk, if you are around, after extending the image element, i tried <img is="myImg"> that did not work either :(
13:17
<annevk>
hemanth: works for me
13:17
<annevk>
document.registerElement('test-img', { prototype: { someattribute: "x" }, extends: 'img' })
13:18
<annevk>
var test = document.createElement("img", "test-img")
13:18
<annevk>
test.src = "image"
13:18
<annevk>
document.body.appendChild(test)
13:33
<hemanth>
annevk, I have done class TestImage extends HTMLImageElement {}
13:34
<annevk>
hemanth: when everyone said yesterday that class X extends Y {} doesn't work for anything but custom classes they were not joking around
13:36
<hemanth>
heh heh I got that point annevk, but i'm able to emulate it, with backgourdimage attr
13:36
<hemanth>
I just mentioned that with is="" thinge as well, this.src didn't work
13:37
<annevk>
it does if you follow the rules
13:38
<hemanth>
:)
13:38
hemanth
passes annevk some iced tea ^_^
13:40
<hemanth>
I'm sorry if I annoyed you annevk, I do remember yesterday's discussions
13:41
<annevk>
hemanth: no worries, I was happy to try it out
13:42
<hemanth>
:)
13:46
<hemanth>
annevk, BTW http://jsfiddle.net/gnumanth/a08wghyk/ is what I have done, //cc'ing caitp as well. ( ugly? )
13:49
<hemanth>
that's transpiled using 6to5
14:01
<darobin>
hemanth: that's actually pretty nice code for something transpiled; I'm guessing it's not using that many 6 features?
14:02
<hemanth>
darobin, it's using classes and template strings, hang on ill pass the code
14:02
<MikeSmith>
I heard ES6 classes are going to kill us all
14:02
<gsnedders>
I heard MikeSmith was going to kill us all. :)
14:02
<hemanth>
MikeSmith, heh heh debatable
14:03
hemanth
is already dead ;)
14:03
<MikeSmith>
class-ical inheritance bugbear
14:03
<MikeSmith>
gsnedders: I kill with kindness
14:03
<hemanth>
I hope FP will lead kindly to light ;)
14:04
<MikeSmith>
dunno what FP is
14:05
<MikeSmith>
wonder if I want to know
14:05
<hemanth>
Functional Programming, MikeSmith you already know ;)
14:05
<darobin>
MikeSmith: run before you get evangelised :)
14:05
<darobin>
ruuuuuuuuun!!!
14:05
<MikeSmith>
ah
14:05
<hemanth>
heh heh
14:05
<hemanth>
The fantasy land
14:05
hemanth
takes MikeSmith on a ride to the fantasy land
14:06
darobin
didn't know MikeSmith was allowed *out* of fantasy land
14:06
MikeSmith
gets off at the Rust rest top to take a potty break
14:06
hemanth
gets some sugar.js
14:07
<Ms2ger>
MikeSmith, joooooiiiiin uuuuuuuuuus
14:07
<MikeSmith>
I'm not smart enough for functional programming
14:07
<MikeSmith>
plus, I actually like side effects
14:08
<Ms2ger>
MikeSmith, we've got plenty imperative :)
14:08
<jgraham>
For once I wish I lived in a more religious — or at least more Christian — country so we could have today as a holiday. Or, I suppose, a less religious country that still had it as a holiday (e.g. Sweden)
14:08
<gsnedders>
side-effects are horrible!
14:09
<MikeSmith>
side effects are what makes life interesting
14:09
<MikeSmith>
jgraham: where is this day a holiday?
14:09
<jgraham>
MikeSmith: Not here :(
14:09
<gsnedders>
jgraham: what, you English people get your Yule Log today!
14:09
<MikeSmith>
Catholic holiday I guess
14:09
<gsnedders>
Why did I capitalise that?
14:10
<jgraham>
Not unless the Scandinavians suddenly went catholic on me
14:10
<MikeSmith>
oh holy god
14:10
<MikeSmith>
Epiphany
14:10
<MikeSmith>
it's like, the very best religious holiday of all
14:11
<gsnedders>
Wikipedia makes it sound like yule logs should be Twelfth Night and not today.
14:11
<gsnedders>
Oh well. Anglicans!
14:12
<annevk>
Is there any point in having <img is=...> once X extends HTMLImageElement {} actually works?
14:12
<jgraham>
gsnedders: I am having great difficulty not making faecal jokes
14:13
<jgraham>
annevk: I thought the point was so the declarative sematics were preserved
14:13
<hemanth>
annevk, readability ?
14:13
<jgraham>
*semantics
14:13
<gsnedders>
jgraham: well it's not my problem that you English people bring them upon yourselves!
14:13
<jgraham>
Yule logs?
14:14
<jgraham>
Well that's the effect of a protein-rich diet…
14:14
<hemanth>
Ok, here I go -> http://h3manth.com/new/blog/2015/custom-elements-with-es6/
14:14
<hemanth>
darobin, ^
14:15
hemanth
runs and hides behind the tree before annevk et.al gets angry and throw stones at me, meow ^_^
14:19
hemanth
is peeping from the side ^_ ^
14:24
<caitp>
heh =)
14:25
hemanth
slowly moves near caitp, any comments ;) ?
14:26
<caitp>
i mean, I guess it works for the browsers that support custom elements
14:26
<hemanth>
:)
14:31
<darobin>
hemanth: this.textContent = 'Today's date: ' <- probably doesn't work right :)
14:31
<Ms2ger>
*et al.
14:32
<hemanth>
darobin, what would you suggest?
14:32
<darobin>
hemanth: escaping the ' in "Today's"?
14:33
<caitp>
apparently in Safari, interfaces are not "function" but "object", too
14:33
<hemanth>
darobin, yikes, ha, that's done in the jsfiddle, not in the text, thanks editing
14:33
<darobin>
I guessed as much :)
14:33
<caitp>
not that it has custom elements, but it dies earlier
14:34
<caitp>
but, even if it did, I think Object.create(HTMLImageElement.prototype) would break whenever you tried to access `src`
14:34
<darobin>
hemanth: I'm happy to see that the transpiler does such a nice job; I mean you're not using *that* much but still
14:35
<caitp>
yeah, other than shadowing `src`, that wouldn't work :(
14:36
<hemanth>
darobin, :)
14:36
<caitp>
actually I'm wrong, apparently JSC tries to use the IDL-defined accessor before letting you shadow it
14:36
<hemanth>
caitp, that's the sad part...
14:37
<caitp>
so it just doesn't work at all
14:37
<gsnedders>
browsers!
14:37
<gsnedders>
who writes this nonsense!
14:37
<darobin>
gsnedders++ # <3
14:37
<hemanth>
I was curios about how Domenic would make the custom-img element
14:38
<hemanth>
gsnedders, :D
14:38
<darobin>
easy
14:38
<gsnedders>
pff, I'm sure I could write a better browser than you guys!
14:38
<darobin>
step 1) patch Chrome
14:38
<darobin>
step 2) profit
14:39
<gsnedders>
darobin: I think you missed the ???
14:40
<darobin>
gsnedders: the ??? ?
14:40
<darobin>
this could get meta
14:40
<gsnedders>
that's what step 2 is!
14:40
<Ms2ger>
darobin!
14:40
<gsnedders>
the big where somehow you convince Google to accept your patch
14:40
<darobin>
Ms2ger! My long-lost love!
14:41
<gsnedders>
d'awww
14:41
<gsnedders>
so romance
14:41
<darobin>
gsnedders: you missed the fact where Domenic works for Google :)
14:41
<darobin>
(that sell-out)
14:41
<gsnedders>
darobin: still has to convince them to ship it!
14:41
<Ms2ger>
darobin, com'ere and review my tests!
14:42
<darobin>
gsnedders: bah, we all know how shipping works at any company no matter how big; that can't be more than a few beers away
14:42
<gsnedders>
darobin: I mean does he have a spec that's public *before* IO?
14:42
<caitp>
well he's gonna get them to ship A.p.includes, so surely that's good enough
14:42
<darobin>
Ms2ger: finish reviewing my test you dropped off of in the middle of the issue discussion :)
14:43
<darobin>
Ms2ger: also, I need to look at your comments on the GH issues you closed
14:43
<Ms2ger>
darobin, link
14:43
<darobin>
gsnedders: who said the spec can't be in C++ :)
14:43
<darobin>
Ms2ger: https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/showcomment?chain=9822
14:43
<gsnedders>
darobin: I DID.
14:44
<Ms2ger>
darobin, your answer appears to be beside my point
14:44
<darobin>
Ms2ger: then we're talking past one another — you're saying the tests worked in Gecko when you wrote them but they don't now, and they don't work elsewhere
14:45
<Ms2ger>
darobin, I said it worked, not that it passed
14:45
<darobin>
okay, but elsewhere it's not that they fail, it's that they blow up on an unrelated problem
14:46
<Ms2ger>
Right, and that unrelated bug is still a bug
14:46
<darobin>
I don't think it's a good idea to have tests test something unrelated
14:46
<darobin>
we can get those tests to actually test something independently of other bugs
14:46
<darobin>
which is the information they're after
14:47
<darobin>
if you have issues with how data: and cross-origin interact, that's something for another test
14:47
<darobin>
this is actually obscuring passes
14:52
<gsnedders>
is there any way to per spec get the tentative pre-parse encoding and the final encoding from the parser to be different?
14:53
<gsnedders>
without relying on how many bytes the pre-parse does?
14:56
<darobin>
gah, submodules!!!
14:57
<caitp>
huh, I guess you can't shadow accessor properties at all
14:57
<caitp>
I did not know that
15:07
<Ms2ger>
darobin, all tests test unrelated things
15:08
<darobin>
Ms2ger: yeah, I know the rhetoric
15:08
<Ms2ger>
Whatever
15:08
<darobin>
but this one happens to test something unrelated that doesn't work in most places, and is trivially fixed
15:08
<darobin>
I don't see what the problem is with fixing that
15:10
<darobin>
Ms2ger: sorry but I really don't see what's making you grumpy about this, it's nice when tests work I think...
15:10
<darobin>
unless you're grumpy because some browsers suck, which is, well, a good point
15:12
<jgraham>
I assumed that being generally grumpy about browsers was why we all did this
15:12
<jgraham>
It's GDD
15:12
<darobin>
lol
15:18
<darobin>
Ms2ger: oh, that's so very nice of you to reclose a PR I just reopened without leaving time for discussion
15:18
<darobin>
very mature and all
15:18
<darobin>
friendly, all that
15:18
<darobin>
welcoming, etc — everything that makes working on web tech a great place!
15:19
<Ms2ger>
darobin, the test is correct, I told you so when I first closed the PR, and you reopened it without discussion
15:19
<darobin>
I reopened it so that it would take the rebase into account
15:19
<Ms2ger>
Why rebase? It's wrong
15:19
<darobin>
s/rebase/merge/
15:20
<darobin>
now, I could easily be lost in the test code but it looks to me like this isn't a case in which defaulting to the XHTML namespace applies
15:21
<darobin>
and this fails in every single engine
15:21
<jgraham>
It is possible for the test to be right and still fail in every engine
15:22
<jgraham>
(note: I have no idea what test you are talking about)
15:22
<darobin>
jgraham: that I know, and I could be reading either of the code or the spec wrong since both have some degree of indirection
15:24
<darobin>
and indeed, I now see that I had read the code wrong
15:24
darobin
looks for a spec bug
15:25
<Ms2ger>
darobin, it's created through createElement, so it's in the HTML namespace per spec
15:26
<darobin>
Ms2ger: yes, I had misread indeed — which is why I'm looking for a spec bug
15:26
<annevk>
jgraham: if that's the only reason there's no reason to support is="" in createElement()
15:28
<jgraham>
annevk: That makes sense I think
15:28
<annevk>
Perhaps for serialization? But at some point this starts to break down...
15:29
<darobin>
ah, right, I recall https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19431
15:29
<darobin>
it looks like implementers haven't weighed in much either way :)
15:54
<annevk>
darobin: euhm
15:55
<annevk>
darobin: it's not like implementations agree with each other today
15:55
<annevk>
darobin: or did that change?
15:55
<darobin>
annevk: well, it depends on what aspect of the whole Document mess. It looks like they all have XMLDocument.createElement() return an element with a null ns
15:56
<darobin>
on other parts it is still a complete mindfuck
15:56
<annevk>
How do you even create an XMLDocument?
15:57
<darobin>
sorry, a Document in XML mode
15:57
<annevk>
That doesn't really seem like something we could meaningfully define
15:57
<darobin>
?
15:58
<annevk>
wouldn't that break createElement() in XHTML documents?
15:59
<darobin>
doesn't everything break that :)
15:59
<annevk>
not necessarily
16:00
<annevk>
not as they exist today :p
16:00
<darobin>
seriously though, document.implementation.createDocument(null, null).createElement("foo").namespaceURI returns null pretty consistently
16:00
<annevk>
that's a pretty specific case, too
16:02
<darobin>
annevk: yes, I was just saying that maybe the bits that are aligned can be spec'ed as such; it doesn't look like there's a lot of movement to solve the full list of issues around document dependence
16:03
<darobin>
you argument that have the same Documet behaviour across MIME types is a good one, but I'm not sure it really has that much impact in the real world
16:03
<darobin>
maybe I'm not seeing all the corner cases, but libs are already broken there anyway
16:05
<darobin>
last I check jQuery needed a plugin in order to do anything useful in SVG for instance
16:05
<annevk>
it seems hard to change the behavior of just that case
16:06
<annevk>
without doing silly things with flags that match what no implementation has today either
16:07
<darobin>
annevk: actually, looking more closely that case *is* on XMLDocument
16:08
<darobin>
annevk: I think changing this specific issue is relatively minor; but my interest was more along the lines of thinking about what the minimum victory could be for the broader Document mess
16:08
<annevk>
darobin: it's unclear whether implementations use that interface elsehwere too so hanging things off that seems unwise
16:08
<annevk>
darobin: there's a distinct bug for that
16:08
<darobin>
annevk: you mean for the Document mess? yes I know
16:09
<darobin>
I was mostly wondering if chipping away some of the tentacles might not render the larger issue either moot or more tractable
16:09
<darobin>
well, Gecko does still have XMLDocument.load() but you guys should really remove that because no one else has it
16:10
darobin
wonders if there's much "instanceof XMLDocument" out there
16:11
<annevk>
darobin: file a bug on load()?
16:11
<darobin>
annevk: there's one already, it's oooold
16:11
<annevk>
Yahoo Mail might be the last one out there
16:11
<annevk>
darobin: pointer?
16:11
darobin
looking
16:12
<darobin>
there's https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=775480 but that's not the one I was thinking of
16:14
<annevk>
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330771
16:15
<tomvg>
annevk: do you know if the context property of the Request class from the Fetch API (https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#requestcontext) is implemented in some browser? I checked Chrome Canary and FF nightly, but couldn't find it - maybe I missed something?
16:16
<annevk>
tomvg: I'm not sure, haven't paid much attention to Fetch et al recently
16:16
<annevk>
tomvg: if bits are landed in browsers now it could very well be that some of the more complicated parts are left out
16:17
<annevk>
tomvg: I recommend filing bugs with use cases
16:17
<tomvg>
don't have a specific use case at the moment, just a keen interest :)
16:18
<tomvg>
I'll dig a bit deeper first
16:20
<darobin>
annevk: that's not the one either; there's https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=494705 but it's marked fixed due to the patch that now warns for its usage
16:20
<darobin>
(but I'm sure that's not the bug either, the one I recall had bz in it)
16:23
<annevk>
darobin: so are you sure it's not in other browsers?
16:24
<annevk>
darobin: I found a couple of related bugs that would get fixed due to removal...
16:25
<darobin>
annevk: pretty sure, I can triple-check tomorrow if you want.
16:28
<annevk>
darobin: using "load" in document.implementation.createDocument("", "", null) confirmed for Chrome and IE
16:28
<annevk>
and Safari
16:28
<darobin>
wha?
16:28
<annevk>
that it isn't there
16:28
<darobin>
oh
16:28
<darobin>
you got me scared that reality had been rebooted for a second there
16:33
<annevk>
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=983090 seems to be the relevant bug
17:17
<MikeSmith>
annevk: https://twitter.com/auchenberg/status/552501350102487042
17:17
<MikeSmith>
"I switched kenneth.io to HTTPS, and now my embedded JSfiddles broke. No SSL, @jsfiddle? Any free alternatives?"
17:18
<MikeSmith>
there are no free alternatives afaik
17:18
<Domenic>
jsbin
17:18
<MikeSmith>
Domenic: I thought jsbin was even more we-intentionally-aren't-gonna-do-TLS
17:19
<Domenic>
hmm yeah i guess pro accounts only http://jsbin.com/help/ssl
17:19
<MikeSmith>
ah
17:20
<MikeSmith>
well, glad they offer that at least
17:20
<caitp>
i think plnkr.co is tls-happy, iirc
17:20
<caitp>
maybe not
17:20
<MikeSmith>
codepen's not either afaik
17:20
<MikeSmith>
time for everybody to pro up
17:21
<MikeSmith>
hey there's another reason for more sites to move to TLS as an alternative
17:21
<MikeSmith>
more revenue
17:21
<MikeSmith>
(only half joking)
17:28
<annevk>
MikeSmith: why would jsfiddle not have TLS?
17:31
<Ms2ger>
MikeSmith, live dom viewer? :)
18:10
<MikeSmith>
annevk: because they don't have it? and I don't know why not
18:10
<MikeSmith>
https://careers.microsoft.com/jobdetails.aspx?ss=&pg=0&so=&rw=1&jid=166914&jlang=EN&pp=SS
18:10
<MikeSmith>
"You love debugging minifed javascript code for your own pleasure"
18:11
<MikeSmith>
sounds like Hallvord wrote this job description
18:15
<jgraham>
"comfortable dealing with negative perception"
18:28
<MikeSmith>
jgraham: typo there
18:28
<MikeSmith>
I think they meant "dealing out"
18:33
<annevk>
MikeSmith: no excuses!
18:59
<annevk>
Might have overused the word "sad"
20:08
<wanderview>
annevk: if someone does a fetch(), but never references the Response body data... would you rather have the response sit in memory forever or eventually produce a network error when the remote server gives up on the connection?
23:24
<dmurph>
test
23:34
<caitp>
> @WHATWG tweets a URL, it is at least 5-10 minutes before URL actually points to something interesting
23:35
<caitp>
okay, 2 minutes this time
23:36
<Hixie_>
i think that's because it takes that long to update github