| 01:34 | <TabAtkins> | dglazkov: You need to use getPropertyValue() |
| 01:39 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Theoretically, a bikeshed update will make the HTML links go to multipage now. |
| 08:29 | <annevk_> | TabAtkins: when "bikeshed update" says it's downloading data, is that over HTTPS? |
| 08:30 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: it still turns "toString()" into "toString" |
| 08:30 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: so it mangles the content, that would be part of the undesired magic |
| 08:49 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: oh and Document linking to HTML is somewhat problematic |
| 08:49 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: happy to help out getting that resolved if you have any ideas |
| 11:52 | <roc> | too bad Lauren Weinstein didn't read the actual proposal, which says nothing about making sites inaccessible |
| 12:23 | <MikeSmith> | roc: too bad the people involved haven't done a much better job of making it more clear what the actual plans are |
| 12:24 | <MikeSmith> | Lauren is far from the only person who's made the mistake of reading more into than what's actually there |
| 12:24 | <MikeSmith> | given the zealotry that comes across in of a lot of rhetoric being tossed around, it shouldn't be a surprise |
| 12:25 | <roc> | It's totally clear in the first message of the dev-platform thread, which links to this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IGYl_rxnqEvzmdAP9AJQYY2i2Uy_sW-cg9QI9ICe-ww/edit?usp=sharing |
| 12:25 | <roc> | and it's clear in the official blog post: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/04/30/deprecating-non-secure-http/ |
| 12:26 | <MikeSmith> | roc: so why do you think many people have reacted so strongly to the announcements the way they have? |
| 12:27 | <roc> | because people are sinners. Why do *you* think? |
| 12:28 | <roc> | I mean, I'm as guilty as anyone of diving into a controversy without checking the original sources, but whoever does it, that's on them. |
| 12:29 | <MikeSmith> | I see. So the people responsible for getting the message out about this properly are faultless |
| 12:30 | <roc> | In this particular issue, yeah, pretty much. |
| 12:30 | <roc> | I don't see how they could have made it more clear that we're not going to start blocking HTTP sites. |
| 12:31 | <roc> | At some point, someone --- Lauren, or someone he read --- just made that up. And that's not Richard Barnes' fault. |
| 12:34 | <MikeSmith> | here's an idea: they could have written once sentence at the top of the blog post and the actual proposal: "We are not going to start blocking HTTP sites." |
| 12:35 | <MikeSmith> | communicating with other people about things like this requires make an effort to understand how people might (mis)interpret your message |
| 12:35 | <roc> | I've tried writing blog posts where you explicitly deny every misconception you think someone's going to make |
| 12:36 | <roc> | it makes the message unintelligible and people ignore your denials |
| 12:37 | <MikeSmith> | well in this case a laundry list of possible misconceptions isn't needed |
| 12:37 | <roc> | it's easy to say that in hindsight |
| 12:38 | <MikeSmith> | sure |
| 12:38 | <roc> | even so, there are more misconceptions than that one in play |
| 12:38 | <MikeSmith> | but I really do think that here, one prominent sentence would have helped immensely |
| 12:38 | <MikeSmith> | true, agree |
| 12:38 | <roc> | frankly, I doubt Lauren read the source documents, so I don't think your sentence would have had any effect. |
| 12:39 | <MikeSmith> | maybe you're right, I dunno |
| 12:39 | <MikeSmith> | and to be clear I say all this as somebody who agrees completely with the actual plans |
| 12:39 | <MikeSmith> | I just think the way this was handled has damaged the ability for those plans to move forward, rather than easing them |
| 12:42 | <roc> | actually I think it's been good. There's been a lot of support, and a lot of objections have been voiced and ignorance corrected. Sure, haters gonna hate, but I think a lot of people learned things like "there really isn't any traffic that doesn't need to be encrypted" |
| 12:44 | <roc> | I'm a bit grumpy tonight, so maybe I'll look back on the logs and regret this conversation tomorrow :-) |
| 12:53 | <MikeSmith> | roc: no, I appreciate you calling it out |
| 12:53 | <MikeSmith> | I'm probably being too critical |
| 13:50 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: I think sometimes denying something makes people assume that it's actualy going to be true. I mean we're all used to politicians or whatever categorically denying things that subsequently turn out to be the case. So I think putting in that kind of upfront denial just draws attention to whatever the thing is and makes people assume that it actually is something you're considering |
| 13:57 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Turning "toString()" into "toString" isn't expected. That's not magic, it's a bug. ^_^ |
| 13:59 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: For Document, you need to do a slightly clumsy workaround for that fact that Bikeshed knows about a Document definition already. Put `force="Document"` on the <pre class=idl>, and it should work. |
| 14:00 | <TabAtkins> | I should auto-detect that you're doing a definition there, and at least log a warning (saying that you should either be doing `force`, or writing a partial interface). I'll log that as an issue for improvement, thanks! |
| 14:15 | <TabAtkins> | MikeSmith: I'd personally put a lot of fault on the people assuming Firefox will start blocking http, because *that's a ridiculously stupid idea and they should be ashamed for assuming it*. We're not talking about politics here; the people involved usually don't announce broad initiatives that are so wrong-headed a five-year-old could have understood what |
| 14:15 | <TabAtkins> | was wrong. |
| 14:17 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Bikeshed was mostly downloading over https. There were two http urls (both for biblio data), but I just updated them to be https as well. |
| 18:07 | <gsnedders> | hmm, seems like html5lib broke relative URLs in the sanitizer… has me wondering if we ever should've let relative URLs through the sanitizer |
| 18:07 | <gsnedders> | I guess there's not really any risk |