| 02:48 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Could you email me the URL source file that generated that error? I have no idea how you're getting that. ^_^ |
| 03:00 | <TabAtkins> | Hm, I actually like "flow" for the inline stuff. |
| 03:01 | <TabAtkins> | So "display:inline" is "inline-level flow" and "display:block" is "block-level flow". |
| 03:01 | <TabAtkins> | (Shamelessly stolen from the Box Module.) |
| 04:18 | <TabAtkins> | Whoops, last several lines posted to the wrong room. |
| 04:22 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: which error again? |
| 04:22 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: the one for URL? |
| 04:22 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: I just put {{Node/baseURI}} where I currently referenced baseURI |
| 04:23 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Right, but you've clearly got something weird going on in the rest of the document to cause that. {{Foo/bar}} is used in *tons* of specs, and it's never caused that weird error. |
| 04:23 | <TabAtkins> | So I need the whole source document, so I can figure out what you've done that's causing the error |
| 04:23 | <TabAtkins> | Or what I've somehow done, in such a way that no one else has ever triggered the error despite it being latent in the code. |
| 04:23 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: it's just https://github.com/whatwg/url with that modification |
| 04:23 | <TabAtkins> | kk |
| 04:24 | <TabAtkins> | I'll look into it tomorrow, thanks. |
| 04:24 | <annevk> | cool |
| 04:24 | <annevk> | appreciate it |
| 04:25 | <TabAtkins> | I don't like my users getting strange errors. ^_^ |
| 08:35 | annevk | learns the meaning of the word conjugation |
| 09:17 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: FYI http://www.w3.org/2015/Talks/ac-licensing/?full#8 |
| 09:18 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/04-invited-expert.html |
| 09:26 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: still seems awfully conservative, but I guess good for them |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: yeah but I think despite suboptimal wording still, it effectively makes it clear that it's not placing any restrictions on what invited experts can or can't do with their own work that they've authored |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | anyway, specifically, good on Wendy |
| 09:28 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: ah yeah, the IE stuff is good |
| 09:29 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: the awfully conservative was about the rest of those slides |
| 09:29 | <MikeSmith> | ah ok |
| 09:32 | <tantek> | annevk: yes, conservative for a largely conservative audience. Wendy tailored it appropriately IMO. |
| 09:32 | <tantek> | and yes, I'm pretty happy with the IE stuff - hoping you are too. |
| 09:33 | <tantek> | (have been pushing on all this, IE agreement, licensing, A LOT in the AB) |
| 09:33 | <annevk> | Still a far cry from what the WHATWG does |
| 09:35 | <annevk> | tantek: it's fine, it doesn't matter much to me anymore |
| 09:36 | <annevk> | tantek: maybe it would've helped in 2012 when I was still dabbling between W3C and WHATWG |
| 09:53 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: Michiel Leenaars was here yesterday |
| 09:54 | <MikeSmith> | from NLnet |
| 09:54 | <annevk> | oh cool |
| 09:55 | <MikeSmith> | yeah was good to see him |
| 10:18 | <annevk> | It's amazing how much the Web Applications Security WG wants to break security |
| 10:19 | <annevk> | And continues to be ignorant about SOP and CORS |
| 10:19 | <tantek> | annevk: [meme with citation needed] |
| 10:19 | <gsnedders> | What are they doing now? |
| 10:20 | <annevk> | https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2015May/thread.html#msg23 |
| 10:20 | <annevk> | I should probably stop replying though, that was my bad |
| 10:24 | <annevk> | I have this idea for headers of standards I author: |
| 10:25 | <annevk> | Contribute: GitHub links; Discuss: IRC and mailing list; Commits: GitHub commits and Twitter |
| 10:25 | <annevk> | bz pointed out that omitting the mailing list goes a bit far as some high-level discussion is oftentimes still warranted |
| 10:26 | <annevk> | Feedback appreciated |
| 10:26 | <Domenic> | Discussion should be on GitHub |
| 11:07 | <roc> | ugh |
| 11:31 | <annevk> | roc? |
| 11:59 | <annevk> | TabAtkins: I still want a new named color... "whatwggreen" as it's impossible to remember |
| 12:01 | <darobin> | hahaha |
| 12:01 | <darobin> | or maybe change the green? |
| 12:01 | <tantek> | annvek what's the hex? |
| 12:01 | <darobin> | "what the hex" was pretty much my reaction too |
| 12:01 | <tantek> | "Who cares about specs, what color shall we paint the WHATWG?" |
| 12:02 | <darobin> | well duh |
| 12:02 | annevk | views source on https://resources.whatwg.org/logo-encoding.svg and finds #3c790a |
| 12:02 | <annevk> | (that's pretty much the process I repeat whenever I need it) |
| 12:03 | <annevk> | Oooh |
| 12:03 | <annevk> | W3C AC still partying like it's 2004: https://twitter.com/fabien_gandon/status/596229047476170753 |
| 12:03 | <darobin> | maybe add a shortcut to your text editor? |
| 12:03 | <tantek> | annevk - lololol yeah that moment was pretty hilarious |
| 12:04 | <tantek> | I think I actually LOLed when the speaker said that. |
| 12:04 | <annevk> | darobin: heh, I wonder if OS X supports those shortcuts the iPhone does |
| 12:04 | <jgraham> | It's not 2004‽ |
| 12:04 | <annevk> | darobin: could make whatwggreen convert automatically |
| 12:05 | <annevk> | darobin: so when I type whatwgreen, all you see is #3c790a |
| 12:05 | <tantek> | annevk: CSS Variables? |
| 12:05 | <annevk> | no OS-bound variables |
| 12:05 | <darobin> | the second hit (and many subsequent) for that colour are actually WHATWG https://duckduckgo.com/?q=3c790a&ia=answer |
| 12:06 | <annevk> | might be useful for passwords too, type "password" get **** |
| 12:06 | <darobin> | it's pretty distinctive |
| 12:06 | <darobin> | or maybe ugly distinctive |
| 12:06 | <annevk> | distinctive enough for a named color? |
| 12:06 | <annevk> | why yes |
| 12:06 | <darobin> | annevk: that think with passwords works |
| 12:07 | <darobin> | annevk: I mean if I type ********** you'll only see **********, even though I typed ********** |
| 12:07 | <annevk> | All I see is hunter2 |
| 12:07 | <darobin> | :) |
| 12:09 | <darobin> | annevk: I don't think it's very different from #360, which is the closest web safe colour |
| 12:09 | <darobin> | (and is easy to remember) |
| 12:10 | <annevk> | data:text/html,<body style=background:%23360> |
| 12:10 | <annevk> | data:text/html,<body style=background:%233c790a> |
| 12:10 | <annevk> | 360 is quite a lot darker here |
| 12:11 | <darobin> | annevk: it is darker, but I find it to be not too much darker (especially if not a background) |
| 12:12 | <darobin> | but, *shrug*, it's just a quick and dirty solution that doesn't require a standard :) |
| 12:13 | <jgraham> | Oh, web safe colours, I remember those |
| 12:17 | <tantek> | annevk: #471 looks pretty close |
| 12:17 | <annevk> | tantek: seems like a productive meeting :-P |
| 12:18 | <annevk> | I don't think we'll change the color at this point |
| 13:54 | <oyiptong> | howdy, i was wondering if someone knows Fred Andrews <fredandw⊙lc> |
| 13:54 | <oyiptong> | i'm trying to contact him because i'd like to know more about Private Script Context |
| 13:54 | <oyiptong> | http://www.w3.org/community/pua/wiki/Private_Script_Context |
| 13:55 | <oyiptong> | i know the initiative is dead |
| 13:55 | <oyiptong> | but i'm trying to contact the author |
| 13:58 | <MikeSmith> | oyiptong: this is probably the last place in the world you're likely to find somebody who's in contact with him |
| 14:03 | <tantek> | why is there a PUA (pick-up artist?!?) community in W3C? |
| 14:04 | jgraham | hopes they are only trying to score codepoints |
| 14:05 | <miketaylr> | MikeSmith: i made the bogus suggestion to oyiptong -- i saw that fred had authored something on the whatwg wiki at some point |
| 14:05 | <MikeSmith> | ah ok |
| 14:05 | <miketaylr> | man of mystery |
| 14:05 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 14:06 | <MikeSmith> | he sort of disappeared from discussions a while back |
| 14:06 | <MikeSmith> | after the EME/DRM dust-ups |
| 14:06 | <miketaylr> | yeah, haven't seen his name on lists in a few years it seems |
| 14:06 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 14:06 | <MikeSmith> | not missed, honestly |
| 14:06 | <MikeSmith> | except for the entertainment value |
| 14:06 | <miketaylr> | probably got a nicer brand of tinfoil that blocks email as well as government mind reading |
| 14:07 | <MikeSmith> | hahah |
| 14:07 | <miketaylr> | i should get some too |
| 14:07 | <MikeSmith> | I could share some of mine with you |
| 14:10 | <oyiptong> | tantek: i thought the name was very unfortunate too! |
| 14:24 | <oyiptong> | hmm indeed. the tinfoil is strong in this one |
| 14:24 | <oyiptong> | that would explain his untraceability |
| 14:25 | <oyiptong> | i'm coming at it from a privacy perspective. what if we exposed some apis into the user's private data, but that data would only be accessible via a private context |
| 20:03 | <BigPants> | has there been any discussion on exposing the dirty flag for input elements? |
| 20:04 | <caitp-> | oh, i can think of some applications and frameworks that would love to make use of that |
| 20:08 | <BigPants> | from a development perspective it seems a shame not to expose it, since it's there anyway |
