| 00:25 | <MikeSmith> | what does "WAI" mean in the context of a Chrome bug report? https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=495577#c2 |
| 00:29 | <TabAtkins> | MikeSmith: "working as intended" |
| 00:29 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: ah, OKーthanks |
| 01:49 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: about the problem dbaron points out with the stylesheet from that CSS WG draft, I think the only way that could have got added was by Chris or Bert doing it for some reason. So I think the mystery could be solved by asking one of them |
| 01:50 | <MikeSmith> | but I agree they shouldn't be adding changes like that without trying to get an OK from editors |
| 01:52 | <astearns> | MikeSmith: some public access to the change logs would help |
| 01:56 | <MikeSmith> | astearns: true but afaik the only people who have perms to make changes there are people on the W3C staff, and further the only people who would in practice make changes there are Chris and Bert |
| 01:56 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, looking at the log there I see Wed May 13 13:07:48 2015 UTC (2 weeks, 6 days ago) by clilley |
| 01:57 | <MikeSmith> | but that's just for that one copy of that stylesheet. I don't even know myself where to look for the original and the log for it |
| 01:58 | <MikeSmith> | I really don't understand why anybody would want to make the styling in the body of the TR version be different from that of the ED |
| 01:58 | <astearns> | agreed |
| 01:59 | <MikeSmith> | I guess that's also what TabAtkins was saying in his reply to dbaron. The change is just kind of baffling |
| 01:59 | <MikeSmith> | anyway I think it's something for the CSS WG to bring up with Bert and Chris |
| 02:00 | <MikeSmith> | it's not a general W3C problem as far as I can see |
| 02:00 | <MikeSmith> | not that we don't actually have plenty of other real problems that are general |
| 02:00 | <astearns> | the general problem is just the secrecy, I think. You could look into the log and see where the problem cropped up. Anyone should be able to do that |
| 02:01 | <MikeSmith> | fair enough but I wouldn't classify it as secrecy |
| 02:01 | <MikeSmith> | it's more like bad systems design |
| 02:01 | <MikeSmith> | in that we are still using CVS, for one thing |
| 02:01 | <astearns> | well, that and whatever pubrules check caused Chris to add the rule trying to fix things |
| 02:02 | <MikeSmith> | well the way I deal with that is just to tell the webmaster to back off and/or just ask plh to make them see reason |
| 02:03 | <MikeSmith> | btw we do now once again have a webmaster who's way more reasonble than some others have been |
| 02:04 | <astearns> | sounds good - who's the new person? |
| 02:04 | <MikeSmith> | Denis |
| 02:04 | <astearns> | Ah :) Yes, he seems quite reaonable |
| 02:05 | <astearns> | (with an s in there somewhere) |
| 02:05 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, he's on our side and he's extremely competent and capable |
| 02:06 | <MikeSmith> | Denis is also one of the main people who built the new stuff that editors and WGs can use to auto-publish to TR whenever they want as often as they want |
| 02:06 | <MikeSmith> | echidna and specberus or whatever they're called |
| 02:07 | <astearns> | ah, even better. I haven't tried them out yet, but I like the direction |
| 02:07 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 02:11 | <MikeSmith> | btw I think the log for that stylesheet is at https://hg.csswg.org/drafts/log/tip/default-TR.css |
| 02:12 | <TabAtkins> | MikeSmith: Yeah, I sent an email to w3c-css-wg already asking about it. |
| 02:12 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: ah OK |
| 02:17 | <MikeSmith> | along with continuing to use CVS and HTTP Basic Auth (over insecure plain-text HTTP even) I wonder what other cutting-edge technologies we can add to the list |
| 02:18 | <astearns> | ok, I retract my comment about secrecy. Apparently that problem was just my ignorance |
| 02:20 | <MikeSmith> | well to be fair I don't "ignorance" applies since nobody should be expected to figure out on their own how to navigate the multiple levels of arcane cruft involved |
| 02:21 | <MikeSmith> | unintentional obscurity |
| 02:23 | <MikeSmith> | and to me at least the systems that the CSS WG uses for managing stuff are even more baroque and overengineered than all the rest |
| 02:26 | <MikeSmith> | slightlyoff: btw I finally figured out the cause of the "Waiting for available socket" problem I mentioned to you when I was in San Fransisco https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=495577 |
| 02:27 | <slightlyoff> | wowza |
| 02:27 | <slightlyoff> | also *basic auth* :-/ |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | yeah :( |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | another frozen-in-time W3C systems thing |
| 02:28 | <slightlyoff> | but it's interesting this hit me in another context recently |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | oh? |
| 02:29 | <slightlyoff> | debugging a partner's staging site; basic auth fail in chromium |
| 02:29 | <slightlyoff> | likely same root cause |
| 02:30 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK |
| 02:30 | <slightlyoff> | but yeah, the plural of anecdote isn't data; basic auth needs to die in a fire |
| 02:30 | <MikeSmith> | agreed |
| 02:30 | slightlyoff | wonders if we have a usecounter |
| 02:31 | <MikeSmith> | if you don't have a usecounter for it yet please try to get one added |
| 02:31 | <MikeSmith> | because I can't think of one single other place where I ever use basic auth |
| 02:32 | MikeSmith | wonders what the equivalent of "outlier" in the sense of doing something that nobody else does because they all already realize it's not a smart thing to do |
| 03:10 | <MikeSmith> | github is apparently using web sockets for something. I wonder what |
| 08:48 | <mathiasbynens> | TIL: “No, WHATWG is not the organization we should use for anything.” http://stackoverflow.com/q/30526880/96656#comment49254637_30569669 |
| 08:54 | <darobin> | mathiasbynens: you engaged in a discussion with someone who quotes from RFCs, you get what you deserve ;-) |
| 09:00 | <espadrine> | > You advised to use WHATWG specs for anything |
| 09:00 | <espadrine> | > The WHATWG URL Standard is the one reference you should use for anything |
| 09:00 | <espadrine> | yeah |
| 12:11 | <MikeSmith> | OH: pretty sure "Frederik Krautwald" is an anagram for "asshat" in German |
| 12:13 | <ondras> | :} |
| 12:15 | <MikeSmith> | "WHATWG only addresses URLs in respect to the Web." ... |
| 12:16 | <MikeSmith> | as opposed to the myriad other places where URLs have any relevance |
| 12:18 | <MikeSmith> | holy christ I just now see my own stackoverflow score and find I got +500 from somewhere somehow recently |
| 12:18 | <MikeSmith> | what the hell |
| 12:37 | <darobin> | MikeSmith: SO scores are weird |
| 12:38 | <darobin> | I've answered maybe five questions and I'm at the 51th percentile |
| 13:27 | <TabAtkins> | Over 90% of my SO score comes from two CSS questions I answered years ago. People upvote them every few days. |
| 13:30 | <Domenic> | I did SO for years to get to like 20K and since then have coasted on upvotes to get me to 50K |
| 13:30 | <Domenic> | These days I'm just making sure I stay in the top 1000 |
| 13:39 | <MikeSmith> | can anybody imagine why I would have used `if (path.matches("^http:/[^/].+$"))` instead of just `startsWith("http://")` |
| 13:39 | <MikeSmith> | context is https://github.com/mariusj/validator/commit/4e7d409e00291d6c83bdb1d471a1a28414053d0d |
| 13:40 | <MikeSmith> | I'd like to think I must have had some good reason |
| 13:42 | <TabAtkins> | MikeSmith: Becuase you're specifically *not* looking for things that start with http:// ? |
| 13:43 | <TabAtkins> | That regex finds anything that starts with "http:/", then *doesn't* have a second slash. |
| 13:43 | <TabAtkins> | Tho why you used ".+$" on a .matches() call is still a mystery. |
| 13:44 | <MikeSmith> | yeah.. |
| 13:44 | <MikeSmith> | it might help if I had actually written any unit tests |
| 13:45 | <MikeSmith> | and/or comments |
| 13:48 | <halfline> | that's a weird thing to check for |
| 13:48 | <halfline> | why is "http:/frog" interesting but "blog:/frog" not interesting ? |
| 13:49 | <halfline> | seems like !startsWith("http://") is a more useful check in general |
| 13:53 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I'm equally baffled |
| 14:11 | <darobin> | that code makes no sense |
| 14:12 | <darobin> | MikeSmith: it looks like you were working around a Java bug |
| 14:13 | <darobin> | or at least a bug in whatever that File class is |
| 14:13 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I now vaguely recall that being the reason |
| 14:13 | <darobin> | in which it returned broken paths |
| 14:13 | <MikeSmith> | yup |
| 14:14 | <MikeSmith> | it elides multiple concurrent slashes I think |
| 14:14 | <darobin> | lovely |
| 14:14 | <MikeSmith> | or rathers, changes them into single slashes |
| 14:14 | <darobin> | but that doesn't explain why you copypasted the same code for http and https :) |
| 14:14 | <darobin> | or the .+$ |
| 14:14 | <darobin> | that's probably the alcohol |
| 14:15 | <MikeSmith> | yeah what I'm doing with the code to begin with is basically a cludge to begin with |
| 14:15 | <darobin> | well it's Java |
| 14:15 | <MikeSmith> | and yeah pretty much given that it there was some alcohol involved |
| 14:15 | <darobin> | hacker's gotta do what a hacker's gotta do |
| 14:16 | <MikeSmith> | to paraphrase Antti Koivisto: Never code Java sober |
| 21:28 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: I finally deciphered what was going wrong with Document linking, and fixed it in Bikeshed. (Or rather, isolated the problem and solved it hackily for now.) |