| 01:50 | <annevk> | http://discourse.wicg.io/t/standardizing-selection-behavior/971 "I'm thinking the sanest way to handle some of the most significant disagreements on selection behavior (how should whitespace be translated, should text transformations be applied) would be to add CSS rules controlling it (and then specify what the default values for those rules should be)" |
| 01:51 | <annevk> | Hmm did the discourse thing move again? |
| 01:51 | <annevk> | Why is there no HTTPS? |
| 01:51 | <annevk> | And why are people suggesting new features as a way of solving interop. If there's one way to get less interop, it's more features surely... |
| 02:05 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: I think yoav is working on getting TLS set up for that discourse site |
| 02:05 | <annevk> | Didn't we have it already? |
| 02:06 | <MikeSmith> | dunno |
| 02:06 | <MikeSmith> | Marcos might know more |
| 02:07 | <MikeSmith> | https://gitter.im/WICG/admin a place where some discussion of it has happened |
| 02:08 | <MikeSmith> | as far as that "I'm thinking the sanest way to handle..." I think he's well-intentioned but not representative |
| 02:08 | <MikeSmith> | he seems to have only gotten involved in spec discussions fairly recently |
| 02:09 | <MikeSmith> | and many people new who show up, their tendency often seems to be "Hey let's just add a new feature to fix that" |
| 02:09 | <MikeSmith> | or new element or attribute or whatever |
| 02:10 | <MikeSmith> | in other news https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/282#issue-96942196 |
| 02:10 | <MikeSmith> | "The comments on diffs get really hard to follow since they go away when the PR changes" |
| 02:10 | <MikeSmith> | I hadn't realized that, or hadn't thought about it at least |
| 02:10 | <MikeSmith> | that's not a good thing |
| 02:10 | <MikeSmith> | comments should persist somewhere |
| 02:11 | <MikeSmith> | or maybe they do but there's just no UI that will take you back to them in the way you'd expect |
| 02:11 | <annevk> | Hopefully WICG will direct people to the WHATWG FAQ |
| 02:11 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: yeah |
| 02:12 | <annevk> | Can you even contribute to the discourse if you haven't signed the CLA? |
| 02:12 | <MikeSmith> | yes |
| 02:12 | <MikeSmith> | it's open to anybody afaik |
| 02:12 | <annevk> | So what's the point of doing this again over the WHATWG? |
| 02:12 | <annevk> | If ideas can come from anywhere, the protection is bullshit |
| 02:12 | <MikeSmith> | doing what? the CG or the discourse thing? or all of it? |
| 02:12 | <annevk> | All of it, of course |
| 02:13 | <annevk> | :-) |
| 02:13 | <MikeSmith> | well I think you know some of my thoughts on that |
| 02:14 | <MikeSmith> | I think we had a window of opportunity where we could have gotten people to move over more to the WHATWG |
| 02:14 | <MikeSmith> | but some people seemed to lack the will to do that |
| 02:15 | <annevk> | I talked with someone from Microsoft and the impression I got was that this setup was supposed to be more "secure", but it sounds like it's just yet another venue |
| 02:15 | <MikeSmith> | or the stomach for it |
| 02:15 | <MikeSmith> | on the other hand I don't want to fault anybody for trying new ways of doing things |
| 02:15 | <annevk> | Didn't realize that. If they want to come they're welcome |
| 02:16 | <MikeSmith> | I think it's not an either-or anyway |
| 02:16 | <annevk> | Sure thing, I don't mind |
| 02:16 | <MikeSmith> | I wish people would quit thinking of their sets of collaborators they way they think of their hometown football club |
| 02:17 | <MikeSmith> | or like some kind of flag-waving nationalistic thing of something |
| 02:17 | <annevk> | Haha |
| 02:17 | <boogyman> | and of course you mean American Football ;). haha |
| 02:18 | <MikeSmith> | on the other hand, it's a waste of time if we have to rebuild stuff that's working just fine |
| 02:18 | <annevk> | Yeah, I guess I'm mostly trying to figure out what the point here is |
| 02:18 | <MikeSmith> | I mean, rebuild it somewhere else just for the sake of somebody wanting to have some different place they can claim as their own |
| 02:18 | <annevk> | I guess to some extent it's about diluting the value of WGs even more |
| 02:19 | <MikeSmith> | bingo |
| 02:19 | <MikeSmith> | and that's a good thing |
| 02:19 | <MikeSmith> | well I shouldn't say that |
| 02:19 | <MikeSmith> | I don't mean in it absolutely |
| 02:19 | <MikeSmith> | it's just that WGs cost us all a lot more |
| 02:19 | <MikeSmith> | as we well know |
| 02:19 | <MikeSmith> | process/political overhead, etc. |
| 02:20 | <annevk> | Gotta board. Talk to you later MikeSmith! |
| 02:20 | <MikeSmith> | cheers man |
| 02:20 | <annevk> | Thank you! |
| 03:25 | <MikeSmith> | botie, inform annevk FYI about "e.g." and commans, look through the Economist Style Guide at https://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/ and do find-in-page for "eg,". Economist apparently uses "eg" with no periods. Which I kind of like personally but I think is a fairly idiosyncratic, odd style that's not widely used elsewhere. But regardless, they always put a comma after it. For one thing, without the periods, |
| 03:25 | <botie> | will do |
| 03:25 | <MikeSmith> | it would look pretty odd if not followed by a comma. |
| 03:25 | <MikeSmith> | oofs |
| 03:27 | <MikeSmith> | botie, inform annevk oofs, the Economist Style Guide page I meant to point you to is http://www.economist.com/styleguide/a |
| 03:27 | <botie> | will do |
| 05:14 | <zewt> | firefox: congrats at making me turn off errors in the console by spamming pages of pointless https sha-1 warnings |
| 05:15 | <zewt> | mission accomplished |
| 05:20 | <MikeSmith> | https://twitter.com/awfulben/status/624342316271149057 is kind of a downer. "I find it quite funny the W3C CSS Working Group is concerned about its image. As if it could get any worse... :)" |
| 05:20 | <MikeSmith> | dunno where that's coming from |
| 05:20 | <MikeSmith> | doesn't even qualify as snarky |
| 05:22 | <MikeSmith> | I wish if people are going to make the effort to bash others they at least try to work some minimal amount of humor into it |
| 13:59 | <wanderview> | Domenic: I guess safari might be the first implementation of the ReadableStream constructor? http://blogs.igalia.com/xrcalvar/2015/07/23/readablestream-almost-ready/ |
| 14:00 | <wanderview> | Domenic: if there are thoughts to move to the strategy pattern with the controller... does that cause problems for them? |
| 14:01 | <Domenic> | wanderview: I do not think so, it would be done in an unobtrusive way. E.g. if you implemented pullInto in addition to pull, now you are RBS. Or if necessary there's an explicit flag. |
| 14:01 | <wanderview> | ok |
| 15:02 | <ek_> | hi |
| 15:02 | <botie> | privet, ek_ |
| 15:04 | <ek_> | anyone there |
| 15:10 | <botie> | annevk, at 2015-07-24 03:25 UTC, MikeSmith said: FYI about "e.g." and commans, look through the Economist Style Guide at https://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/ and do find-in-page for "eg,". Economist apparently uses "eg" with no periods. Which I kind of like personally but I think is a fairly idiosyncratic, |
| 15:10 | <botie> | odd style that's not widely used elsewhere. But regardless, they always put a comma after it. For one thing, without the periods, and at 2015-07-24 03:27 UTC, MikeSmith said: oofs, the Economist Style Guide page I meant to point you to is http://www.economist.com/styleguide/a |
| 15:14 | <ek_> | yoav are you there? |
| 15:15 | <yoav> | ek_: Yup |
| 15:15 | <ek_> | Hey how is it going |
| 15:15 | <ek_> | I need to ask you a question |
| 15:15 | <yoav> | ek_: Sure |
| 15:15 | <ek_> | The load event on an object is fired when it has been loaded. As per HTML5 specs events comes from specific task source(http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/single-page.html#generic-task-sources). I was wondering what is the task source of the load event? |
| 15:16 | <yoav> | not sure. tbh |
| 15:17 | <yoav> | zcorpan would be a good person to ask that, but he's not around for the next few weeks |
| 15:17 | <ek_> | ok |
| 15:25 | <Ms2ger> | ek_, you don't want to look at that ancient fork |
| 15:25 | <Ms2ger> | https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/ |
| 15:28 | <ek_> | Ms2ger, This one also mentions Task sources but dont mention the task source for the load event |
| 15:29 | <Ms2ger> | Which load event is this? The one on the document? |
| 15:30 | <ek_> | i am talking about the onload event which could be fired on any object |
| 15:31 | <Ms2ger> | In that case, "it depends" |
| 15:31 | <annevk> | "Not in particular, just all of them, and their visual style and overall IA, accessibility, pretty much 1995." |
| 15:31 | <annevk> | oh Twitter, you're so useful |
| 15:31 | <ek_> | it depends on what? |
| 15:32 | <annevk> | ek_: not all load events are equal |
| 15:32 | <annevk> | ek_: I would expect most to be dispatched from the networking task source, but e.g. I'm pretty sure window.onload is different |
| 15:33 | <Ms2ger> | Yeah, that's DOM manip |
| 15:34 | <ek_> | so in case of window.onload which task source would be used |
| 15:34 | <ek_> | oh okay |
| 15:39 | <Ms2ger> | ek_, fwiw, that's defined at the end of the section at https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/syntax.html#the-end |
| 15:39 | <gsnedders> | . |
| 15:40 | <annevk> | https://twitter.com/marxo/status/624604621579784194 lol |
| 15:40 | <annevk> | I guess I should stop trying to reason with this person |
| 15:43 | <wanderview> | annevk: I imagine its hard to understand why specs are written the way they are if you never have to try to implement them in a browser |
| 15:44 | <tantek> | wanderview: even if you do have to implement them, you still have to jump around a lot (in one spec, across specs) because of dependencies |
| 15:44 | <tantek> | (HTML in particular) |
| 15:44 | <wanderview> | tantek: thats true... and sometimes there are multiple copies of specs and its unclear which is the "correct" one |
| 15:45 | <wanderview> | or abandoned specs that are still published |
| 15:45 | <tantek> | annevk - your replies were a good attempt. But you're right, there's not much more to say after that response. |
| 15:45 | <tantek> | wanderview: or published specs that are abandoned too (like most of /TR and most RFCs) :/ |
| 15:45 | <annevk> | I'm kind of interested to know what he means by forking |
| 15:46 | <annevk> | If he can't understand it, seems hard to fork... |
| 15:46 | <tantek> | agreed. OTOH if he does actually fork a spec and rewrite it to make it more readable/understandable - that would be interesting to take a look at. |
| 15:46 | <tantek> | good thing we have licenses that encourage that :) |
| 15:47 | <annevk> | I guess I can ask about his more readable fork |
| 15:47 | <tantek> | also this is a good use-case for forking - no actual (intended at least) feature/functionality/interop changes, just readability/usability |
| 15:47 | <tantek> | annevk: note also that their background has {less} and Sass on it - that's probably an indicator as the perspective they're coming from. |
| 15:48 | <annevk> | Yeah, although hints as to how to improve would be welcome. "You're stuck in 1995" doesn't quite resonate. I wasn't even ten back then. |
| 15:49 | <tantek> | I missed that remark |
| 15:49 | <gsnedders> | I was talking to a friend recently who was amazed that there's no even unofficial edited version of RECs including errata |
| 15:50 | <tantek> | that being said, W3C spec styling/template is pretty stuck, and WHATWG spec styling/template in some respects had no choice but to copy that to "look" like a web standard from the perspective of those who are used to reading W3C specs. |
| 15:50 | <annevk> | tantek: https://twitter.com/marxo/status/624592600377327618 |
| 15:51 | <annevk> | There's only so many ways you can format an algorithm though :-) |
| 15:51 | <tantek> | gsnedders: believe it or not I push for that quite often as something the AB should say is "ok" for WG to do, and haven't gotten very far. Still pushing though. |
| 15:51 | <tantek> | s/WG/WGs |
| 15:51 | <gsnedders> | annevk: IA? |
| 15:51 | <tantek> | annevk - he's not talking about the algorithm stuff |
| 15:52 | <Ms2ger> | Internal affairs? |
| 15:52 | <annevk> | gsnedders: I suspect information architecture |
| 15:52 | <Ms2ger> | But then people would be inclined to look at EDs! |
| 15:52 | <tantek> | he's talking about like I said, the style sheet, all the header, all the preamble crap etc. |
| 15:52 | <tantek> | yes IA = information architecture here |
| 15:52 | <tantek> | the styling of specs derives from lots of legacy IA |
| 15:52 | <annevk> | https://twitter.com/marxo/status/624608066667843584 hmm |
| 15:53 | <annevk> | Maybe English is not his first language |
| 15:53 | <tantek> | that predates even W3C, IETF - a lot of is like academic papers |
| 15:53 | <gsnedders> | I thought fantasai was about to try and get the W3C to adopt a stylesheet based on the CSS WG EDs? |
| 15:53 | <Ms2ger> | I hear bikeshed is moving some of the preamble stuff to the back of the bus, though |
| 15:53 | <tantek> | gsnedders - not just stylesheet but spec restructuring too |
| 15:53 | <gsnedders> | And she sounded pretty upbeat about her chanes, which seems good, given how far previous attempts have got |
| 15:54 | <tantek> | I was working on that with fantasai and sylvain - but I wanted to make much more drastic changes than they wanted to so we didn't make much progress. |
| 15:54 | <tantek> | Ms2ger - that's good to hear |
| 15:54 | <tantek> | instead I gave up on that and instead starting formating microformats specs with a better intro / section order |
| 15:54 | <tantek> | minimizing all the longwinded / and overly styled header/preamble/intro/abstract crap |
| 15:54 | <gsnedders> | tantek: oh, I'd forgotten you were involved. :) I'd remembered there were others involved, but couldn't remember who else was included in the "we" she spoke of :) |
| 15:55 | <tantek> | gsnedders: yes, it was three of us |
| 15:55 | <Ms2ger> | It's annoying when you need something at the end, though, because now there's so much crap there :) |
| 15:55 | <gsnedders> | Ms2ger: what, like the HTML ack section? ;P |
| 15:55 | <Ms2ger> | At least that's nice crap, it has my name :) |
| 15:56 | <tantek> | annevk I have to agree with these criticisms though: https://twitter.com/marxo/status/624592600377327618 |
| 15:56 | <tantek> | the problem is that it's hard to suggest specific small incremental changes to fix that |
| 15:57 | <tantek> | that is - too difficult to do with just a series of pull requests |
| 15:57 | <tantek> | to fix those problems a spec really needs a rewrite and re-ordering |
| 15:58 | <tantek> | here's a concrete example of a different way to order and explain sections in a spec: http://microformats.org/wiki/h-card |
| 15:58 | <gsnedders> | the intro for HTML is ridiculously long |
| 15:58 | <tantek> | yes |
| 15:59 | <gsnedders> | but then people argue bullshit that the conformance critetia section settles, and then all the notation stuff which I'm always unsure if it's wrothwhile having… |
| 16:00 | <gsnedders> | basically it annoys me so much stuff is needed to avoid debates |
| 16:00 | <Ms2ger> | We need a spec for specs |
| 16:01 | <gsnedders> | Maybe. Like a new RFC 2119, really. Because that gets rid of a lot of common boilerplate. |
| 16:03 | <annevk> | tantek: well, you could lead by example |
| 16:03 | <tantek> | annevk - that's what I'm trying to do with with microformats.org specs, and IndieWebCamp.com specs |
| 16:03 | <tantek> | gsnedders - anything needed to "avoid non-technical debates" can go in appendices |
| 16:04 | <tantek> | it's all esoterica |
| 16:04 | <annevk> | those are not really known for their implementability :-) |
| 16:04 | <tantek> | that's the point |
| 16:04 | <tantek> | annevk - ironically, they're more implementable, by much smaller teams (e.g. 1 person implementable) |
| 16:05 | <tantek> | that's part of the point of the work in both of those groups - much simpler specs / standards that individuals can implement all by themselves on their own websites |
| 16:05 | <tantek> | rather that requiring large orgs with large paid staffs to do so (most W3C, IETF, and even WHATWG specs) |
| 16:05 | <annevk> | I think you're missing my point |
| 16:06 | <tantek> | to be fair - we're solving different problems |
| 16:06 | <tantek> | annnevk - possibly |
| 16:07 | <tantek> | annevk - another spec, more algorithm style if you like: http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats2-parsing |
| 16:07 | <tantek> | has also been implemented by multiple individuals (different implementations), in multiple languages |
| 16:08 | <annevk> | "follow the HTML parsing rules" hah, you haven't exactly simplified things here :-P |
| 16:08 | <annevk> | just imported a 100k line spec |
| 16:08 | <tantek> | hey - it basically says not to reinvent an HTML parsing spec! |
| 16:08 | <tantek> | right - use an existing HTML parsing implementation! |
| 16:08 | <tantek> | (or the equivalent thereof) |
| 16:09 | <gsnedders> | I still want to try programmatically generate an impl from the spec |
| 16:09 | <gsnedders> | which isn't that easy |
| 16:09 | <tantek> | I think your "not really known for their implementability" information is about 6 years out of date, if you're referring to e.g. hsivonen's complaints of yore. |
| 16:09 | <tantek> | gsnedders lol - that's a very bad path to go down - you end up with things like XML Schema |
| 16:09 | <gsnedders> | tantek: nah, I mean from the current HTML spec, generate an HTML parser from it |
| 16:09 | <gsnedders> | tantek: without alterting the spec |
| 16:10 | <annevk> | gsnedders: how close is JavaScript? |
| 16:10 | <tantek> | gsnedders - yup - that path of argument is exactly what the declarative grammar camps argue |
| 16:10 | <tantek> | all those grammars in RFCs etc. |
| 16:10 | <Domenic> | I would love if some designer were willing to do a stylesheet redesign/PR/etc. |
| 16:10 | <gsnedders> | annevk: you can't really, tbf, if you want a decent implementation. esp ES6 makes it harder. |
| 16:10 | <tantek> | it turns out the machine generatable code is wrong - because such declarative grammars only ever approximate the actual grammars |
| 16:11 | <gsnedders> | tantek: this is why I want to do it from the English prose :) |
| 16:11 | <tantek> | Domenic: it's not just style sheet - that's the problem. there needs massive content re-ordering and restructuring. |
| 16:11 | <gsnedders> | tantek: even though it'll be brittle |
| 16:11 | <tantek> | gsnedders: hah - that sounds like a Google natural language processing science project ;) |
| 16:11 | <tantek> | perhaps you should apply :D |
| 16:11 | <Domenic> | I guess I don't really agree with that (and it's unclear that's what the tweet was saying either) |
| 16:11 | <tantek> | not unclear at all - that's the point about IA that's being made |
| 16:11 | <Domenic> | It seemed like a designer saying "this is too ugly, I design pretty things all day" |
| 16:11 | <gsnedders> | tantek: second person in a month trying to get me to work at Google! |
| 16:12 | <tantek> | Domenic: that's a very superficial summary of that critique |
| 16:12 | <Domenic> | It was a very superficial critique, to be fair |
| 16:12 | <tantek> | gsnedders: don't take it as an insult |
| 16:12 | <gsnedders> | tantek: the sentences are relatively regular within the spec, I still suspect you can do it through pattern matching |
| 16:12 | <Domenic> | I think you might be projecting your own grievances into it :) |
| 16:12 | <tantek> | Domenic: hah. as if Twitter were capable of much more ;) |
| 16:12 | <gsnedders> | tantek: nah, I didn't, just amusing :) |
| 16:13 | <tantek> | Domenic: perhaps. though you might be ignoring the points about IA |
| 16:13 | <gsnedders> | tantek: like, most sentences you can change into one instruction of the spec's VM |
| 16:14 | <gsnedders> | tantek: it's the if/otherwise stuff that scares me |
| 16:16 | <Ms2ger> | Domenic, didn't someone do a redesign for w3c specs at one point that was all pretty? |
| 16:17 | <Domenic> | Ms2ger: I do have memories of that |
| 16:17 | <gsnedders> | Ms2ger: yeah |
| 16:28 | <tantek> | since tons of Google people hangout here - how does Google Search NOT have a "one box" for dates and months?!? |
| 16:29 | <tantek> | e.g. a search for November 2015 should show a one box view of the whole month of November as the first thing, with (local) holidays, not some useless link to timeanddate(.)com |
| 16:29 | <tantek> | seems like a super simple, minimal, obvious thing to build |
| 16:29 | <tantek> | or heck if you're one of those "cards" people, a "card" for a month |
| 16:30 | <tantek> | maybe even showing you summary info from your gcal if you happen to be logged in |
| 16:30 | <tantek> | there's your freebie for the day ;) |
| 16:30 | <tantek> | I'm sure you can do better than: http://www.wincalendar.com/November-Calendar/November-2015-Calendar.html |
| 16:36 | <tantek> | annevk - do you keep the markup for your blog somewhere e.g. github that can accept pull requests? |
| 16:37 | <annevk> | nope |
| 16:38 | <annevk> | I probably should at some point, but... work |
| 16:52 | <SimonSapin> | Does the HTML spec have a machine-readable list of element names and attribute names? |
| 16:53 | <tantek> | You mean like a DTD? |
| 16:53 | tantek | ducks. |
| 16:54 | <SimonSapin> | whatever. I’d like to auto-generate this file: https://github.com/servo/string-cache/blob/master/plugin/src/atom/data.rs |
| 16:55 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: what element names? |
| 16:55 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: those that are valid? those that are special cased in the parser? those that any processing is defined for? |
| 16:57 | <SimonSapin> | The union of all of those I suppose. Names not in that set would be interned slightly less efficiently. But https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/indices.html#elements-3 can be a good start |
| 16:59 | <tantek> | SimonSapin, perhaps you could suggest a format for this machine-readable list of element names and attribute names? |
| 16:59 | <SimonSapin> | json? |
| 16:59 | <tantek> | ROFL |
| 17:00 | <SimonSapin> | like https://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/encodings.json |
| 17:00 | <SimonSapin> | tantek: do you have another favorite format? |
| 17:01 | <tantek> | SimonSapin: JSON isn't a format, it's a syntax. |
| 17:01 | <SimonSapin> | uh, ok |
| 17:01 | <SimonSapin> | so what’s a format? |
| 17:02 | <tantek> | e.g. in that encoding.json thing you linked to, the set of things like "encodings" "labels" "heading" and how they're arranged/nested - THAT is a format. |
| 17:02 | <tantek> | you could serialize that format likely in another syntax too, like XML |
| 17:03 | <SimonSapin> | I don’t really care. For this specific use case I only want to extract a list of strings for the element names, but maybe other people would find useful to include more data from https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/indices.html in that format |
| 17:04 | <tantek> | wow there's a whole site for it: http://www.html5dtd.org/ |
| 17:04 | <gsnedders> | there's also the old out of date ones what whattf.org/.net or whatever it is |
| 17:04 | <gsnedders> | originally by fantasai then updated by hsivonen but I think now totally abandoned |
| 17:05 | <gsnedders> | maybe those were RelaxNG though? |
| 17:05 | <tantek> | SimonSapin: if you really don't care, here's the XML Schema for XHTML5: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/webdev/archive/2009/11/18/html-5-intellisense-and-validation-schema-for-visual-studio-2008-and-visual-web-developer.aspx - specifically the zip file: http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-components-postattachments/00-09-92-49-22/html5.zip |
| 17:05 | <tantek> | s/the XML/an XML |
| 17:06 | <tantek> | source: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4053917/where-is-the-html5-document-type-definition from a web search for "HTML5 dtd" |
| 17:06 | <tantek> | enjoy! |
| 17:10 | <gsnedders> | http://syntax.whattf.org |
| 17:10 | <SimonSapin> | I was hoping for something maintained with the spec (so that it’s kept up to date), though I suppose these days HTML is not adding new elements much |
| 17:10 | <gsnedders> | is what I was thinking of |
| 17:12 | <gsnedders> | https://github.com/validator/validator/tree/master/schema/html5 seems to be where they are now |
| 17:36 | <TabAtkins> | gsnedders: I'm still vaguely interested in writing CSS Syntax in an executable English. |
| 17:46 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: how close is it now? |
| 17:46 | <TabAtkins> | Pretty close! |
| 17:46 | <TabAtkins> | I'd just need to be a little more consistent in how I phrase some things. |
| 17:50 | <TabAtkins> | Ugh, and I desperately need to spend a few days on perf-tuning Bikeshed again. |
| 18:13 | <wanderview> | JakeA: slightlyoff: anyone doing a tl;dr post of the f2f notes? |
| 18:45 | <JakeA> | wanderview: that's a good idea. Think a blog post is OK or should it be somewhere more official ( |
| 18:46 | <wanderview> | JakeA: I can try my hand at a blog post... but I don't know where something "official" would go for something like this |
| 18:47 | <wanderview> | also, I like that I can basically say the blog post is from my point of view, etc... lower bar :-) |
| 18:58 | <wanderview> | hmm, or maybe I should just focus on the bit that interests me |
| 19:03 | <JakeA> | I'm happy with that or a more general post |
| 20:17 | <Domenic> | SimonSapin: file a bug, this is a thing that can happen |
| 20:22 | <ondras> | Domenic: ? |
| 20:23 | <Domenic> | ondras: stop sending me random characters |
| 20:24 | <ondras> | Domenic: sorry, those were pretty deterministic question marks only. A common way to check for somebody's presence. Sorry to offend you. |
| 20:24 | <Domenic> | ondras: not offended, just confused what they were supposed to accomplish. I'm obviously here, as I said something. |
| 20:24 | <ondras> | Domenic: is there some common pattern when a class method returns a promise whose resolution depends on further method calls inside that class? So the (resolve, reject) functions need to be "stored" somewhere, preferrably not in a closure to increase readability... |
| 20:25 | <Domenic> | ondras: ideally use more promises so that you never end up needing `new Promise`. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23803743/what-is-the-explicit-promise-construction-antipattern-and-how-do-i-avoid-it |
| 20:25 | <Domenic> | ondras: otherwise I just store them as underscored variables |
| 20:28 | <ondras> | I *think* I am not going to the antipattern mentioned above. I have a Request class with a promise-returning send() method. This method accepts an options object, stores it in this._options and uses it when parsing the response, just before resolving. |
| 20:29 | <ondras> | Domenic: http://jsfiddle.net/xd426120/ |
| 20:29 | <ondras> | a code sample is probably more descriptive. |
| 20:30 | <ondras> | so this is considered okay? or are there better approaches? |
| 20:30 | <Domenic> | ondras: I think StackOverflow will probably give you good answers for this; there is a fairly active promise community there. |
| 20:30 | <ondras> | namely with this event-based promise resolution... |
| 20:30 | <ondras> | Domenic: I would somewhat trust your opinion more than the highest ranking SO answer out there. |
| 21:00 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic: Probably can remove the code { color: ... } from the WHATWG stylesheet, at least for code.highlight elements. It makes it harder to read. |
| 21:01 | <TabAtkins> | ondras: http://www.nohello.com/ |
| 21:07 | <ondras> | TabAtkins: yeah. turns out that people often idle here for quite a long time, so one has to re-phrase and re-ask the question several times in order to get a response. A "?" roughly translates to "hi, is this a good time for you to be asked a question", at least in the IRC communities I normally frequent. |
| 21:07 | <TabAtkins> | ondras: Not in this community. ^_^ |
| 21:07 | <ondras> | .) |
| 21:09 | <wanderview> | JakeA: do you think we should lock down the meeting notes to comment-only at this point? (afraid to link an everyone-can-edit page to a blog post) |
| 21:46 | <TabAtkins> | wanderview: Absolutely do not link to an everyone-can-edit document. ^_^ |
| 22:03 | <mrtn_> | are there any plans to standardize the window.devicePixelRatio or introduce a property which does not change with the zoom level and only represents the ideal screen DPR? |
| 22:42 | <gsnedders> | mrtn_: it's in CSSOM View |
| 23:08 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: you want me to take a try at programmatically converitng CSS Syntax? |
| 23:09 | <TabAtkins> | That wasn't my intention, but I'm not opposed to you trying. |
| 23:11 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: eh, it's probably simpler than starting off with HTML! |
| 23:11 | <gsnedders> | tbf, I don't think the HTML /tokenizer/ will be that hard |
| 23:11 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, much smaller. ^_^ |
| 23:17 | <gsnedders> | it's not the size that matters, really, with doing it programmatically |
| 23:17 | <gsnedders> | it's the level of complexity of the instructions |
| 23:18 | <gsnedders> | also I'm drunk so you probably should take what I say with a grain of salt :) |
| 23:18 | <TabAtkins> | Size matters insofar as you still have to edit the text to get it into a parsable representation. |
| 23:18 | <TabAtkins> | And Syntax is fairly small as far as parsing specs go. |
| 23:18 | <gsnedders> | I was trying to avoid doing that :) |
| 23:42 | <TabAtkins> | gsnedders: I doubt you can totally avoid it. Syntax is *close* to a parsable English, but not quite regular enough. |
| 23:45 | <gsnedders> | We'll see. Maybe sober-gsnedders will think it harder. :) |