| 00:00 | <gsnedders> | I doubt it. |
| 00:02 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Well, someone did |
| 00:02 | <MikeSmith> | when |
| 00:03 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: April |
| 00:03 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders: you weren't back around yet in April iirc |
| 00:04 | <MikeSmith> | oh this is html5lib master? not wpt |
| 00:04 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: yeah |
| 00:04 | <MikeSmith> | hope I'm not the one who did it |
| 00:04 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: would appear to be me, WTF |
| 00:04 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: that makes literally no sense |
| 00:12 | <MikeSmith> | rniwa: please re-subscribe yourself to public-webapps |
| 00:12 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: will do |
| 00:12 | <MikeSmith> | thanks |
| 00:12 | <MikeSmith> | rniwa: either that or please ask Dave to add you to the new group |
| 00:13 | <MikeSmith> | same for others on your team if you can please remind them |
| 00:13 | <MikeSmith> | I think annevk sent some web-components feedback to public-webapps recently that you may have missed because of having been dropped from teh list |
| 00:14 | <MikeSmith> | ah good I see that Sam is still on the list |
| 00:14 | <rniwa> | MikeSmith: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015OctDec/thread.html ? |
| 00:14 | <MikeSmith> | hober: ⬆ |
| 00:14 | MikeSmith | looks |
| 00:15 | <MikeSmith> | rniwa: yeah, specifically https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015OctDec/thread.html#msg179 I guess |
| 00:15 | <MikeSmith> | messages from Domenic and annevk |
| 00:16 | <MikeSmith> | but maybe check with annevk when he's back around |
| 00:17 | <Domenic> | I still need to reply to that... |
| 00:21 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: It may be fixed, if my ateempt to edit the database and git refs worked |
| 02:19 | <smaug____> | hmm, html spec open only in 13 tabs |
| 02:19 | <smaug____> | perhaps not all of them needed |
| 04:36 | <MikeSmith> | reading https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/2LXKVWYkOus/Si4X-1AhBAAJ |
| 04:36 | <MikeSmith> | "We were aware that this change was being planned (thanks for the messages in the console!). However, we did not anticipate that we would have problems with iframes and mismatched origins. This has left our product completely broken, with no easy way to fix." |
| 04:37 | <MikeSmith> | seems like we need to do a better job of making it clear to developers what the implications are |
| 04:40 | <MikeSmith> | https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/34 |
| 04:40 | <MikeSmith> | "I'm asserting that we need to consider an API that works for user agents that are not browsers" |
| 04:41 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, because doing things that way has always worked out for us really well in the past |
| 05:39 | <Domenic> | Someone needs to nip that last one in the bud really fast. |
| 09:13 | <jochen___> | annevk: do I read your comment correctly that you're ok with merging https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-referrer-policy/pull/14 ? |
| 09:14 | <annevk> | jochen___: yeah |
| 09:17 | <jochen___> | cool, thx |
| 09:54 | <yoav> | Ms2ger: around? |
| 09:54 | <Ms2ger> | I am |
| 09:59 | <yoav> | Ms2ger: Hey! I'm looking at https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/html/semantics/document-metadata/the-link-element/link-rellist.html |
| 09:59 | <yoav> | I don't think it matches the recent spec changes |
| 09:59 | <Ms2ger> | Quite possible |
| 10:00 | <Ms2ger> | What in particular? |
| 10:00 | <yoav> | Do you remember the motivation behind these tests? Why were relList returning true for non string values? |
| 10:00 | <Ms2ger> | Because that's how the platform works: ToString is called on the value to convert it to a DOMString |
| 10:02 | <Ms2ger> | bbiab |
| 10:06 | <yoav> | Ms2ger: I get why they are converted to strings, but these strings are not in the relList, so why is it returning true? |
| 10:14 | <annevk> | yoav: assuming recent changes didn't happen, why would they not be in the list? |
| 10:15 | <annevk> | yoav: did you see that it's populated from markup? |
| 10:15 | <yoav> | annevk: I missed that part |
| 10:15 | <yoav> | sorry for the noise |
| 10:16 | <yoav> | so, even with recent changes, that test is still correct |
| 10:16 | <yoav> | supports will return false on them, but contains should have them in |
| 10:18 | <annevk> | yeah I think so |
| 10:19 | <annevk> | when we changed what add() did I might have also expected this to be different (though not sure if we updated the specification to that effect yet), but definitely not with the new design |
| 10:22 | <yoav> | annevk: yeah, that change would have affected this test, but I agree now these values should be in |
| 10:28 | <Ms2ger> | yoav, they are in the rellist |
| 10:28 | <yoav> | Ms2ger: Yeah, I misread the test. Sorry for the noise |
| 10:28 | <Ms2ger> | Np |
| 11:24 | <annevk> | Are there any other (WHATWG) standards with gender issues? Spot checking Fetch/DOM/Encoding suggests HTML might be alone in this, though HTML is also somewhat alone in having examples |
| 11:28 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: I think other specs don't have the issue due to the fact you point out that they are not rich in examples like the HTML spec is |
| 11:28 | <MikeSmith> | and in the case of HTML it's that they are markup examples, of documents |
| 11:29 | <MikeSmith> | so I think even if other specs had lots more examples they still wouldn't run into this issue |
| 11:29 | <MikeSmith> | it's somewhat unique to HTML that way |
| 11:30 | <MikeSmith> | that said incidentally I think we should have a lot more examples in other specs |
| 11:49 | <ondras> | so. |
| 11:50 | <ondras> | my JS code runs on three "platforms", electron/nwjs/web |
| 11:50 | <ondras> | I have a platform-specific abstration that basically works like this: |
| 11:50 | <ondras> | module.exports = require("electron" | "nwjs" | "web") |
| 11:50 | <ondras> | what is the recommended way of doing this pattern with (static) ES6 modules? |
| 11:52 | <zcorpan> | seems vtt has 7 male characters and 3 female characters in its examples |
| 11:56 | <annevk> | ondras: until Loader is done it doesn't seem super useful to discuss |
| 11:56 | <nox> | Gender issues in HTML? |
| 11:57 | <zcorpan> | "He-TML", see? :-D |
| 11:58 | <zcorpan> | see recent commits https://github.com/whatwg/html/commits/master |
| 11:59 | <nox> | So he -> she or they? |
| 11:59 | <zcorpan> | basically yeah |
| 12:00 | <nox> | Weird (to have both). |
| 12:00 | <zcorpan> | annoying that github doesn't have a commit -> PR pointer |
| 12:00 | <nox> | They have. |
| 12:00 | <zcorpan> | where? |
| 12:00 | <nox> | But you people cherry-pick things. |
| 12:00 | <nox> | So the commit isn't the PR commit. |
| 12:01 | <annevk> | zcorpan: see e.g., https://github.com/whatwg/html/commit/135b63219699cf16299cf8c12b061497aa000464 |
| 12:01 | <annevk> | zcorpan: next to "master" there's a link to the PR |
| 12:01 | <nox> | It's nice to have she and he. Or to have everything be neutral. Having she and neutral is just the same as before to me. Not that I care either way anyway. |
| 12:02 | <zcorpan> | annevk: thx |
| 12:02 | <nox> | Oh actual stats about how much each is used, nice. |
| 12:02 | <annevk> | zcorpan: philipj should have amended the commit message to say "Close #X: ..." for non-rebased commits, imo |
| 12:02 | <zcorpan> | nox: there are still a number of he's in there |
| 12:02 | <nox> | zcorpan: Yeah, just saw that. |
| 12:02 | <ondras> | annevk: well there are other build-time solutions -- preprocessing, symlinking the correct platform file etc |
| 12:02 | <ondras> | annevk: I was curious if anyone needs to solve this *now*, without waiting for the programmatic loader |
| 12:03 | <annevk> | zcorpan: I guess maybe that is not in TEAM.md and Domenic not really caring about it doesn't help of course |
| 12:04 | <MikeSmith> | mkwst: re twitter about TLS deployment yes in fact waiting for that release is what was blocking it |
| 12:05 | <MikeSmith> | ah I see Wendy has already replied |
| 12:06 | <nox> | zcorpan: Anyway, nobody is yelling about it either way, that's nice. |
| 12:06 | <nox> | zcorpan: Maybe because nobody read HTML commits? :P |
| 12:07 | <annevk> | ondras: you could try #jslang on Mozilla IRC |
| 12:07 | <ondras> | annevk: okay thanks |
| 12:33 | <philipj> | annevk, zcorpan, should we always ensure that there's a way to get from commit to PR or issue? |
| 12:34 | <philipj> | it's a bit weird for a PR with no issue, where you'd always have to amend to point to the newly created PR :/ |
| 12:35 | Ms2ger | unfollows the gendering pr |
| 12:35 | <Ms2ger> | Oh, it's a commit |
| 12:35 | <Ms2ger> | Dammit chaals |
| 12:35 | <philipj> | just found that too :) |
| 12:37 | <zcorpan> | philipj: when it's a merge without further changes, github points to the PR. it's just when we tweak things, that is lost, so it would be good to also add "Close #x" in the commit in such cases |
| 12:38 | <philipj> | zcorpan: we never merge, so we'll always have to amend the commit message, right? |
| 12:40 | <zcorpan> | philipj: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20151216#l-309 |
| 12:42 | <philipj> | zcorpan: I've seen the link, but it was just luck in that case that no rebase was needed, right? So amend commit messages when rebase is needed? |
| 12:43 | <nox> | This is one of the reasons I don't like linearising history. |
| 12:43 | <zcorpan> | philipj: yeah. in return, you don't have to manually close the PR :-) |
| 12:55 | <philipj> | ok, I'll try to make sure that there will be a path from commit to pr or issue going forward |
| 12:55 | <philipj> | I've wanted it myself from time to time |
| 13:03 | <Domenic> | I am still against PRs closing themselves. |
| 13:04 | <philipj> | Domenic: is there another way of dealing with this problem? |
| 13:05 | <Domenic> | I guess adding PR: #123 is OK (instead of Closes #123) |
| 13:05 | <philipj> | yeah, self-closing is a bit weird |
| 13:06 | <philipj> | it'd be nice if we just had write access to everyone's forks :) |
| 13:14 | <nox> | philipj: Ew, that's insane. |
| 13:15 | <nox> | It would be nice if amendments could be done by contributors and PRs just be merged. |
| 13:15 | <philipj> | nox: I know, and also not something that would ever happen. |
| 13:15 | <philipj> | (to the first bit) |
| 13:15 | <philipj> | nox: Yes, we know that maintaining a linear history sucks in some ways. |
| 13:53 | <Domenic> | It sucks in zero ways. It is amazing and I love it :) |
| 13:59 | <philipj> | Zero it is, now I love it too :) |
| 14:09 | <annevk> | Domenic: https://github.com/whatwg/encoding/commit/929a3ffec7695b38c1b5529411de52eca6935d61#commitcomment-15013806 I guess it has to be the latter since that matches integer division... ugh |
| 14:09 | <annevk> | Domenic: though maybe I should figure out if it matters in practice |
| 15:13 | <annevk> | nox: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/129 |
| 15:14 | <nox> | That's hard to parse. |
| 15:15 | <nox> | annevk: Err! |
| 15:15 | <nox> | annevk: I completely fumbled the amend you asked me, when you told me that "Otherwise, …" was bad style. |
| 15:16 | <annevk> | I see |
| 15:16 | <annevk> | I'm glad Arkadiusz sticks around |
| 15:17 | <nox> | annevk: Basically, forgot to remove step 13. |
| 15:18 | MikeSmith | is also glad Arkadiusz sticks around |
| 15:22 | nox | doesn't know who Arkadiusz is, but anyone who notices my failures is welcome. |
| 15:28 | <nox> | annevk: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/130 |
| 15:52 | <annevk> | I think I finally understand why the unforgeability of Location objects is a problem. That took a long time to sink in. (The answer is: once a Location object becomes cross-origin due to document.domain it exposes less properties, meaning non-configurable properties have been mutated, violating the ECMAScript MOP (which has a different name today).) |
| 15:53 | <annevk> | The solution is saying things are configurable while throwing when you try to configure any IDL-defined member. |
| 15:53 | <annevk> | Such a great hack. Mark Miller will be pleased. |
| 15:56 | <caitp> | that sounds like a not good solution |
| 15:56 | <caitp> | that's not an actual solution to an actual problem is it? |
| 15:56 | <annevk> | caitp: it is, unless you have a better one |
| 15:57 | <caitp> | internal slots which only the UA can mutate, accessed by non-configurable getters |
| 15:58 | <annevk> | caitp: doesn't account for document.domain |
| 15:58 | <caitp> | I'm not sure how |
| 15:59 | <caitp> | if at runtime the UA decides that X is cross origin, accessor begins operating in a cross-origin capacity |
| 15:59 | <caitp> | still non-configurable, and does not lie to userspace about that |
| 15:59 | <annevk> | Location objects expose a set of properties, once document.domain is set, the same Location object needs to expose less properties (for the href case it needs to only expose the setter) |
| 16:00 | <caitp> | you could also make [[HasProperty]] behave differently or not depending on the cross-origin status |
| 16:03 | <caitp> | I guess if you make the DOM do weird things, it wouldn't be the first time, but things like lying about configurability can be a headache for polyfill authors, and is technically violating an invariant |
| 16:04 | <annevk> | caitp: how does it violate an invariant? |
| 16:04 | <annevk> | caitp: internal methods can throw for any number of reasons |
| 16:04 | <caitp> | yeah, I guess it doesn't really |
| 16:04 | <annevk> | caitp: it seems it would only violate if you claim non-configurability and then actually change things around |
| 16:04 | <caitp> | the invariant is the other way around |
| 16:04 | <annevk> | caitp: which is what happens today |
| 16:04 | <annevk> | caitp: and we want to get rid of |
| 16:05 | <annevk> | the aim here is to make the DOM less weird compared to the status quo |
| 16:16 | <jochen___> | hum hum |
| 16:16 | <jochen___> | in v8, we can't make some property that claims to be non configurable something else |
| 16:16 | <jochen___> | DOM or not |
| 16:16 | <jochen___> | i mean, not cheaply |
| 16:17 | <annevk> | jochen___: this wouldn't require that |
| 16:20 | <robertkowalski> | hi |
| 16:21 | <robertkowalski> | i am finally working a bit more on the console spec |
| 16:21 | <robertkowalski> | i found an interesting difference in firefox and chrome |
| 16:21 | <robertkowalski> | not sure which one to choose :) |
| 16:22 | <MikeSmith> | on console I guess I have come around to wondering how important it actually is to have interoperability |
| 16:22 | <caitp> | give it to the one that pays more membership dues to your working group |
| 16:23 | <caitp> | that is a joke |
| 16:24 | <robertkowalski> | so for console.log, "If there are more format specifiers than following arguments..." -- which is basically console.log("%s %s", "duck") some browsers print: `duck %s` and some print `duck` |
| 16:24 | <robertkowalski> | MikeSmith: it is a beginner task i got from Domenic to get more into writing specs |
| 16:24 | <caitp> | I didn't even know console.log supported format specifiers, is that true? |
| 16:24 | <MikeSmith> | I wonder what other cases we could examine of programming languages for which there are multiple different REPLs available, and what the developer expectations are for having the behavior among those REPLs by exactly the same around things that are secondary to the actual results of executing the code |
| 16:26 | <MikeSmith> | robertkowalski: I guess I would choose the one that is doing the thing that's objectively the best for developer-users |
| 16:26 | <Domenic> | robertkowalski: that is a great discovery and exactly the kind of thing a spec helps with. |
| 16:26 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: exposing "window.console" and its various members is important |
| 16:26 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: I'm not sure it matters what each member does, since that's not really web-exposed |
| 16:26 | <jgraham> | Presumably they print `duck ` |
| 16:27 | <annevk> | and what's not web-exposed is far less interesting... |
| 16:27 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: exactly |
| 16:27 | <jgraham> | printing `duck` would be very strange |
| 16:27 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: that's what I was trying to say, in so many (more) words |
| 16:27 | <caitp> | annevk: to be fair, there are libraries that wrap the console in debugging helpers, and actually use these in unit tests |
| 16:27 | <Domenic> | What's not web-exposed is still useful to get uniform for web developers. Not critical for implementers unless implementers like making web developers happy. |
| 16:27 | <caitp> | so, having them work consistently is nice, for them at least =x |
| 16:28 | <caitp> | like, printing the format specifier vs empty string is one of the things that would come up there |
| 16:28 | <Domenic> | robertkowalski: I would consider investigating Edge/Safari/Node/C's printf for a tiebreaker. Unless you feel there is a clearly "better" answer for developers, as MikeSmith says. |
| 16:29 | <caitp> | not all that interesting, but it's not unimaginable that you'd want consistent behaviour across browsers |
| 16:30 | <Domenic> | Yeah. For example I believe Edge went through (or is still going through) a console output modernization, to make their dev console more attractive to developers. Having a spec would help them immensely. |
| 16:30 | <Domenic> | And Node would like to match browsers, so actually specifying what browsers do is a good thing |
| 16:32 | <Ms2ger> | Likewise |
| 16:59 | <robertkowalski> | ha, even more fun: console.log("%s %d", "a", null) -> `a NaN` (chrome) vs. `a null` (firefox) |
| 16:59 | <robertkowalski> | that's fun! :) |
| 17:03 | <nox> | Shouldn't that be 0? |
| 17:05 | <robertkowalski> | ah right, in firefox it is 0 |
| 17:31 | <Domenic> | 0 seems better; it should be ToNumber(null) (i.e. +null) |
| 17:53 | <TabAtkins> | nox: A hypothetical world where every document was she-default would indeed be as bad as our current world. But taking our current he-default-dominated world and having a small number of she-default documents is an improvement. |
| 17:54 | <TabAtkins> | (But they-default would be best.) |
| 17:54 | <nox> | I prefer a mix of everything than they everywhere. |
| 17:54 | <jgraham> | Do what the Swedes did and invent a new pronoun |
| 17:55 | <TabAtkins> | I have a number of nonbinary friends, for which "he" and "she" are equally bad. |
| 17:55 | <TabAtkins> | "they" works for everyone no matter what. |
| 17:55 | <nox> | TabAtkins: "A mix", include that too. |
| 17:55 | <jgraham> | nhe |
| 17:55 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: We did - it's "they". |
| 17:55 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: We didn't, that's suboptimal because of the use as plural. |
| 17:56 | <nox> | Include everything instead of just only neutral. That way it's representative, and it isn't saying people can only cope with neutral everywhere. |
| 17:56 | <nox> | jgraham: There is iel in French, with no traction. I'm not sure I like it anyway. That being said you are talking with a man with 28 years of grammatical gender usage. |
| 17:57 | <nox> | Err, not the right words. |
| 17:57 | <nox> | What is a language like French called, where even a table has a gender? |
| 17:58 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: Yes, it's overloaded. Doesn't mean it hasn't been English's choice for centuries. If it's good enough for the Bard, it's good enough for me. |
| 17:58 | <jgraham> | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hen_%28pronoun%29 fwiw |
| 17:59 | <nox> | Ah, it seems like it's called grammatical gender after all. |
| 17:59 | <TabAtkins> | English's pronoun/case system is all kinds of confusing, since it's a weird collapse from a fully gendered/cased system to one which only *barely* has gender and case. |
| 17:59 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: Well evidently it hasn't been a successful choice since we still use gendered words where it is unecessary to do so |
| 17:59 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: Sure. Is "hen" used literally everywhere a gender isn't strictly required? |
| 18:00 | <jgraham> | No, but I'm not claiming centuries of successful precedent |
| 18:01 | <TabAtkins> | nox: "include everything" means that someone is left out of any particular use, and requires a conscious attention to the relative usage of each in your document. "They" is simple and easy. |
| 18:02 | <TabAtkins> | When I read boardgame rules, whether they use "he" or "she" it's weird, since I'm usually reading them out loud to myself and my wife. Either word discomfits one of us slightly. |
| 18:02 | <nox> | Mmmh. |
| 18:02 | <nox> | The boardgame rules point is a nice one. |
| 18:02 | <TabAtkins> | He/she are great to use in 2-party examples, where it helps disambiguate who is doing what, but otherwise it doesn't do much. |
| 18:02 | <nox> | TabAtkins: You might be able to use another point when talking to a French person, re: the boardgame rules: |
| 18:03 | <nox> | TabAtkins: I absolutely hate it when a platform/action game (usually aimed at children) uses "tu" to address me, instead of "vous". |
| 18:03 | <TabAtkins> | What's the distinction? |
| 18:03 | <nox> | I usually even end up playing the game in English to avoid it. |
| 18:03 | <nox> | TabAtkins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T–V_distinction |
| 18:04 | <nox> | So given I am bothered by that, |
| 18:04 | <nox> | shrugging pronoun gendering concerns would be contradictory of me. |
| 18:04 | <TabAtkins> | Ah, right, familiar vs polite. |
| 18:04 | <TabAtkins> | Heh, good point. |
| 18:04 | TabAtkins | likes being able to draw parallels to obviously similar situations. |
| 18:05 | <TabAtkins> | I once read a great essay, written mid-century I think, which was written like one of those ubiquitous "how silly to complain about sexism in language!" essays, but swapped to a world where all the differences were for white/black instead. |
| 18:06 | <nox> | TabAtkins: So my point about not using only they was that in a perfect word, the occasional non-neutral pronoun shouldn't bother anyone. |
| 18:06 | <TabAtkins> | Wr. Smith for a white person, or Bs./Brs./Bz. for a black person, depending on employment status. |
| 18:07 | <nox> | But given I'm implementing Web's insanity, what am I rambling about a perfect world anyway? |
| 18:07 | <TabAtkins> | "actor" vs "actoroon", "tomwhite" for a young black child who acts white (but no word for the opposite, of course), etc |
| 18:09 | <TabAtkins> | It was really powerful for me, because all the distinctions the essay was defending seemed horrendous, but of course they're direct translations of current English practice for gender. |
| 18:44 | <caitp> | when you're talking about an individual, gendered pronouns and honorifics are more colourful and interesting than neutral everywhere |
| 18:46 | <TabAtkins> | If it's a real individual and you know their pronoun, yes, use that pronoun. |
| 18:47 | <TabAtkins> | If it's a hypothetical person, or a reference to the reader or other "abstract people", neutral ensures you're never wrong. |
| 18:48 | <caitp> | never wrong, but usually really boring to listen to also, it just doesn't have that rhythm |
| 18:48 | <TabAtkins> | lol ok |
| 18:48 | <caitp> | anyways, this seems off topic somehow, how did this happen =) |
| 18:49 | <TabAtkins> | I've never heard a particular "rhythm" that "he" has over "they". They're the same syllable count! |
| 18:49 | <caitp> | you'd rather be that neutral deity Isis vs Mighty Goddess Isis!?!? |
| 18:49 | <caitp> | even if you get it wrong, it's still more interesting |
| 18:50 | <TabAtkins> | Isis is a gendered deity. |
| 18:50 | <TabAtkins> | "It's more interesting, who cares if it's wrong" is easy to say for people who rarely get misgendered. |
| 18:50 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: it wrecks rhymes! :P |
| 18:50 | <TabAtkins> | (I don't know your gender, tho.) |
| 18:50 | <TabAtkins> | gsnedders: It requires *changes* to rhymes. |
| 18:50 | <TabAtkins> | But so does a his/her switch. |
| 18:51 | <TabAtkins> | Only he/she maintains rhymes perfectly. |
| 18:51 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: shush you and your facts! |
| 18:51 | <caitp> | Tab, usually people get it right the first time, and then think they're mistaken as soon as I open my mouth, because voices are hard |
| 18:51 | <TabAtkins> | caitp: And the vast, vast majority of gender in language is referring to *people*, not hypothetical deities. |
| 18:52 | <caitp> | I'd still prefer a gender, even the wrong one, over neutral, in my case :p |
| 18:52 | <TabAtkins> | caitp: I've never met or heard you, so I have neither experience so far. ^_^ |
| 18:52 | <nikkibee> | if somebody said "well it sounded more interesting" as an excuse for misgendering me I'd call them an ass |
| 18:52 | <TabAtkins> | I prefer to be referred to as "they" over "she". OUR PREFERENCES CANCEL OUT. |
| 18:52 | <caitp> | it's like, there are so many more important things to worry about, like where to get falafel for lunch |
| 18:53 | <TabAtkins> | That's what you say when you're defending the status quo, rather than arguing for it. It's not a real argument. |
| 18:53 | <nikkibee> | caitp: sure, if you are not a person who doesn't have to worry about being misgendered on a daily basis |
| 18:53 | <TabAtkins> | And jeezus, the "worry about something more important" defense? |
| 18:54 | <caitp> | hey, I'm all for calling people what they want to be called, but fussing about making everything neutral and inclusive, ehh --- if you're the type of person to be offended because some example of something in some piece of technical writing makes a point about using a particular kind of person as an example, I just |
| 18:54 | <caitp> | I don't even know what to say to that |
| 18:55 | <TabAtkins> | "fussing about" is making a mountain out of a molehill. You just say "they" instead of "he". It's hard for like two weeks while you rewrite your reflexes, then it's the easiest thing in the world. |
| 18:55 | <TabAtkins> | caitp: You need to read up on "microagressions" and what effect they have on minority (or perceived minority) populations. |
| 18:55 | <nikkibee> | caitp: you don't have to minimize how global an issue it is with making a minor example that's easy for you to disregard |
| 18:56 | <gsnedders> | caitp: the problem is it *isn't* hypothetical, that using only "he" has been used to exclude women from things before, regardless of the original authorial intent |
| 18:56 | <TabAtkins> | I've used "they" in writing for *years* with no trouble. I more recently switched my spoken English, which was a little more difficult, but it was just that two weeks or so of issue. |
| 18:57 | <caitp> | the problem with including women does not start and end at technical writing using "he" for things instead of "they" |
| 18:57 | <TabAtkins> | Correct! |
| 18:57 | <TabAtkins> | There's a lot of work to do! This is one part. |
| 18:57 | <gsnedders> | I only really find they difficult to use in speech when referring to a specific person. |
| 18:57 | <TabAtkins> | Balking at the simplest possible thing to do does not fill one with confidence that you'll be happy to do the rest. |
| 18:57 | <TabAtkins> | gsnedders: Yeah, that took the longest. |
| 18:58 | <caitp> | I'm all about including as many people as possible, but examples in technical papers --- I mean, if you're offended or discouraged by them, you're a professional victim, basically |
| 18:58 | <caitp> | no problem fixing them, but really, it's not the issue |
| 18:58 | <TabAtkins> | caitp: Again, really easy to say when you're not misgendered all the fucking time. |
| 18:59 | <nikkibee> | "professional victim" lol you're never going to listen |
| 18:59 | <nikkibee> | bye |
| 18:59 | <TabAtkins> | See previous, where me *reading boardgame instructions* is annoying whether they use "he" or "she". |
| 18:59 | <TabAtkins> | Because I'm reading them to myself and my wife, who are of different genders. |
| 18:59 | <gsnedders> | caitp: using *either* gender in examples are often merely reinforcing stereotypes and lead to people only considering one gender |
| 19:01 | <caitp> | and then our technical writer protagonist moves on to writing extremely bland novels |
| 19:01 | <caitp> | and it is sad :( |
| 19:02 | <TabAtkins> | Again, lol. Why are you saying that "And then they stepped outside" is "bland" compared to "And then he stepped outside"? |
| 19:03 | <TabAtkins> | Seriously, this is bizarro-world strawman city. |
| 19:03 | <TabAtkins> | "If we don't ensure that everyone knows a hypothetical person is definitely a dude or lady, they'll get bored and wander off" ?!? |
| 19:03 | <gsnedders> | in fiction the author generally knows the gender of the characters anyway |
| 19:04 | <caitp> | it's not like that tab, it's not about that, you just get access to more descriptive and colourful language |
| 19:04 | <TabAtkins> | (I'm also currently reading a pretty great scifi novel where the protag and their culture don't care about gender, so every single person is referred to as "she". It's a funny plot point in a few spots when they interact with cultures whose languages are gendered, and unsuccessfully try to avoid giving offense.) |
| 19:05 | <TabAtkins> | Like...? |
| 19:05 | <nox> | TabAtkins: If I wanted to troll, I would say that "he" or "she" is easier to say for me than "they". :P |
| 19:05 | <caitp> | we've got a lot of them passed down from inflectional languages of the roman empire |
| 19:05 | <TabAtkins> | And if you start talking about gods again when we're trying to talk about human beings... |
| 19:05 | <nox> | But we aren't even speaking and I'm not being serious. |
| 19:05 | <caitp> | hey, goddess is a perfectly valid occupation for anyone |
| 19:06 | <TabAtkins> | nox: Yeah, they were easier for me, too, until I trained myself out of it. |
| 19:06 | <nox> | TabAtkins: No no sorry. |
| 19:06 | <nox> | TabAtkins: I mean to *say*. |
| 19:06 | <gsnedders> | caitp: …none of the English pronouns or inflectional structures come from Romance languages |
| 19:06 | <nox> | TabAtkins: French accent etc. |
| 19:06 | <TabAtkins> | Luckily the neutral term for all the "Xess" words is just "X", same as the "male" one. Easy for you! |
| 19:06 | <nox> | TabAtkins: I usually use they pretty consistently. |
| 19:06 | <TabAtkins> | nox: Ah, kk. ^_^ |
| 19:06 | <nox> | Last time I missed using it was when addressing a she, obviously. |
| 19:07 | <nox> | Because bad luck. |
| 19:07 | <nox> | We've been adults about it and I corrected myself and everyone lived happily afterwards. |
| 19:08 | <gsnedders> | caitp: all of them come from Germanic languages, and the only ones not originally Proto-Old English are they/them/their from Old Norse |
| 19:09 | <TabAtkins> | And we've massively collapsed those old Germanic/Norse ones too, retaining only a tiny bit of gender and casing when the original had a ton. |
| 19:09 | <gsnedders> | caitp: and all the cases go all the way back to Proto-Indo-European |
| 19:10 | <gsnedders> | Though again, we're now only down to two cases. |
| 19:11 | <TabAtkins> | And the second case is only barely there - "fix" for most cases, and "fixes" only for 3rd person singular. |
| 19:12 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: uh? |
| 19:12 | <TabAtkins> | verb case |
| 19:12 | <TabAtkins> | I fix, you fix, he/she/it fixes, we fix, they fix. |
| 19:12 | <TabAtkins> | We used to conjugate our verbs a lot more. |
| 19:12 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: wtf is a verb case |
| 19:12 | <TabAtkins> | (Sorry if I'm slightly misusing terms.) |
| 19:13 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: soz |
| 19:13 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: cases are things that affect nouns and pronouns |
| 19:13 | <TabAtkins> | WHATEVS I'M NOT A LINGUIST |
| 19:13 | <caitp> | there are some great books on the subject, the story of language is a pretty good and approachable one |
| 19:14 | <TabAtkins> | I know, I'm a conlanger. ^_^ |
| 19:14 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: pfffff |
| 19:14 | <TabAtkins> | Ō w̆nk, Ō'm ȯ r̈gṅln̆k. |
| 19:14 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: but yeah, English has one or two grammatical cases depending on whether you view the Genitive case as still existing |
| 19:15 | <nox> | gsnedders: He means verb inflections, I think. |
| 19:15 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: pronouns have more inflexion, obviously (still have cases for subject/object) |
| 19:15 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: verbs typically have five forms |
| 19:16 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, I know. |
| 19:16 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: you can argue that quite a few are related (including the past tense, depending on whether it's a weak or strong verb) |
| 19:25 | <gsnedders> | I'm still not sure what the right way to solve the imbalance of gender in tech circles is, but it's clear something is /very/ wrong given the very different stats for CS/SE graduates v. under-30 y/os in the industry |
| 19:26 | <TabAtkins> | Pronoun use isn't even about the tech industry. It's just the right thing to do in general. Hypothetical people are rarely in need of gender, and gendering them makes it harder for people of other genders to identify as that hypothetical person. |
| 19:27 | gsnedders | wonders if "rarely" is really true, given the number of hypothetical people in fiction :) |
| 19:36 | <caitp> | do you find it hard to identify as the chef when your cookbook is marketed primarily at women? |
| 19:36 | <caitp> | just curious |
| 19:37 | <caitp> | to me, it has no impact on how I see myself or how confident I am in doing whatever, so it surprises me that it actually has that effect on anyone |
| 19:38 | <caitp> | there are issues, to be sure, but I'm not really sold on the language thing being one of them |
| 19:38 | <caitp> | even if it seems like low-hanging fruit |
| 19:38 | <gsnedders> | caitp: At least here cookbooks are generally pretty neutral |
| 19:38 | <gsnedders> | caitp: besides, cooking is far closer to an even split than most tech circles |
| 19:39 | <gsnedders> | caitp: a more obvious example might be something like nursing or teaching (primary esp.) where much implies that those involved are women |
| 19:40 | <caitp> | to be sure |
| 19:40 | <caitp> | but in those circles, are you more concerned with successfully reviving your patient with CPR, or are you more concerned with the instructions using the word "she" instead of "he" |
| 19:42 | <caitp> | it's like, you already are interested in saving your patient's life, or teaching your 1st grader to count, you are probably not worried about what some random piece of instructional text assumes your gender is |
| 19:42 | <caitp> | and it's not going to change your mind about doing either of those things |
| 19:43 | <caitp> | and if that instructional text does bother you enough that you quit, maybe it wasn't the right job for you in the first place |
| 19:44 | <caitp> | that sounds harsh, I know, but like, priorities |
| 19:45 | <caitp> | I totally sympathize with people who deal with getting treated in a way they don't want to be treated, that sucks, but fixing every piece of technical writing is probably a non-solution to that problem |
| 19:45 | <caitp> | it makes people feel good doing it, but it doesn't really have an impact |
| 19:46 | <TabAtkins> | caitp: The implication that "wanting to switch to gender-neutral" is more important or more valued than "successfully teaching" is a somewhat insulting strawman, and an absolutely worthless attempt at argument. |
| 19:46 | <caitp> | I think you're misreading me there |
| 19:46 | <TabAtkins> | This line of argument always has the implicit assumption that switching pronouns is some ENORMOUS TASK, SO HERCULEAN THAT ONE MUST DEVOTE ALL OF ONE'S MENTAL EFFORT TO IT, to the exclusion of whatever else they're trying to do. |
| 19:46 | <caitp> | it's not about whether it's more important or not, it's about where effort is spent |
| 19:47 | <caitp> | whether that effort that is spent is effective or not |
| 19:47 | <TabAtkins> | And you really think that spending 10 minutes search-and-replacing is hard, and takes away from valuable time that can be spent doing something else? |
| 19:47 | <TabAtkins> | Or just learning how to write properly in the first place, so no additional time at all is taken? |
| 19:47 | <caitp> | I'm not going to tell people not to fix those pieces of technical writing |
| 19:47 | <caitp> | but I don't think it has an impact on the actual problem |
| 19:47 | <caitp> | it's unrelated |
| 19:47 | <TabAtkins> | Like, which is more important - teaching people CPR, or running a spellchecker? |
| 19:47 | <TabAtkins> | That's time taken away from writing. |
| 19:48 | <TabAtkins> | And takes a similar amount of time to do (if you're fixing gender after the fact). |
| 19:48 | <TabAtkins> | The argument that avoiding "he"-overuse requires significant time taken away from more useful tasks is ridiculous. |
| 19:49 | <caitp> | but that's not my argument |
| 19:49 | <TabAtkins> | I'm curous what your "but in those circles" question was about, then. |
| 19:49 | <gsnedders> | Much of it is more about prototypes of various things, the bias associated with deviating from them. Your patient wants a woman nurse, because you're just a cleaner. How do you reassure them that you're qualified when they're panicking and need urgent attention? |
| 19:50 | <caitp> | your decision to do anything, is most likely not going to be influenced by the language choices used in lore around that something |
| 19:50 | <caitp> | if it is, I find that strange |
| 19:50 | <TabAtkins> | And hell, let's take the question at face value. What's more important, saving a few minutes of time, or ensuring that the reader isn't constantly slightly distracted by being misgendered, and thus isn't learning quite as well as they could? LIVES HANG IN THE BALANCE. |
| 19:50 | <TabAtkins> | caitp: You male? |
| 19:50 | <caitp> | that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't fix these things |
| 19:51 | <caitp> | but what it does mean is that it probably doesn't have any real impact |
| 19:51 | <caitp> | inclusion starts a long way before it ever gets to technical writing |
| 19:51 | <caitp> | and has many greater challenges |
| 19:52 | <TabAtkins> | It's not to *you* to decide whether it has impact on other people. I'm saying it has an effect on me. TONS OF WOMEN say it has an effect on them. Why are you asserting that we're all wrong? By what evidence? |
| 19:52 | <caitp> | financial support, social expectations, time |
| 19:52 | <caitp> | training from birth |
| 19:52 | <TabAtkins> | "There's lots of problems" is not an argument against "we should fix this easy problem" |
| 19:52 | <TabAtkins> | This is freaking resistring-social-change 101 level stuff. |
| 19:53 | <caitp> | it feels good to fix the low hanging fruit, but the impact is less than measurable |
| 19:54 | <caitp> | just like this low hanging fruit wouldn't impact your decision to become a nurse, social expectations would have a much greater impact, financial reward would have a much greater impact |
| 19:55 | <caitp> | but if that's what you were intent on doing, the low hanging fruit wouldn't stop you |
| 19:55 | <caitp> | this is as it is for technology |
| 19:55 | <caitp> | it's a non-issue. it feels good to fix, but it doesn't really matter |
| 19:55 | <gsnedders> | there's plenty of evidence that low-hanging fruit mounts up over time and becomes an increasingly large issue over time |
| 19:58 | <TabAtkins> | See, your argument *sounds like* "there's lots of problem with inclusiveness, this is just one small one". Which, YES, we AGREE. But your conclusion is then "thus, we shouldn't spend any time at all on the easy issues", which is where you go off the rails. |
| 19:58 | <caitp> | I didn't say you shouldn't spend any time on it |
| 19:58 | <caitp> | I said it doesn't matter if you do or not |
| 19:58 | <caitp> | there's no harm in Node.js changing their docs to be more neutral, to be sure |
| 19:58 | <caitp> | for example |
| 19:59 | <TabAtkins> | And the assertion that "it doesn't matter" is factually false. It does matter. Gendered expectations are why nursing is female-dominated. Men disproportionately avoid nursing *because it's coded as female*, not because of compensation or anything - they take plenty of male-coded jobs that need just as much effort for just as little reward. |
| 19:59 | <caitp> | there isn't even necessarily any social harm in removing the word "kill" from unix |
| 19:59 | <TabAtkins> | And the same obviously applies to all the male-coded professions and women being discouraged from them. |
| 19:59 | <caitp> | but does any of this really have an impact on who gets into, and who gets out of tech? |
| 19:59 | <caitp> | probably not |
| 20:00 | <caitp> | the problem starts a long way before it ever gets to this |
| 20:00 | <TabAtkins> | You're talking out your ass right now. *There is plenty of evidence directly contradicting what you're saying*. |
| 20:00 | <caitp> | social expectations |
| 20:00 | <TabAtkins> | Again, you're moving back to "there's lots of problems, stop caring about this one in particular". |
| 20:00 | <caitp> | I'm not saying stop, I'm saying it doesn't matter |
| 20:00 | <TabAtkins> | Look up the literature on microagressions. *You are wrong.* |
| 20:00 | <caitp> | show me the evidence, lets look at the methodology of these studies |
| 20:01 | <TabAtkins> | Go look them up yourself, it's trivial to find. |
| 20:01 | <TabAtkins> | Plenty of academic work on the matter. |
| 20:01 | <caitp> | microaggressions aren't related to examples in technical writing |
| 20:02 | <TabAtkins> | lol ok |
| 20:02 | <TabAtkins> | You actually dont' understand what you're talking about. |
| 20:02 | <caitp> | it's not a micro-aggression to have some hypothetical character be characterized as something in particular |
| 20:02 | <TabAtkins> | It is to have *almost every* character, including ones that you are meant to identify as, coded as not-your-gender. |
| 20:03 | <TabAtkins> | A single hypothetical example? Of course not, that's silly. This is about trends on the societal level. |
| 20:03 | <gsnedders> | Also: the fact that people argue so vehemently against microaggressions is itself an aggression and makes the atmosphere feel discernably less inclusive. If people go to long lengths to defend their behaviour and avoiding changing *tiny* things, it makes one seem unwelcome. |
| 20:03 | <gsnedders> | That *alone* pushes people away from tech. |
| 20:03 | <caitp> | no, it really doesn't |
| 20:03 | <caitp> | it's not the text |
| 20:03 | <TabAtkins> | Which is why it's "micro"aggression. Every single individual one is tiny, insignificant, can be shrugged off if it's even noticed. But when there's a waterfall of them, all around you, it adds up. |
| 20:03 | <caitp> | it's everything else around the text |
| 20:03 | <TabAtkins> | Again, caitp, you're wrong. |
| 20:04 | <TabAtkins> | It's not *just* the text. but the text is one of the (many) problems, and it's one of the easiest to fix. |
| 20:04 | <caitp> | sure, and you can fix it |
| 20:04 | <TabAtkins> | So we spend a trivial effort to fix, and make the world a tiny bit better, and make it a tiny bit easier to fix the larger problems. |
| 20:04 | <gsnedders> | The fact that people /don't/ fix the text and argue against fixing the text is a really problem, because it implies they won't do anything to fix the harder problems. |
| 20:04 | <gsnedders> | s/really/real/ |
| 20:04 | <caitp> | you claiming that I don't get or experience microaggressions is itself a microaggression |
| 20:05 | <TabAtkins> | ??? Who claimed that? |
| 20:05 | <caitp> | I'm not going to leave tech because of that, I'm going to eventually leave tech because it's terrible |
| 20:05 | <TabAtkins> | I claim you don't understand it, yeah, because you're proving that you don't, in this very conversation. |
| 20:05 | <TabAtkins> | Nobody claimed you don't experience them. |
| 20:06 | <caitp> | but when I do, it won't be because of technical writing, or even social expectations, or even pointless discussions on IRC |
| 20:06 | <caitp> | because I'm better than that |
| 20:06 | <gsnedders> | Yet there's plenty of evidence that those things *do* push people away from tech. |
| 20:08 | <caitp> | it won't even be because of claims that I don't understand something I experience frequently |
| 20:10 | <TabAtkins> | I'm not saying you don't understand your experiences. You're generalizing your experiences to me, and to other women, who directly disagree with you, and who have a lot of sociological evidence that, in general, it does affect people. |
| 20:10 | <TabAtkins> | If misgendering doesn't affect you, awesome. That's one less thing wearing you down. Stop claiming that your experiences are universal *when tons of people claim a different experience*. |
| 20:11 | <caitp> | I'm not saying misgendering someone doesn't affect them |
| 20:11 | <caitp> | but gendering a hypothetical character as something that you don't identify as? |
| 20:11 | <caitp> | that's a stretch |
| 20:12 | <TabAtkins> | Again, if it doesn't affect you, great. Stop trying to claim that it doesn't affect everyone, because that's wrong. Plenty of people will tell you it affects them, and plenty of academic literature supports it. |
| 20:12 | <caitp> | even if you don't gender or give a race to whatever hypothetical character, someone is bound to be offended |
| 20:12 | <caitp> | or upset about it |
| 20:13 | <caitp> | you never make everyone happy |
| 20:13 | <TabAtkins> | Ugh, I'm done. We've been over this ground already, and you won't stop trying to invalidate other people's documented experience with your personal anecdotes. Don't block anyone else from doing this work and we can be happy with each other. |
| 20:14 | <caitp> | I'm not blocking anyone from doing anything =) |
| 20:15 | <caitp> | do as though whilst, but don't pat yourself on the back too hard for it |
| 20:21 | <wanderview> | JakeA: is there any way I can verify the file downloaded from here is correct? https://jakearchibald.github.io/ebook-demo/publisher-site/readme/ |
| 20:25 | <wanderview> | JakeA: ah, this worked: dd bs=1 skip=1 if=readme.pubarc of=readme.zip |
| 20:25 | <wanderview> | and then zipinfo readme.zip |
| 20:26 | <wanderview> | the changing timestamps was making me think I had corruption in one version of my download |
| 20:26 | <wanderview> | but zip likes both files just fine |
| 20:36 | <JakeA> | wanderview: it's correct if it works on https://jakearchibald.github.io/ebook-demo/reader-site/ |
| 20:37 | <wanderview> | JakeA: thanks... that works too! |
| 20:40 | <wanderview> | sorry I missed the link to that on the original page :- |
| 20:40 | <wanderview> | :-\ |
| 20:58 | <caitp> | it's amazing how many tests there are for O.p.toString branding in wpt and in webkit/blink, considering how the feature has never been fully interoperable |
| 22:19 | <smaug____> | what does the speaker icon in github subscribe button mean? |
| 22:45 | <TabAtkins> | smaug____: Whether it's broadcasting stuff to you (your email) or not. |
| 23:25 | <smaug____> | TabAtkins: how do I know what is the current Chrome version number |
| 23:26 | <smaug____> | I mean the release stuff, not beta or anything |
| 23:27 | <TabAtkins> | smaug____: https://omahaproxy.appspot.com/ (and https://cros-omahaproxy.appspot.com/ for ChromeOS) |
| 23:28 | <smaug____> | thanks |