| 01:22 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: I see |
| 01:23 | <MikeSmith> | I agree with the sentiment but in the case of the outline algorithm I wonder if that would be possible without disallowing h1 within section etc |
| 01:24 | <MikeSmith> | as annevk alludes to in https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/83#issuecomment-136933409 |
| 01:25 | <MikeSmith> | I find myself agreeing with most or all of what Hixie and annevk say in that thread |
| 01:26 | <MikeSmith> | especially as far as the point that it seems like we can't just remove the outline algorithm without needing to make other changes as a consequence |
| 01:26 | <Domenic> | Did you see my latest plan? |
| 01:26 | <MikeSmith> | in that thread? |
| 01:27 | <Domenic> | Yeah posted today |
| 01:27 | <MikeSmith> | https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/83#issuecomment-167440711 I guess? |
| 01:27 | <MikeSmith> | didn't read it yet |
| 01:27 | MikeSmith | looks now |
| 01:29 | <MikeSmith> | OK yeah that's something concrete to discuss |
| 01:30 | <MikeSmith> | so as far as the "change the authoring guidance" part I think that in part might amount to more than just changing guidance but also signficantly changing the normative document-conformance requirements |
| 01:31 | <Domenic> | Yeah |
| 01:31 | <Domenic> | So that documents are only conforming if they are usable by disabled users |
| 01:32 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 01:32 | <MikeSmith> | yeah that it is good way to frame it |
| 01:32 | <Domenic> | The big thing about that post is that it's different from my original plan of obsolete/remove everything. |
| 01:32 | <Domenic> | We can still say section etc. have semantic value |
| 01:32 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 01:33 | <Domenic> | We just can't define their author-facing semantics such that they break user-facing UI |
| 01:33 | <MikeSmith> | yup |
| 01:33 | <MikeSmith> | so yeah I strongly agree with the goal |
| 01:34 | <MikeSmith> | concretely I think it might amount to requiring/saying that h1-h6 cannot be used in ways differently than they could before <section> and <article> existed |
| 01:35 | <MikeSmith> | personally I would like to see the spec say that |
| 01:35 | <MikeSmith> | basically that your h1-h6 hierarchy in isolation from the rest of the document must make sense, in isolation |
| 01:36 | <MikeSmith> | because that's basically how AT/screen-reader users "see" it, in practice |
| 01:36 | <MikeSmith> | it's basically how *all* tools see it |
| 01:37 | <MikeSmith> | the only exception are the tiny handful of things that implement the outline algorithm |
| 01:37 | <MikeSmith> | all that said, I think the challenge there is a social one, not a technical one, in that we would be rolling back what the spec has previously made valid and even recommended to author-developers |
| 01:39 | <MikeSmith> | getting author-developers to quit using h1 nested in <section>, despite years of the spec recommending that they do it |
| 01:39 | <Domenic> | Yeah that sounds about right |
| 01:39 | <MikeSmith> | OK, well I'm funlly on board with that, if that's where we want to take it |
| 01:39 | <Domenic> | Part of that I think is making the outline algorithm produce the same outline ATs use |
| 01:39 | <MikeSmith> | yup |
| 01:42 | <MikeSmith> | I have actually already implemented part of this in the HTML checker |
| 01:42 | <MikeSmith> | in that the checker already emits warnings for cases of non-top-level H1s |
| 01:43 | <MikeSmith> | and I would be happy to extend that stuff to experimentally support a new/different outline algorithm, if/when we come up with one |
| 01:45 | <MikeSmith> | so that the checker Show Outline feature could show what the document outline looks like to actual AT |
| 01:45 | <MikeSmith> | instead of showing what it looks like according to the outline algorithm |
| 01:45 | <MikeSmith> | or at least, showing both, so that authors can compare and see the difference for themselves |
| 01:46 | <MikeSmith> | and could have the checker would report warnings or errors for anything that doesn't create a usable AT outline algorithm |
| 01:47 | <MikeSmith> | as I said I think the checker's already doing some of that, but it could be extended furtherーespecially if I have actual requirements in a spec to work from |
| 02:35 | <MikeSmith> | commented https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/83#issuecomment-167461826 |
| 04:44 | <tantek> | MikeSmith: I agree more with annevk, specifically, obsolete section, h, hgroup |
| 04:45 | <tantek> | MikeSmith: I don't mean to bum you out - sounds like a miscommunication of tone. I'm more looking to simplify and drop things from HTML that don't have obvious benefits to typical, perhaps even "most" web developers. |
| 04:47 | <tantek> | I do find it a bit ironic that even a second attempt at the abstract section/h (first being xhtml2) has essentially failed in practice (in live deployment on the web, and in browsers doing anything with it). |
| 04:49 | <tantek> | MikeSmith, to rephrase this as a positive, do you use section/h/hgroup on your own personal website? |
| 04:50 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: yeah understood, I was kinda directing that "bummed out" comment to myself as much as anything gelse. In that I notice sometimes looking back at stuff I wrote on IRC that I come across kinda more negative than I intend |
| 04:50 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: I never use hgroup |
| 04:50 | <MikeSmith> | we don't have "h", right? |
| 04:50 | <tantek> | h1 inside section acts like h, right? |
| 04:50 | <MikeSmith> | that was an XHTML2 thing wasn't it? |
| 04:50 | <MikeSmith> | ah yeah |
| 04:50 | <MikeSmith> | yeah that I don't use |
| 04:50 | <tantek> | right |
| 04:51 | <tantek> | I used to use article, but I stopped because I couldn't find any benefit |
| 04:51 | <MikeSmith> | I use h1-h6 strictly according to order |
| 04:51 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I can't explain any benefit of it to anybody |
| 04:52 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: but anyway I agree we should obselete section and hgroup if we could |
| 04:52 | <tantek> | that would be a good start |
| 04:52 | <MikeSmith> | especially hgroup literally has no purpose at all outside of the outline algorithm |
| 04:52 | <tantek> | and to be fair, I was a fan of hgroup originally |
| 04:53 | <MikeSmith> | well currently I think its only purpose/effect in practice is to hide/suppress subheadings in the outline algorithm |
| 04:53 | <tantek> | used / taught it in the book and everything |
| 04:53 | <MikeSmith> | well I think a lot of this is hindsight |
| 04:54 | <MikeSmith> | I think most everybody thought this stuff was a good idea at the time |
| 04:54 | <tantek> | I wanted to believe and all that. |
| 04:54 | <tantek> | Enriching the language to cover more use-cases etc. |
| 04:54 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 04:55 | <tantek> | Then it turned out many of these use-cases were too edge-case. |
| 04:55 | <tantek> | And weren't worth the cognitive cost of added complexity to the core language. |
| 04:55 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, and like a lot of other things with the platform, it's turned out to be a lot more complicated than it seemed, and has had bad unintended side effects |
| 04:56 | <tantek> | Agreed |
| 04:57 | <tantek> | Also I've pretty much given up on sets/pairs of nested tags for special functionality. Too awkward and easy to get wrong. |
| 04:57 | <tantek> | And then we end up having to define what should happen when they're misused anyway |
| 04:57 | <tantek> | tags work best when they perform single self-standing functions |
| 04:58 | <MikeSmith> | I think one good rule of thumb is that when somebody finds themselves repeatedly using an argument in support of something of the form "Vendors should just fix their buggy implementations", they seriously need to consider if they're on the wrong side of the argument (and the wrong side of history) |
| 04:58 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: yeah, it's a KISS thing in part |
| 04:59 | <tantek> | Yes, that's a good way to interpret the data point(s) of "buggy implementations" |
| 05:02 | <tantek> | FWIW it's taken *a lot* of work to figure out good ways to do hierarchical objects of any kind from microformats to microdata/rdfa to microformats2. And we're still finding edge cases to fix in parsers (to handle apparent natural author expectations). |
| 05:02 | <MikeSmith> | so as far as getting concrete progress maybe the lowest-hanging fruit is changing the spec so that we no longer have "h1 inside section that acts like XHTML2 h" |
| 05:02 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: yeah I can imagine |
| 05:03 | <tantek> | MIkeSmith yeah |
| 05:04 | <tantek> | the only way we have made any such incremental progress with mf2 is with active live use on the web, implementation in parsers, use of parsers by actual sites consuming and doing stuff with the data, then publishing more of it. a tight real world feedback loop. |
| 05:04 | <tantek> | without such real world publishing/implementation feedback loops, any attempt at language iteration is speculative at best, likely to fail at worst. |
| 05:04 | <MikeSmith> | yup |
| 05:04 | <tantek> | hence I've pretty much given up on anything unimplemented 1yr+ after being spec'd |
| 05:05 | <tantek> | or specing at all before at least one prototype implementation |
| 05:05 | <MikeSmith> | yeah and that's also why we should always be extremely cautious about adding any new elements |
| 05:05 | <MikeSmith> | I think we have been actually |
| 05:05 | <tantek> | MikeSmith: at this point we have web components to experiment with new elements |
| 05:06 | <tantek> | before we add them |
| 05:06 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 05:06 | <tantek> | I'm also ok with extension specs |
| 05:06 | <tantek> | as a way to discuss ideas for new elements |
| 05:06 | <MikeSmith> | yes |
| 05:06 | <tantek> | but yeah, I wouldn't add anything to the core until there's some pretty serious critical mass |
| 05:06 | <tantek> | and OTOH I'd drop tons of stuff from the core, section/hgroup is just a start |
| 05:06 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I think we mostly have agreement about that these days, fortunately |
| 05:07 | <MikeSmith> | I mean about the critical-mass thing |
| 05:08 | <tantek> | I figured |
| 05:08 | <MikeSmith> | btw about h1-that-acts-like-h, for that I've already basically put some facts on the group by having the HTML checker (validator) emit warnings about it. I think I've had it emitting those warnings for almost a year or so now |
| 05:09 | <MikeSmith> | and nobody complains about them |
| 05:09 | <MikeSmith> | I don't get bug reports about those warnings |
| 05:09 | <tantek> | I've been circulating the idea of a drastic subsetting for some time among a few people, and pretty much always gotten a " it's crazy" response. |
| 05:09 | <MikeSmith> | so I take that to mean that authors are changing their documents to not have misplaced H1s |
| 05:09 | <tantek> | But now that AMP has been proposed, it looks less crazy. :) |
| 05:09 | <MikeSmith> | true |
| 05:10 | <MikeSmith> | things change |
| 05:10 | <tantek> | I tend to be impatient |
| 05:12 | <MikeSmith> | well, I think being impatient is a formula for frustration, as far as this platform goes 😆 |
| 05:13 | <MikeSmith> | that said I'm also impatient |
| 05:13 | <MikeSmith> | can't help not being so I guess |
| 05:15 | <tantek> | MikeSmith: I've only found one place to direct that impatience with any positive results, my own website. |
| 05:33 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: yeah I should work on my own sites more |
| 05:34 | <tantek> | MikeSmith: on the theme of being more positive, it really helps |
| 05:34 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 05:34 | <MikeSmith> | in that spirit I plan to get everything of mine running TLS-only soon |
| 05:34 | <MikeSmith> | let's encrypt is something to be really happy about |
| 05:36 | <tantek> | yes - it's a good thing |
| 09:22 | <MikeSmith> | http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34489810/firefox-push-api-aborterror-error-retrieving-push-subscription |
| 19:56 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: what do you think of having the validator encourage people to use <script>, <script type="module">, or <script type="not-a-js-mimetype-or-module">? |
| 19:56 | <Domenic> | Currently it says that the value must be a valid mime type |
| 19:56 | <Domenic> | I think it would be a nicer story to say "if you want legacy script, don't include type. If you want module, include type="module". If you want an inert block, use anything without special behavior." |
| 19:57 | <Domenic> | But, maybe this would cause annoying warnings for people who are doing <script type="text/javascript"> |
| 21:49 | <smaug____> | hmm, gstatic.com has been very slow recently |
| 21:50 | <smaug____> | I wonder what happens if I just block it |
| 22:01 | <smaug____> | any blink folks around? |
| 22:01 | <smaug____> | is https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/Source/core/animation/ElementAnimation.idl&q=getAnimations&sq=package:chromium&type=cs&l=43 enabled by default? |
| 22:02 | <smaug____> | hmm, it is at least in dev builds |
| 22:05 | <smaug____> | but actually, I'm more interested in release versions |
| 22:05 | smaug____ | wonders how to run different versions of chromium |
| 22:27 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic: I'm all for making the validator provide the most useful guidance it can; we could experiment with warning about type="text/javascript" and see what kind of reaction it gets |
| 22:29 | <Domenic> | MikeSmith: that would be cool. I want to figure out what to change the authoring "must" to and would prefer something like what I described. |
| 22:30 | <MikeSmith> | sounds good to me |
| 22:32 | <MikeSmith> | about <video> is it possible to completely programatically generate a video from scratch in JS? |
| 22:32 | <MikeSmith> | I mean similar to the way you can create a canvas or a audio stream |
| 22:32 | <MikeSmith> | I am guessing not, due to the encoding complexity |
| 22:33 | <MikeSmith> | and I mean without a JS library of some kind of video encoding |
| 22:34 | <Domenic> | I think some of the MSE stuff is aimed at that but I am not sure how low-level it is |
| 22:34 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I think MSE is not quite that low-level |
| 22:34 | <MikeSmith> | it can't generate the bytes on its own afaik |
| 22:35 | <MikeSmith> | anyway the context is http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34488237/can-html5-mediasource-be-used-to-dynamically-generate-a-single-color-video-of-ar |
| 22:37 | <MikeSmith> | these days I find SO to be a good source for finding edge cases of people pushing web-platform features to do odd/interesting stuff |
| 22:38 | <MikeSmith> | the Unanswered questions part of SO is at least as interesting as the questions that have good answers |