| 06:54 | <MikeSmith> | has there been any statement of agreement about deprecating HTML Imports? |
| 06:54 | <annevk> | Dunno, I get the impression W3C wants to keep it alive and Google maybe does too? |
| 06:56 | <MikeSmith> | do JS module scripts not solve all the problems that HTML Imports was intended for? |
| 06:57 | <ondras> | imports are being considered to get deprecated? |
| 06:57 | <ondras> | interesting |
| 06:57 | <ondras> | MikeSmith: I would say that the goal of having a modularized HTML cannot be solved by module scripts |
| 06:57 | <MikeSmith> | ondras: well, just not being prioritized for implementation |
| 06:57 | <ondras> | okay |
| 06:58 | <ondras> | module scripts can *create* modularized DOM, but as far as the modularized (static) HTML goes, there is no other tech than imports... |
| 06:59 | <MikeSmith> | sure |
| 07:00 | <MikeSmith> | just not clear that the modularized HTML case is one that browser projects are very keen on supporting |
| 07:00 | <MikeSmith> | other than Google |
| 07:00 | <annevk> | ondras: the static HTML doesn't go anywhere without script though, so the name is quite deceptive |
| 07:01 | <ondras> | annevk: well the script is just a glue; its size can be orders of magnitude smaller than the acutal HTML content |
| 07:01 | <ondras> | annevk: also, the JS might be present only in the importing document (=> not inside the import itself) IIRC, right? |
| 07:02 | <annevk> | the JS can come from anywhere, sure |
| 07:02 | <annevk> | Not sure that makes it better |
| 07:15 | <kochi> | MikeSmith: IIRC the agreement about HTML Imports at last year TPAC, was to keep it |
| 07:16 | <annevk> | kochi: but only Google wants to implement it? Who were involved in that decision? |
| 07:17 | <kochi> | IIRC Travis said no alternative proposed for loading HTML module, which was the reason. |
| 07:18 | <Ms2ger> | That's not the best argument I ever heard |
| 07:18 | <kochi> | I know Mozilla doesn't have interest in implementing in the current form |
| 07:19 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: no kidding |
| 07:19 | <MikeSmith> | not sure Apple does either |
| 07:19 | <annevk> | Pretty sure they don't |
| 07:19 | <kochi> | let me dig the minutes |
| 07:19 | <MikeSmith> | kochi: thanks |
| 07:20 | <kochi> | yeah, Apple proposed to remove HTML Imports from the charter, then, IIRC |
| 07:23 | <annevk> | $%#@%$@# |
| 07:24 | <annevk> | Safari differs between location.href and location.assign() what global it picks the referrer from |
| 07:24 | <annevk> | Wut wut wut |
| 07:28 | <kochi> | hmm... cannot find the minutes (still trying) |
| 07:32 | <kochi> | Found!: https://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-webapps-minutes.html |
| 07:32 | MikeSmith | looks at https://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-webapps-minutes.html |
| 07:33 | <kochi> | Search for "There are three specs, let's go over their status." in the minutes (from rniwa) |
| 07:34 | <MikeSmith> | yup jus read it |
| 07:35 | <MikeSmith> | so Microsoft was not opposed, and even actually supportive |
| 07:36 | <kochi> | yeah, my memory about Microsoft was somewhat wrong, but they supported to keep it |
| 07:36 | <MikeSmith> | and rniwa was not strongly opposed to doing it in the future at some point, after ES modules gets deployed and we have some experience with it |
| 07:37 | <annevk> | So there's two things there |
| 07:37 | <annevk> | There's support to keep it in the charter and there's support to let Google play with the specification |
| 07:37 | <MikeSmith> | yes |
| 07:37 | <annevk> | There doesn't seem to be support for the feature as-is |
| 07:38 | <MikeSmith> | I guess that’s a fair characterization |
| 07:38 | <annevk> | I think dglazkov did come up with a new proposal of sorts, but it wasn't quite flushed out yet |
| 07:39 | <annevk> | But I suspect he's also waiting for <script type=module> to land |
| 07:40 | <kochi> | probably we have to reiterate on imports on top of ES modules. |
| 07:41 | <kochi> | we = google |
| 07:51 | <kochi> | btw, I don't really understand the difference whether we keep HTML Imports in W3C charter and turning it into a "note" |
| 07:52 | <kochi> | I know the IME API spec turned into a note, though |
| 07:52 | <annevk> | kochi: keeping it in the charter means it's something the group can work on |
| 07:52 | Ms2ger | grumbles about charters |
| 07:53 | <annevk> | kochi: turning something into a Note is basically a nice gesture towards the community to indicate the work is no longer relevant |
| 07:53 | <kochi> | so "note" is just a historical record, no one is actively working on, then? |
| 07:53 | <kochi> | crossed the message, yeah, |
| 07:54 | <kochi> | so the status of HTML Imports is, that "people recognizes the importance of the feature, though no one except Google has interest in implementing it in the current form" |
| 07:55 | <annevk> | kochi: yeah, that seems accurate |
| 07:59 | <annevk> | jgraham: finding web-platform test documentation on Google is rather hard |
| 07:59 | <annevk> | e.g., "async web-platform test" doesn't give much |
| 07:59 | <kochi> | Google just implemented HTML imports in the past, so may not have interested in implementing it, though ;) |
| 08:00 | annevk | finds http://testthewebforward.org/docs/testharness-library.html |
| 08:00 | <kochi> | I always end up reading testharness.js doc again |
| 08:01 | <kochi> | https://github.com/w3c/testharness.js/blob/master/docs/api.md this is |
| 08:01 | <annevk> | I need to write tests every two months or so |
| 08:01 | <annevk> | It's not frequent enough |
| 08:12 | <annevk> | https://twitter.com/avaragado/status/735014283692630016 is a rather interesting analogy |
| 08:12 | <annevk> | But I'm not really qualified to judge its accuracy |
| 08:35 | <annevk> | jgraham: you around? Is there a pattern for <iframe onload=somefunc>? |
| 08:37 | <annevk> | jgraham: I want to pass an argument |
| 08:38 | <annevk> | I guess I can just rewrite how I get hold of the iframe instead |
| 08:52 | <jgraham> | annevk: there's not really an iframe onload pattern |
| 08:52 | <jgraham> | idk how to make Google love the documentation more |
| 08:57 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: I think it's the fact it's all under the heading of TTWF and not wpt that makes it hard |
| 08:57 | <jgraham> | I guess we could change that |
| 08:57 | <annevk> | Setup webplatformtests.org? |
| 08:57 | <annevk> | Maybe get it on HTTPS from the start |
| 08:57 | <jgraham> | Test the Web Forward as a larger movement doesn't seem to exist so much any more |
| 08:58 | <annevk> | Happy to provide server resources and such |
| 09:15 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I think Test the Web Forward as a brand has its day in the sun and we should consider moving on |
| 09:16 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: http://testthewebforward.org/ is just set up through some C record to a github gh-pages repo? |
| 09:17 | <MikeSmith> | I would also be happy to have an alternative for https://w3c-test.org/ that was collabortively maintained, so that I don’t have to be the main person to have to fix it when there are problems |
| 09:36 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: I think w3c-test.org at least needs to be a VPS. |
| 09:37 | <jgraham> | But I think setting up webplatformtests.org makes some sense |
| 09:41 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: yeah w3c-test.org needs to continue to be a VPS but we could get it hosted as such somewhere else |
| 09:42 | <MikeSmith> | IMHO everything needs to be a VPS |
| 09:46 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: I'm totally happy to set it up on linode or whereever |
| 10:18 | <MikeSmith> | let’s, when you have time |
| 10:18 | <MikeSmith> | it can be set up in parallel to w3c-test.org |
| 10:19 | <MikeSmith> | and if it goes well and people use it, then I can just quietly retire from being in the admin business for w3c-test.org and whoever else from w3c cares more can take responsibility instead |
| 10:19 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: any clues on http://stackoverflow.com/questions/37409714/does-cors-work-in-ie-11-using-ssl-xmlhttprequest |
| 10:23 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith, jgraham: I promised something like w3c-test's mirroring for PRs for csswg-test, fwiw |
| 10:23 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: per http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20198696/cors-request-with-ie11 IE might require P3P?! |
| 10:24 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: that would be odd |
| 10:25 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Well they know how to get it for free :) |
| 10:27 | <gsnedders> | unrelated to that: I'm close to just rewriting the CSS test harness as something more sane |
| 10:27 | <gsnedders> | given, well, you looked at that code. |
| 10:29 | <gsnedders> | probably as something that works sanely on top of other things as well (read: wpt) |
| 10:31 | <jgraham> | I now seem to own webplatformtests.org |
| 10:31 | <jgraham> | Not the ideal domain (with or without an s? with or without hyphens), but something |
| 10:32 | <jgraham> | I wonder how to dupe someone into doing some design work for content to live there |
| 10:35 | <gsnedders> | no .test? :( |
| 10:35 | <gsnedders> | seemingly not |
| 10:38 | <jgraham> | .test is reserved I think |
| 10:38 | <gsnedders> | it seems to simply not exist |
| 10:38 | <gsnedders> | I could be missing it here, though, if it is reserved |
| 10:39 | <gsnedders> | .dev is owned by Google |
| 10:39 | <jgraham> | https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606#section-2 |
| 10:39 | <jgraham> | idk if that still applies |
| 10:41 | <jgraham> | https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761 updates it but still reserves .test |
| 10:41 | <gsnedders> | oh ok |
| 10:44 | <annevk> | mathiasbynens: 🎂🎉 |
| 10:56 | <gsnedders> | https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=614171#c2 — I can't believe I'm having to argue that's a problem. |
| 10:56 | <mathiasbynens> | annevk: cheers :) |
| 10:57 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Probably that person hasn't used SVG and doesn't realise that the tag names are case sensitive |
| 11:31 | nox | is impressed by <details>. |
| 11:35 | <annevk> | jgraham: should testharness.js maybe support some kind of public logging? So those looking at why a test fails have some helpful pointers? |
| 11:38 | <gsnedders> | annevk: public logging of what? |
| 11:42 | <annevk> | gsnedders: some of the state in scripts |
| 11:42 | <annevk> | gsnedders: prolly not too useful though |
| 11:45 | <gsnedders> | annevk: how do you know what to dump? I don't see how we can realisitically improve on what's done now? |
| 11:46 | <annevk> | gsnedders: never mind |
| 11:46 | <gsnedders> | annevk: you're sounding like me, shouting out crazy ideas :) |
| 12:15 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: how about wpt.me |
| 12:33 | <Ms2ger> | w.pt |
| 12:46 | <zcorpan> | test.platform.web |
| 12:54 | <zcorpan> | normalize.css is something that shouldn't need to exist |
| 13:51 | <nox> | web.technology |
| 13:52 | nox | wonders if there is a longer TLD. |
| 13:58 | <MikeSmith> | botie, inform tantek you might want to take a look at https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/160 |
| 13:58 | <botie> | will do |
| 14:12 | <wanderview> | Domenic: remember when I asked you a week or so ago about the ReadableStream slot name brand check? apparently the spider monkey intrinsic thing is safe and can't be spoofed... we use an internal class pointer that can't be changed |
| 14:13 | <Domenic> | wanderview: yeah i assumed SpiderMonkey would have some intrinsic thing that works... just didn't know what it was. |
| 14:13 | <wanderview> | I was confused because the thing that is compared can change... but there is code in place to ensure the class bit remains the same |
| 14:19 | <MikeSmith> | for anybody how has time to peruse it, I think https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/issues/22 does a good job (somewhat unintentionally) of summarizing why the EPUB-inspired “Portable Web Publications” format that some at the W3C are trying to cook up is an accident waiting to happen |
| 14:21 | <MikeSmith> | (the “Portable Web Publications” format is a zip package with HTML content that can contain JavaScript, except that it runs not on the Web but instead in an off-Web “reading system” built on a browser engine |
| 14:23 | <MikeSmith> | comments at https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/issues/21 are also worth reading |
| 14:24 | <annevk> | Sounds like "widgets" and whatever other names that had |
| 14:24 | <annevk> | Also FxOS apps |
| 14:24 | <annevk> | And Chrome apps |
| 14:25 | <annevk> | None of which are really needed |
| 14:25 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 14:25 | <MikeSmith> | which I why I think actually it’s never going to go anywhere |
| 14:26 | <MikeSmith> | in large part because they’re never going to get browser projects to implement whatever it is they think they need |
| 14:27 | <rodneyre_> | is there a separate channel for issues with CSS spec, or is this the place to ask? |
| 14:27 | <MikeSmith> | rodneyrehm: you can ask here |
| 14:28 | <MikeSmith> | especially when TabAtkins is around |
| 14:28 | <MikeSmith> | which he probably is not yet |
| 14:29 | <gsnedders> | rodneyrehm: there's #css on irc.w3.org, which probably has a few more CSS people in it, but here is in general okay |
| 14:29 | <rodneyrehm> | I'm confused about CSS Transitions and the visibility property. Should these two behave the same in regard to immediate (synchronous) change to "visible"? http://jsbin.com/conecomivo/edit?css,console,output and http://jsbin.com/korituzoqo/1/edit?css,console,output |
| 14:30 | <gsnedders> | rodneyrehm: I… think so. (could be wrong, don't trust me, etc.) |
| 14:31 | <rodneyrehm> | You mean they should behave the same? |
| 14:31 | <gsnedders> | rodneyrehm: Yes. |
| 14:32 | <gsnedders> | rodneyrehm: but really, don't trust my answers when it comes to Transitions |
| 14:35 | <rodneyrehm> | IE11. Firefox and Chrome disagree - that's why I'm confused… |
| 14:36 | <SimonSapin> | gsnedders: wanna take https://github.com/SimonSapin/python-webencodings/pull/4 ? |
| 14:38 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: kk |
| 14:38 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: I wish GH handled moving projects in any nice way |
| 14:39 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: transferring ownership sucks given it leads to no redirects, but at the same time leaving stuff in place doesn't really work that nicely either |
| 14:43 | <annevk> | gsnedders: redirects break once ownership tranfers? |
| 14:45 | <gsnedders> | annevk: last I knew you just got 404s after an ownership transfer |
| 14:45 | <gsnedders> | annevk: maybe they've fixed that now? |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | gsnedders: not sure, renames definitely seem to work fine |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | gsnedders: ownership transfer seems to work fine too |
| 14:54 | <SimonSapin> | gsnedders: I think I could move the repo to you |
| 14:56 | <SimonSapin> | gsnedders: … if you remove your fork |
| 15:01 | <gsnedders> | SimonSapin: well I've deleted it now |
| 15:10 | <SimonSapin> | "Repository transfer to gsnedders requested" |
| 15:57 | <botie> | tantek, at 2016-05-24 13:58 UTC, MikeSmith said: you might want to take a look at https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/160 |
| 15:59 | <tantek> | MikeSmith: what a strange conversation in that issue |
| 15:59 | <tantek> | seems like a like of non-implementer hand-waving - or am I missing something? |
| 16:05 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: they appear to be planning to change the document-conformance requiremennts for @rel to say that any value for it is allowed |
| 16:05 | <tantek> | that part I'm fine with, we had that in HTML4 and before also |
| 16:06 | <MikeSmith> | and that went well? |
| 16:06 | <tantek> | yes, it went fine because either people made stuff up in isolation and were ignored |
| 16:07 | <tantek> | or people collaborated, publicly documented, and got stuff adopted (microformats rel-registry) |
| 16:07 | <tantek> | the open web forces there worked pretty fine |
| 16:07 | <tantek> | MikeSmith, what's more annoying in some of these github threads are the odd potshots |
| 16:11 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: well it’s an embarrassment of riches as far as that goes |
| 16:17 | <tantek> | MikeSmith do you know who jribbens is? |
| 16:17 | <tantek> | this is the kind of thing I consider a potshot: "it is my view that having the official list of valid values as random content on some wiki page is not at all acceptable." |
| 16:18 | <tantek> | to be blunt, I really don't care what some rando opinion considers acceptable or not. if a system has existed and appears to be working (measured by participation, people adding values, bad values getting edited out), then there is no basis for such nonsense "random" |
| 16:19 | <tantek> | And frankly, to have a chair of a WG (chaals) then agree with rando opinion without any basis in any evidence, is also not acceptable. |
| 16:19 | <Ms2ger> | tantek, I thought "some rando objecting to anything at all" was the intended work mode of the w3c |
| 16:20 | <tantek> | Ms2ger, no that's here in #whatwg, or especially mailing list of the week |
| 16:20 | <tantek> | W3C has contained randos to Community Groups (for the most part) |
| 16:20 | <tantek> | and the "Incubation Process" |
| 16:22 | <tantek> | ironically, I don't disagree with halindrome "Conformance checkers should absolutely accept any value for the rel attribute. And, oh by the way, for the role attribute. Same problem." |
| 16:22 | <tantek> | does anyone here remember why there was such a push to require (per spec & validator) all rel values and meta names to be registered somewhere? |
| 16:22 | <tantek> | I recall that requirement coming from WHATWG community |
| 16:25 | <jgraham> | Presumably because it prevents a wource of error (typos are common) and means that the data can usefully be used by multiple clients |
| 16:25 | <jgraham> | *source |
| 16:28 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: not just chair, but also editor (if not formally at least in practice) |
| 16:29 | <MikeSmith> | kind of judge jury and executioner |
| 16:29 | <tantek> | Is this happening because no one is watching? Or no one cares step in? Or ... ? |
| 16:30 | <gsnedders> | anyone off-hand know when el.localName was first implemented? It's DOM Level 2 stuff, no? So presumably when XML was first implemented with namespaces? |
| 16:31 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: not sure what sort of stepping in you can imagine being effective |
| 16:31 | <tantek> | MikeSmith, shutting down HTML5.x |
| 16:32 | <MikeSmith> | well I wish anybody luck attempting that |
| 16:34 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: but anyway the fact that the rel registry was set up at microformats.org would make me think you ought to remember why |
| 16:35 | <MikeSmith> | the fact a requirement was added to the spec saying that any new rel values must be registered there |
| 16:37 | <tantek> | MikeSmith, the existing-rel-values page predates any formal demand / request for a registry in HTML5 |
| 16:37 | <tantek> | we set it up to document reality, because turns out documenting reality is useful |
| 16:37 | <tantek> | then there was the big hassle with trying to use IANA rel registry |
| 16:38 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I know, I do remember this history |
| 16:39 | <MikeSmith> | anyway, I would be very happy personally to drop rel checking from the validator, in the same way I unilaterally and happily dropped meta@name checking |
| 16:40 | <tantek> | I'm ok with that too. Other than what jgraham said, I have no idea what the motivations were |
| 16:40 | <MikeSmith> | because the spec requirements around document-conformancd for both of those have really not done much more than caused me to burn up a lot of time without really helping authors and developers very much |
| 16:41 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: up until you said just now that you didn’t know why the requirement was added, I had been naively assumed you wanted it kept |
| 16:41 | <MikeSmith> | I am now not sure who actually does want it kept, except maybe Hixie |
| 16:42 | <jgraham> | I think the issue is that apart from tantek most people think these things are a waste of time |
| 16:43 | <MikeSmith> | well |
| 16:43 | <Ms2ger> | MikeSmith, file an issue on HTML? |
| 16:43 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: the RDFa partisans are very fond of rel and rev too |
| 16:44 | <MikeSmith> | Ms2ger: I will probably just go straight to making a PR |
| 16:44 | <Ms2ger> | wfm |
| 16:44 | <tantek> | jgraham, there is limited utility from rel values, so I'm not sure what you mean by "waste of time" |
| 16:46 | <MikeSmith> | I think a good rule of thumb is that when you find any RDFa or JSON-LD or whatever aficionado agreeing with you about something, you seriously need to step back and question yourself your carefully |
| 16:48 | <tantek> | that's a reasonable rule of thumb, yeah |
| 16:49 | <Ms2ger> | Ha |
| 16:49 | <tantek> | re: rel, there's a small handful of rel values that are actually implemented and actively supported by browsers and servers to provide user functionality. that's a demonstrable fact. |
| 16:49 | <MikeSmith> | yes |
| 16:50 | <MikeSmith> | absolutely |
| 16:50 | <tantek> | the problem is that there's a lot of markup "fluff" out there that does nothing, has no user functionality, maybe is just used to write a PDF paper for some academic conference |
| 16:50 | <tantek> | including perhaps most rel (and meta) values |
| 16:50 | <MikeSmith> | those are the ones that matter quite a bit and that I wish I could restrict the conformance requirements to |
| 16:51 | <MikeSmith> | as far as the checker goes, if somebody actually accidentally mispells one of those values that really matter, that is something I would like for the checker to catch and report |
| 16:52 | <tantek> | the problem is I see no evidence that anyone in that github issue has any actual clue about "the ones that matter quite a bit" |
| 16:53 | <MikeSmith> | well you see no evidence because I think they probably have not actually studied it enough to realize that, yeah |
| 16:55 | <MikeSmith> | so yeah, the attitude there of being poised to just cavalierly jettison the requirements despite not actually understanding why they were added to begin with, that is depressing |
| 16:59 | <MikeSmith> | and it’s really ironic to see this pattern of decision-making coming from some of the same people who’ve hated on the whatwg for years for benevolent-dictator-driven spec development |
| 17:00 | <MikeSmith> | at least those decisions were always made carefully and with a solid understanding of the platform and all its complexities |
| 17:00 | <MikeSmith> | this in contrast is like decision-making driven by a self-appointed junta with an axe to grind |
| 17:01 | <MikeSmith> | or like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge |
| 17:02 | <tantek> | MikeSmith: yeah, depressing and ironic |
| 17:04 | <jgraham> | Sounds like standards work |
| 17:36 | <tantek> | and sometimes things actually go well with standards work. Webmention has entered CR (with 27 implementations) https://twitter.com/w3c/status/735108163704348672 |
| 17:36 | <tantek> | https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5439 |
| 21:33 | <wanderview> | Domenic: am I correct that stream spec does not currently set tee(shouldClone=true) anywhere? |