| 02:00 | <Philip`> | http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/spry/articles/best_practices/validating_spry.html |
| 02:01 | <Philip`> | It's great that you can write an HTML document with any arbitrary non-standard features and then have the document declare itself as valid |
| 02:36 | <jwalden> | that was the point, sadly |
| 02:44 | <Lachy> | It looks like they're using it for a valid purpose though. Being able to check that the proprietary features are used correctly is good for quality assurance. But their advice is bad because they fail to realise the difference between HTML and XHTML |
| 02:45 | <Lachy> | and in HTML5's parsing, IIRC, all browsers will behave the way IE does and output the %SPRY; ]> at the top of the page |
| 02:47 | <Lachy> | so if authors want to use it, they would be better off advising it's use only before publishing, and then replacing it with the normal DOCTYPE |
| 09:31 | <Hixie> | annevk: yt? |
| 09:31 | <Hixie> | annevk: why does XHR not block Cookie, Cookie2, and Authorization headers? |
| 09:32 | <Hixie> | annevk: and if XHR shouldn't for same-domain, why does AC not block Authorization headers? |
| 09:32 | <Hixie> | or WWW-Authorization or whatever the header is called |
| 10:15 | <annevk> | they should probably be blocked |
| 10:15 | <annevk> | for AC it does block them though not explicitly |
| 10:15 | <annevk> | i.e., that's mentioned in the security section only |
| 10:15 | <Hixie> | that's very bad, given that there is a list of headers elsewhere |
| 10:15 | <Hixie> | that one could easily assume to be complete |
| 10:16 | <Hixie> | generally speaking, one should assume when writing a spec that the security section will be ignored and might as well be non-normative |
| 10:16 | <annevk> | yeah, please assume that the header story is incomplete at this point |
| 10:16 | <Hixie> | fwiw |
| 10:16 | <Hixie> | please fix it asap :-) |
| 10:16 | <Hixie> | i really would like this to go to cr before the f2f |
| 10:16 | <Hixie> | i'm working hard on getting the mozilla guys to unblock you |
| 10:16 | <annevk> | ok |
| 10:17 | <annevk> | i was planning on fixing it |
| 10:17 | <annevk> | cr seems unrealistic though :( |
| 10:17 | <Hixie> | why? |
| 10:17 | <Hixie> | i thought it was basically done |
| 10:17 | <Hixie> | didn't you ask to go to CR? |
| 10:17 | <Hixie> | oh, LC? |
| 10:17 | <Hixie> | LC i guess |
| 10:17 | <annevk> | yeah |
| 10:18 | <Hixie> | whichever |
| 10:18 | <Hixie> | the one that means you're done :-) |
| 10:24 | <annevk> | the main problem is that it's slightly unclear which headers to block and which not to block |
| 10:24 | <annevk> | and why |
| 10:24 | <Hixie> | how so? |
| 10:24 | <annevk> | i got these lists from implementors, but they didn't provide much rationale :) |
| 10:24 | <Hixie> | the list (with the addition of Cookie and WWW-Authorization) seems pretty solid to me |
| 10:25 | <Hixie> | and it's the same list as XHR1 |
| 10:25 | <annevk> | yeah, but AC also has two additional whitelists, one for which headers can be exposed and one for which headers are always safe |
| 10:26 | <annevk> | (and the xhr1 list has outstanding questions as well) |
| 10:26 | <annevk> | (from reviewers) |
| 10:28 | <Hixie> | so reply to the questions :-) |
| 10:28 | <Hixie> | where are these whitelists defined? |
| 10:29 | <Hixie> | "white" isn't in the AC spec as far as i can tell |
| 10:29 | <annevk> | one is in xhr2 but jonas requested it to be moved to AC and one is in AC |
| 10:30 | <annevk> | http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/#cross-site the first whitelist is just "accept" and "accept-language" |
| 10:30 | <annevk> | the other is slightly longer, under getResponseHeader |
| 10:31 | <Hixie> | ah |
| 10:31 | <Hixie> | having all these lists everywhere is confusing :-P |
| 10:31 | <annevk> | agreed |
| 10:32 | <Hixie> | so wait, you can't send any custom headers at all with XXX? |
| 10:32 | <annevk> | you can |
| 10:32 | <annevk> | just requires a preflight request for GET |
| 10:32 | <Hixie> | oh this is response headers |
| 10:32 | <Hixie> | nevermind |
| 10:33 | <Hixie> | i don't care about response headers :-) |
| 10:33 | <Hixie> | do you think the Cookie headers will be added to XHR1? |
| 10:34 | <annevk> | it was requested by adam barth or his collegue (security people), but no browser does it currently i believe |
| 10:35 | <Hixie> | that didn't answer my question :-) |
| 10:38 | <annevk> | i'm not sure what to do :) |
| 10:41 | <annevk> | for completeness the blacklist from xhr should probably be put in ac as well |
| 10:41 | <Hixie> | have you asked browser vendors what they'll do? |
| 10:42 | <Hixie> | the blacklist is in AC already |
| 10:42 | <Hixie> | it's identical but adds Cookie and Cookie2 (and not WWW-Authorisation, which is imho a serious error as that header should be in both specs) |
| 10:42 | <annevk> | i guess i should try e-mailing them directly |
| 10:43 | <annevk> | they're not all that responsive on the mailing list... |
| 10:44 | <Hixie> | yes, i often have to actually speak to them in person in fact |
| 10:44 | <Hixie> | that's one reason i wanted to move to the bay area -- more browser vendors here |
| 10:44 | <Hixie> | makes it easier to do my job |
| 10:44 | <Hixie> | :-) |
| 10:51 | Hixie | replies to cwilson's e-mail |
| 10:55 | <annevk> | i can see how that is convenient |
| 13:43 | <Philip`> | Mozilla needs better canvas regression tests :-( |
| 15:00 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: was <http://flickr.com/photos/gsnedders/2375643370/in/set-72157604322177094/>; the photo to which you were referring on Friday? |
| 15:09 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: Sorry for keeping you out so long and making your hands cold (re what you said on Fri night) |
| 15:12 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: No. I'm not sure which photo it was |
| 15:12 | gsnedders | wonders what other photos there are online with any girl |
| 15:13 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: It was actually surprisingly warm until just before we left, so it wasn't really a problem :-) |
| 15:13 | <Philip`> | (though I am quite easily surprised by warmth here) |
| 15:14 | <gsnedders> | It was so humid on Saturday :( |
| 15:14 | <gsnedders> | Not a nice day for my grandmother's memorial service |
| 15:15 | <Philip`> | Are you heading back home now? |
| 15:15 | <gsnedders> | yeah |
| 15:15 | <gsnedders> | On a damned hot train |
| 15:16 | gsnedders | wonders if jgraham's thought that he was the first person to write ABNF on a train was right |
| 15:17 | <Philip`> | gsnedder⊙nns looks like SIRIUS |
| 15:17 | <gsnedders> | http://stuff.gsnedders.com/http-parsing.html#anchor8 contains a fair amount of ABNF now |
| 15:19 | <Philip`> | ...though from their website it sounds like it's a unidirectional internet connection, so I don't know how they handle outgoing traffic, unless their site is just misleading |
| 15:21 | gsnedders | can report outgoing traffic works fine |
| 15:21 | <Philip`> | Maybe at much lower bandwidth than incoming? |
| 15:22 | <gsnedders> | Bandwidth fluctuates so much that's hard to judge |
| 15:22 | Philip` | wonders what traceroute says, since that ought to show the outgoing route (assuming it doesn't just fail to work) |
| 15:24 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: it stops at ims.icomera.com (192.168.0.1) |
| 15:24 | <gsnedders> | (trying to reach Google) |
| 15:26 | <Philip`> | Ah |
| 15:26 | <Philip`> | I suppose that's http://www.icomera.com/solutions/overview |
| 15:26 | <Philip`> | which seems to be using every wireless technology it can gets it hands on |
| 15:26 | <Philip`> | s/gets it/get its/ |
| 15:26 | <gavin_> | Philip`: did some bug surface that your tests didn't catch? |
| 15:27 | <gavin_> | your tests that landed in Mozilla CVS, I mean |
| 15:28 | <gsnedders> | Well, as I said on Friday, it can't just use sats because it would break in tunnels (as the high frequency waves wouldn't diffract into the tunnels) |
| 15:28 | <Philip`> | gavin_: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=433235 |
| 15:29 | <Philip`> | gavin_: I think I hadn't written that test when I was Mozillafying them |
| 15:29 | <gavin_> | ok |
| 15:30 | <gavin_> | I nominated it for blocking1.9, vlad will look into it I'm sure |
| 15:31 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: FWIW http://flickr.com/photos/gsnedders/2376735304/ isn't the photo I had in mind, but you do look a little... reanimated there |
| 15:32 | <Philip`> | gavin_: Okay, thanks - I don't expect it's a critical bug that anyone would really care about, but I'd like things to be bug-free anyway :-) |
| 15:33 | <Dashiva> | jgraham: An albino with a wig, maybe? :P |
| 16:36 | <gsnedders> | The heat of this train is really surreal. |
| 16:37 | <Philip`> | Open the window and stick your head out |
| 16:39 | <gsnedders> | Windows are only in existance at the end of the coach, and sticking your head out is quite possibly fatal |
| 16:40 | <jgraham> | "The heat of this train is really surreal." - it's causing all the clocks to melt? |
| 16:41 | <gsnedders> | Not quite. |
| 16:41 | <gsnedders> | But certainly this coach is > 30°C |
| 17:10 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Having tagged all the photos of me, I still don't see what you were meaning at <http://flickr.com/photos/tags/gsnedders/>; |
| 17:20 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: You've totally failed to consider the possibility that I imagined the whole thing and/or my memory is faulty |
| 17:21 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: No, I haven't. I just haven't said it yet. |
| 17:21 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: With photos of me, as someone with fairly light skin anyway, it's possible :P |
| 17:21 | <Philip`> | There's also the possibility that it is a malicious plot rather than an accidental falsehood |
| 17:22 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: I hadn't considered that, yet. |
| 17:31 | <gsnedders> | "Your cache administrator is root. " (from ims.nationalexpresswifi.train) |
| 17:32 | Philip` | discovers that he can't understand some of his canvas test cases, so he skips over them and assumes they're right |
| 17:33 | <Philip`> | (Fortunately they're undefined behaviour, so "right" is very subjective, and nobody can argue that my tests conflict with the spec) |
| 17:42 | <gsnedders> | It's raining in St Andrews (apparently)! |
| 17:43 | <gsnedders> | And all I have it a t-shirt :P |
| 17:43 | <gsnedders> | The first fine day next week is the first day of my exams. Typical. |
| 17:44 | <Philip`> | Liquid from the sky? That sounds wildly improbable |
| 17:44 | <gsnedders> | Well, look at the weather where you are Philip` |
| 17:45 | <gsnedders> | (or, rather, how it was at 12:09Z, seeming that's the last time for which I have known good information) |
| 17:47 | <Philip`> | I can't see what the weather is like - I've closed my window blinds since it was too sunny and hot |
| 17:52 | <gsnedders> | Now we're in fog, so I'm just using that |
| 18:49 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.validome.org%2Fout%2Fena10&showsource=yes has confusing errors |
| 18:52 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: indeed. thanks |
| 18:54 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.validome.org%2Fout%2Fena13&showsource=yes could have more useful messages |
| 18:56 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: do you have a suggestion on how to handle it better? |
| 18:56 | <hsivonen> | (aside: in practice that one isn't much of a concern because UTF-16 isn't too popular for serialization) |
| 18:57 | <Dashiva> | hsivonen: You could search for a doctype in any poisition, and if you find one, report that as a possible error cause? |
| 18:57 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: sniff for a utf-16 BOM even if http content-type says something different |
| 18:57 | <hsivonen> | Dashiva: I don't follow. |
| 18:57 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: (although yeah, perhaps optimising utf-16 isn't worth it) |
| 18:57 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: makes sense |
| 18:59 | <Dashiva> | hsivonen: never mind, I misread the error messages |
| 19:00 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: http://validator.nu/?showsource=yes&doc=http://www.validome.org/out/ena2003 seems to truncate the document |
| 19:01 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: yeah, fatal error does |
| 19:01 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Are there plans to change the validator output to tell people how to fix the errors, rather than just saying what the errors are and expecting them to figure out a solution themselves? |
| 19:03 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: for datatypes it already does. for other errors no tangible plans |
| 19:03 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: do you have ideas of how to correlate errors with advice in the cases where the advice would be non-obvious |
| 19:03 | <hsivonen> | ? |
| 19:03 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Non-obvious to who? |
| 19:04 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: good question |
| 19:04 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: what's the error in that document? |
| 19:04 | <Philip`> | When it says "Error: Text after & did not match an entity name.", I guess most people would find it entirely non-obvious that they have to write & instead |
| 19:05 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: looks like a bug |
| 19:06 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: validome seems to think that http://validator.nu/?showsource=yes&doc=http://www.validome.org/out/ena2004 should have no errors |
| 19:07 | <hsivonen> | I really need to implement links to web-sniffer.net if only just for debugging |
| 19:09 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: appendix F of XML 1.0 first ed. considers UTF-16 without a BOM an error |
| 19:12 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: but not 4th ed? |
| 19:12 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: seems to be a case where the spec has changed since the parser was written |
| 19:12 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: ok |
| 19:13 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: might be good to issue a warning in that case |
| 19:13 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: hmm. the non-normative appendix changed |
| 19:14 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: the normative text still says: "Entities encoded in UTF-16 must and entities encoded in UTF-8 may begin with the Byte Order Mark" |
| 19:15 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: where does validome tell the expected outcome of tests? |
| 19:17 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: it doesn't, though it says whether the validome output is correct or not |
| 19:18 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: http://validator.nu/?showsource=yes&doc=http://www.validome.org/out/ena2016 and http://validator.nu/?showsource=yes&doc=http://www.validome.org/out/ena2017 are seemingly not supported (utf-32 with byte order 2143 and 3412 respectively) |
| 19:19 | <hsivonen> | I thought I had disabled UTF-32 altogether |
| 19:21 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: http://validator.nu/?showsource=yes&doc=http://www.validome.org/out/ena2014 works, is utf-32 byte order 1234 |
| 19:22 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: I sent email about ena2004 to Validome Staff |
| 19:22 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: ok |
| 19:22 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: yeah, I guess I should improve those messages. |
| 19:23 | <hsivonen> | btw, did my extensibility email make sense? |
| 19:28 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: For case #3, I don't see why you say XML is a good fit and then say actually it's not good and you should use XML5 instead but actually that's not good either because it's a different syntax to HTML |
| 19:29 | <Philip`> | That seems to lead to the conclusion that XML is not a good solution |
| 19:32 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: I say XML. the first objection is really Sam's objection. the second objection is Dave's objection to my suggested solution to Sam's objection |
| 19:33 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: I'd be OK with leaving people with XML 1.0 in that case |
| 19:34 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: The second objection seems to be unresolved |
| 19:35 | <Philip`> | I don't think Facebook cares about being able to serialise all XML 1.0 infosets as FBML, so that seems to be an irrelevant point |
| 19:36 | <Philip`> | Also I expect they could easily want "<p>Blah <p>Blah" to be parsed sensibly, since that follows their users' understanding of how to write HTML, and XML5 wouldn't do that (as far as I'm aware) |
| 19:37 | <Philip`> | so they do still want one syntax instead of two |
| 19:40 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: ok |
| 19:41 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: it seems that I ended up replying to typical XML proponent concerns instead of developing my case properly |
| 19:47 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: validome expects http://validator.nu/?showsource=yes&doc=http://www.validome.org/out/ena6009 to emit an error |
| 19:47 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: (likewise for <table cellspacing>) |
| 19:50 | hsivonen | is puzzled by how the authors goes from "third" to "fourth" at http://www.bestkungfu.com/archive/date/2008/05/alt-and-the-flickr-defense/ |
| 19:50 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: http://validator.nu/?showsource=yes&doc=http://www.validome.org/out/ena6017 has confusing messages |
| 19:51 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: yeah, the legacy schemas aren't too good :-( |
| 19:51 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: it says it uses the schema for html5 :) |
| 19:52 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: I meant ena6009 |
| 19:53 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: but for the latter case, the legacy encoding decl datatype is bad |
| 19:53 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: indeed, i was thinking of the message about <frameset> not being allowed |
| 19:54 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: why isn't it using the schema for xhtml 1.0 frameset? |
| 19:58 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: probably because when I wrote the autodetection code, Frameset wasn't in the presets due to evilness or something along those lines |
| 19:59 | <hsivonen> | but yeah, I should fix that |
| 19:59 | <hsivonen> | in fact, I've made notes for everything you said except UTF-16 without BOM |
| 20:00 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: validome also expects an empty body to be valid in xhtml 1.0, which it is if you read the xhtml 1.0 spec pedantically, but i'd argue that that's a spec bug since it's invalid html4 |
| 20:01 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: (coords='' checking is better when validating against html5 than xhtml 1.0) |
| 20:04 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: http://validator.nu/?showsource=yes&doc=http://www.validome.org/out/ena7001 doesn't emit an error |
| 20:05 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: (might have pointed this one out before: ) validome expects errors for http://validator.nu/?showsource=yes&doc=http://www.validome.org/out/ena7003 but i don't know why |
| 20:06 | <hsivonen> | what should be the error in ena7003 |
| 20:06 | <hsivonen> | ? |
| 20:07 | <hsivonen> | doh |
| 20:07 | hsivonen | sees "but i don't know why" |
| 20:07 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: http://validator.nu/?showsource=yes&doc=http://www.validome.org/out/ena3004 shouldn't have errors per html4 :) |
| 20:08 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: yeah, but this is HTML5 plus additional errors |
| 20:08 | <hsivonen> | in the parser |
| 20:08 | <hsivonen> | is the error in ena7001 that name and id aren't the same? |
| 20:09 | <hsivonen> | I disabled that check, because the Schematron was a perf issue |
| 20:10 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: yeah it is |
| 20:11 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: it seems that cdata parsing of <noframes> is incompatible with the frameset schema |
| 20:11 | <hsivonen> | nice |
| 20:12 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: (the parser also complains about </ in noframes) |
| 20:12 | <hsivonen> | :-( |
| 20:12 | <hsivonen> | so much brokenness on the legacy side |
| 20:14 | <zcorpan_> | html5 parsing rules yields confusing messages for http://validator.nu/?showsource=yes&doc=http://www.validome.org/out/ena3006 |
| 20:16 | zcorpan_ | notes that validome fails to detect http://www.validome.org/lang/en/get/http://www.validome.org/out/ena3008 even though the comparison page says validome gets it right |
| 20:23 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: validome expects an error for missing content-script-type http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.validome.org%2Fout%2Fena3013&schema=http%3A%2F%2Fs.validator.nu%2Fxhtml10%2Fxhtml-strict.rnc+http%3A%2F%2Fs.validator.nu%2Fxhtml10%2Fxhtml.sch+http%3A%2F%2Fc.validator.nu%2Fall-html4%2F&showsource=yes (although xhtml 1.0 doesn't require it, if you read xhtml 1.0 just as pedantically as with empty <body>) |
| 20:24 | <zcorpan_> | (and content-script-type is completely useless anyway) |
| 20:28 | <hsivonen> | I'm not gonna add content-script-type check |
| 20:29 | <zcorpan_> | makes sense |
| 20:34 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: "I have to change my web-dev preset links (it should be automatically - my next request for ur validator.nu) " -- http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3815150#post3815150 |
| 20:36 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: i guess the request is that you look at the doctype to choose an appropriate xhtml 1.0 preset if the root namespace is xhtml |
| 20:37 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: (i know the current behavior is by design :) ) |
| 20:40 | <hsivonen> | I'd rather look into whining about the doctype in a more comprehensible way |
| 20:41 | <hsivonen> | It's hard to balance this particular advocacy feature with user requests |
| 20:45 | <hsivonen> | fwiw, there's no mechanism in place for picking a present schema from XML doctype |
| 20:45 | <hsivonen> | it's not like I just disabled something |
| 20:45 | <zcorpan_> | yeah. saying "just use the preset select box" means "this validator is stupid and makes me jump through unnecessary hoops", and explaining the reasoning behind the behavior is way too much effort |
| 20:47 | <zcorpan_> | it seems that new comers don't check their own documents, instead they check documents from top sites they know have good markup |
| 20:47 | <zcorpan_> | which means xhtml documents, even if they use text/html themselves |
| 20:48 | <hsivonen> | skipped entity [dtd] needs to become something more comprehensible as the first change |
| 20:48 | <hsivonen> | like <blinquee>DTDs are legacy. Get rid of yours.</blinquee> |
| 20:49 | <zcorpan_> | lol <blinquee> |
| 20:49 | zcorpan_ | files a bug for opera to implement <blinquee> |
| 20:49 | <zcorpan_> | not supporting it breaks this page! validator.nu |
| 20:50 | <hsivonen> | there at least was a demo implementing blinquee for Gecko years ago |
| 20:50 | <zcorpan_> | oh? didn't know |
| 20:51 | <Philip`> | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163050 ? |
| 20:52 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: that's it |
| 21:21 | hendry | is back from Dublin |
| 22:02 | <Philip`> | Hmph, HTML5 is insufficiently strict about butts |
| 22:06 | <Dashiva> | <body-part /> |
| 22:09 | <Lachy_> | Philip`, wtf? |
| 22:09 | <Philip`> | Dashiva: Not that kind of butt :-( |
| 22:09 | <Philip`> | You have a dirty mind |
| 22:09 | <Philip`> | It just says "The butt value means that the end of each line is a flat edge perpendicular to the direction of the line." which is unacceptably lacking any sort of "must" |
| 22:11 | <jgraham_> | Does anyone have a a suggestion for a not-too-inaccurate not-too-technical HTML tutorial I can point my mum at? |
| 22:13 | <gsnedders> | Talking to my parents about Friday night led to the inevitable, "Were they like what you expected?", which in turn lead to whether I was what you expected. So, Philip`, jgraham_? |
| 22:15 | jgraham_ | doesn't really know |
| 22:15 | <gsnedders> | jgraham_: So you had no expectations? :P |
| 22:15 | <Philip`> | I never have expectations |
| 22:15 | <Philip`> | Life is much more fun when everything is a surprise |
| 22:16 | <gsnedders> | did I have hair more awesome than expected? :P |
| 22:17 | <jgraham_> | "Monday make up knowing that you've gotta go to school. You tell your Mum what to expect she says it's right out of the blue" |
| 22:17 | <gsnedders> | jgraham_: see my note on http://flickr.com/photos/jgraham/2479527700/? |
| 22:18 | <Lachy_> | gsnedders, is that you in the photo? |
| 22:18 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: yeah |
| 22:18 | <jgraham_> | gsnedders: Have now :) |
| 22:18 | gsnedders | couldn't resist the "not us" |
| 22:18 | <Lachy_> | did you dye your hair? I thought you had blonde or light brown hair. |
| 22:19 | <gsnedders> | Nope. |
| 22:19 | <Lachy_> | really? I thought I'd seen a photo of you before. Maybe it was of someone else |
| 22:19 | <gsnedders> | If I ever dye my hair, it will be obvious. |
| 22:19 | <gsnedders> | By obvious, I meant really vibrant and unnatural (like green or blue) |
| 22:20 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: http://flickr.com/photos/tags/gsnedders/ |
| 22:20 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: That goes back a while |
| 22:20 | <jgraham_> | gsnedders: Have you ever met David Perrett? |
| 22:20 | <gsnedders> | jgraham_: No |
| 22:20 | <gsnedders> | Name means nothing to me either |
| 22:21 | <Philip`> | http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sp/people/resources/pics/dp.jpg ? |
| 22:21 | <jgraham_> | Ah, OK, nevermind then. He's a professor at St. Andrews that my parents know. He has dyed hair |
| 22:21 | <jgraham_> | Philip`: Yep |
| 22:22 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: xml parser bug http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fsimon.html5.org%2Ftest%2Fxml%2Fns-malformed%2F001.xml&showsource=yes |
| 22:22 | <gsnedders> | I'd expect my father knows him. |
| 22:22 | <gsnedders> | But he knows far too many people at uni |
| 22:24 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: http://www.bebo.com/PhotoAlbumBig.jsp?MemberId=4376278632&PhotoAlbumId=5579156004&PhotoId=7209454479 — that's the oldest photo of me online |
| 22:24 | <gsnedders> | (I'll get more old photos on Flickr once I work out what they are of and/or label them) |
| 22:25 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: It used to be a bit redder and glossier, but never really light |
| 22:26 | <Lachy_> | yeah, I think I just remembered wrongly. I remember seeing this one before http://www.bebo.com/PhotoAlbumBig.jsp?PageNbr=1&MemberId=4376278632&PhotoAlbumId=5579156004&PhotoId=5770850872 |
| 22:26 | <gsnedders> | jgraham_: http://flickr.com/photos/jgraham/2479527704/ claims to be 8:58 BST |
| 22:26 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: That just generally looks light |
| 22:27 | <gsnedders> | jgraham_: (and that's far too early) |
| 22:27 | <Philip`> | "Taken on May 9, 2008 at 8.58pm BST" |
| 22:27 | Philip` | points at the "pm" part |
| 22:27 | <gsnedders> | Still too early |
| 22:27 | <Philip`> | Oh |
| 22:27 | <gsnedders> | We weren't by Great St Mary's until later than that |
| 22:28 | <gsnedders> | We left at around 22:45+01, and I think we were there for around an hour |
| 22:28 | <gsnedders> | so likely it was actually 21:58+01 |
| 22:28 | <Philip`> | That sounds plausible |
| 22:28 | <gsnedders> | I expect the photo on the Fen is equally wrong |
| 22:29 | <jgraham_> | I think my camera is set to GMT |
| 22:29 | <gsnedders> | jgraham_: That's my guess too |
| 22:29 | <gsnedders> | As I said, we should just set everything to GMT and be done with it :P |
| 22:29 | <jgraham_> | Though it's still not quite right and I don't know how you change the TZ |
| 22:29 | <Philip`> | Does Flickr just guess the timezone? |
| 22:30 | <jgraham_> | Conclusion: Metadata sucks. |
| 22:30 | <gsnedders> | How long were we at supper for? |
| 22:30 | <Philip`> | It probably took half an hour deciding where to go and then another half an hour deciding what to eat there :-p |
| 22:31 | gsnedders | looks at jgraham_ to know whether we're ready to order yet |
| 22:32 | <gsnedders> | I mean, he is the eldest :P |
| 22:34 | <gsnedders> | All my photos of him have come out badly, though |
| 22:36 | <jgraham_> | The EXIF format seems to have a optional timezone field by no way of storing timezones in the dates |
| 22:37 | <gsnedders> | Anyhow, I need to go sleep. |
| 22:37 | <gsnedders> | Two days of school, then study leave |
| 22:37 | <jgraham_> | goodnight |
| 22:37 | <gsnedders> | I'll deal with my photos from Cambridge… sometime. |
| 22:38 | gsnedders | needs to `rm to-do/*` |
| 22:39 | <Philip`> | The 'exif' tool says "Date and Time (original): 2008:05:09 20:58:31" and seems to indicate a lack of any timezone information anywhere |
| 22:40 | <Philip`> | so I assume Flickr is just making up bogus values for its own required 'timezone' metadata field |
