| 00:01 | <Hixie> | "A |
| 00:01 | <Hixie> | er |
| 00:01 | <Hixie> | "A URL is a string." |
| 00:01 | <Hixie> | there. |
| 00:02 | <jcranmer> | "A URL is a non-zero sequence of octets arranged in an unspecified fashion" |
| 00:02 | <Hixie> | no, it could be zero-length |
| 00:02 | <Hixie> | :-) |
| 00:02 | <Hixie> | "" = a URL to the current page |
| 00:02 | <jcranmer> | but it can't be 0 |
| 00:03 | <jcranmer> | I didn't say non-zero length :-) |
| 00:03 | <Hixie> | what's a zero sequence of octets then? |
| 00:03 | <jcranmer> | uh... a sequence that sums to zero? |
| 00:03 | jcranmer | frantically looks for someone who knows higher math |
| 00:03 | <Philip`> | A zero-length sequence sums to zero |
| 00:04 | <jcranmer> | well, we all know how many documents are non-conforming these days |
| 00:04 | <Philip`> | assuming you define sums in a sensible way |
| 00:07 | <Lachy> | Hixie, non-utf-8 escaped octets should be conforming. I don't believe there is a requirement that escaped octets in a path must represent UTF-8 bytes, only that non-ASCII characters must be represented by encoded UTF-8 octets. |
| 00:08 | <Hixie> | so a valid URL need not be a valid URI? |
| 00:09 | <roc> | I thought it was standardized that the first element in the document with a given ID is "the" element for that ID |
| 00:09 | <roc> | if not, it should be. The Web seems to depend on it |
| 00:09 | <Hixie> | not officially, but de facto, yeah. things get more exciting when you start changing the DOM though. |
| 00:09 | <roc> | hmm |
| 00:09 | <Lachy> | Hixie, isn't http://example.org/%FF a valid URI? I thought it was. |
| 00:10 | <Hixie> | yes, it is |
| 00:10 | <Hixie> | but should it be a valid URL? |
| 00:10 | <roc> | we always return the first element from getElementById, and if anyone tells us to do otherwise I will sneeze on them |
| 00:10 | <Lachy> | of course. Why shouldn't it be? |
| 00:10 | <Hixie> | what's the path? |
| 00:10 | <Hixie> | roc: even if someone inserts another element with the same ID before it? |
| 00:11 | <roc> | then we return the new element |
| 00:11 | <roc> | I mean "first in document order" |
| 00:12 | <Lachy> | Hixie, what do you mean? It's %FF (or the octect 0xFF) |
| 00:12 | <Hixie> | roc: i thought there was some issue where the order guarantee wasn't preserved in the face of dynamic changes |
| 00:12 | <Hixie> | Lachy: right, and what unicode character does %FF represent? |
| 00:12 | <Lachy> | why does it need to represent a unicode character? |
| 00:13 | <jcranmer> | because it means unescaping is always safe? |
| 00:13 | <roc> | maybe there is, but I've been hacking in this area recently and I'm pretty sure we preserve the order guarantee in the face of dynamic changes. We're certainly *trying* |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | roc: ah, cool. |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | roc: then we should fix the spec, indeed. |
| 00:14 | <Hixie> | Lachy: i guess it doesn't |
| 00:14 | <roc> | it's possible IE stuffs it up of course |
| 00:14 | <othermaciej> | I remember a while back Firefox would break the order guarantee in some cases |
| 00:14 | <roc> | if we do have bugs I'd rather fix them than preserve something insane |
| 00:15 | <Lachy> | I think it used to break it if a new element with a duplicate ID was inserted before an existing one with the same ID, or if one was moved from later in the document to before. |
| 00:19 | <roc> | ah OK, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=403868, fixed in November last year so in Firefox 3. |
| 00:19 | <roc> | Amazon apparently depends on the correct behaviour so it should be safe to write into the spec :-) |
| 00:21 | <Hixie> | we need someone to write Web DOM Core 5 |
| 00:22 | <Hixie> | i think zcorpan volunteered once |
| 00:22 | <Hixie> | but i may be wrong :-) |
| 00:23 | <othermaciej> | Gecko has 3 getElementById implementations? |
| 00:25 | <roc> | yeah |
| 00:25 | <roc> | I've actually fixed that in my tree |
| 00:25 | <roc> | blame hyatt, he wrote one of them |
| 00:26 | <jcranmer> | and who wrote the others? |
| 00:26 | <roc> | dunno |
| 00:26 | <gavin> | the other two are html and xhtml |
| 00:26 | <roc> | digging up CVS blame from that long ago is something I only do when I'm in a *really* bad mood |
| 00:27 | <othermaciej> | there's one specific to xhtml, not xml? |
| 00:27 | <gavin> | no, I should have said XML |
| 00:27 | <roc> | actually gavin's not quite wright |
| 00:27 | <roc> | there's one for HTML+XHTML, one for XML, and one for XUL |
| 00:27 | <othermaciej> | I think hyatt's excuse for adding the xul one was that his request for making the general one do lots of caching was denied |
| 00:27 | <othermaciej> | (I vaguely remember him mentioning this once) |
| 00:27 | <gavin> | oh, I didn't know XHTML used the html one |
| 00:28 | <roc> | othermaciej: yeah, well I'm not defending any of the decisions made back then :-) |
| 00:29 | <roc> | but I will grumble that caching or not, nsXULDocument is the ugliest thing I've touched in a while |
| 00:30 | <othermaciej> | I will tell hyatt you send your love ;-) |
| 00:31 | <jcranmer> | I work in mailnews/... ugly is the norm |
| 00:31 | <Hixie> | Philip`: fixed the style xref link issue (apparently bert's script cross-references <em> elements) |
| 00:33 | <Philip`> | Hixie: Thanks |
| 00:33 | <Hixie> | anyone know how UAs determine which encoding to use when escaping URIs in scripts? |
| 00:37 | <Lachy> | I hope it's either UTF-8 or, failing that, the encoding of the script file |
| 00:38 | <Lachy> | but then most scripts don't declare their encodings and, IIRC, it inherits from the document anyway. |
| 00:55 | <Hixie> | which document? |
| 00:56 | <Hixie> | e.g. if i have na iframe showing doc1, and i get a reference to a function in that script, then navigate the iframe to doc2, different encoding, then call the function |
| 00:56 | <Hixie> | does it use the parent's encoding, doc1's encoding, or doc2's? |
| 00:57 | <Lachy> | I don't know, I was just speculating. Need to test it. |
| 00:57 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 00:58 | <Hixie> | i feared that too |
| 01:02 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: back now |
| 01:02 | <Hixie> | i sent mail |
| 01:02 | <Hixie> | (good morning) |
| 01:05 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: g'morning.. reading now |
| 01:06 | <MikeSmith> | thanks |
| 01:50 | <Hixie> | what's the character that is represented in the most different ways in commonly supported encodings? |
| 01:51 | <jcranmer> | euro sign? |
| 01:53 | <Hixie> | actually that's got surprisingly little variation |
| 02:00 | <jcranmer> | :-/ |
| 02:03 | <Hixie> | this can be reduced to a programming problem |
| 02:03 | <Hixie> | which is much more fun |
| 02:03 | Hixie | starts coding |
| 02:05 | <jcranmer> | writing documentation can be fun... if you're in the mood :-) |
| 02:11 | <Hixie> | can't do the docs without the tests |
| 02:11 | <Hixie> | and the tests aren't fun :-) |
| 02:11 | <jcranmer> | I do docs first and tests second |
| 02:12 | <jcranmer> | or, more accurately, I wait for somebody to complain about a regression, and then write the test |
| 02:13 | <Hixie> | i need to have the tests in this case to know what to document :-( |
| 02:14 | <Hixie> | so much easier to make stuff up |
| 02:19 | <Hixie> | U+2116 seems to be the winner |
| 02:20 | <jcranmer> | what's that? |
| 02:22 | <Hixie> | +2116, U+2235, U+02C7, U+2019, U+00D7, U+201D, U+00F7, U+00A7 actually |
| 02:22 | <Hixie> | all have 6 different ways of being encoded in the encodings i was looking at |
| 02:24 | <Hixie> | if i only look at single byte encodings, U+0160, U+017E, U+017D, U+0161 win |
| 02:24 | <Hixie> | that's better |
| 02:25 | <Hixie> | all letters with carrons |
| 02:25 | <Hixie> | carons even |
| 02:27 | <Hixie> | Codepoint U+017D has 5 different encodings: 0xDE in encodings: ISO-8859-13, Win-1257 0xAC in encodings: ISO-8859-10 0xAE in encodings: ISO-8859-2, ISO-8859-4 0xB4 in encodings: ISO-8859-15, ISO-8859-16 0x8E in encodings: Win-1250, Win-1252 |
| 02:27 | <jcranmer> | Hixie: but isn't the point of a spec to make up some abstract spot to get implementors to chase towards so that by the time they get there, you write a new one, even harder to implement? That's more or less what CSS did...d |
| 02:27 | <jcranmer> | :-) |
| 02:28 | <Hixie> | html5 takes spec writing in new directions |
| 02:31 | <MikeSmith> | html5 takes a lot of things in new directions |
| 02:32 | <MikeSmith> | the Undiscovered Country |
| 02:33 | <MikeSmith> | which phrase, interestingly, despite the use of it in a different way for that Star Trek movie, is talking about death |
| 02:33 | <Hixie> | hey! |
| 02:33 | <MikeSmith> | in Hamlet, where the phrase came from |
| 02:33 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: :) |
| 02:34 | <MikeSmith> | sorry, I mean it only in a good way |
| 02:34 | <MikeSmith> | I promise |
| 02:34 | <MikeSmith> | Rage, rage against the dying of the light! |
| 02:35 | <Hixie> | :-) |
| 02:36 | <jcranmer> | Wherefore art thou Romeo? |
| 02:36 | <jcranmer> | that's about the best I can manage... |
| 02:54 | <Hixie> | http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/uri/encoding/001.html |
| 03:02 | <Hixie> | good lord |
| 03:02 | <Hixie> | IE8 actually sends ISO-885-13 over the wire |
| 03:05 | <othermaciej> | what is ISO-885-13? |
| 03:05 | <jcranmer> | 8851, I presume? |
| 03:07 | <Hixie> | 8851, sorry |
| 03:07 | <Hixie> | er, 59 |
| 03:07 | <jcranmer> | er, right |
| 03:07 | <Hixie> | but actually if the page is ISO-8859-13, then the path component gets %-encoded as UTF-8 and the query component gets sent as raw Windows-1252 |
| 03:18 | <Hixie> | oh jesus. |
| 03:18 | <Hixie> | so in IE |
| 03:18 | <Hixie> | if you set the .src of an iframe |
| 03:18 | <Hixie> | to a url that contains a unicode character |
| 03:18 | <Hixie> | IE will use the encoding of the document currently loaded in that iframe to encode the chararcter, and then won't escape it |
| 03:19 | <Hixie> | as far as i can tell |
| 03:19 | <Hixie> | http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/uri/encoding/001.html |
| 03:19 | <Hixie> | http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/uri/encoding/002.html |
| 03:24 | <othermaciej> | that's.... |
| 03:24 | <othermaciej> | evil |
| 03:24 | <othermaciej> | I can see why people would like to pretend that when there are non-ASCII characters, it's an IRI |
| 03:24 | <othermaciej> | that would be a lot simpler than reality |
| 03:25 | jcranmer | wonders if Hixie will give up in several months and just start labelling all edge cases as places where the spec is undefined |
| 03:27 | <Hixie> | i haven't given up yet, and i've been doing this since 2003 :-) |
| 03:27 | <othermaciej> | jcranmer: if he was the type of man to do that, he would have done so long since |
| 03:31 | <Hixie> | bbl food |
| 03:31 | <jcranmer> | when/if it hits, it hits hard |
| 03:42 | <othermaciej> | I do fear that someday he'll find a browser behavior crazy enough to make him say "ok, fuck this, I quit" |
| 03:42 | <othermaciej> | but that hasn't happened yet |
| 06:17 | <Hixie> | actually it's self-limiting in a pretty neat way |
| 06:17 | <Hixie> | if the behaviour is too crazy, i just don't spec it |
| 06:17 | <Hixie> | i spec something better instead |
| 06:53 | <Hixie> | what's with the microsoft people putting their names in square brackets all the time |
| 07:36 | <Dashiva> | It's hip to be square. |
| 08:15 | <annevk> | Hixie, if you didn't get that e-mail about access-control then I'm not sure what you meant |
| 08:16 | <Hixie> | what was the link again? |
| 08:16 | <annevk> | Hixie, you wanted personalized widgets on the server right without having to use HTTP headers? |
| 08:16 | <Hixie> | i've sent a lot of mail, i'm not sure of the context here |
| 08:16 | <annevk> | Hixie, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0255.html |
| 08:18 | <Hixie> | right the idea is that the xbl might be returned differently based on cookies |
| 08:18 | <Hixie> | but sicking's idea would not send cookies without a flag |
| 08:18 | <Hixie> | so i'd have to add a flag to xbl2 for when we want cookies to be sent |
| 08:19 | <Hixie> | personally i'm not sure sicking's idea makes a whole lot of sense, as i later mentioned |
| 08:19 | <Hixie> | but assuming you do adopt it, then those xbl changes will be made later |
| 08:20 | <annevk> | but then on the server side you still need to use HTTP headers |
| 08:20 | <annevk> | because otherwise the flag will be ignored by the user agent |
| 08:21 | <annevk> | I thought that wasn't acceptable |
| 08:21 | <annevk> | if it is, we might as well drop <?access-control?> ... |
| 08:28 | <Hixie> | well that's fine |
| 08:29 | <Hixie> | doesn't matter what the server side has to do |
| 08:29 | <Hixie> | i was just talking about <xbl> |
| 08:29 | <Hixie> | er, <?xbl?> |
| 08:29 | <annevk> | oh? |
| 08:29 | <Hixie> | (and you still need <?access-control?> for the more common no-cookie case anyway) |
| 08:29 | <annevk> | I see... |
| 08:30 | <annevk> | In that case I did misunderstood you |
| 08:37 | <annevk> | wtf |
| 08:38 | <annevk> | I pointed out in an e-mail why WebKit requested not throwing an exception for responseXML and responseText based on site compatibility and IE being inconsistent and they're saying no arguments were made?! |
| 08:38 | <annevk> | hah |
| 08:41 | <annevk> | "Oops. Adding Anne." :/ |
| 08:41 | annevk | is on the list |
| 08:52 | <Hixie> | annevk: i recommend just repeating yourself |
| 08:54 | <annevk> | yeah, maybe during the weekend |
| 08:54 | <annevk> | I should really make this presentation I have to give later today |
| 09:34 | <Hixie> | nggh. http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/uri/encoding/003.html |
| 09:37 | <annevk> | "%-escaped ISO-8859-13" |
| 09:37 | <annevk> | for query |
| 09:37 | <Hixie> | you must be using opera or firefox |
| 09:38 | <annevk> | yeah, Opera |
| 09:39 | <Hixie> | IE uses -15 (unless you go back/forward, in which case it starts doing even weirder things) |
| 09:39 | <Hixie> | safari uses -2 |
| 09:39 | <Hixie> | iri says to use utf-8 |
| 09:41 | <Hixie> | oh except IE uses raw octets and everyone else escapes |
| 09:41 | <Hixie> | everyone ignores the encoding of the script when doing this |
| 09:42 | <Hixie> | that's interesting |
| 09:42 | <Hixie> | of course it means now i have to find a way to associate a Document with every script |
| 09:42 | <Hixie> | that's exciting |
| 09:43 | <annevk> | doesn't the origin of a script arrive at some Document somehow |
| 09:44 | <Hixie> | not always |
| 09:47 | <Hixie> | bed time |
| 09:47 | <Hixie> | nn |
| 14:58 | Philip` | continues to wish he could tell Gmail that anything sent to whatwg⊙wo is not to be considered spam |
| 15:02 | <Lachy> | what is it about whatwg emails that get caught? |
| 15:02 | <Lachy> | does it do the same for public-html? (I would classify a lot more of those as spam than I would whatwg) |
| 15:03 | <Philip`> | Lachy: Don't know what it is, but it caught your latest email |
| 15:03 | <Lachy> | great. |
| 15:03 | <Philip`> | It only seems to be around one every couple of weeks, and I've not noticed any pattern |
| 15:04 | <Lachy> | can you set up a filter or a whitelist or something? |
| 15:04 | <Philip`> | I don't remember public-html emails getting marked as spam, but that's mostly because my memory isn't great |
| 15:05 | <Philip`> | Hmm, now I can't connect to Gmail at all :-/ |
| 15:08 | <Philip`> | Ah, back now |
| 15:09 | <Philip`> | Lachy: I can set a filter to label/archive/etc WHATWG mails, but that just makes the messages in the spam folder have a WHATWG label - I can't see any way for a filter to affect the spam filtering |
| 15:20 | <annevk> | then you search every 30 days for label:whatwg in:spam |
| 15:20 | <annevk> | or something like that |
| 15:21 | <jcranmer> | looks like gmail needs better "adaptive junk mial controls" |
| 15:21 | <jcranmer> | s/ia/ai/ |
| 15:26 | <Lachy> | Philip`, have you tried contacting google and sending them a bug report about it? |
| 15:31 | <annevk> | interesting, WHATWG has now attraced crowd un-aware of what the W3C is doing |
| 15:31 | <annevk> | attracted* |
| 15:34 | <Lachy> | annevk, who is unaware? |
| 15:41 | <annevk> | the people talking about cross-site requests |
| 15:41 | <annevk> | and you, apparently :D |
| 15:44 | <Lachy> | ah, I hadn't read those mails yet |
| 16:35 | <billyjack> | annevk: Frode Børli seems to have quite prolific of late as far as postings to whatwg go |
| 20:26 | <mcarter> | Hixie, whats the URI scheme for secure web socket... "wss://" ? |
| 20:51 | <Lachy> | mcarter, I thought the web socket proposal just used HTTP URIs |
| 20:52 | <Lachy> | in which case, couldn't HTTPS be used for establishing secure connections? |
| 20:52 | <mcarter> | Yeah, thats what I had proposed. There had been discussion in here about the potential of using an alternative, such as "ws://" |
| 20:52 | <mcarter> | i'm just curious what a secure WebSocket would look like in the context of "ws://" as the URI |
| 20:54 | <Lachy> | ah, ok. I had missed that discussion. I'll read the logs about it later |
| 22:27 | <Hixie> | wss:// makes sense to me |
| 23:02 | <mcarter> | the default port for wss:// would be 443 then, I assume |
| 23:06 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: URL for your Reboot session/proposal? |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | yes |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | i suppose so |
| 23:29 | <Lachy> | OMG! Rob's resonse on bug 5772 about IDs is ridiculous. I give up. |
| 23:33 | Hixie | sends google's feedback on the geolocation charter |
| 23:38 | <hober> | Lachy: yeah, I couldn't make heads or tails of it |
| 23:40 | <Hixie> | well he didn't remove the NEEDSINFO |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | so i don't see it on my list! |
| 23:50 | <Lachy> | Hixie, his last comment that I was talking about on that bug was the one before yours |
| 23:51 | <Hixie> | oh ok |
| 23:51 | <Hixie> | my comment was "wtf" right? |
| 23:51 | <Lachy> | I'm sure he'll reopen it again later and you'll have the pleasure of reading it then |
| 23:51 | <Lachy> | yeah |
| 23:53 | <Lachy> | I don't get how allowing duplicate IDs doesn't defeat the purpose of an attribute designed as a unique identifier, or how he can claim that "backwards compatible part is a red herring here" and then point out that it doesn't work at all in existing UAs, in the same sentence. |
| 23:58 | <Hixie> | those things don't even seem related enough to be in the same sentence |