| 10:27 | Hixie | finishes replying to WebSocket feedback |
| 12:22 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: thx |
| 14:54 | <gsnedders> | Anyone have any opinion on when xref'ing <code>foo</code> whether it should become <a><code>foo</code></a> or <code><a>foo</a></code> |
| 14:55 | <webben> | gsnedders: if I were linking a function I'd use the former; if I were linking from sample code the later. |
| 14:55 | <webben> | probably |
| 14:56 | <gsnedders> | webben: When automatically creating xrefs I don't have an AI :) |
| 14:56 | <gsnedders> | *any |
| 14:56 | <webben> | do you have to deal with code containing more than one link target? |
| 14:57 | <gsnedders> | No |
| 14:57 | <webben> | then it doesn't matter terribly much :) |
| 14:57 | <gsnedders> | Bert Bos went for the latter, I currently do the former |
| 14:57 | <gsnedders> | Bits of the styling of html5 break using the former |
| 14:59 | <annevk> | I'd prefer the latter for the same reason |
| 14:59 | <gsnedders> | annevk: that stuff breaks? |
| 15:00 | <webben> | couldn't one just adjust the CSS to suit either solution? |
| 15:00 | <gsnedders> | Yeah. I've already broken parts of the styling of HTML5 (though I got Hixie to change the stylesheet so both work now) |
| 15:01 | <gsnedders> | ul.toc becomes .toc (I use an ol, as it really should be semantically), and the @class='toc' is only on the out-most list of the TOC |
| 15:01 | <gsnedders> | It seems better to use the former, though |
| 15:02 | gsnedders | could just add another w3c-compat option |
| 15:13 | <annevk> | webben, I already have the CSS for a set of specs |
| 15:22 | <Philip`> | I suggest <a><code><a>foo</a></code></a> to get the best of both worlds |
| 15:26 | <Dashiva> | I'm just surprised nobody's turned it into an argument about global @href |
| 16:25 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: yeah, that's what we should use. //*@href FTW! |
| 16:26 | <gsnedders> | (span is changed to a, like in the real spec-gen, this is just a question of the other elements) |
| 16:31 | <gsnedders_> | I'm tempted to stick with my behaviour, just as I think it's semantically better :P |
| 16:32 | <annevk> | i'll fork your product and provide the old behavior as that's more backwards compatible :p |
| 16:32 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: Problem is the second <a> implicitly closes the first, so the second </a> is useless :P |
| 16:32 | <gsnedders> | annevk: No, I'll have it as an option built in :P |
| 16:32 | gsnedders | wonders how long we can go on ending lines with :P |
| 16:42 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Not long |
| 16:43 | <annevk> | gsnedders, my software will have less features :D |
| 16:45 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: (By the way, there's a possibility I'll be kind of busy tomorrow afternoon/evening since I need to help some people finish writing some stuff before some deadline, though with some luck it'll be mostly finished today so it won't be a problem tomorrow) |
| 16:49 | <gsnedders_> | annevk: :P |
| 16:50 | <gsnedders_> | Philip`: Well, Tuesday lunchtime might just be doable with me, but dunno about jgraham |
| 17:01 | <gsnedders> | annevk: I now have a --w3c-compat option :P |
| 17:01 | <gsnedders> | http://hg.gsnedders.com/spec-gen/ if anyone wants to play around |
| 17:38 | zcorpan | removes some spam from the forums |
| 17:39 | <annevk> | I did that too the other day. Seems it's getting more spammy :/ |
| 17:40 | <annevk> | would be good if we had some better software in place |
| 17:41 | <zcorpan> | yeah, hopefully phpBB3 will be better |
| 19:41 | <jgraham> | Philip`, gsnedders I won't make tommorrow evening as I'm going home |
| 19:42 | <jgraham> | (because I'm a bit ill in a not-bad-but potentially infectious way that means I should avoid my office) |
| 19:45 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: which files should i look at if i want to see what the error messages are? Tokenizer.java, TreeBuilder.java, XmlParser.java... |
| 21:31 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Get well soon! |
| 21:32 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: So, yeah. Hmm. Phone me tomorrow (before 18:45+01) to say whether you can make it or not, as IRC can't really be relied upon me getting it |
| 21:36 | <Philip`> | jgraham: I echo gsnedders' sentiments since I can't think of any of my own |
| 21:36 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: huh? |
| 21:37 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: How did you make yourself ill? :P |
| 21:38 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Okay - I currently predict I'll be free tomorrow, but then again I predicted I'd finish this afternoon the thing I'm still not near finishing yet so my predictions aren't very reliable, so I'll let you know tomorrow :-) |
| 21:38 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Huh? |
| 21:54 | <jgraham> | Huh? ;) |
| 22:08 | <mpt> | Huh |
| 22:27 | <Hixie> | wtf is up with julian |
| 22:27 | <Hixie> | does he just randomly pick a part of the spec and argue about it for fun? |
| 22:28 | <Philip`> | The spec itself says it should be read by picking random sections, and it's sensible to post feedback when reading |
| 22:30 | <Hixie> | it's not the reading i'm complaining about |
| 22:30 | <Hixie> | it's the utterly pointless feedback he sometimes sends |
| 22:31 | <Hixie> | like his current complaint which i really frankly don't understand |
| 22:31 | <Hixie> | he seems to be complaining about the fact that we used the same status message as HTTP |
| 22:31 | <Hixie> | in our WSP protocol handshake |
| 22:33 | <Philip`> | I thought he was complaining that the WSP protocol handshake was more complex than necessary within the constraint that it should be compatible with HTTP |
| 22:33 | <Philip`> | and since people make more mistakes when implementing complex things than simple things, it seems good to make things as simple as possible |
| 22:35 | <Philip`> | (e.g. they'd use some existing HTTP code to generate the response message, and it'd work fine, but then someone would change the web server's locale settings so it starts sending status messages in German and then everything unexpectedly breaks) |
| 22:47 | <Hixie> | well the parenthetical is an interesting point (which he didn't raise) |
| 22:47 | <Hixie> | i suppose we could hardcode the status line to our own handshake message |