| 03:16 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: in the "Coercing an HTML DOM into an infoset" section |
| 03:16 | <MikeSmith> | editorial nit: |
| 03:16 | <MikeSmith> | "Tools that cannot convey the out-of-band information using out-of-band mechanisms, or that cannot convey the DOM exact as prescribed by this specification" |
| 03:17 | <MikeSmith> | s/exact/exactly/ |
| 03:20 | <MikeSmith> | also, "Form controls being associated with forms that aren't their nearest ancestor (use of the form element pointer" |
| 03:20 | <MikeSmith> | is missing closing paren character |
| 03:23 | <Hixie> | actually it was missing an > |
| 03:23 | <Hixie> | :-) |
| 03:23 | <Hixie> | thanks |
| 04:01 | <takkaria> | Hixie: those fixes are great, thanks |
| 06:19 | <hsivonen> | hmm. so in www-archive Jonathan Chetwynd wants the W3C to cater to the illiterate as an accessibility issue and then cites a study that attributes his illieracy rate figure to poor schooling (not disability) |
| 06:19 | <hsivonen> | yay, I mistyped illiteracy |
| 06:20 | <jruderman> | so? accessibility isn't only about disabilities. |
| 06:21 | <MikeSmith> | illieracy is no laffing matter |
| 06:21 | <hsivonen> | jruderman: in the W3C context it is |
| 06:21 | <hsivonen> | also, the right solution to poor schooling is good schooling--not making it easier to avoid becoming literate |
| 06:22 | <jruderman> | and the right solution to blindness is not being careless with BB guns. so? |
| 06:25 | <roc> | how is accessibility for the illiterate different from accessibility for the blind? |
| 06:25 | <roc> | I guess the illiterate can't type |
| 06:25 | <hsivonen> | jruderman: are you just being provocative or are you actually equating disability and poor schooling? |
| 06:26 | <jruderman> | hsivonen: some of both |
| 06:26 | <hsivonen> | roc: accessibility for people who can't learn to read is like accessibility for the blind |
| 06:26 | <hsivonen> | roc: poor schooling in the UK is something for the UK government--not the W3C to address |
| 06:26 | <roc> | except that blind people can type and, I assume, illiterate people can't |
| 06:27 | <roc> | I'm less confused now. Somehow I'd received the impression that Jonathan wanted the W3C standards process to be accessible to the illiterate |
| 06:32 | <hsivonen> | (100% literacy of adults who don't have a learning *disability* is certainly achievable: http://hsivonen.iki.fi/literacy/ ) |
| 07:12 | <Hixie> | my own literacy is clearly waning |
| 07:12 | <Hixie> | i typed "ratio" so often earlier than i later mistyped "rather" as "ratio" |
| 07:16 | <shepazu> | hmmm... roc is gone... but I think his initial impression was correct: Jonathan does want the W3C process to directly involve people with cognitive disabilities and literacy problems |
| 07:17 | <shepazu> | and presumably that same group of people would have to be insane, if they want to get involved in Web standards |
| 07:18 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: you just specced syntax that could be commandeered for overriding doctype sniffing over the wire :-/ |
| 07:19 | <Hixie> | i'm happy to change it to something else |
| 07:28 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: do you have a preference regarding new bugs vs. comments on bugs marked FIXED? |
| 07:32 | <Hixie> | not at all, just make sure the bug is reopened if you comment |
| 07:32 | <Hixie> | i don't read the bugmail, i only look at the list of open bugs |
| 07:32 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: ok. |
| 07:35 | <hsivonen> | commented and reopened |
| 07:36 | <Hixie> | thx |
| 07:36 | <Hixie> | (generally speaking i think i prefer mail, fwiw) |
| 07:36 | <Hixie> | (but bugs are fine too) |
| 07:38 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: how can you avoid name clashes with a mapping function? |
| 07:39 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: can't the author just predict what attribute name you're going to use and use that himself? |
| 07:39 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: you salt the result of the mapping function with some upper-case letters. |
| 07:40 | <Hixie> | o_O |
| 07:40 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: as zcorpan pointed out, the result can't clash as the tokenizer lowercases input |
| 07:40 | <Hixie> | oh, i see, you're assuming we don't take the svgwg's idea |
| 07:40 | <Hixie> | hmm |
| 07:46 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: also, I don't see how the the text you have is any less vague than what the spec says |
| 07:46 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: in particular, i don't understand what is too vague about what the spec says |
| 07:47 | <hsivonen> | "Construct the DOM as if appropriate namespace declarations were in scope." what does that mean? does it mean the implementation isn't required to create synthetic declarations? |
| 07:48 | <hsivonen> | "Construct the DOM as if these were default namespace declarations." What does that mean? |
| 07:48 | <Hixie> | what's a synthetic declaration? |
| 07:48 | <Hixie> | a default namespace declaration is an xmlns="" attribute being interpreted as per [XMLNS] |
| 07:48 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: a synthetic declaration is a declaration that the parser communicates to the app but that doesn't correspond to an attribute in the source |
| 07:49 | <Hixie> | how is that different from acting as if appropriate namespace declarations were in scope? |
| 07:49 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: so does "Construct the DOM as if these were default namespace declarations. " mean that a declaration should be exposed or that it doesn't need to be exposed? |
| 07:50 | <Hixie> | i don't understand what that question means |
| 07:50 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: a parser can expose namespaced nodes to the app without exposing any declarations at all |
| 07:50 | <hsivonen> | see? it's not clear enough. :-) |
| 07:51 | <Hixie> | i don't understand why not |
| 07:51 | <Hixie> | i don't care if the app internally shows declarations or not |
| 07:51 | <Hixie> | the whole point is that different pipelines are able/not able to show those declarations |
| 07:51 | <Hixie> | and this is saying that you should do whatever is needed by your pipeline |
| 07:52 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: right, but if I read the spec, it's not at all obvious that the position on declarations is "I don't care. Drop or synthetize at will." |
| 07:53 | <Hixie> | the spec explicitly says you can drop whatever, or construct the DOM as if the "xmlns" attributes were actual namespace declarations |
| 07:53 | <hsivonen> | Instead, the spec covers different cases and calls for "as if"s where it's not 100% clear what API behavior "as if" refers to |
| 07:53 | <Hixie> | i don't know how to make it more obvious |
| 07:54 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: you could say: "The parser may drop attributes whose name starts with "xmlns" or that are in the XMLNS namespace. The parser may expose synthetic namespace declarations to the application." |
| 07:56 | <Hixie> | well that allows all kinds of bad stuff |
| 07:56 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: what's the bad stuff? |
| 07:56 | <Hixie> | e.g. it allows dropping <embed xmlnsy> and allows putting random namespace declarations on elements that don't even match the namespaces being used |
| 07:56 | <Hixie> | the former is easy to fix |
| 07:57 | <Hixie> | but the latter is what the current text is trying to avoid |
| 07:57 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: if your position is that you don't care about the API exposure of declations, why is overdeclaring namespaces synthetically on random nodes a problem? |
| 07:58 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: fwiw, if I implement synthetic declarations, my plan was to declare the XLink namespace speculatively even when it isn't actually used |
| 07:58 | <Hixie> | what i don't care about is whether the declarations are visible or not |
| 07:58 | <Hixie> | if we're going to define a mapping, the mapping had better be a proper mapping |
| 08:02 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: how about this: "The parser may drop attributes whose name is 'xmlns', whose name starts with 'xmlns:' or that is in the XMLNS namespace. When an element node does not have a parent or the parent has a different namespace, the parser may syntethize a namespace declaration on the element node declaring the namespace of the element as the default namespace. When a declaration of the SVG namespace or the MathML namespace is synthetized this way, |
| 08:03 | <Hixie> | that cut off at "this way," |
| 08:03 | <hsivonen> | MathML namespace is synthetized this way, the parser should also synthetize a namespace declaration that binds the prefix 'xlink' to the XLink namespace."? |
| 08:03 | <Hixie> | but that precludes taking xmlns="" attributes on random HTML nodes and turning them into real xmlns="" attributes |
| 08:04 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: I don't mind if you allow that as well. |
| 08:07 | <Hixie> | eh screw it, i'm going to change this section into a "pass it out of band or drop it" thing, getting rid of the __ crap |
| 08:07 | <Hixie> | and will just say that whatever namespace declarations the app feels like showing or fine |
| 08:07 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: what about name munging? |
| 08:08 | <Hixie> | drop 'em |
| 08:08 | <hsivonen> | munging is easier |
| 08:08 | <hsivonen> | and makes things more obvious to someone looking at a data dump |
| 08:09 | <Hixie> | munging won't work with the svgwg's proposal |
| 08:09 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: the SVG WG's proposal has many other problems |
| 08:13 | <Hixie> | it's not clear that they're willing to fix the problems |
| 08:14 | <hsivonen> | I'd prefer not integrating it into the HTML5 parsing algorithm with the problems. |
| 08:16 | <Hixie> | so far, you're the only implementor who has indicated that you prefer the current prose |
| 08:16 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: did I misread takkaria's comments? |
| 08:18 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: has any implementor shown preference to passing data to an XML parser a character at a time? |
| 08:19 | <Hixie> | is andrew working a parser? |
| 08:19 | <Hixie> | so far implementors haven't said much of anything |
| 08:20 | <Hixie> | except for opera and apple presumably backing the svg's proposal (since they're on that group) |
| 08:22 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: he is. As far as I can tell, 100% of the public implementor feedback (two datapoints: takkaria and me) prefers the commented out stuff over the SVG WG's proposal |
| 08:22 | <Hixie> | (cool. which parser? do you have a link?) |
| 08:22 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: "I much prefer the HTML5 model over having to incorporate an XML parser as the SVG WG suggests" http://www.w3.org/mid/487B650D.6080803⊙acu |
| 08:22 | <Hixie> | oh i agree that he was not in favour of the svgwg proposal |
| 08:22 | <Hixie> | i didn't realise he was writing a parser |
| 08:23 | <Hixie> | anyway, let's just say that ignoring or rejecting a working group's requests is not done lightly |
| 08:23 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: Hubbub parser for the NetSurf browser |
| 08:23 | <Hixie> | oh he works in riscos? |
| 08:23 | <Hixie> | nice |
| 08:23 | <Hixie> | i had no idea |
| 08:24 | <Hixie> | it would be helpful if we had feedback from the parser writers for major browsers |
| 08:49 | <hsivonen> | (some validator.nu virtual host are going down for maintenance. the validator functionality should be up on another server) |
| 08:57 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: what should happen if we parse an element or attribute name with a colon in it? (notwithstanding xlink: and xml: prefixes) |
| 08:58 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: in the Infoset coercing mode? it should trigger name munging |
| 08:58 | <Hixie> | k |
| 08:59 | <hsivonen> | since it's not an XML 1.0 4th ed. plus Namespaces 2nd ed. NCName |
| 08:59 | <Hixie> | <foo:bar> would be a well-formed NCName |
| 08:59 | <Hixie> | foo: just wouldn't be bound |
| 08:59 | <Hixie> | which is a separate problem |
| 08:59 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: it would be a Name but not an NCName |
| 09:00 | <Hixie> | oh i see what you mean |
| 09:00 | <Hixie> | but then what about the attributes that _do_ have colons? |
| 09:01 | <hsivonen> | the name that is interesting is the local name after the possible XLink adjustments |
| 09:02 | <hsivonen> | so xlink:href on an HTML element would get munged but on a foreign element it wouldn't |
| 09:03 | <Hixie> | aah, yes, defining in terms of local name, that's the key |
| 09:03 | <Hixie> | ok |
| 09:03 | <Hixie> | thanks |
| 09:11 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: btw, contrary to previous note about UTF-8, I now do the name munging as hex UTF-16 code units |
| 09:11 | <hsivonen> | (because the UTF-8 conversion wasn't portable to GWT) |
| 09:12 | <Hixie> | i'm speccing the name munging to just be "replace the bad character with 'U' followed by the five character codepoint", as in '.foo' -> 'U0002Efoo' |
| 09:12 | <hsivonen> | I suppose UTF-16 to UTF-32 conversion is doable, but not too useful |
| 09:13 | <Hixie> | well it doesn't really matter unless you're providing a library anyway |
| 09:13 | <Hixie> | and are any astral characters that UTF-16 can express disallowed in NCNames? |
| 09:14 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: off the top of my head, no. |
| 09:16 | <Hixie> | actually i can't find where 4th ed allows astral characters at all |
| 09:17 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: umm. right. top of my head was wrong |
| 09:18 | <Hixie> | could have sworn it allowed them |
| 09:19 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: it's the char production that allows everything above the BMP |
| 09:19 | <Hixie> | sigh |
| 09:19 | <Hixie> | i hate arbitrary restrictions |
| 09:20 | <hsivonen> | the restrictions on XML names are particularly silly considering perf |
| 09:23 | <Hixie> | but don't forget, xml is faster! |
| 09:23 | <Hixie> | because it has no error handling code! |
| 09:24 | <gDashiva> | and no errors |
| 09:27 | <Hixie> | ok hsivonen |
| 09:27 | <Hixie> | i've revamped the coercions |
| 09:27 | hsivonen | reloads |
| 09:31 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: looks good except I'd prefer permitting no-namespace attributes called "xmlns" or starting with "xmlns:" to be dropped. |
| 09:31 | <Hixie> | ok |
| 09:31 | <hsivonen> | thanks |
| 09:32 | <hsivonen> | (particularly this avoids munged attributes in docs that have conforming xmlns talismans) |
| 09:36 | <Hixie> | commited |
| 09:36 | <Hixie> | forgot to mark it 't', sorry |
| 09:39 | <hsivonen> | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22942#c104 |
| 09:50 | <Hixie> | boy is that a long comment |
| 11:02 | <gsnedders> | Colloquy crashed :\ |
| 11:02 | <Lachy> | finally, a way for socially inept people to use phones without actually talking directly to people! :-) http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/22/1558236 |
| 11:04 | <gsnedders> | Yay! I'm saved! |
| 11:07 | <Hixie> | why would you need a reason to use a phone |
| 11:08 | <gsnedders> | heh: "What rational person would want to spend time talking about Web standards?" — Doug |
| 11:09 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Because it's a full-duplex method of communication, and it works even when the other person doesn't use any such thing online. |
| 11:09 | <Hixie> | but it's synchronous |
| 11:09 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: I only just got up! |
| 11:10 | <gsnedders> | (e.g., what I say is bullshit by definition) |
| 11:12 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: OK, but compared with email/snail-mail, if those are the alternatives |
| 11:13 | <Hixie> | irc, im |
| 11:13 | <Hixie> | sms |
| 11:13 | <Hixie> | |
| 11:13 | <Hixie> | all those are superior |
| 11:13 | <gsnedders> | If they don't have IRC or IM, if you don't know their mobile number. |
| 11:13 | <Hixie> | to a synchronous audio channel |
| 11:13 | <gsnedders> | e-mail is asynchronous |
| 11:13 | <Hixie> | well if i don't have their phone number, i can't call them anyway |
| 11:13 | <gsnedders> | (so is SMS, really, even though a lot of people use it as if it isn't) |
| 11:13 | <Lachy> | Hixie, with this, it makes phones asynchronous |
| 11:13 | <Hixie> | and since i don't have a phone number, they can never call me |
| 11:14 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: a home phone number? |
| 11:14 | <Lachy> | Hixie, do you have an office phone? |
| 11:14 | gsnedders | wonders when he last used his phone |
| 11:14 | <Hixie> | Lachy: yes, this mechanism is a good idea. i was just responding to your statement which implied that a reason to use a phone was something we were waiting for :-) |
| 11:15 | <Hixie> | i don't have a phone at all at home (no land line, no mobile) |
| 11:15 | <Hixie> | and i am never in my office so my office phone is essentially useless |
| 11:15 | <hsivonen> | speaking of SMS: any recommendations on a Web site monitoring service that sends SMS when the monitored site is down? |
| 11:16 | <hsivonen> | is this one any good: http://rootinternet.co.uk/ ? |
| 11:16 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: use twitter direct messages |
| 11:16 | <Hixie> | though twitter might not be reliable enough for his purpose |
| 11:16 | <Lachy> | twitter is the most unreliable service ever |
| 11:17 | <gsnedders> | It is finally getting better, at least |
| 11:17 | <Lachy> | I'm still waiting for them to restore IM support, but I hope when they bring it back, they make it far more reliable than it was before. |
| 11:19 | <hsivonen> | http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/07/02/authoritative-true#c1216242757 is that a hypothetical or is authoritative=true being implemented in a non-IE browser? |
| 11:21 | <Lachy> | it seems hypothetical to me |
| 11:40 | <Hixie> | can someone with a more recent build of opera check the result of http://damowmow.com/playground/demos/global-object/008.html ? |
| 11:40 | <Hixie> | click navigate, then click test |
| 11:41 | <virtuelv> | result: true false false true true |
| 11:41 | <virtuelv> | 9.52/2069 |
| 11:41 | <Hixie> | cool thanks |
| 11:41 | <Hixie> | all other browsers do true true true true true |
| 11:41 | <Hixie> | fwiw |
| 11:45 | <hsivonen> | http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-July/015368.html is rather defeatist about captioning :-( |
| 11:47 | <zcorpan> | someone should make the webapps-tracker provide links to bugs mentioned in the checkins in a separate column |
| 11:55 | <hsivonen> | http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg52473.html |
| 12:00 | <Hixie> | ugh, their new text versions suck compared to the old text versions |
| 12:01 | <hsivonen> | getting on the bandwagon when others are getting off |
| 12:02 | <gDashiva> | http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xhtml (new HTML version) <-- no x! |
| 12:05 | <hsivonen> | whoa. they'll even turn off the old formats |
| 12:05 | <Lachy> | wow, that sucks |
| 12:05 | <hsivonen> | how nice for software that reads existing IANA data |
| 12:08 | <Lachy> | it wouldn't be a problem if they would just continue generating the old text format from the XML, instead of inventing a new text format |
| 12:08 | <hsivonen> | perhaps the old format is hard to generate from XSLT |
| 12:08 | <Lachy> | then that's a reason to not use XSLT, not a reason to change the format |
| 12:09 | <gDashiva> | Maybe just leave the old text files alone, even |
| 12:10 | <Lachy> | gDashiva, then they would go out of date |
| 12:10 | <gDashiva> | out of date files for out of date applications :) |
| 12:16 | <Hixie> | this global object stuff is way more annoying that i'd like |
| 12:16 | <Hixie> | i'm going to bed |
| 12:24 | <MikeSmith> | http://blog.mozilla.com/meeting-notes/archives/26 |
| 12:25 | <MikeSmith> | I'm wondering what the crossed-out stuff means |
| 12:25 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., "worker threads (under review)" striked out |
| 12:26 | <MikeSmith> | and "native JSON (under review)" |
| 12:26 | <Philip`> | I thought it just meant it won't be in alpha 1 |
| 12:26 | <MikeSmith> | ah, OK |
| 12:27 | <Philip`> | http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3.1/StatusMeetings/2008-07-22 is a better view of that list since it has indentation |
| 12:33 | <MikeSmith> | Philip`: ah, thanks |
| 12:41 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: the html parser can't emit an element ".foo<bar" |
| 12:41 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: <. is the same as <. |
| 12:42 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: s/element/attribute/ works though |
| 12:43 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: btw, perhaps <embed> should disallow attributes with ascii uppercase |
| 12:44 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: the same reasoning with apply to data-FOO |
| 12:44 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: yes |
| 12:57 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: the coerce section should mention comments ending with a - |
| 13:21 | <Windstoss> | err, whats wrong with contenteditable in Opera? |
| 13:22 | <Windstoss> | Works in FF, Safari… Opera claims to support it? |
| 14:10 | <Lachy> | Hixie, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jul/0064.html |
| 14:11 | <Lachy> | Hixie, you could just make the colour the same as it is in the whatwg copy of the spec, which is #222 |
| 15:13 | <zcorpan> | why is the w3 version suddely extremely ugly? |
| 15:16 | <Lachy> | zcorpan, ugly in what way? |
| 15:16 | <Lachy> | it looks the same as it always has |
| 15:16 | <zcorpan> | Lachy: it used to have nice blue background for element definitions for one |
| 15:17 | <zcorpan> | and orangered <code> |
| 15:17 | <Lachy> | oh, but the .warning styles look horible - yellow text on brown background |
| 15:17 | <zcorpan> | yeah |
| 15:19 | <Lachy> | I don't really care what it looks like, I always use the whatwg copy anyway |
| 15:19 | <Philip`> | zcorpan: In case you missed it while away: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20080712#l-66 and http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20080712#l-81 |
| 15:19 | <zcorpan> | Philip`: saw those, cheers |
| 15:19 | <Philip`> | zcorpan: (I've uploaded a new http://philip.html5.org/tests/canvas/suite/source.tar.bz2 which hopefully has those fixes, though I haven't updated the HTML files on that site) |
| 15:20 | <zcorpan> | Philip`: thanks |
| 15:21 | <zcorpan> | Philip`: perhaps there are more instances of lineTo(0, 0) that should be moveTo(0, 0)? i haven't gone through all tests but it would be a simple thing to search for if you feel like it :) |
| 15:26 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: trying to validate http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/charref always gives "Internal Error: Oops. That was not supposed to happen. A bug manifested itself in the application internals. Unable to continue. Sorry. The admin was notified." |
| 15:26 | <Philip`> | zcorpan: I don't see any other incorrect lineTo(0, 0)s, though it's not impossible that there are some other unintentional lineTo(x, y)s in there |
| 15:26 | <zcorpan> | Philip`: ok |
| 15:28 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: had you updated to phpbb3? |
| 15:33 | <takkaria> | Hixie: I'm surprised you didn't know I was writing a parser, it has been mentioned a fair bit. :) |
| 15:33 | <gsnedders> | Hixie is a complete n00b anyway :P |
| 15:34 | <takkaria> | Hixie's employer is even paying me to write it |
| 15:35 | <gsnedders> | Hixie's employer is rather large, though |
| 16:59 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: the reason is insufficient heap space. sorry about that. Validator.nu is running on a backup server while the main server undergoes an update to higher RAM spec |
| 17:01 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: tweaking heap setting now... |
| 17:02 | <hsivonen> | (the real solution, of course, would be to eliminate Schematron...) |
| 17:03 | <hsivonen> | hmm. this happens even without schematron |
| 17:03 | <hsivonen> | very interesting... |
| 17:05 | <hsivonen> | even more interesting is that it runs out of heap in the same place even after increasing heap |
| 17:13 | <kangax> | What would be the best way to represent (store) custom shapes which are later to be imported to canvas? Set of curves, points, lines? |
| 17:18 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: no worries, i just thought i'd let you know since it seemed to work fine for other resources |
| 18:21 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: "<body></html><html>" gives "19: Stray “html” start tag." twice in parsetree.validator.nu |
| 18:36 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: also, parsetree.validator.nu says "XML; don’t load external entities" |
| 18:49 | <zcorpan> | i love how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_5 puts so much weight on the codec issue relative to the rest of the article |
| 18:50 | <zcorpan> | i mean if it would be balanced then the codec issue wouldn't get more than a single sentence |
| 18:51 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: the codec issue is what made to slashdot and that non-HTML5 technical people have an opinion about |
| 18:52 | <hsivonen> | (I'll look into the parse tree issues tomorrow) |
| 18:54 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: indeed |
| 19:25 | <hdh> | "An html element's end tag may be omitted if the html element is not immediately followed a comment" is a "by" missing? |
| 19:26 | <zcorpan> | hdh: yeah |
| 20:11 | <gsnedders> | Can someone write docs so I don't have to for the spec-gen? |
| 20:11 | <gsnedders> | :P |
| 20:18 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: There's no point in getting anyone else to do it because they won't do it well wnough to satisfy you and you'll have to do it yourself eventually anyway |
| 20:19 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: True :P |
| 20:19 | <Lachy> | gsnedders, I could do it if you write down everything it does for me to base it on |
| 20:19 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: :P |
| 20:19 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: That kinda wrecks the point of getting someone else to do it |
| 21:56 | <Hixie> | takkaria: i probably forgot and got you confused with all the other people writing parsers :-) |
| 21:57 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: assuming takkaria is talking about summer of code, the company being large doesn't really act as an excuse for me since i work on the team that does summer of code :-) |
| 21:57 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Ah. That is problematic for that excuse. |
| 21:59 | gsnedders | guesses that police car isn't going to bust his friends who are currently breaking the law as it is going the wrong way |
| 22:15 | gsnedders | notes he still won't be old enough for GSoC next year |
| 22:15 | <jcranmer> | there's a min age onGSoC? |
| 22:17 | <gsnedders> | jcranmer: yeah, 18. |
| 22:17 | <jcranmer> | ah |
| 22:17 | jcranmer | only turned 18 a few mos ago |
| 22:18 | gsnedders | only turns 18 in 2010 |
| 22:18 | Philip` | feels old :-( |
| 22:19 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: At least you don't have to look at my youthfulness now :P |
| 22:19 | <jcranmer> | well, I'm technically a second-semester sophomore at college, IIRC |
| 22:19 | jgraham | is even older than Philip` :( |
| 22:19 | <jgraham> | (unless I'm not of course) |
| 22:20 | <jcranmer> | everyone is 5 standard geosystems units old |
| 22:20 | <gsnedders> | jcranmer: a sophomore? |
| 22:20 | <jcranmer> | gsnedders: AP + dual-enrollment course credits :-) |
| 22:20 | <gsnedders> | jcranmer: huh? |
| 22:20 | <gsnedders> | jcranmer: We need more i18n here. |
| 22:20 | <jgraham> | jcranmer: You may have o convert to non-US :) |
| 22:20 | <jcranmer> | gsnedders: sophmore = 2nd-year of college (university) |
| 22:20 | <gsnedders> | jcranmer: Ah. |
| 22:21 | gsnedders | needs to decide where to apply… and soon. |
| 22:21 | <gsnedders> | s/apply/apply to/ |
| 22:21 | <jcranmer> | gsnedders: which locale? |
| 22:21 | <gsnedders> | jcranmer: en-gb-x-sneddy, or en-gb-oed if you can't manage the former |
| 22:22 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Presumably your university will just be en-gb unless you plan to self educate |
| 22:22 | <jcranmer> | ah, so someone who can understand me if I refer to the subjunctive mood? |
| 22:22 | <gsnedders> | I thought jcranmer meant what language to localize to :P |
| 22:23 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: That's making the assumption I go to the UK :) |
| 22:23 | <gsnedders> | jcranmer: Only possibly |
| 22:26 | <jgraham> | jcranmer: Why would en-gb-* people be better at grammar than anyone else? |
| 22:26 | <jcranmer> | jgraham: he said en-gb-oed |
| 22:26 | <jgraham> | Oh. Well I guess that he could look it up then |
| 22:27 | <jgraham> | But we have essentially no education in grammar here |
| 22:27 | <jcranmer> | just like an en-us-x-harvard would understand it but not an en-us-x-hillbilly |
| 22:27 | <gsnedders> | My parents own a paper copy of the "compact" OED, which is basically the same as the full OED just printed in 8pt type with four normal OED pages to the page |
| 22:28 | <Philip`> | Hooray for www.oed.com |
| 22:30 | <gsnedders> | jcranmer: ("only possibly" because the OED merely defines words in terms of other words, and eventually falls about with recursive definitions, so it isn't certain I can understand anything) |
| 22:30 | <jgraham> | Philip`: Hooray for university subscriptions to hugely expensive reference works |
| 22:30 | <jcranmer> | I use dictionary.oed.com through school's proxy |
| 22:31 | gsnedders | needs to write his personal statement |
| 22:31 | gsnedders | sighs |
| 22:31 | <Philip`> | jgraham: and for SSH proxying so I can access it from home |
| 22:31 | <jgraham> | Philip`: Yeah, that's cool too |
| 22:31 | jgraham | only discovered that recently |
| 22:32 | <gsnedders> | I also know whatever I write in the first draft of it will be completely thrown out and rewritten as I over-edit it. |
| 22:32 | <Philip`> | though usually I'm lazy and use rdesktop to a Windows machine instead, because that's easier than complicated port forwarding and faster than simple X forwarding |
| 22:35 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: In that case you can fill your first draft with jokes and terrible puns and obvious fabrications, which will make it more interesting |
| 22:35 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: But only make the first draft more interesting. |
| 22:35 | <Philip`> | That's better than nothing |
| 22:36 | <gsnedders> | Which will result in the second draft being what the first draft normally is :) |
| 22:36 | <jcranmer> | I wrote on of my college apps the night it was due grumbling about it in IRC |
| 22:36 | <jcranmer> | s/on/one/ |
| 22:37 | <gsnedders> | jcranmer: At least here we have a centralized admissions process :) |
| 22:37 | <jcranmer> | http://quotes.burntelectrons.org/3042 |
| 22:37 | <gsnedders> | But I may end up applying to MIT and Stanford… |
| 22:38 | <jcranmer> | didn't like Stanford's campus, and there was a certain haughtiness on the staff's part as well |
| 22:38 | <jcranmer> | then again, it seems that every American university's admissions director |
| 22:39 | gsnedders | has the disadvantage of being unlikely to be able to see either before going there |
| 22:39 | <jcranmer> | s' job is to try to make it seem like you can't get in |
| 22:39 | <jgraham> | Hey the OED is 50% cheaper in the USA! |
| 22:39 | <jcranmer> | but our money is twice as cheap as yours... |
| 22:40 | <gsnedders> | I sent an email asking one or two questions to MIT Admissions, the reply I got had a reassuring start: "Hello Geoggrey," |
| 22:40 | jcranmer | curses the until-recently negative average savings rate |
| 22:40 | gsnedders | wonders where else is better than Cambridge for Comp.Sci. |
| 22:41 | <jcranmer> | and lack of fiscal sanity on the part of elected officials, but you can't have it all |
| 22:41 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Whilst I may not be sampling the ull distribution function, all the MIT people I have met have been both excepionally bright and excepionally nice |
| 22:42 | <jgraham> | s/ull/full/ |
| 22:42 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: I don't think there exists a total ordering of the goodness of universities, so it doesn't make sense to ask if somewhere is "better" than somewhere else :-p |
| 22:42 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: I have the same experience. My uncle went their briefly as a post-grad, then went off to Kenya before completing his PhD, as he got a job offer |
| 22:42 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: True :P |
| 22:42 | gsnedders | is listening to I Want It All by Queen from Greatest Hits II |
| 22:42 | <gsnedders> | jcranmer: Will that do? :P |
| 22:43 | <gsnedders> | However, being somewhere like CA would be good for my CFS… |
| 22:43 | <jcranmer> | I never really looked at MIT that much |
| 22:43 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Sunlight? |
| 22:44 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Heat. |
| 22:44 | <jgraham> | ?! Really? |
| 22:44 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: For all the various things it does to your muscles at least :P |
| 22:44 | gsnedders | is on obscene amounts of painkillers and anti-inflamatores for all that pain |
| 22:45 | <jgraham> | All I recall about Stanford is that the asrophysics department is in the bsement |
| 22:45 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Light helps some people, and not others. Not so much me. Being this far north means I get plenty here in summer :) |
| 22:46 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Peh! You don't need sunlight for astrophysics! :P |
| 22:47 | <gsnedders> | Lack of sunlight just screws with me mentally more than physically, esp. when I get really bad at winter, and end up never seeing any sunlight |
| 22:47 | <roc> | "didn't like Stanford's campus"? You are mad |
| 22:47 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Well if you did the people at MRAO in Cambridge would be screwed (the Physics department has a negligible number of windows) |
| 22:47 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Hehe. I am aware :) |
| 22:49 | gsnedders | is currently leaning towards applying for Edinburgh (Comp. Phys.), York (Phys.), Cambridge (Comp.Sci.), MIT (Comp.Sci), Stanford (Comp.Sci.) |
| 22:50 | <gsnedders> | (sorry, s/(Phys/Theoretical Phys./) |
| 22:52 | <gsnedders> | roc: You like it then, I take? :P |
| 22:53 | gsnedders | bursts out laughing at Chris Wilson's latest tweet: "Twitter's usual web presence = EPIC WHALE" |
| 22:53 | <roc> | it's a lovely campus |
| 22:54 | <roc> | now, I chose to go to CMU instead of Stanford, so the campus isn't everything |
| 22:54 | <gsnedders> | Challenge: convince me why I should go to one of those universities? |
| 22:54 | <Hixie> | the only experience i have of stanford is the couple of times we were trying to drive from el camino onto university to go to dinner and took a wrong turn and ended up driving up the big stanford avenue in an attempt to find somewhere to u-turn |
| 22:54 | <Hixie> | that avenue sure looked nice |
| 22:55 | <roc> | apply to Stanford, CMU, MIT and Berkeley |
| 22:55 | <roc> | and study CompSci at one of those |
| 22:55 | <gsnedders> | roc: Berkeley is near-impossible to get into as an international student |
| 22:55 | <roc> | oh yeah |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | yeah if you're going to do compsci then those are the ones to do it at |
| 22:55 | <roc> | sorry |
| 22:55 | <roc> | ok the other three |
| 22:55 | <gsnedders> | roc: CMU? |
| 22:55 | <roc> | Carnegie Mellon University |
| 22:55 | <roc> | the best CompSci program that the average person hasn't heard of |
| 22:56 | <gsnedders> | Pittsburgh… I think I went there. |
| 22:56 | <roc> | but it's as good as the other big three |
| 22:56 | <gsnedders> | (I went to the USA once when I was five, I don't remember that much) |
| 22:56 | <gsnedders> | (I remember I don't like LA, and one or two things I didn't really like in Boston) |
| 22:57 | <gsnedders> | (and the other place we went to was some random place where my father was giving a paper at a conference, which was the whole reason for going) |
| 22:58 | gsnedders | sighs |
| 22:58 | <gsnedders> | choices. |
| 22:59 | <gsnedders> | Someone (not me) should just make a choice from my above list and be done with it :P |
| 23:00 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Someone (not you) will decide whether to let you in to those places or not :) |
| 23:00 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: :P |
| 23:00 | <Hixie> | if you have money, pick stanford |
| 23:00 | <gsnedders> | The US unis are pushing it in terms of money |
| 23:01 | <Hixie> | then you're near google, apple, and mozilla, which might be helpful |
| 23:01 | <Hixie> | (e.g. for internships) |
| 23:01 | gsnedders | sighs |
| 23:01 | <gsnedders> | I can't even decide what subject to do :P |
| 23:01 | <gsnedders> | I probably won't get into such good places for physics though |
| 23:02 | gsnedders | notes Cambridge has the advantage of being able to switch to that after the first year of comp.sci. without having to do any catching up |
| 23:12 | <takkaria> | it's bad that I read comp.sci as a newsgroup name |
| 23:21 | <jcranmer> | yay, I'm not the only person who reads newsgroups! |