| 00:00 | <Hixie> | the paper mentioned in the e-mail is here: http://sdch.googlegroups.com/web/Shared_Dictionary_Compression_over_HTTP.pdf |
| 00:02 | <roc> | ok, I've read it |
| 00:03 | <roc> | with this design, you can't actually share dictionaries across domains, because that would open an DoS attack against other sites |
| 00:03 | <roc> | well, at least a reduction in performance |
| 00:04 | <roc> | so how do I give feedback? |
| 00:04 | <Hixie> | reply on the list |
| 00:04 | <Hixie> | (the http list, that is) |
| 00:06 | <Hixie> | i don't really know where the right place to standardise this would be if y'all are interested in taking this further |
| 00:06 | <Hixie> | probably a new w3c or ietf wg |
| 00:06 | <Hixie> | (no idea how the ietf works) |
| 00:07 | <Hixie> | oh, he also attached the PDF, i totally didn't notice |
| 00:12 | <Hixie> | http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/36097 is funny |
| 00:20 | Hixie | finds a part of wf2 that requires browsers to implement time travel |
| 00:20 | <Hixie> | paradox-avoiding time travel, even |
| 00:28 | <Dashiva> | Hixie: I hope you didn't remove it, I was depending on that feature in my new awesome framework |
| 00:29 | <Hixie> | :-P |
| 00:31 | <Hixie> | ok i need a word for what we do to check the validity of a form that isn't "validity" |
| 00:32 | <Hixie> | since we use that for conformance |
| 00:32 | <Hixie> | constraint cecking maybe |
| 00:32 | <Hixie> | checking |
| 00:33 | <Dashiva> | Constraint is good. |
| 00:33 | <Philip`> | Filled-inedness |
| 00:34 | Hixie | takes Philip`'s merit badge back |
| 00:34 | <Hixie> | you now have -1 merit badges. :-P |
| 00:34 | <Dashiva> | User cooperation ensurance |
| 00:34 | <Hixie> | hah |
| 00:34 | <Dashiva> | Is ensurance a word? |
| 00:35 | <Hixie> | you guys realise i now have to use both of these ideas in the spec somehow right |
| 00:35 | <Dashiva> | I will deny everything |
| 00:35 | <Hixie> | i have logs! |
| 00:36 | <Dashiva> | I could claim impersonation |
| 00:36 | <Hixie> | mmm. |
| 00:36 | <Hixie> | bummer. |
| 00:37 | <Dashiva> | This is where you're supposed to vaguely hint to some kind of vast google conspiracy to control and monitor all traffic on the net |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | oh right |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | "google doesn't comment on future products and services" |
| 00:39 | <Dashiva> | I suppose I should try to at least pretend I sleep at sane times, as I'm not being paid to stay awake at night. |
| 00:41 | <Hixie> | if you get paid for your work instead of your ass-in-a-chair-ness, then you can just work at night |
| 00:45 | <Dashiva> | Yeah, but even if I did go to the university at midnight, I doubt any students would show up to get help :) |
| 00:45 | <Hixie> | ah well |
| 00:46 | <Hixie> | that i can't help you with |
| 00:46 | <Hixie> | i recommend getting students to ask for help by e-mail |
| 00:46 | <Hixie> | :-D |
| 00:46 | <Dashiva> | Not like they show up in daytime either... |
| 00:46 | <Dashiva> | Yeah, tried that too. Maybe it'll pick up when the exercises get harder. |
| 00:47 | <Dashiva> | When I took the course myself, I did email my predecessor quite a bit |
| 00:54 | <Philip`> | If the exercises are easy, they can do them without any help; if the exercises are hard, they won't do them at all and will instead play frisbee or whatever |
| 00:56 | Philip` | isn't quite sure what lazy students do nowadays |
| 09:08 | <zcorpan_> | Hixie: what's wrong with "Form validation"? |
| 09:08 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: why the difference between <!DOCTYPE html><title></title><table><tr><td></tbody><table></table> and <!DOCTYPE html><title></title><table><tr><td></tr><table></table> ? |
| 09:10 | <zcorpan_> | Hixie: i think it's good to stick with terminology that people actually use, otherwise we end up with the same problem that wcag2 had |
| 09:11 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: I guess the tree builder goes through one mode mode in the latter case |
| 09:14 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: i guess html5 parser + relaxng doesn't make it easy to reach the "one message per mistake" optimum |
| 09:14 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: they sure don't |
| 09:15 | <hsivonen> | for about three reasons |
| 09:15 | <hsivonen> | 1) HTML5 prescribes errors and sometimes jumps through more than one error-emitting state |
| 09:16 | <hsivonen> | 2) tree builder error correction introduces implied stuff that can react with RELAX NG |
| 09:16 | <hsivonen> | 3) RELAX NG element position errors suck after the first element position error |
| 09:18 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: perhaps you could make it slightly better by having a "validator friendly" mode in the parser that omits "duplicate" errors and makes the tree more useful |
| 09:18 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: would one ever want to have the duplicate errors for anything except unit tests? |
| 09:19 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: no :) |
| 09:19 | <hsivonen> | I guess it would be feasible to make an "at most one tree builder error per token" rule |
| 09:20 | <hsivonen> | however, maintaining a different tree builder mode for validation would be painful |
| 09:20 | <hsivonen> | originally, I wanted the tree builder to have 3 modes |
| 09:21 | <hsivonen> | 1) tree building and conforming |
| 09:21 | <hsivonen> | 2) streaming and conforming (i.e. fatal error on non-streamable cases) |
| 09:21 | <hsivonen> | 3) streaming and non-conforming streamable recovery |
| 09:21 | <annevk> | (It would be nice if </br/> also generated just one error.) |
| 09:21 | <hsivonen> | I never got around to #3 and recently removed the code that anticipated such a mode |
| 09:22 | <hsivonen> | annevk: wouldn't an ""at most one tree builder error per token" rule |
| 09:22 | <hsivonen> | do that |
| 09:22 | <hsivonen> | ? |
| 09:24 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: forgetting an </ol> end tag is an example where v.w.o has more useful behavior |
| 09:26 | <hsivonen> | are the assumptions of the html5lib serializer tests documented somewhere? |
| 09:26 | <hsivonen> | http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Serializer_tests is empty |
| 09:27 | <annevk> | hsivonen, the second / is a tokenization error |
| 09:27 | <hsivonen> | oh right. |
| 09:28 | <hsivonen> | however, it's an error that could be trivially moved to the tree builder phase |
| 09:28 | <hsivonen> | if the spec and implementors agree, so that the unit tests agree with it being a tree builder error |
| 09:29 | <hsivonen> | annevk: anyway, I think </br/> isn't a case worth optimizing |
| 09:30 | <hsivonen> | so we probably should leave it as is |
| 09:31 | <annevk> | true |
| 09:37 | <annevk> | wow |
| 09:37 | <annevk> | with IE8 in standards mode people have to prefix overflow-x and overflow-y |
| 09:37 | <annevk> | http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/09/08/microsoft-css-vendor-extensions.aspx |
| 09:37 | <roc> | wah? |
| 09:37 | <annevk> | I wonder who comes up that |
| 09:38 | <roc> | We support it without prefix, and Opera and Webkit do too, right? |
| 09:39 | <othermaciej> | wow they prefixed filter |
| 09:39 | <othermaciej> | and changed the syntax |
| 09:39 | <othermaciej> | bold |
| 09:40 | <hsivonen> | perhaps it's like making getAttribute not return null |
| 09:40 | <roc> | hmm |
| 09:40 | <othermaciej> | wait I though they reverted that |
| 09:40 | <othermaciej> | or rather |
| 09:40 | <othermaciej> | matched other browsers instead of spec |
| 09:40 | <roc> | text-overflow, background-position and word-wrap are also interoperably implemented without prefix |
| 09:41 | <roc> | although, what's this background-position-x/-y? |
| 09:42 | <roc> | "However, in order to ease the transition, the non-prefixed versions of properties that existed in Internet Explorer 7, though considered deprecated, will continue to function in Internet Explorer 8." |
| 09:42 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: right, so perhaps the overflow stuff go the same route |
| 09:43 | <annevk> | I'm going to comment that prefixing overflow-x/y is silly |
| 09:43 | <annevk> | (though in a friendly way) |
| 09:43 | <othermaciej> | adding a prefixed version doesn't seem that harmful |
| 09:43 | <roc> | it's not harmless, just pointless |
| 09:43 | <roc> | er, not harmful |
| 09:43 | <roc> | hum, still no support for 'opacity' |
| 09:44 | <Hixie> | zcorpan_: people call it constraint checking too. but we have had confusion around the term "validation" in the past. |
| 09:44 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: the spec does allow you to do whatever you like after you report the first error, iirc, so you could have your parser do non-compliant fixup in order to give more useful error messages |
| 09:45 | <roc> | hmm, I shouldn't have said text-overflow was "interoperably implemented" ... it's just "implemented" :-) |
| 09:46 | <annevk> | roc, Opera actually has text-overflow prefixed |
| 09:46 | <annevk> | though we are considering removing the prefix |
| 09:46 | <roc> | ok |
| 09:47 | <roc> | but still, once one major browser has polluted the Web with a non-prefixed property, there doesn't seem much point in holding out |
| 09:47 | <annevk> | yeah, don't really recall why we kept it prefixed |
| 10:05 | <zcorpan_> | Hixie: will willValidate be renamed? |
| 10:05 | <Hixie> | unlikely |
| 10:05 | <Hixie> | i might call it "constrain validation" |
| 10:10 | <Philip`> | Hmm, IE8 adds __defineGetter__ (and Setter and lookup) |
| 10:14 | <hsivonen> | so does that mean from IE8 onwards, the top 4 engines all support prototypes for DOM nodes and defining getters and setters for them? |
| 10:14 | <hsivonen> | or am I missing something? |
| 10:29 | <annevk> | hsivonen, I think you're right |
| 10:30 | <Dashiva> | Now we just have to wait a decade or two for IE6 and IE7 to fade away |
| 10:30 | <annevk> | or for other browsers to get more market share |
| 10:36 | <hsivonen> | I wonder what the upgrade rate from IE6 to IE7 is when people install XP (instead of Vista) today |
| 10:36 | <hsivonen> | IE6 will start getting reaped by the end of computer retention times |
| 10:37 | annevk | hopes they'll become obsolete due to other browsers |
| 10:38 | <hsivonen> | I hope so, too, but realistically, if someone hasn't upgraded from IE6 by now, chances aren't that they won't until they buy a new computer |
| 10:40 | <Hixie> | anyone here got livejournal accounts btw? |
| 10:40 | <annevk> | nope |
| 10:41 | <hsivonen> | it publicly visible stats mean anything, it seems that most of the IE6 block are running it on XP as opposed to Windows 2000 |
| 10:41 | <hsivonen> | s/it publicly/if publicly/ |
| 10:42 | <hsivonen> | and Vista will probably never surpass XP in market share |
| 10:42 | <hsivonen> | (that is, the next version of Windows probably comes before Vista goes ahead of XP) |
| 10:47 | <aaronlev_> | i created a mailing list for people working on free tools/resources to advance WAI-ARIA |
| 10:47 | <aaronlev_> | http://groups.google.com/group/free-aria |
| 10:47 | <aaronlev_> | i probably should have included HTML a11y in the scope but, i guess this will be a focused group |
| 10:49 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Only about 2-3% of all people seem to be using Windows 2000, so that can't account for much of IE6's usage |
| 10:49 | <Philip`> | (Are those the numbers you were going on, or do you have OS-browser-combination stats?) |
| 10:50 | <Lachy> | hsivonen, that depends if the versions of XP people are installing still only come with IE6. Since they would have been shipping with Sevice Pack 3 since April or May, and IE7 has been out longer than that, they could be shipping with IE7 by default |
| 10:50 | <annevk> | I read this article yesterday that Google kept Google Chrome security update specifics secret but http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-announce/browse_thread/thread/886cd07cbbc1b4cf seems to simply list them |
| 10:50 | <hsivonen> | does Google Analytics have a public display of aggregate browser stats? |
| 10:51 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: my understanding is that there have been XP discs with IE6 on the market long after IE7 came out |
| 10:52 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: does MS remaster XP install discs at all? |
| 10:52 | <Philip`> | They make new discs to roll in Service Packs, as far as I'm aware |
| 10:52 | <Lachy> | hsivonen, yes |
| 10:53 | <hsivonen> | ok |
| 10:53 | <Lachy> | I have an XP SP2 disc at home that I use |
| 10:53 | <annevk> | but even SP3 does not come with IE7 |
| 10:53 | <annevk> | per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Service_Pack_3 anyways |
| 10:53 | <Lachy> | no, but IE7 has started being distributed as a critical update, and the service pack should have meant new discs were produced |
| 10:57 | <hsivonen> | SP3 does not update IE to 7 |
| 10:57 | <annevk> | yeah, see above |
| 10:58 | Philip` | would notice if XP started automatically upgrading to IE7, since his mum would complain that it looked all funny |
| 10:58 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: you don't take care of your parents running an up-to-date browser? |
| 10:58 | <Lachy> | hsivonen, yes, I'm aware of that. But AIUI, I believe they include all critical updates at the same time as they release new service pack discs |
| 10:59 | <Lachy> | Philip`, it has, but it still requires the user to manually perform the installation, which can be cancelled. |
| 11:00 | <Lachy> | last time I installed XP in my virtual machine, I let it do all critical updates and came back and noticed the IE7 installation dialog waiting for me |
| 11:00 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: It's an up-to-date copy of IE6 :-p |
| 11:01 | <Philip`> | (and my dad has now switched to Firefox) |
| 11:02 | Philip` | doesn't see that the benefits outweigh the switching costs, if all you do is look at Hotmail and online banking |
| 11:02 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: think about the externalities of online banking with IE6 |
| 11:03 | <hsivonen> | banks see IE6 in their logs and continue to support it |
| 11:03 | <Philip`> | A single person will be lost in the noise and won't make any real difference to their logs |
| 11:05 | <Philip`> | IE6 should be easy to support if the banking websites weren't huge JS monstosities that claim to work only in Internet Explorer and Netscape and that sometimes hobble along in Opera too, so it's their own fault :-) |
| 11:06 | <annevk> | my bank works fine in Opera |
| 11:06 | <annevk> | it's just looks a bit fugly now I have standards mode override in effect |
| 11:07 | <annevk> | still perfectly usable though |
| 11:27 | <hsivonen> | hmm. sudo easy_install simplejson complains about not finding eggs |
| 11:32 | <hsivonen> | ah. I used the wrong copy of easy_install |
| 11:39 | <BenMillard> | I just saw the SDCH thing. In the PDF, I read "For example, retrieving a set of HTML pages with the same header, footer, inlined JavaScript and CSS requires the retransmission of the same data multiple times." |
| 11:39 | <BenMillard> | but often the header will differ slightly, since the current section will be highlighted (such as via class) or de-linked (by removing <a href>) or both |
| 11:40 | <BenMillard> | and inline CSS is rather an edge case, given how well supported and cachable external CSS is |
| 11:41 | <Dashiva> | You don't have to make the whole header be one word, though? |
| 11:42 | <BenMillard> | Dashiva, the point is there's less which can be shared between requests on well-designed sites than the document seems to think. |
| 11:47 | <BenMillard> | simply writing better, lightweight markup would make Google result listings significantly more efficient without all this complexity |
| 12:04 | <BenMillard> | How does a dictionary file get created? For it to be automated, a system would need to know every permutation of markup it can produce in the areas targeted for inclusion in a dictionary, such as the header, afaict. |
| 12:04 | <BenMillard> | if has to be done manually, I don't see it catching on |
| 12:06 | <Philip`> | That's easy - you just tell your team of PhDs to work it out for you |
| 12:07 | <Philip`> | Or, I guess, you use a tool written by Google, which scans your logs and looks at the most commonly requested files and works out how to optimise for that |
| 12:12 | gsnedders | is far too tired |
| 12:14 | <BenMillard> | Philip`, just writing better markup seems like a better idea to me...especially given how much scope there is for improving the markup of mainstream websites. :) |
| 12:18 | <Philip`> | Maybe they could solve the problem of retransmission of inline CSS and JS by not making it inline |
| 12:29 | <hsivonen> | launching a new compression scheme in order to deal with inline CSS and JS indeed seems weird |
| 12:32 | <BenMillard> | the footer stays the same until you visit a page linked to by the footer, then you delink that entry |
| 12:32 | <jgraham> | Presumably the theory is that CPU cycles are cheap compared to both bandwidth and authoring time |
| 12:32 | <BenMillard> | navigation changes all the time as you highlight the current section, delinking an entry when you're at the index for that section |
| 12:33 | <BenMillard> | search box stays the same |
| 12:33 | <hsivonen> | however, a new compression scheme will like be more deployable than a new HTML client side include mechanism |
| 12:33 | <BenMillard> | hsivonen, my impression is few people even use the compression schemes which exist today, despite them being effective. |
| 12:35 | <BenMillard> | having briefly done a manual review of several websites I've developed professionally in recent times, it's surprising how little markup is shared between pages |
| 12:35 | <BenMillard> | the decorative graphics + CSS + JS massively outweigh the markup in terms of filesize, and they're already cached by conventional means |
| 12:37 | <hsivonen> | BenMillard: few people perhaps, but significant traffic generators do |
| 12:37 | <hsivonen> | BenMillard: like wikipedia |
| 12:40 | <BenMillard> | hsivonen, looks like myspace.com and google.com use gzip, too |
| 12:41 | <BenMillard> | hsivonen, if it were commonplace and commonly inadequate, I could see space for a new technology to improve it. |
| 12:42 | <BenMillard> | but neither of those conditions are true, afaict |
| 12:42 | <Lachy> | http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/09/08/microsoft-css-vendor-extensions.aspx |
| 12:42 | <Lachy> | it's about time they did that! |
| 12:43 | <BenMillard> | Lachy, http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20080909#l-279 |
| 12:45 | <Lachy> | oh, ignore me then. |
| 12:47 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: telling the DOM to coalesce adjacent text nodes may have an effect on passing the tree to XSLT in Gecko |
| 12:48 | <BenMillard> | jgraham, it also seems to assume people's markup cannot be improved...yet here's a typical example of markup currently authored on the web: http://groups.google.com/group/free-aria |
| 12:51 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: is this thread on your radar: http://www.w3.org/mid/OFE3B13C49.D2CF8357-ONC12574BE.00686AE6-C12574BE.00692ED8⊙uic |
| 13:02 | <annevk> | Hixie, http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/html/canvas/007.html and http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/html/canvas/008.html need to be updated |
| 13:06 | hsivonen | wonders what tighter Web integration for Ubuntu Jaunty desktop means |
| 13:06 | <Dashiva> | They install it on google appengine, and you run an x server that connects there |
| 13:07 | <hsivonen> | shouldn't the X protocol be implemented on top of Web Socket and <canvas> for that to be Web integration? |
| 14:16 | <annevk> | 'There SHOULD be a @version attribute on the html element with the value "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"' |
| 14:16 | <annevk> | can anyone enlighten me how that helps? |
| 14:19 | <Lachy> | annevk, what spec is that from? |
| 14:20 | <annevk> | http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#docconf |
| 14:21 | <Lachy> | Hixie, in in the "in head" insertion mode http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#parsing-main-inhead when a meta element is inserted, the spec states: |
| 14:21 | <Lachy> | "Otherwise, if the element has a content attribute, and applying the algorithm for extracting an encoding from a Content-Type to its value returns a supported encoding encoding, and the confidence is currently tentative, then change the encoding to the encoding encoding." |
| 14:21 | <Lachy> | That doesn't seem to check for http-equiv="Content-Type". Is that intentional? |
| 14:21 | <annevk> | yes |
| 14:22 | <Lachy> | ok, so <meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8"> is enough? |
| 14:22 | <Lachy> | or even if it had http-equiv="Whatever" |
| 14:22 | <Philip`> | Yes |
| 14:23 | <Lachy> | ok |
| 14:23 | Philip` | remembers some past discussion of this |
| 14:23 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: Validator.nu whines though |
| 14:24 | <Philip`> | http://www.w3.org/mid/47CEDDF5.6090100⊙cau |
| 14:24 | <Lachy> | oh, ok. I was just wondering cause I need to write TCs for this part of the spec today, and trying to work out all the conditions that can trigger a reparse |
| 14:24 | <Philip`> | (See comment about content-style-type) |
| 14:25 | <Philip`> | Hmm, not really "discussion", just a comment, but anyway it's a known (mis)feature |
| 14:35 | <zcorpan> | annevk: i thought version='' was supposed to be the same as the FPI |
| 14:37 | <zcorpan> | euc-jp reminds me |
| 14:37 | <zcorpan> | i think URLs aren't utf-8 if the page encoding is euc-jp |
| 14:40 | hsivonen | checks if there are replies to zcorpan's comments |
| 14:40 | <hsivonen> | no replies |
| 14:41 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: which comments? |
| 14:42 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: the comments about the XHTML2 WG draft that used EUC-JP in examples that people will copy and paste |
| 14:43 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: ah |
| 14:43 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: what you mention of euc-jp related to something else? |
| 14:43 | <zcorpan> | http://www.w3.org/mid/47CEDDF5.6090100⊙cau |
| 14:44 | <hsivonen> | ah |
| 15:33 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Validator.nu_Full-Stack_Tests |
| 15:34 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: thanks |
| 15:36 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: also, http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Validator.nu_Unit_Tests |
| 15:38 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: hmm i like omitting tags in test cases :P |
| 15:39 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: it caused me grief when annevk omitted tags in the WF2 test suite... |
| 15:40 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: ok |
| 15:40 | <hsivonen> | albeit in XHTML5 |
| 15:40 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: should tests be XHTML-compatible? |
| 15:40 | <zcorpan> | or why did it cause grief? |
| 15:41 | <zcorpan> | oh he omitted tags in XHTML? |
| 15:41 | <hsivonen> | HTML5 tests don't need to be XHTML compatible |
| 15:41 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: he omitted, IIRC, <head> and </head> in XHTML, so the cases that should have had no errors related to WF2 had this other error |
| 15:42 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: ok |
| 15:42 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: but can i omit optional tags in text/html? |
| 15:42 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: if you are certain that Hixie won't change the omissibility of those tags in random ways, yeah |
| 15:42 | <annevk> | fwiw, I did that when I still believed having different requirements for HTML and XHTML was ok |
| 15:45 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: i take it that the test harness won't complain if i leave out "message" |
| 15:47 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: it won't |
| 15:47 | <hsivonen> | oops |
| 15:47 | <hsivonen> | I take that back |
| 15:47 | <hsivonen> | It will probably throw |
| 15:47 | <hsivonen> | but I can change that |
| 15:48 | <hsivonen> | hmm. looks like it'll just say None in place of the message |
| 15:49 | <hsivonen> | so omitting the message works |
| 15:49 | <zcorpan> | ok |
| 15:51 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: Writing a Test Eliciting No Errors is assuming that Validator.nu doesn't have a bug related to what is being tested :) |
| 15:52 | <hsivonen> | right :-) |
| 15:53 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: i'll try writing a test tonight |
| 15:54 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: great. thanks |
| 15:58 | <hsivonen> | I wonder when gandi.net is going to start taking customers without invitations... |
| 16:03 | <Philip`> | For virtual hosting? |
| 16:05 | Philip` | wonders how you're meant to work out whether particular hosting services are any good or not |
| 16:05 | <webben> | annevk: it only helps if you have different behaviors defined for the same elements/attributes in the same namespaces, which I guess is the risk XHTML2 is potentially taking. So: protection misunderstanding by theoretical future XHTML2 UAs? |
| 16:05 | <webben> | (re version) |
| 16:06 | <webben> | *protection from misunderstanding |
| 16:06 | <webben> | perhaps |
| 16:06 | <Philip`> | (At least Gandi doesn't have a blue-on-white website with stock photos of smiling people like pretty much every other internet service company, so that's a good sign) |
| 16:07 | <Philip`> | webben: If it was necessary to prevent documents being processed incorrectly, shouldn't it be a MUST rather than a SHOULD? |
| 16:07 | <webben> | Philip`: hmm, very good point! |
| 16:07 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: yes, for more flexible virtual hosting than what I have now |
| 16:09 | <annevk> | webben, without processing model and MUST requirement that's kind of moot |
| 16:10 | <annevk> | webben, hence my question |
| 16:10 | <webben> | yep |
| 16:11 | <annevk> | but that group is known for failing on proper specs |
| 16:12 | <webben> | i wonder if they're just following http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#ext-version |
| 16:29 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Sounds like it might not be strict invitation-only, if I interpret http://www.gandibar.net/post/2008/09/02/Hosting-maintenance#comments saying "you can always request some shares now and we try to accommodate people where possible" as meaning they can make exceptions if you ask nicely |
| 18:00 | gsnedders | finds bug in RFC3987 |
| 18:10 | <Dashiva> | "Note that the XML/HTML DOM consistency issue is not real, so it's worth focusing on the prefix issue." |
| 18:10 | <annevk> | I wasn't sure what he meant by that |
| 18:11 | <annevk> | One explanation suggests browser vendors are delusional, which I think is not true (but then I'm biased) |
| 18:21 | <MikeSmith> | I think Ben wrote that with the intent of somebody replying to ask what he meant by it |
| 18:26 | annevk | isn't really interested in asking :) |
| 18:27 | annevk | has seen too much RDFa e-mails lately all duplicating lots of info |
| 18:28 | <MikeSmith> | I guess statements like "You want monolithic, top-down, one solution-fits-all. I want the Web." don't make me inclined to be interested in asking for more details either |
| 18:29 | <Dashiva> | The irony in RDF being "The Web" is overwhelming |
| 20:12 | <Philip`> | I wish I could tell Google never to return results from www.faqs.org when I search for RFCs, because they have a giant font and are impossible to read and I'd much prefer the IETF's copies |
| 20:14 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: you need to link to tools.ietf.org more |
| 20:15 | <Philip`> | That's a horribly indirect inefficient way to get the desired result |
| 20:16 | <annevk> | -site:faqs.org |
| 20:16 | <annevk> | or site:tools.ietf.org |
| 20:17 | <Philip`> | That's far too much typing on every query |
| 20:17 | <annevk> | you can make a shortcut for it in Opera |
| 20:17 | <smedero> | inject it with your user-scripting plugin (greasemonkey, etc) of choice |
| 20:18 | <smedero> | or, yes that's probably easier |
| 20:18 | <Philip`> | I don't like using shortcuts, it feels like cheating :-( |
| 20:18 | <annevk> | Philip`, fail |
| 20:20 | <annevk> | something like http://www.google.com/search?q=rfc%s+site:tools.ietf.org&btnI=on as bookmark shortcut should work |
| 20:20 | annevk | makes one now as it seems useful |
| 20:23 | <gsnedders> | I need to learn to type |
| 20:23 | <annevk> | Philip`, thanks for the idea |
| 20:24 | <annevk> | "rfc 3987" now takes me to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987 |
| 20:25 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Try http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B001AZ7Q10/ |
| 20:25 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: :P |
| 20:26 | <Philip`> | '"Mavis Beacon" is not a real person' - Wikipedia's destroying my world-view again :-( |
| 20:49 | <Dashiva> | Philip`: Next they'll claim Hixie is just the alias of two dozen Google engineers |
| 20:52 | <annevk> | http://thebjoernhoehrmannproject.org/ |
| 20:56 | <Philip`> | Dashiva: That would make sense - they could all pool their 20% time together, and arrange it to look like a single real person |
| 21:08 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: IT is. |
| 21:08 | <gsnedders> | *It |
| 21:08 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: How else does it barely sleep? |
| 21:09 | <Dashiva> | Adrenaline IV |
| 21:14 | <gsnedders> | WHY DO YOU HAVE TO GIVE ME A BLOODY USERNAME? |
| 21:14 | <gsnedders> | sorry. |
| 21:14 | <gsnedders> | But ARGH. |
| 21:15 | <Dashiva> | I wonder if we'll ever stop calling people 'users' |
| 21:15 | <Dashiva> | Only two businesses, etc |
| 21:16 | <annevk> | that's why Hixie always talks about "we" and "us" |
| 21:16 | <annevk> | makes sense now |
| 21:18 | <gsnedders> | I would never use "gmsneddon1" as a username. |
| 21:19 | <Dashiva> | Putting numbers in usernames is an abomination |
| 21:25 | <hober> | I only put the 0 in hober0 because gmail had a 6-char minimum username length requirement. |
| 21:27 | <gsnedders> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2008Sep/0000.html |
| 21:31 | <gsnedders> | Anyone got any ideas? |
| 21:44 | <Lachy> | Hixie, do not upgrade to iTunes 8. Requiem 1.7.4 no longer works with it |
| 21:46 | <Lachy> | http://yadayada.org/wordpress/?p=26 |
| 21:47 | <Hixie> | oh right i forgot today was new ipod day |
| 21:47 | Hixie | goes to see if the video is available yet |
| 21:49 | gsnedders | just buys CDs |
| 21:49 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: that thread was not on my radar but i don't know what i would have done differently if it was |
| 21:50 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: for audio i just buy unencrypted audio |
| 21:50 | <Hixie> | but there's no way to buy unencrypted video |
| 21:52 | <Lachy> | the new iPod nanos look cool |
| 21:53 | <Lachy> | I'm waiting for the keynote though, it says it's coming soon |
| 21:54 | <sicking> | Lachy, got a good link to read about the new ipods? |
| 21:54 | <Lachy> | http://www.apple.com/itunes/ |
| 21:54 | <sicking> | :) |
| 21:54 | <Lachy> | video here http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/ |
| 21:55 | <gsnedders> | brb |
| 21:55 | <sicking> | wow, perdy colors |
| 21:56 | <sicking> | wow, i guess accelerometers must be cheap these days |
| 22:02 | <Hixie> | doesn't look like today's annoncements were all that |
| 22:03 | <annevk> | nothing interesting |
| 22:05 | <Hixie> | i wonder why the quicktime plugin doesn't work in my safari |
| 22:05 | <Hixie> | works fine in mozilla |
| 22:05 | <sicking> | the new nano looks pretty sweet, but no, nothing revolutionary |
| 22:11 | <sicking> | still new iphone nano with a roll-out digital-paper screen :( |
| 22:11 | <sicking> | s/new/no/ |
| 22:13 | <sicking> | annevk, so i think we might need to bring back the header blacklist in AC :( |
| 22:13 | <sicking> | annevk, and blacklist 'cookie' and 'authorization' |
| 22:19 | <Hixie> | how can ou set cookie and authorization cross-site? that seems bad |
| 22:19 | <Hixie> | surely that's not possible |
| 22:19 | <Hixie> | can you set host? |
| 22:20 | <sicking> | Hixie, xhr.setRequestHeader("cookie", "hello world") |
| 22:20 | <sicking> | currently no spec forbids that if the site opts in |
| 22:20 | <Dashiva> | Geez, Ben is already appealing to process |
| 22:20 | <annevk> | sicking, XHR forbids that |
| 22:20 | <sicking> | annevk, really? |
| 22:20 | <Hixie> | i highly doubt that anne intentionally made that possible |
| 22:21 | <annevk> | sicking, well, it should |
| 22:21 | <annevk> | and does |
| 22:21 | <annevk> | see http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/#setrequestheader |
| 22:21 | <sicking> | annevk, doesn't currently. Are you proposing that for same-site as well? |
| 22:21 | <sicking> | oh |
| 22:22 | <sicking> | when was that list updated? |
| 22:22 | <annevk> | long time ago |
| 22:22 | <annevk> | seems XHR2 has some <dfn> problem for setRequestHeader :/ |
| 22:23 | <annevk> | though I did add Access-Control-Request-Headers/Method a few days ago |
| 22:23 | <sicking> | hrm |
| 22:23 | <annevk> | (in XHR2) |
| 22:23 | <sicking> | we recently updated our blacklist, but apparently didn't get those |
| 22:23 | <annevk> | sicking, same-site too, yes |
| 22:23 | <sicking> | wonder why |
| 22:23 | <annevk> | sicking, there was some discussion around this with abarth and collinjackson |
| 22:24 | <sicking> | annevk, ah, adam did the updating of our list |
| 22:24 | <sicking> | annevk, what was the argument against? |
| 22:25 | <sicking> | annevk, and is there currently agreement? |
| 22:27 | <annevk> | I don't think there was an argument against, although I believe IE either only blocks Cookie or just Cookie2 |
| 22:27 | <annevk> | (for same site) |
| 22:27 | <sicking> | so what was the discussion about? |
| 22:27 | <annevk> | there's no real agreement on any of the specifics of XHR as browsers seem reluctant to fix bugs :/ |
| 22:27 | sicking | wonders why adam didn't add the full list in his patch |
| 22:28 | <annevk> | sicking, well, abarth and collinjackson proposing to block it and me agreeing and nobody else complaining :) |
| 22:28 | <sicking> | ah :) |
| 22:28 | <sicking> | bummer, i guess we'll have to patch the branch again :( |
| 22:29 | <sicking> | annevk, i don't think there has been reluctance, just uncertainty how stable the spec is |
| 22:29 | <sicking> | annevk, at least from us |
| 22:29 | <annevk> | fair enough, it does change now and then based on feedback |
| 22:29 | <annevk> | quite a lot based on feedback from ap (WebKit) a year ago or so |
| 22:29 | <sicking> | annevk, yup, makes sense, but we need to get it to last call and then to candidate |
| 22:30 | <sicking> | also, has there been any plan devised to get MS on board? |
| 22:31 | <annevk> | hmm, same plan as for <canvas>? get devs to cry for it |
| 22:33 | <sicking> | ideal would be if we could find a faster way |
| 22:33 | Philip` | isn't sure that really counts as a plan |
| 22:34 | <annevk> | Acid4? *blink* |
| 22:35 | <Hixie> | ? |
| 22:35 | <annevk> | getting IE to support XHR2 |
| 22:35 | <Hixie> | oh |
| 22:35 | <Hixie> | yeah well i'd rather they supported DOM2 Core before we started talking about new features |
| 22:35 | <Hixie> | and DOM2 Events |
| 22:35 | <sicking> | XHR1 rather |
| 22:36 | <Hixie> | and HTML4 |
| 22:36 | <Hixie> | and XML |
| 22:36 | <Hixie> | you know |
| 22:36 | <Hixie> | stuff from the late 90s |
| 22:36 | <annevk> | boring |
| 22:36 | <annevk> | :p |
| 22:37 | <sicking> | annevk, btw, did you see my two feature requests for XHR2? |
| 22:37 | <sicking> | annevk, it's very likely that we'll add some of that in FF3.1 |
| 22:37 | <gsnedders> | Applying for uni is annoying |
| 22:37 | <annevk> | sicking, I asked about use cases |
| 22:38 | <sicking> | as far as MS goes, i'd rather find a better way than drag them against their will |
| 22:38 | <jcranmer> | gsnedders: tell me about it... yuck |
| 22:38 | <Dashiva> | Hixie: "Naturally though, we shouldn't " |
| 22:38 | <annevk> | sicking, http://www.w3.org/mid/op.ugz0bk2k64w2qv⊙aooc |
| 22:38 | <sicking> | annevk, you did? where? |
| 22:38 | <Hixie> | oops |
| 22:38 | jcranmer | reiterates his opinion on browsers supporting WF2 |
| 22:39 | <jcranmer> | s/on browsers supporting/that browsers should support/ |
| 22:39 | <sicking> | hmm.. why didn't i get that mail |
| 22:39 | <annevk> | JSON is sort of scary as although it is a standard I believe there are quite a few differences between implementations... Also, it doesn't handle that many types... |
| 22:40 | <sicking> | hmm.. i blame gmail |
| 22:40 | <annevk> | (eg, allowing comments versus not allowing comments) |
| 22:40 | <Hixie> | JSON is a very loose "standard" |
| 22:40 | <sicking> | i don't have that mail at all |
| 22:40 | <annevk> | :/ |
| 22:40 | <Dashiva> | annevk: There's the full spectrum from RFC-JSON to whatever-js-eval-supports-ON |
| 22:40 | <annevk> | I wonder if Gmail classifies my e-mail as spam sometimes |
| 22:41 | <sicking> | i have a bunch of other mails from that day |
| 22:41 | <sicking> | doesn't look like it's in the spam folder either |
| 22:41 | <annevk> | weird |
| 22:43 | <sicking> | annevk, can you resend to me personally so i can reply? |
| 22:44 | <annevk> | done |
| 22:46 | <sicking> | hmm.. now i see it |
| 22:46 | <sicking> | dunno if it's your newly sent one |
| 22:46 | <sicking> | and i got the test mail |
| 22:47 | <annevk> | that was a mistake |
| 22:47 | <sicking> | heh |
| 22:53 | <annevk> | sicking, long ago timeout came up as well and people proposed send(data, timeout) as syntax |
| 22:55 | <sicking> | annevk, I don't really care I guess, but it seems like .timeout makes a little more sense since the timeout isn't really related to the send() call any more than the open() call |
| 22:55 | <sicking> | annevk, sent reply |
| 22:55 | <annevk> | hmm, sync |
| 22:55 | <annevk> | don't use sync! |
| 22:55 | annevk | wonders if workers have timeouts |
| 22:56 | <smedero> | I think Dashiva and I already had the "JSON implementations are crazy" discussion with DanC... see: http://deron.meranda.us/python/comparing_json_modules/ |
| 22:58 | <annevk> | smedero, interesting |
| 22:59 | <smedero> | I know support is just as mixed with PHP... |
| 22:59 | <Hixie> | Lachy: any idea what the story is with reqium and itunes "8"? |
| 22:59 | <Hixie> | requiem |
| 22:59 | <Hixie> | as in, when it'll be fixed? |
| 23:00 | <Hixie> | btw xhr should really be updated to integrate with the event queue stuff |
| 23:00 | <sicking> | annevk, indeed, found another mail from you that got into spam |
| 23:00 | <Hixie> | that would e.g. define whether timers fire during the sync wait |
| 23:00 | <Lachy> | Hixie, no. But I can email the developer and see if he'll tell me |
| 23:01 | <annevk> | Hixie, I guess it should |
| 23:01 | <annevk> | (and timers should not fire during sync) |
| 23:01 | <sicking> | bah, wish i didn't have to use gmails spam filter :( |
| 23:02 | <sicking> | ironport had much lower false-positive and false-negative rates |
| 23:02 | <Hixie> | annevk: that's easy to define then, in fact it's the default, so you just need to say "Note: No tasks from the _task queue_ are processed during this method" or something |
| 23:02 | <Hixie> | btw for workers right now we don't have a good api set, so we don't have sync database apis or timeouts on any of the apis, btu that will likely change eventually |
| 23:03 | <sicking> | annevk, timers would be relatively easy to block during sync. Not sure if we could block UI events in gecko though |
| 23:03 | <Hixie> | you can kind of fake it today by spawning a second worker and killing it on a timeout |
| 23:03 | <Hixie> | "ui events"? |
| 23:03 | <Hixie> | you mean like onclick in the page aea? |
| 23:03 | <sicking> | mouseover |
| 23:03 | <Hixie> | or in the chrome? |
| 23:03 | <sicking> | well, chrome isn't web, so i don't care what spec says |
| 23:04 | <sicking> | i mean page area |
| 23:04 | <Hixie> | right the spec won't say anything about the chrome area |
| 23:04 | <Hixie> | the page area events is basically defined as a bunch of event queues, right now each one can be pumped independently |
| 23:04 | <Hixie> | so xhr _could_ define that some task queues are pumped and some aren't |
| 23:05 | <Hixie> | though right now no spec defines that 'mouseover' et al are ever actually fired |
| 23:05 | <sicking> | most events don't come from an event queue though |
| 23:05 | <Hixie> | i guess that's either dom events or cssom |
| 23:05 | <Hixie> | sicking: ? |
| 23:05 | <Hixie> | sicking: per html5, all non-synchronous event dispatch goes through the task queue. |
| 23:06 | <sicking> | or rather, they originate there, but by the time they are mouse events we're not on the event queue any more |
| 23:06 | <sicking> | implementation wise |
| 23:06 | <Hixie> | not sure what you mean |
| 23:06 | <sicking> | i'm not saying it's impossible to stall/block/whatever, it's software, anything is possible, but it might be very hard with our impl |
| 23:07 | <sicking> | there's also the question of what to do with other tabs |
| 23:07 | <Hixie> | oh right because you're not pumping your ui thread at all while running script |
| 23:07 | <sicking> | do you still fire events on those |
| 23:07 | <Hixie> | so you get a lot of the blocking for free |
| 23:07 | <Hixie> | i keep forgetting that |
| 23:07 | <sicking> | yup |
| 23:07 | <sicking> | no process separation a'la chrome |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | well chrome has the same thing actually |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | i was thinking more opera |
| 23:08 | <sicking> | ah, yes |
| 23:08 | <sicking> | and then there is the issue of separate tabs in the same domain getting UI events |
| 23:09 | <annevk> | I guess I should look at the task queue tomorrow or maybe later this week |
| 23:10 | <annevk> | I still need to prepare my presentation for Thursday |
| 23:10 | <Hixie> | sicking: yeah well i still need to define exactly how it works but fundamentally pages on the same domain that can talk to each other share an event loop, so that's not a problem (if the loop is paused, it's paused for all the tabs that could talk to each other synchronously) |
| 23:10 | <Hixie> | anyway |
| 23:10 | <Hixie> | bbiab |
| 23:11 | <sicking> | not a problem in the sense that all other pages from the same domain lock up? |
| 23:11 | <sicking> | seems suboptimal |
| 23:11 | <Hixie> | there's really no other way to do it given that they both have access to the same dom, unless you want to make your dom thread-safe |
| 23:12 | <Hixie> | and even that wouldn't be web compatible |