| 00:04 | <BenMillard> | Philip`, oh yeah! thanks for reminding me |
| 08:24 | <cyclist> | Does the table processing model describe the algorithm to caclulate the column widths? |
| 08:27 | <cyclist> | from my understanding it only describes how to determine which column/row *slots* are assigned to each cell |
| 08:31 | <roc> | calculating column widths is a CSS issue |
| 08:34 | <cyclist> | ok |
| 12:28 | <hsivonen> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0008.html I wonder what the rationale for three sets of metrics is... |
| 12:37 | <zcorpan> | hmm... wonder which cases to consider when designing how to be bandwidth-conservative with <audio> and <video> |
| 12:37 | <zcorpan> | new Audio(src) is likely to be used for games so should be downloaded in full |
| 12:38 | <zcorpan> | or perhaps we should have a way for authors to say "i want to preload the whole thing" |
| 12:39 | <zcorpan> | there's no new Video(src) |
| 12:40 | <zcorpan> | perhaps there's no need to preload videos |
| 12:40 | <zcorpan> | or perhaps the offline stuff should be used i one wants to preload stuff |
| 15:25 | Philip` | wonders why pressing backspace to delete the first character in a contenteditable span in FF3 causes it to not delete the character, and instead to insert a space before the span |
| 15:27 | <Philip`> | ...but only when the span is preceded by a space character |
| 15:35 | <Philip`> | Ah, looks like https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455992 |
| 15:36 | Philip` | hopes someone gets around to fixing it some time |
| 16:02 | <shepazu> | hsivonen: http://www.economist.com/vote2008/?mode=description |
| 16:41 | <Philip`> | shepazu: It's odd that they wait until the last paragraph of their analysis (saying "our readers in America also massively favoured the Democrat over the Republican, by 81% to 19%") to indicate that their polling method is rubbish and totally unrepresentative of reality |
| 16:49 | <gavin> | heh |
| 16:50 | <gavin> | wow, in context they even admit that the number doesn't match reality |
| 16:51 | gsnedders | waves |
| 16:53 | Philip` | particles |
| 16:54 | <Philip`> | gavin: But they only say the American number doesn't match reality, and don't retract their claims about the views of the rest of the world |
| 16:54 | <gsnedders> | Am I the only person who finds Philip` ridiculously funny on IRC? |
| 16:54 | <gavin> | yeah |
| 16:55 | <Philip`> | (Never mind that a (not even random) minimum sample of 10 people from each country is pretty useless) |
| 16:55 | <Philip`> | gavin: He is the only one? :-( |
| 16:55 | <gavin> | (to Philip`) |
| 16:55 | <Philip`> | Ah, phew |
| 16:58 | <gsnedders> | My standards suck interview still isn't up? Those guys suck. |
| 18:37 | Philip` | loves Gentoo |
| 18:38 | <smedero> | why's that? |
| 18:38 | <Philip`> | The com_err package was blocking an upgrade of e2fsprogs, presumably because its functionality is now bundled into e2fsprogs for some strange reason |
| 18:38 | <Philip`> | so I uninstalled com_err, so that it would let me upgrade e2fsprogs |
| 18:38 | <Philip`> | But wget relies on com_err, so it became unable to download e2fsprogs :-( |
| 18:39 | <Philip`> | s/it/the package installation system/ |
| 18:41 | <gsnedders> | c'est la vie :P |
| 18:42 | <Philip`> | (curl relies on it too, but fortunately GET (from Perl's LWP) doesn't, so it let me download the package into the expected location, and it's all okay now) |
| 18:42 | gsnedders | got conditional offer from York (at AH BB in maths and physics) |
| 19:13 | <aboodman> | Hixie: ping on worker feedback |
| 19:13 | <Hixie> | i'm on vacation til 11/11, but it's on my list of things to reply to when i get back |
| 19:14 | <BenMillard> | I've got 20 URLs left to categorise from Philip's <q> collection: http://philip.html5.org/data/q-tags.txt |
| 19:14 | <BenMillard> | 39 entries so far (a couple of URLs have multiple entries) |
| 19:15 | <BenMillard> | s/20 URLs left/22 URLs left/ |
| 19:32 | Philip` | doesn't like how Gmail makes it harder to mark a spam message as spam than to simply delete it |
| 19:32 | <Philip`> | (If you mark it as spam then you have to delete it from the spam folder later) |
| 19:34 | <Philip`> | Only the tenuous hope that marking as spam will inform some heuristics and reduce the likelihood of future spam causes me to keep doing so |
| 20:19 | <gsnedders> | q really is the new acronym. |
| 22:54 | <sicking> | Hixie, aboodman: ping |
| 22:54 | <Hixie> | hey |
| 22:54 | <sicking> | Hixie, so we realized that there is no spec in webworkers for figuring out what useragent is running |
| 22:55 | <sicking> | Hixie, i.e. something like navigator.userAgent |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 22:55 | <sicking> | Hixie, it's trivial to implement, and seems like it might help future compat a lot |
| 22:55 | <sicking> | Hixie, so i think we'll want to try to get it in for this release |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | we should just expose the relevant parts of navigator |
| 22:55 | <sicking> | Hixie, should we simply expose a .navigator object which has the properties that are defined in html5? |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | which is defined now in html5 |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | what you said |
| 22:56 | <sicking> | readonly attribute DOMString appName; |
| 22:56 | <sicking> | readonly attribute DOMString appVersion; |
| 22:56 | <sicking> | readonly attribute DOMString platform; |
| 22:56 | <sicking> | readonly attribute DOMString userAgent; |
| 22:56 | <Hixie> | right |
| 22:56 | <Hixie> | i'm on vacation right now, will be back 11/11, but please do send feedback so i can add it when i get back |
| 22:56 | <sicking> | ok, we'll probably implement before then |
| 22:56 | <sicking> | but i'll send to list |
| 22:57 | <othermaciej> | sicking: send to the list, I'll ask Alexey to add it to ours too |
| 22:59 | <sicking> | othermaciej, cool |
| 23:27 | <aboodman> | hixie, sicking ... catching up |
| 23:28 | <aboodman> | sicking: what hixie said |
| 23:28 | <sicking> | cool |
| 23:28 | <aboodman> | sicking: i would like to come to agreement wrt dual interfaces for workers. |
| 23:28 | <aboodman> | i am still uncomfortable with it the way that it is. |
| 23:29 | <aboodman> | and i know you guys are getting ready to ship, so i think it's important to get consensus. |
| 23:29 | <sicking> | aboodman, i don't feel strongly either way. I'm happy with the way it is but don't really mind your changes. |
| 23:29 | <aboodman> | oh, cool. |
| 23:29 | <sicking> | aboodman, we don't implement shared workers for now at all, so as far as that goes i think it doesn't matter much |
| 23:29 | <sicking> | and we don't implement MessagePorts |
| 23:30 | <aboodman> | well, it makes a difference only in that the dedicated worker interfaces don't exist in my proposal. |
| 23:30 | <aboodman> | so you'd have to do some subset of the sharedworker interface. |
| 23:31 | <sicking> | we don't implement the dedicated interfaces separately anyway, i don't think that's detectable from the worker |
| 23:31 | <sicking> | we simply have a nsIDOMWorker interface |
| 23:31 | <aboodman> | right, but it has nsIDOMWorker::sendMessage(), I assume. |
| 23:31 | <sicking> | right, but that was the case in your proposal still right? |
| 23:32 | <aboodman> | no. |
| 23:32 | <olliej> | aboodman: you should talk to ap and weinig |
| 23:32 | <aboodman> | gar s/sendMessage/postMessage/g :) |
| 23:32 | <sicking> | i though it was in the "compromise" |
| 23:32 | <sicking> | heh |
| 23:32 | <olliej> | aboodman: i believe ap is getting all the worker apis implemented in webkit atm |
| 23:34 | <aboodman> | I can start a new thread with the full set of changes I suggest. Will mozilla and webkit review it? |
| 23:34 | <aboodman> | or would something else be easier? |
| 23:34 | <sicking> | aboodman, you got a link to the old thread? or remember the subject? |
| 23:35 | <aboodman> | sicking: looking |
| 23:36 | <sicking> | aboodman, found it |
| 23:36 | <aboodman> | ko. |
| 23:36 | <sicking> | aboodman, in the message you sent 9/24 11:38 it looks like postmessage is still there |
| 23:36 | <sicking> | aboodman, though not sure if that changes later in the thread |
| 23:37 | <sicking> | oh |
| 23:37 | <sicking> | no |
| 23:37 | <sicking> | it's not |
| 23:37 | <aboodman> | sicking: that is me summarizing our conversation I believe. |
| 23:37 | <aboodman> | that is what we compromised to. |
| 23:37 | <aboodman> | I wanted to keep the whatwg list up to date on the changes. |
| 23:38 | <sicking> | right, what's in the message is what i remember we compromised on, and still has postMessage/onmessage directly on the worker context |
| 23:39 | <sicking> | aboodman, basically it adds 'connect' to dedicated workers |
| 23:39 | <aboodman> | sicking: yes, we are on the same page. however, i did not view discussion on worker.postMessage() as closed. |
| 23:40 | <aboodman> | i was just basically checkpointing what we had agreed to up at that point. |
| 23:40 | <sicking> | aboodman, ok |
| 23:40 | <aboodman> | i would still like to resolve the remaining disagreements. |
| 23:40 | <sicking> | aboodman, sorry, didn't realize that was the case. It's getting really close to shipping here |
| 23:41 | <sicking> | aboodman, which isn't neccesarily a problem unless we decide to remove postMessage directly on the worker |
| 23:41 | <aboodman> | sicking: I definitely feel that it would be better to not have that interface, and to only use connect(). |
| 23:42 | <aboodman> | It seems to me that the majority case is using connect() anyway. |
| 23:42 | <sicking> | aboodman, i know we disagree on that :) |
| 23:42 | <aboodman> | heh. |
| 23:42 | <aboodman> | usually it falls to hixie to resolve disagreements on merit, but he is away, and i just don't want this to fall off the radar and then get implemented. |
| 23:43 | <sicking> | i think the problem here is figuring out which use case is the common one |
| 23:45 | <aboodman> | well, do you agree that connect() is a superset? |
| 23:45 | <sicking> | yeah |
| 23:46 | <sicking> | well |
| 23:46 | <sicking> | it's a different syntax |
| 23:46 | <aboodman> | i mean a superset of capabilities |
| 23:46 | <aboodman> | agree that it isn't a compatible superset, hence my concern. |
| 23:46 | <sicking> | seems capabailties are the same in both syntaxes, can't think of anything you can do in one but not the other |
| 23:46 | <aboodman> | technically, we are allowed to change the whatwg proposals after vendors implement them. |
| 23:46 | <aboodman> | in reality, it becomes harder after vendors implement them. |
| 23:47 | <sicking> | absolutely |
| 23:48 | <aboodman> | how about this: I will start a new thread attempting to summarize my concerns as succinctly as possible. I'll also pester the relevant apple people to chime in. |
| 23:48 | <sicking> | aboodman, sounds good, and hixie if possible |