| 00:26 | Hixie | replies to (private) feedback from someone with the english skills of sarah palin |
| 00:28 | <gsnedders> | Me? |
| 00:28 | <gsnedders> | :P |
| 00:28 | <Hixie> | lord no |
| 00:28 | <Hixie> | you at least use sentence structure |
| 00:28 | <Hixie> | :-P |
| 00:28 | <gsnedders> | :P |
| 00:29 | gsnedders | tries to write something with no sentence structure, fails. |
| 00:29 | gsnedders | goes back to spreadsheets of terrible experimental data |
| 00:29 | <jmb> | Hixie: to whom/where would I report an unterminated comment in Google Maps' output=html mode? |
| 00:30 | <gsnedders> | (Look! I've proved there's no such thing as chromatic aberration!) |
| 00:30 | <Hixie> | jmb: i can report it |
| 00:30 | <Hixie> | jmb: uri? |
| 00:31 | <jmb> | http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&output=html&q=so171bj&btnG=Search+Maps |
| 00:31 | <gsnedders> | Regardless of wavelength of the light, I managed to record a focal length of 10.0 ± 0.1 cm. |
| 00:31 | <jmb> | for, example |
| 00:32 | <Hixie> | jmb: does it render wrong or something? |
| 00:32 | <Hixie> | seems ok to me... |
| 00:32 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Perhaps the laws of physics changed on the day of your experiment? |
| 00:32 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: Perhaps |
| 00:32 | <Hixie> | jmb: oh i guess the <!-- in the <style> element isn't closed |
| 00:33 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: If you did the experiment right and analysed it properly, nobody can complain just because your conclusions don't match the expected answer :-) |
| 00:33 | <Hixie> | jmb: hm, that would break in html5, huh |
| 00:33 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Obviously the spec isn't compatible with existing content. |
| 00:34 | <jmb> | Hixie: yes, the whole thing ends up in that comment :) |
| 00:34 | <Hixie> | clearly |
| 00:34 | <Hixie> | jmb: i'll file it, thanks |
| 00:34 | <jmb> | cheers :) |
| 00:34 | <gsnedders> | And fix HTML 5 so it's compatible with the web? |
| 00:34 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: I am well aware :) |
| 00:38 | <Hixie> | sadly the reason html5 isn't compatible with this is that what the browsers do is a security bug |
| 00:38 | <jmb> | yeah |
| 00:38 | <jmb> | reparsing sucks :) |
| 00:38 | <gsnedders> | How so? |
| 00:38 | gsnedders | is probably missing something obvious |
| 00:41 | <Hixie> | jmb: filed, thanks |
| 00:42 | <jmb> | Hixie: thankyou |
| 00:43 | <Hixie> | oh that reminds me |
| 00:43 | <Hixie> | jwalden: the infinite redirect loop you found was fixed, btw |
| 00:43 | <jwalden> | good to know |
| 00:43 | <jwalden> | I reported that back in the spring, right? |
| 00:44 | <jwalden> | pretty sure it was Before and not After |
| 00:44 | <Hixie> | it was fixed a while back, i just forgot to tell you :-) |
| 00:45 | <Hixie> | happened to see it just now since i had to look at the bug database :-) |
| 00:45 | <jwalden> | I probably wasn't on IRC when it was fixed, assuming it was in the [June, October] range |
| 00:46 | <gsnedders> | I need to actually remember everything related to uncertainties instead of looking it up every time. |
| 00:47 | <Hixie> | jwalden: you reported it last april, it was fixed for good in june |
| 00:47 | <jwalden> | yeah, that was around the start of my A.T. thru-hike, didn't get back on IRC until October 26 or 27 |
| 00:53 | <Hixie> | cool |
| 00:57 | <jbaird> | anyone available that would be able to help answer a parsing question with html5lib? |
| 00:58 | <Philip`> | jbaird: Probably, depending on what the question is |
| 01:00 | <jbaird> | Philip`: I've got source code in a <code> tag that has <>= etc. in it that are confusing the parser. The tree that comes out is pretty mangled. If I change the <code> tags to <textarea> the contentFlag gets set to CDATA and it works, but it doesn't seem to do that for pre or code |
| 01:00 | <jbaird> | Philip`: I can monkeypatch my version to use startTagTextArea for pre and code, but I was wondering if there is a more optimal solution. |
| 01:02 | <Philip`> | jbaird: Can't you escape the < to < in the content of the code tag? |
| 01:04 | <jbaird> | Philip`: not without also escaping the code tag as well |
| 01:04 | <Philip`> | html5lib seems to do the same as what web browsers do with < inside <code> |
| 01:05 | <jbaird> | Philip`: it tries to make them tags? |
| 01:06 | <Philip`> | Maybe you could use <xmp> to get <pre>-like semantics with CDATA parsing, though that'd be pretty evil :-) |
| 01:06 | <jbaird> | Philip`: I may as well use textarea in that case |
| 01:06 | gsnedders | is almost certain he's done something wrong with the uncertainties |
| 01:07 | <Philip`> | jbaird: Yes - <code>foo(<i>bar</i>)</code> is legitimate HTML and works everywhere and gives an 'i' element inside the 'code' |
| 01:08 | <jbaird> | Philip`: right. Ok, I'll try some other ways to work around it. Thanks for the help. |
| 01:10 | <gsnedders> | ± 0.0 I have for almost everything |
| 01:24 | <Hixie> | man i love it when people who right multi-page paragraphs start one of their sentences with "my point is" |
| 01:24 | <Hixie> | it makes my life so much easier |
| 01:29 | Philip` | wishes EC2 development didn't take so long to iterate |
| 01:30 | <Philip`> | It's like 15 minutes to start the server, then 15 minutes to persist any changes to it, plus various other bits of waiting, which is a pain when I'm trying to debug a startup script on it :-( |
| 01:34 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: *write :P |
| 01:34 | <Hixie> | uh yes |
| 01:34 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Bitching about English without even getting it right yourself… |
| 01:34 | <Hixie> | there's an analog loop somewhere between my brain and my fingers which converts my thoughts to audio and then back again |
| 01:34 | <Hixie> | it's terrible |
| 01:35 | gsnedders | has that too |
| 01:35 | <gsnedders> | I also have dyspraxia, so I make so many spelling mistakes I have to check what I type closely :) |
| 01:36 | gsnedders | returns to reading on uncertainties |
| 01:41 | <gsnedders> | Should I state 10.0 ± 0.0 or 10.0 ± 0.01? |
| 01:41 | <gsnedders> | Neither really makes sense |
| 01:41 | <Dashiva> | The latter |
| 01:43 | <Philip`> | The latter seems wrong because it's mixing levels of precision |
| 01:43 | <Philip`> | What are the lower and upper bounds? |
| 01:46 | <gsnedders> | The former seems wrong because it is implying it is certain, but there is an uncertainty |
| 01:47 | <jcranmer> | the last figure is always assumed to be estimated |
| 01:48 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: 10.0 +/- 0.1 or 10.00 +/- 0.01 would seem more reasonable things to say |
| 01:49 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: Indeed |
| 01:49 | gsnedders | has probably gone wrong combining uncertainties |
| 01:50 | <Philip`> | Is the uncertainty in the output of the calculation less than the uncertainty of the inputs? |
| 01:51 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: As a percentage it's double |
| 02:00 | <gsnedders> | So I have u = 85.8 ± 0.1 |
| 02:00 | <gsnedders> | I then find f = u - u^2/100 |
| 02:00 | <gsnedders> | Which makes f = 12.2 ± 0.0 |
| 02:01 | <gsnedders> | Where is my mistake? |
| 02:03 | <Dashiva> | So 85.7 -> 12.2551, 85.9 -> 12.1119 |
| 02:03 | <Dashiva> | Which looks like 12.2 ± 0.1 |
| 02:04 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: I think it's like err(u^2) = 2*err(u), err(u/100) = err(u)/100, err(u - v) = sqrt(err(u)^2 + err(v)^2) |
| 02:04 | <Philip`> | which comes out to 0.1 if I'm not entirely mistaken |
| 02:04 | gsnedders | stares |
| 02:04 | gsnedders | is too tired |
| 02:04 | <Philip`> | Actually that first bit can't possible be right, can it? |
| 02:04 | <Philip`> | s/e/y/ |
| 02:05 | <Philip`> | Oh well, whatever it is |
| 02:05 | <Philip`> | The last step is sqrt(0.1^2 + something) so it's never going to be less than 0.1 |
| 02:05 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: The first bit is right according to the book I'm reading |
| 02:05 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: But only if these are relative errors, I think? |
| 02:05 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: And where the hell is this v coming from? |
| 02:06 | <Dashiva> | Just two terms |
| 02:06 | <Dashiva> | No relation to your u |
| 02:06 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: This book says no such thing |
| 02:06 | <gsnedders> | Ah, k |
| 02:06 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: I think it's called something with "quadrature" in the name, for calculating errors of a+b or a-b |
| 02:06 | <Dashiva> | Self-explanatory variable names, yay |
| 02:07 | <Philip`> | but I think I'm totally failing to use relative errors when I ought to be |
| 02:07 | <Philip`> | Dashiva: It seems fairly self-explanatory to me that v is just what comes after u :-) |
| 02:08 | <Dashiva> | Let's add an error specifier to the error |
| 02:09 | <gsnedders> | http://visitmix.com/Opinions/Web-Standards-Gone-Wild |
| 02:10 | <Philip`> | The problem with calculating error values is that it fails to account for the quite high probability that your experiment was just rubbish or that you made up all your data |
| 02:10 | <Dashiva> | So he's saying the reason we have so many buggy implementations is because the specs were too easy to implement before :P |
| 02:23 | <gsnedders> | If this is right, 12.4 ± 1.4 cm |
| 02:23 | <gsnedders> | Ow. |
| 02:24 | <gsnedders> | (i.e., 12 ± 1 cm) |
| 02:24 | <Philip`> | That's not really 12 +/- 1 |
| 02:24 | <Philip`> | because 12.4 + 1.4 = 13.8 which is a long way from 12 + 1 |
| 02:28 | <gsnedders> | Hah. It gets better. |
| 02:28 | <gsnedders> | 11.8 ± 14.1 cm |
| 02:28 | <Dashiva> | I love when positive values get errors that go into the negatives |
| 02:31 | <gsnedders> | Oh shit. |
| 02:31 | <gsnedders> | Even my best results have big enough error bars to make them useless. |
| 02:32 | <gsnedders> | I really can't do practical physics. |
| 02:35 | Philip` | had a few physics practicals in his first year, and half of them involved calculating g to increasing levels of precision |
| 02:35 | <Philip`> | The first was something like rolling a ball down a slope, and getting something like g = 9 +/- 1 |
| 02:35 | <gsnedders> | I've managed to do that as far as 9.8 ± 0.1 |
| 02:35 | <gsnedders> | The best guy in my year got to 9.81 ± 0.3, IIRC |
| 02:36 | <Philip`> | If I remember correctly, the third experiment involved some pendulum thing which was surprisingly accurate |
| 02:36 | <Dashiva> | What if you got 9.80 ± 0.2, would you prefer that to 9.81 ± 0.3? |
| 02:37 | <gsnedders> | (This was doing something boring like dropping a double mask through a light-gate) |
| 02:37 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: yes |
| 02:37 | <Dashiva> | I wonder how many would prefer the 9.81 one because it looks more correct :) |
| 02:38 | <gsnedders> | Too many :) |
| 02:39 | <Philip`> | What if you got 9.78 +/- 0.1? |
| 02:40 | <Dashiva> | Can we assume anything about the probability distribution within the error margins? |
| 02:40 | <gsnedders> | I'd assume I'd done something wrong because I know that's the wrong answer |
| 02:53 | annevk | hit an infinite loop on gmail today |
| 04:17 | <takkaria> | talk of mandating <canvas> to have accessible fall is wibble |
| 04:17 | <takkaria> | *fallback |
| 04:17 | <takkaria> | in some cases, sure, it might be helpful |
| 04:18 | <takkaria> | but for the game of life or FPSs, it's so completely pointless to try and mandate it |
| 04:18 | <takkaria> | I almost get the impression that there are people around who think that if something can't be done to cater for at least one disability, then it shouldn't be done at all |
| 04:19 | <gsnedders> | Send a link to canvex and ask how to make that accessible |
| 04:22 | <takkaria> | I stopped reading (and started blackholing) public-html a while ago |
| 04:22 | <takkaria> | I only read it via archives now |
| 04:25 | <gsnedders> | heh |
| 04:26 | <takkaria> | daily stress levels are way down, fwiw |
| 04:31 | gsnedders | sends it |
| 04:57 | <gsnedders> | For an analogue scale, a scale reading uncertainty is meant to be half of the smallest scale. Surely that'll result in e.g., 1 ± 0.5? |
| 05:16 | gsnedders | is about to fall asleep |
| 05:17 | <olliej> | Hixie: seen http://www.isolani.co.uk/blog/standards/Ie8BlacklistForcingStandardsRenderingOptIn ? |
| 05:19 | <MikeSmith> | Is a table actually best described as data with more than one dimension, or it is more precisely described as data with two dimensions? |
| 05:20 | <MikeSmith> | is there such as thing as a three-dimensional table? |
| 05:21 | <MikeSmith> | or I mean is it possible to represent a three-dimensional table in HTML? |
| 05:38 | olliej | wonders why MS doesn't take a hint: standards mode == standard, no damned proprietary flags are involved |
| 05:38 | <Hixie> | olliej: i had not, but i was aware of the issue. i disagree with the conclusion -- adding the flag plays into microsoft's hands. |
| 05:40 | <olliej> | Hixie: how do you mean? |
| 05:43 | <Hixie> | olliej: if you give the proprietary flag saying "use IE8 mode" then you are actively increasing the dependence on IE8 mode, which will eventually become a new mode that other browsers have to support |
| 05:43 | <roc> | no it won't |
| 05:43 | <olliej> | Hixie: yes, i know -- eg. it's a stupid and horrific thing that only exists because ms deliberately crippled ie in the first place |
| 05:44 | <Hixie> | roc: it will when IE9 has four modes and this triggers IE8 mode |
| 05:44 | <olliej> | Hixie: based on this i'm not sure why ie has any part or input in any of the standards committees, clearly they have no intention of supporting them |
| 05:45 | <roc> | I mean, it's nasty and all, but in practice Web developers are not going to ask us to support IE8 mode |
| 05:45 | <Hixie> | not if the IE market share continues to decline, no |
| 05:45 | <roc> | is there some new information in this context that I've missed? |
| 05:45 | <Hixie> | only http://www.isolani.co.uk/blog/standards/Ie8BlacklistForcingStandardsRenderingOptIn and their new blog post |
| 05:45 | <olliej> | roc: ie8 will default to non compliance |
| 05:45 | <Hixie> | that's not really accurate |
| 05:45 | <olliej> | Hixie: users are idiots |
| 05:46 | <olliej> | they'll all click compatibility mode |
| 05:46 | <Hixie> | that remains to be seen |
| 05:46 | <Hixie> | i wouldn't be surprised if users had no idea what it was |
| 05:46 | <Hixie> | and never clicked it |
| 05:46 | <Hixie> | or clicked it and found it broke something once |
| 05:46 | <Hixie> | and never clicked it again |
| 05:47 | <roc> | I will be surprised if users click on it a lot |
| 05:48 | olliej | just thinks it's yet another attempt to save themselves having to write a real browser |
| 05:48 | <roc> | I think they tried hard to write a good layout engine and then realized how hard it is |
| 05:49 | <roc> | I don't think there's new information here, except maybe the suggestion that the "compatibility list" will auto-update |
| 05:49 | <roc> | based on user telemetry |
| 05:49 | <olliej> | and decided it was much easier to try and catch up by trying to force all the other vendors to implement ie7 compat modes |
| 05:49 | <roc> | If that's really their plan, they're really stupid, because it's not going to happen |
| 05:50 | <roc> | I don't think they're that stupid |
| 05:50 | <olliej> | really? |
| 05:50 | <roc> | yeah really |
| 05:50 | <olliej> | canvas is trivial (cf. the rest of html5) and yet they still don't have it |
| 05:50 | <roc> | that's different |
| 05:50 | <olliej> | so my opinion of them is not particularly high |
| 05:50 | <roc> | the pressure to emulate IE madness peaked a few years ago and has steadily declined since |
| 05:51 | <roc> | expecting that to suddenly change on its own would be monumentally stupid |
| 05:51 | <olliej> | i have a vague hope ms just gives up on this |
| 05:52 | <roc> | they're not doing canvas because they can't do it |
| 05:52 | <roc> | they're either uninterested in advancing the Web platform or actively hostile to it |
| 05:53 | jwalden | thinks the auto-update part there is misunderstood |
| 05:53 | <jwalden> | referring to the list being sent to users automatically, not to MSFT-side updates occurring automatically |
| 05:53 | <jwalden> | but it's possible that's the wrong interpretation |
| 05:53 | <Hixie> | i agree with roc that i don't think they're doing it on purpose |
| 05:54 | <Hixie> | it's a strategy that only works with high and growing marketshare |
| 05:54 | <Hixie> | it's a strategy they would have used a few years ago -- i mean, it's straight out of their playbook |
| 05:54 | <Hixie> | but i don't think they're intentionally trying to use it this time |
| 05:54 | <Hixie> | they seem to honestly think that it's the best solution |
| 05:55 | <karlcow> | MikeSmith: a table with multiple tbody could be imagined as a 3D table. |
| 05:55 | <gsnedders> | Their problem is so much sniffs for IE and assumes it will always be broken, which sucks |
| 05:55 | <Hixie> | (in practice i think it's going to be a huge cost to them and web authors, and not hugely affect the other browser vendors) |
| 05:56 | <gsnedders> | I'm not sure whether it is really that huge of a cost. There is no absolute certainty that every version will be frozen. |
| 05:56 | <gsnedders> | I get the idea that half their issues with implementing the web platform is that Trident really fucking sucks and has no real design. |
| 05:57 | <gsnedders> | (I mean sucks from a design POV) |
| 06:00 | <roc> | they did a new layout engine so hopefully they fixed that on the layout side |
| 06:00 | <gsnedders> | Yeah, I've not seen bitching about that yet :) |
| 06:02 | <gsnedders> | (I can't find where it was, but I remember Chris Wilson saying something along the lines of HTML support (of things like a being a link) being in the actual parser (yuk) which was half the reason why they hadn't implemented XHTML yet) |
| 06:02 | <Hixie> | i don't really believe they "did a new layout engine", any more than gecko 1.x has a "new layout engine" compared to gecko 1.x-1 |
| 06:04 | <roc> | I do |
| 06:05 | <Hixie> | really? |
| 06:06 | <roc> | yeah |
| 06:06 | <Hixie> | why? |
| 06:06 | <roc> | various reasons |
| 06:06 | <roc> | like not a whole lot of bug compatibility with Trident |
| 06:06 | <roc> | a bunch of IE-isms implemented late in the cycle or not at all |
| 06:07 | <roc> | very slow performance in beta1 |
| 06:07 | <roc> | exactly what you'd expect if it was a new layout engine |
| 06:07 | <Hixie> | it seems to me what they did is rearchitect some stuff, just like when gecko changed rendering layer, or when reflow was rewritten, or whatever |
| 06:07 | <roc> | I guess it depends on what you mean by a "layout engine" |
| 06:07 | <Hixie> | i don't see the signs of a ground-up rewrite |
| 06:07 | <roc> | it looks like all layout and rendering was redone |
| 06:07 | <roc> | not so for DOM, parsing and JS |
| 06:08 | <Hixie> | i don't think it's like they did rm -rf layout/ and then created a new bunch of files from scratch |
| 06:08 | <Hixie> | i would buy that the code now is very different, sure |
| 06:08 | <roc> | I dunno |
| 06:09 | <roc> | there have been hints about importing low-level code from Word |
| 06:09 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Well, Windows isn't POSIX compliant out of the box, so why would they? :) |
| 06:09 | <gsnedders> | roc: You see Alex's talk at PDC? |
| 06:09 | <roc> | it's hard to know how much of what was changed, but I'm willing to grant "did a new layout engine" |
| 06:09 | <roc> | gsnedders: no |
| 06:09 | gsnedders | digs up link |
| 06:10 | <gsnedders> | http://channel9.msdn.com/pdc2008/PC12/ |
| 06:11 | <gsnedders> | There is some better link which doesn't need Silverlight… |
| 06:11 | <gsnedders> | Actually, there are the WMV/MP4 links there |
| 06:11 | <roc> | good, because I was going to say |
| 06:11 | <gsnedders> | Small and hidden, but there |
| 06:11 | <gsnedders> | He speaks about both the old and new layout engines, but mainly the new |
| 06:12 | <roc> | Saloni Mira Rai has gone off to do mobile Web services or something |
| 06:12 | <roc> | I wonder what that means |
| 06:13 | <gsnedders> | (Oh, it appears you have to hover over "Downloads" first) |
| 06:17 | <jwalden> | hm, 3.1 can't scroll that page for beans |
| 06:18 | <jwalden> | and silverlight seems to be eating cpu |
| 06:18 | <jwalden> | hey, 110% CPU! |
| 06:19 | <jwalden> | (this is while watching it) |
| 06:19 | <gsnedders> | jwalden: This is why you download it in a ISO -approved format and mask in the relaxation of your CPU |
| 06:19 | <gsnedders> | *bask |
| 06:19 | <jwalden> | quite possibly! |
| 06:20 | jwalden | has some affection for speaker+video near-simultaneously, tho |
| 06:20 | <gsnedders> | Anyhow, I need a break from this physics, having been doing it near continuously for 18 hours |
| 06:20 | <gsnedders> | (It's due in two days ago) |
| 06:21 | <jwalden> | "what happens in quirks mode stays in quirks mode" :-) |
| 06:22 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Oh, and on the subject of it becoming a huge cost, Alex talks about re-implementing quirks mode on top of the new layout engine |
| 06:23 | <Hixie> | yeah watching it now |
| 06:23 | gsnedders | can't really remember it overly clearly |
| 06:23 | Hixie | isn't sure he really agrees with alex's comments on quirks mode but anyway |
| 06:40 | <Hixie> | seems like what they rewrite was more like the equivalent of nsCSSFrameConstructor |
| 06:40 | <Hixie> | rewrote rather |
| 06:50 | <jwalden> | a formidable enough task |
| 06:50 | <jwalden> | that's been happening for what, eight or so years now? :-) |
| 06:52 | <jwalden> | wow, their frame tree dumps are actually XML in a versioned xmlns |
| 06:55 | <jwalden> | vertical text, interesting |
| 06:56 | nessy | apologizes for all bebo spam sent in my name today :( |
| 06:56 | jwalden | wants -ms-boustrophedon |
| 06:56 | <jwalden> | or -whichever-boustrophedon |
| 07:18 | <jwalden> | huh, aroben asking a question in the audience |
| 07:19 | <Hixie> | i'm amused that we're both watching the same video in sync |
| 07:20 | <jwalden> | I stopped "watching" actively at the 40m mark when they switched to q&a, but I'm still listening to it in the background |
| 07:20 | <Hixie> | ditto |
| 07:21 | <jwalden> | laying down a challenge about install base and compatibility :-) |
| 07:21 | Hixie | just got to the aroben question |
| 07:22 | <Hixie> | holy crap they actually do intend to have an IE9 mode |
| 07:23 | <jwalden> | ooh, a W3C participation request from IE :-D |
| 07:23 | <jwalden> | (of Safari developers) |
| 07:24 | <olliej> | Hixie: wow, who would have thought it |
| 07:27 | <roc> | supporting a mode for each released version, for all future versions, is just mad |
| 07:27 | <Hixie> | hear hear |
| 07:28 | <Hixie> | i do like the point where he describes the new layout engine as "a piece of sh... a piece of code that is shared" |
| 07:29 | <roc> | I think my summary of this over a year ago is still right. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2008/01/post_2.html |
| 07:32 | <jwalden> | dude, this guy's letting his mom still run IE6? is she really running WinME or something? :-) |
| 07:35 | <olliej> | roc: i agree whole heartedly |
| 07:36 | <olliej> | roc: once again i return to my earlier point of why we listen to MS "input" on standards when they clearly have no intention of following them |
| 07:37 | <roc> | I have to admit this one-engine-per-version strategy challenges my hypothesis that the IE architects are not really, really stupid |
| 07:38 | <roc> | Do MS people actually provide feedback on standards they have no intention of following? |
| 07:38 | <roc> | Seems to me they generally just ignore them |
| 07:40 | zcorpan | disables "XSS-filter" in ie8 to make the live dom viewer usable |
| 07:41 | <Hixie> | olliej: in all fairness, they provide very little input... |
| 07:42 | <olliej> | Hixie: hehe |
| 07:42 | <olliej> | Hixie: i remember they complained in general terms about xhr or cross domain stuff a lot |
| 07:42 | <Hixie> | oh well that was because they made up their own thing |
| 07:43 | <Hixie> | and they wanted the w3c to use it |
| 07:50 | <Hixie> | i wonder why they keep saying they don't have standalone IE builds |
| 07:50 | <Hixie> | they shipped one for the eolas patent issue once |
| 07:51 | <Hixie> | so it's obviously possible |
| 07:51 | <zcorpan> | "quirks mode is something that is really well-defined" (from the video) |
| 07:52 | <Hixie> | yeah i disagree with almost everything he said about quirks mode |
| 07:53 | <Hixie> | heh at the start alex says that they'll only ever have two rendering engines, so having it on mobile won't be hard |
| 07:53 | <Hixie> | later it's clarified that mobile won't have ie8, for, like, ever |
| 07:57 | <olliej> | Hixie: well that's okay, i was under the impression that ie mobile is not related to ie 6 or 7 |
| 07:58 | olliej | wonders where the old ie/mac fits in as well |
| 08:06 | <roc> | If they only have two engines, how are they going to support IE8 mode in IE9? |
| 08:07 | <zcorpan> | roc: same way they have both quirks and ie7 mode in "one engine"? |
| 08:07 | <Hixie> | same way we support quirks mode |
| 08:07 | <roc> | well |
| 08:07 | <roc> | that's a lower level of compatibility than IE7 mode in IE8 |
| 08:08 | <Hixie> | how so? |
| 08:08 | <Hixie> | so long as they don't rearchitect everything, and hide all new features behind version checks, which is basically what he said, it seems like they can continue hurting themselves forever |
| 08:08 | <roc> | when they fix bugs in the IE8-engine for IE9, do they treat each one as a quirk? |
| 08:09 | <Hixie> | apparently yes, that is what they do, except for bugs that nobody could rely on (e.g. crashers) |
| 08:09 | <Hixie> | (or e.g. the way that IE7's full zoom was useless, so in IE8's IE7 mode full zoom is like IE8 not like IE7) |
| 08:10 | <roc> | putting an if statement around every single bug fix is even less sustainable than adding engine forks |
| 08:10 | <zcorpan> | funny thing about the zoom: i filed a bug about the zoom in ie7 saying it was useless, but the bug was closed as "by design" saying that the way it worked was the way it was intended to work |
| 08:10 | <Hixie> | roc: oh, i'm ahead of you in the line of people telling them not to do this :-) |
| 08:11 | <roc> | and it's still less compatibility than forking code, because you will for sure accidentally break things that way |
| 08:11 | <Hixie> | yes, just look at IE7 mode in IE8 for an example of that |
| 08:12 | <zcorpan> | ie5.5, quirks mode in ie6, and quirks mode in ie7 are all slightly different but they are intended to be the same |
| 08:12 | <zcorpan> | (dunno if quirks mode in ie8 is different from ie7, it probably is) |
| 08:13 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: but i thought quirks mode was well defined! |
| 08:13 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: indeed :) |
| 08:56 | <zcorpan> | "i would really like to see safari representatives in the w3c more often" |
| 09:03 | <olliej> | zcorpan: ? |
| 09:03 | <olliej> | zcorpan: we talk periodically, many of us live in this channel |
| 09:03 | <zcorpan> | olliej: quote from the ms talk |
| 09:03 | <olliej> | zcorpan: i believe a lot of the app cache and worker stuff has a large amount of feedback from us |
| 09:04 | <olliej> | zcorpan: assholes |
| 09:04 | <olliej> | arrogant to the last |
| 09:04 | <Hixie> | i think he's saying that you should attend csswg f2fs more often |
| 09:04 | <olliej> | really? |
| 09:05 | <Hixie> | and the correct reply is "how about you send us more feedback on webapps, geolocation, html5, svg, etc?" |
| 09:05 | <annevk> | and maybe edit some specs :p |
| 09:05 | <olliej> | hmmm |
| 09:05 | <olliej> | oh well |
| 09:05 | <Philip`> | You should stop spending so much time writing awesome browsers |
| 09:05 | <olliej> | hometime |
| 09:05 | <annevk> | though actually dino is doing that now for a bunch of cool stuff |
| 09:06 | Hixie | isn't exactly a bastion of productivity in the csswg anymore either |
| 09:06 | <annevk> | with reason |
| 09:08 | <Hixie> | ok i'm going to play half-life 2 ep 2 some more. |
| 09:08 | <Hixie> | back later |
| 09:11 | Philip` | thinks this episodic gaming thing would seem like a better idea if it didn't take Valve 1.5 years to release each new episode |
| 09:17 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: re r2840, i think progress events expose information that's not possible to get in other ways |
| 09:17 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: we've crippled progress events cross-origin for that reason, iirc |
| 09:18 | <annevk> | we did |
| 09:19 | <roc> | got a link for that revision? |
| 09:19 | <zcorpan> | http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=2839&to=2840 |
| 09:22 | <roc> | ta |
| 09:23 | <roc> | annevk, zcorpan: so you cripple progress events on cross-origin loads of media resources? |
| 09:24 | <roc> | what about duration? |
| 09:25 | <annevk> | http://www.w3.org/2009/02/18-xhtml-minutes.html has some interesting bits |
| 09:26 | <annevk> | roc, we do nothing with duration as far as I know, I guess it's like <img>.width/height in a way, though maybe we should do something about it... |
| 09:27 | <roc> | I don't know if it's worth concealing the byte size of media elements if you're not going to conceal the duration |
| 09:27 | <roc> | seems like the duration is actually better information |
| 09:27 | <roc> | making sure you don't leak file sizes for media loads that turn out not to be valid media resources, sure |
| 09:27 | <annevk> | that last one is the main concern |
| 09:28 | <roc> | Chris Pearce just wrote some nice tests for that today, we seem to be clean |
| 09:28 | <roc> | do I want to know what XFrames is? |
| 09:29 | <zcorpan> | no |
| 09:29 | <zcorpan> | are the tests public? |
| 09:30 | <annevk> | roc, you might amuse yourself with it for a few minutes, but last I checked it does not actually solve any of the problems with normal frames so they are not that interesting |
| 09:30 | <roc> | zcorpan: of course, everything we do is public |
| 09:31 | <roc> | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478957 |
| 09:31 | <zcorpan> | thanks |
| 09:31 | <zcorpan> | "You are not authorized to access bug #478957." |
| 09:31 | <roc> | what's your bugzilla ID? |
| 09:31 | <zcorpan> | zcorpan⊙gc |
| 09:32 | <roc> | try again |
| 09:32 | <zcorpan> | works |
| 09:32 | <roc> | I authorized you :-) |
| 09:32 | <zcorpan> | doesn't seem too "public" though ;) |
| 09:33 | <roc> | fair enough, security-sensitive bugs aren't as public as the others :-) |
| 09:33 | <roc> | although we should just remove that since we don't know of any bugs to fix here |
| 09:36 | <roc> | you may find some of the existing tests here useful actually: |
| 09:36 | <roc> | http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/content/media/video/test/ |
| 09:37 | zcorpan | looks at the test and tries to understand it |
| 09:38 | <zcorpan> | so you don't send any events other than 'loadstart', 'error', 'emptied'? |
| 09:38 | <roc> | when a load fails because of origin check failure --- no |
| 09:40 | <annevk> | you enforce same origin? |
| 09:40 | <roc> | no, but we do prevent HTTP from loading files |
| 09:41 | <roc> | and we have code for same origin enforcement, it's just disabled, there for emergencies :-) |
| 09:41 | <roc> | I guess trying to load a non-media resource and failing isn't actually in this test |
| 09:41 | <roc> | maybe tomorrow |
| 09:41 | <roc> | sorry |
| 09:42 | <deltab> | annevk: not even bookmarkability? #frames(menu=foo.html,main=bar.html) |
| 09:43 | <roc> | does anyone actually use frames anymore? |
| 09:43 | <zcorpan> | hmm, what if you want both #frames() and #xpointer()? |
| 09:43 | <annevk> | deltab, there was talk of them taking that part out but I guess since nobody is doing any work that hasn't happened |
| 09:43 | <annevk> | deltab, or maybe plans changed |
| 09:43 | <deltab> | zcorpan: not sure why you'd want to |
| 09:44 | <zcorpan> | deltab: you may want to link to a specific section in a frame |
| 09:44 | <zcorpan> | instead of saying "go to www.example.com, click link foo and scroll down to section bar" |
| 09:45 | <annevk> | #frames(menu=html5elements.html,main=html5spec#the-address-element) |
| 09:45 | <zcorpan> | annevk: oh right |
| 09:46 | <annevk> | now that might violate the URI spec |
| 09:46 | <zcorpan> | maybe the second # should be %25 instead |
| 09:46 | <zcorpan> | er |
| 09:46 | <deltab> | yeah |
| 09:47 | <zcorpan> | %23 even |
| 09:47 | <deltab> | oops |
| 09:47 | annevk | enjoys this pointless discussion |
| 09:47 | <deltab> | so why would that be taken out? |
| 09:48 | zcorpan | looks at http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/accessible/src/html/nsHTMLTableAccessible.cpp#1029 |
| 09:50 | <roc> | wow, I've never seen that before |
| 09:50 | <zcorpan> | seems to have a check for empty summary |
| 09:51 | <annevk> | deltab, I guess because of the issues, but I'm not really sure to be honest |
| 09:51 | <annevk> | deltab, and also don't really care, we don't want frames anymore right? |
| 09:52 | <zcorpan> | not sure if i follow the role="" check -- what happens with <table role=presentation> in particular? |
| 09:52 | <deltab> | there are plenty of frames already out there on the web, and on intranets; it'd be nice to be able to link to them |
| 09:53 | <Philip`> | zcorpan: It handles empty summary the same as non-existent summary, so it's really just checking for a non-empty summary |
| 09:54 | <Philip`> | (so you can't say <table summary=""> to force the algorithm to treat it as a layout table) |
| 09:54 | <annevk> | deltab, if you wanna keep frames, you should argue for them; currently they're non-conforming |
| 09:54 | <zcorpan> | Philip`: right |
| 09:56 | <zcorpan> | ah, if a table has a nested table it must be a layout table |
| 09:56 | <zcorpan> | i guess that's generally true |
| 09:56 | <deltab> | I'm not arguing for frames (and don't really care about the frames/tabs/mdi part of xframes), but given that they already exist it would be useful to fix them |
| 09:59 | <deltab> | browsers have fixed the back button behaviour, but their internal state for what's loaded in each frame isn't expressible as a url |
| 10:00 | roc | wonders if he should tell these Web-app sound mixing people to use JS to mix the streams and build data:audio/wave URIs for the audio element |
| 10:01 | <Philip`> | roc: That would require a way to access the audio samples from JS |
| 10:01 | <roc> | just load them with XHR |
| 10:01 | <Philip`> | and since this is over a network you'd probably want to use compression |
| 10:01 | <roc> | gzip |
| 10:01 | <Philip`> | and writing a Vorbis decoder in JS is not my idea of fun |
| 10:02 | <zcorpan> | "<=4 columns and 100% width" -- hmm, so data tables usually aren't 100% wide? |
| 10:02 | <roc> | actually |
| 10:02 | <Philip`> | gzip is pretty rubbish at audio |
| 10:02 | <roc> | http://barelyfocused.net/blog/2008/10/03/flash-vorbis-player/ |
| 10:03 | <annevk> | deltab, many things exist that aren't really worth fixing; some are (e.g. HTML), but I'm not sure frames is one of them |
| 10:07 | <Philip`> | 128kb/s Ogg: 2MB |
| 10:07 | <Philip`> | Equivalent .wav: 24MB |
| 10:07 | <Philip`> | Equivalent .wav.gz: 21MB |
| 10:07 | <Philip`> | So gzip is indeed not great |
| 10:08 | <roc> | sorry, I was joking about gzip |
| 10:08 | <roc> | I'm joking about writing a synthesizer using data: URIs as well |
| 10:08 | <Philip`> | roc: The problem with that Flash Vorbis player is that it's clearly an insane idea |
| 10:08 | <roc> | although I'm sure someone will do it anyway, just like they wrote graphics APIs using <img src="data:..."> |
| 10:09 | <Philip`> | Hmm, apparently it's written in haXe, and haXe can target Javascript... |
| 10:10 | Philip` | wonders if that actually works in practice, or if it's like the Perl-6-targetted-to-Javascript idea that produced 2MB of script code for 'hello world' a few years ago |
| 10:11 | <Hixie> | to be fair it probably also produced 2MB for a small 3d first-person-shooter |
| 10:11 | <Philip`> | Actually it just crashed for anything more complex |
| 10:13 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 10:13 | Philip` | was quite pleased when he managed to write some sorting algorithms in Perl 6 that ran correctly in Pugs, though his algorithms lecturer wasn't too happy at having it submitted for the relevant practical exercise |
| 10:13 | <roc> | Philip`: there are some performance numbers there that are quite good |
| 10:14 | <Hixie> | perl6 is simultaneously the most frightening and the most aweinspiring language i've yet seen |
| 10:15 | <Hixie> | i'm curious to find out if it'll be Ready before HTML5 is or not |
| 10:19 | <annevk> | with two interoperable implementations and all? :) |
| 10:21 | <Philip`> | http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/misc/psort.p6 - it's not that unreadable really |
| 10:22 | <Philip`> | I like the ¥ operator |
| 10:22 | <Philip`> | http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/misc/sort.bef was my other attempt at a sorting algorithm, with extensive documentation |
| 10:29 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: if writing an Vorbis decoder in JS is not your kind of fun, how about writing it in Java and compiling it into JS with GWT? |
| 10:32 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: re css, css2.1 vs css3 is a bad example because 2.1's editor's draft is more up to date than 3's editor's drafts |
| 10:32 | <hsivonen> | hmm. if http://www.w3.org/2009/02/18-xhtml-minutes.html was minuted correctly, it seems that Steven missed my point about writing non-browser apps with XML APIs |
| 10:32 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: it wasn't an example. it was a question that might turn into an example depending on the answer |
| 10:33 | <Hixie> | ok, s/a bad example/an unusual case/ |
| 10:36 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Based on my current (approximately zero) knowledge of GWT, I would expect the added layer of abstraction would be unacceptable from a performance and performance-tuning perspective |
| 10:36 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: the marketing claims say the opposite |
| 10:38 | <doublec> | someone sent me a vorbis decoder written in actionscript |
| 10:38 | <doublec> | it wouldn't take much to convert to JS |
| 10:38 | <annevk> | http://www.whatwg.org/issues/data.html sure is making a dive |
| 10:39 | <Hixie> | i have no idea how i'm going to reply to 500 e-mails in the next 5 weeks |
| 10:39 | <Hixie> | not because it wouldn't be possible |
| 10:39 | <Hixie> | it would be easy to do so |
| 10:39 | <annevk> | triple digits even |
| 10:40 | <Hixie> | but because i don't have 500 e-mails left to reply to that i haven't scheduled for dealing with after march... |
| 10:40 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Even if the compiler produces fast JS code, it probably won't produce the fastest JS code that you could write by hand, and the compiler probably prevents you from writing Java code that will be transformed into that optimal JS code |
| 10:40 | <Philip`> | Hixie: Make some really controversial change to the spec that generates hundreds of messages of discussion, and then change the spec back and reply to all the emails saying "Okay, I've changed it back now" |
| 10:40 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: it allows you to escape to JS when needed |
| 10:40 | <Hixie> | (i want to do 500 e-mails because i set myself a goal of reaching 600 e-mails by end of march) |
| 10:41 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: In that case you might as well just write the entire thing in JS :-) |
| 10:41 | <Hixie> | (and we're at ~1100 not) |
| 10:41 | <Hixie> | now |
| 10:41 | <Hixie> | Philip`: such e-mails unfortunately don't count towards the 500 :-) |
| 10:42 | <annevk> | hmm, lots of folders are gone |
| 10:43 | <annevk> | is that why you're working on XXX stuff instead? |
| 10:43 | <hendry> | gsnedders: about your T stuff in time, if you're there |
| 10:43 | <Hixie> | annevk: i also planned to get the XXX stuff down to 250 XXXs by the end of march |
| 10:46 | <jgraham> | Philip`: Python+PyPy => js ;) |
| 10:47 | <Philip`> | jgraham: Does PyPy exist and work? |
| 10:47 | <annevk> | Hixie, test suite then :p |
| 10:47 | <Hixie> | hm? |
| 10:47 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: For simple things it is always worth checking error calculations using something like error(y(x)) = (y(x+error(x)) - y(x-error(x)))/2. |
| 10:47 | <Hixie> | i have plenty of XXXs! |
| 10:47 | <Lachy> | Hixie, shouldn't your goals be based on getting things done in the spec, rather than the number of emails you need to respond to? |
| 10:47 | <Hixie> | and plenty of e-mails |
| 10:48 | <Philip`> | (I only remember hearing of PyPy as a concept and a project that some people were hacking on, rather than as an actual thing that could actually be used) |
| 10:48 | <jgraham> | Of course you need to work out what effect each parameter has on the result and choose the right sign |
| 10:48 | <Hixie> | Lachy: i also have goals regarding that |
| 10:48 | <Hixie> | Lachy: though they're much harder to meet and depend on other people (e.g. taking out sections into ietf land) |
| 10:49 | <jgraham> | Philip`: http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/#status I doubt the js backend is very good though |
| 10:49 | <jgraham> | Indeed it doesn't even appear on the compatibility matrix |
| 10:50 | <jgraham> | http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/js/using.html |
| 11:13 | <annevk> | I wish we'd do more to fight charset proliferation, but maybe HTML5 is the wrong level |
| 11:13 | <Hixie> | are new charsets still being created? |
| 11:14 | <annevk> | I was more thinking along the lines of having a fixed list of charsets user agents must support and everything outside that must not be supported |
| 11:16 | <annevk> | And I would also love it if iso88591 and equivalent encodings were just obsoleted in favor of the ones they are aliased too |
| 11:17 | <annevk> | so that there's consistent handling of charsets across all specs |
| 11:18 | <zcorpan> | "Any byte or sequences of bytes in the original byte stream that is misinterpreted for compatibility is a parse error." -- hmm, it wasn't a parse error before, was it? |
| 11:20 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: it was |
| 11:20 | <jgraham> | Really? |
| 11:20 | <Hixie> | see the diff |
| 11:21 | <Hixie> | i didn't change anything, i just moved the text around a bit |
| 11:21 | <annevk> | so l--()1 is mapped to windows1252? |
| 11:21 | <zcorpan> | Any |
| 11:21 | <zcorpan> | - bytes that are treated differently due to this encoding aliasing |
| 11:21 | <zcorpan> | - must be considered <a href=#parse-error title="parse error">parse |
| 11:21 | <zcorpan> | - errors</a>.</p> |
| 11:22 | <Hixie> | annevk: ? |
| 11:22 | <annevk> | l1 is an alias for iso88591 |
| 11:22 | <jgraham> | So you are expected to implemet a table of all the byte sequences that are interpreted differently in different aliased encodings and report a parse error for each one |
| 11:22 | <Hixie> | annevk: good times. |
| 11:22 | <annevk> | why are alias names not must? |
| 11:23 | <Hixie> | annevk: i wondered the same thing when i just did that edit, actually |
| 11:23 | <Hixie> | jgraham: if you're a conformance checker, yes |
| 11:24 | <jgraham> | Hixie: Or, hpothetically, a library that reports syntax-level errors |
| 11:24 | <annevk> | it seems IANA and Unicode are also not quite aligned as some alias names are already considered identical per Unicode matching rules |
| 11:24 | <jgraham> | s/hp/hyp/ |
| 11:24 | <hsivonen> | argh. public-html is back to generating copious amounts of email per day :-( |
| 11:24 | <Hixie> | jgraham: "library" is not a conformance class |
| 11:24 | <jgraham> | Hixie: Well that gives me a problem then |
| 11:25 | <Hixie> | jgraham: a library can't be a conformance class, it doesn't do anything on its own, and so can't be tested. |
| 11:25 | jgraham | has smaller ambitions than annevk; I would settle for the status quo in encodings if only the versioning discussion would stop |
| 11:26 | <jgraham> | Hixie: Well "generic library" can't be a conformance class. But "parser library" could be. |
| 11:26 | <Hixie> | i don't understand why the versioning discussion is continuing. i tried to ignore it, then i made the mistake of trying to show why it was mistaken, and now i can't extricate myself. |
| 11:27 | <annevk> | hsivonen, copious ignorable amounts |
| 11:27 | <Hixie> | jgraham: we could indeed have a "parser library" conformance class, but i don't think you want us to define the interface you have to implement. :-) |
| 11:27 | Philip` | thinks "code that you can run a common set of tests against" is a more useful concept than "conformance class" |
| 11:27 | <Hixie> | jgraham: also, different parser libraries might have different requirements, e.g. some might care about parse errors, others might not |
| 11:28 | <annevk> | Hixie, fortunately I no longer feel compelled to end every thread I end up contributing to in some way :) |
| 11:28 | <Hixie> | annevk: heh |
| 11:29 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: Re: "The whole point of the language is the interpretation part": not if your world view of languages is the view of the kind of theoretical computer scientist to whom a language is a set of strings |
| 11:29 | <jgraham> | Hixie: Agreed about the parse errors. It seems like there should be a way to specify even-blacker-box conformance requirements for a parser library that basically say it must return things that represent the same structure as the DOM tree built in the parsing section |
| 11:30 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: i.e. if you think on the level of regular, context-free, etc. |
| 11:30 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: luckily, theoretical people aren't real, so i don't have to worry about them |
| 11:30 | Hixie | ducks |
| 11:31 | hsivonen | has met theoretical computer scientists |
| 11:31 | Hixie | was making an english ambiguous scoping joke |
| 11:32 | hsivonen | sees that |
| 11:32 | jgraham | wasn't fast enough to follow it up |
| 11:32 | annevk | falls asleep |
| 11:32 | <zcorpan> | English needs namespaces so words can be disambiguated inline |
| 11:32 | <Hixie> | jgraham: i think it's more useful to be able to say that the parser allows one to write a conforming data mining tool (or whatever) than to say that the library itself is conforming... |
| 11:32 | <Hixie> | jgraham: but i see why you would like the latter |
| 11:32 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: first, it needs parentheses |
| 11:33 | <Hixie> | jgraham: my fear is that defining a "foo library" conformance class (foo = text/html parser here) would have various unfortunate ramifications |
| 11:34 | <hsivonen> | Hixie, jgraham: I encourage you to consider ramifications especially in the light of the recent public-rdfa thread |
| 11:34 | <hsivonen> | and the ramifications feeding back into browsers, etc. |
| 11:34 | <Hixie> | jgraham: including at least: the likelihood of multiple other "foo"s being desired (e.g. table, outline), and the likelihood that for any "foo" there are a variety of libraries that actually cover slightly less and more than "foo" |
| 11:34 | jgraham | isn't sure how to use parentheses to disambiguate Hixie's sentence |
| 11:35 | <jgraham> | Earlier computer scientist sentence |
| 11:35 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: it was hsivonen's sentence |
| 11:35 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: you need a close paren before -ist |
| 11:35 | <Hixie> | jgraham: e.g. if you wanted to make html5lib also have a networking backend |
| 11:35 | <annevk> | has anyone noticed the insane amount of tweets containing the word "html5"? |
| 11:35 | <annevk> | there's like >200 a day now |
| 11:35 | <annevk> | wtf |
| 11:35 | <Hixie> | jgraham: or wanted it to include constructing tables |
| 11:35 | <Hixie> | jgraham: etc |
| 11:35 | <Philip`> | "theoretical computer scientists (i.e. practitioners of theoretical computer science)" - there you go |
| 11:36 | <Hixie> | annevk: MCW (sp?) was this week, and google announced a bunch of html5-based apps for mobile phones there |
| 11:36 | <annevk> | k |
| 11:37 | <jgraham> | Hixie: Well clearly the solution is m18n; one defines a conformance class for each atom of the spec that it makes sense to implement independently and allow people to say that they are a conforming HTML 5 (Parsing Tables) implementation. Note this is not a serious suggestion :) |
| 11:39 | <Hixie> | i assume you mean m12n :-P |
| 11:39 | Philip` | works with largely-theoretical computer scientists who are using the term 'language' for a mathematical representation of some algebraic stuff, and the whole idea of strings and syntax is irrelevant and just shunted off to Yacc |
| 11:39 | <jgraham> | mXYn where X, Y are random decimal digits |
| 11:39 | <hsivonen> | is karlcow seriously proposing triples as a vehicleof prose in www-archive? |
| 11:40 | <annevk> | h35 and then HTML35 would be h45 at which point things start getting confusing |
| 11:41 | <virtuelv> | switch html to the ubuntu versioning scheme |
| 11:41 | <virtuelv> | and ship a new spec every six months :D |
| 11:42 | <hsivonen> | virtuelv: or use only LTS releases and skip the whole XHTML thing :-) |
| 11:42 | <Philip`> | HTML, ITML, JTML, ... - sounds good to me |
| 11:44 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: No. I think he is trying to say that you can make up many different serializations of HTML |
| 11:44 | <jgraham> | I don't really understand though |
| 11:44 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: but different serializations don't demonstrate DOMlessness |
| 11:44 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Like I said, I don't really understand. |
| 11:46 | <Philip`> | Maybe he's saying you can make up many different serialisations that don't map onto a tree model, and hence the DOM is an inappropriate abstraction |
| 11:47 | <Philip`> | like an RDF-triple serialisation maps onto a graph not a tree, and "Key: Value" maps onto a list of pairs |
| 11:47 | <Philip`> | or something like that |
| 11:48 | <jgraham> | But all HTML documents do map onto trees |
| 11:49 | <jgraham> | In any case it seems to be related to browsing contexts so now I understand even less because serializations have nothing to do with browsing contexts |
| 11:50 | <Philip`> | They currently do, but someone might invent a new system where they don't, and they wouldn't be able to reuse much of the HTML5 spec even if they've got equivalent functionality because HTML5 is defined in terms of the tree model |
| 11:50 | <Philip`> | or, uh, something like that - I don't understand what he's saying either |
| 11:51 | <annevk> | I think he's saying that authors perceive HTML as markup, not as a tree or object structure |
| 11:52 | <annevk> | i.e. HTML is a string of text that can be styled using CSS |
| 11:53 | <jgraham> | That is maybe kind of true but it seems like an unsustainable mental model |
| 11:55 | annevk | finds http://www.visitmix.com/Opinions/Web-Standards-Gone-Wild |
| 11:55 | <gsnedders> | annevk: I linked that last night, jackass :P |
| 11:56 | <annevk> | go play outside :p |
| 11:56 | <Philip`> | It's a mental model that might have worked when you just used the string <H1>...</H1> for headings and the string <BR> for line breaks, but it breaks down when you use nested tables or nested divs |
| 11:56 | <Philip`> | (which everyone does nowadays) |
| 11:57 | <annevk> | i don't |
| 11:57 | <gsnedders> | from digg: <http://www.neatorama.com/2009/02/18/a-224-word-palindrome/>; |
| 11:57 | <annevk> | admittedly i do grasp nowadays that markup is turned into an object model by browsers |
| 11:57 | <Philip`> | annevk: Well, okay, but I think you understand that HTML is a tree anyway :-) |
| 11:59 | <jgraham> | Philip`: Or CSS. You can't use much CSS without understanding the treeiness |
| 12:00 | <roc> | Hixie: if you're looking for work, you could reply to the outstanding video/audio feedback while we still have a chance to do something about it |
| 12:01 | <Hixie> | roc: i have that pencilled in for april, but i can definitely move it forward if that would help |
| 12:02 | <Philip`> | jgraham: You can use quite a bit, e.g. <style>h1 { font-color: red }</style> makes all the "<h1>...</h1>" strings red and you don't have to know anything about trees |
| 12:03 | <jgraham> | Philip`: But simple element or attribute selectors are all you can use |
| 12:03 | <Philip`> | I suppose you could even think that the <div class=a> tag switches on the .a style, and </div> switches off the most recent style, and you don't have to realise there's actually a tree model hidden in there |
| 12:03 | <Philip`> | jgraham: Simple element and attribute selectors are all that most people use, so that's okay |
| 12:04 | <roc> | gsnedders: I think this one is better. A palindrome with a sex scene. http://www.spinelessbooks.com/2002/palindrome/index.html |
| 12:04 | <Philip`> | (The 'switch on/off' model is sometimes even better than the tree model, because it describes <b>...<i>...</b>...</i>) |
| 12:05 | <jgraham> | What fraction of pages don't have any descendant / child / other tree model selectors but do use CSS? |
| 12:05 | Philip` | likes http://www.evl.uic.edu/swami/crabcanon as a kind of higher-level palindrome |
| 12:06 | <zcorpan> | "Dan was editor of the original HTML 1.0 specification" - was he? |
| 12:06 | <Philip`> | jgraham: I would assume it's a lot, because http://triin.net/archive/kool/webstat/figure-30.png says most pages don't use descendant selectors |
| 12:07 | <zcorpan> | (from http://www.visitmix.com/Opinions/Web-Standards-Gone-Wild ) |
| 12:07 | <Philip`> | zcorpan: It links to http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt which says he was |
| 12:11 | <jgraham> | The idea that specs are good iff they can be entirely implemented by a large number of "enthusiastic amatuer"s seems misguided |
| 12:13 | <jgraham> | Although html5lib is an example of part of HTML5 being implemented just like that |
| 12:13 | <Hixie> | given that entire OSes have been written by "a large number of "enthusiastic amatuer"s", i don't think that really narrows the scope down much |
| 12:14 | <annevk> | the main thing that bugs me is that he doesn't take into account that the Web became more complex as well |
| 12:14 | <annevk> | things grow |
| 12:14 | Philip` | sees Hixie's most recent blog post, and notes that he hates being a pedestrian when cyclists coming towards him have very bright lights, because it totally disorients him and he has to just stop and stand still and hope the cyclist moves around him |
| 12:14 | <annevk> | (a thing that only slightly bugs me is his XHTML 1.0 remark, which MS does not support and XHTML 1.0 actually depends on HTML 4.01 for all of its semantics) |
| 12:15 | <Hixie> | Philip`: i turn off my light when somone is coming the other way |
| 12:15 | <zcorpan> | Philip`: ah, for some reason i thought it was just tim in the beginning |
| 12:15 | <Philip`> | Hixie: That might be even worse because their eyes will have adjusted to the brightness of the light just before you turned it off, and then you'll be entirely invisible :-) |
| 12:16 | <Hixie> | Philip`: (leaving only my backup light, which is on the dimmest setting) |
| 12:16 | <Hixie> | zc html 1.0 != the first html |
| 12:19 | <jgraham> | Hixie: Frankly around Cambridge (and, I think Linköping too), getting the cyclists to have any light at all would be an improvement. Hell, getting them to not dress all in black and be drunk would be an improvement in many cases |
| 12:20 | <annevk> | if you're a proper cyclist you would not be in trouble regardless :) |
| 12:20 | <annevk> | you might need to be born in the Netherlands for that though, dunno |
| 12:21 | <jgraham> | annevk: In what sense in trouble? |
| 12:22 | <annevk> | bright lights, lack of light, drukness, etc. |
| 12:23 | annevk | is partially kidding |
| 12:33 | <annevk> | we're on BBC now: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7897931.stm |
| 12:33 | <annevk> | (might have been before, but it's new to me) |
| 12:33 | <annevk> | (and yes, it's not exactly the primary focus) |
| 12:35 | <jgraham> | Wow that article was a non-story |
| 12:35 | <jgraham> | Security researcher says "insecure websites are bad" |
| 12:37 | <Hixie> | jgraham: heh |
| 12:37 | Hixie | comments on the visitmix blog post |
| 12:37 | <Hixie> | bed time now |
| 12:37 | <Hixie> | nn |
| 12:41 | <jcranmer> | jgraham: so, obviously, browsers must complain up the wazoo any time you visit a non-secure website |
| 12:42 | <jcranmer> | "Please click five times to be able to load this insecure website. Actually, make that six, since unsigned is obviously less secure than self-signed, so it should take more clicks...." |
| 12:53 | <annevk> | just having new EventSource() is somewhat appealing though I wonder why we'd keep it at all given Web Sockets |
| 12:54 | <annevk> | I guess it's simpler |
| 12:54 | <annevk> | and since it's format driven you could create cool extensions and such |
| 13:36 | <jgraham> | Is there a reason html5 doesn't allow details as a child of caption? |
| 13:37 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: same reason it doesn't allow <div> in <h1> |
| 13:37 | <jgraham> | Which is? |
| 13:38 | <zcorpan> | because it doesn't make sense? i'm not sure |
| 13:38 | <jgraham> | caption > details seems like a nice way to make tables that have a longer summary for those who need it without having really hidden metadata or restricting it to people that use screenreaders |
| 13:39 | <jgraham> | I guess authors might not go for it but I can't think of any way of reconciling "visible" with "authors will go with it" |
| 13:40 | <annevk> | rubys, I suppose I'm a bit critical, but I was mostly saying that a new format was not needed |
| 13:40 | <jgraham> | (it also parses OK in Presto / Gecko / HTML5) |
| 13:41 | <pesla> | Thats not funny, i get highlighted on ' |
| 13:41 | <pesla> | critical |
| 13:41 | <pesla> | :P |
| 13:42 | <Philip`> | jgraham: How do you make it have sensible styling and functionality in legacy and future UAs? |
| 13:43 | <jgraham> | Philip`: First you convince Hixie that <legend> is a really bad idea. Then you make a js script to implement enough of <details>. Then you ignore ny cases you didn't already cover |
| 13:43 | jgraham | wonders why all his virtual desktops got shifted one left |
| 13:44 | <taf2> | hey, i'm using the html5 blob and would like a way to save a reference to that blob in a storage db... say i write a file uploader... and want to save the upload incase of error to resume it |
| 13:44 | <taf2> | otherwise i need to prompt the user to select the same file again on errors to recover, if they left the page |
| 13:44 | <rubys> | annevk: go for it! |
| 13:45 | <rubys> | produce a RSS5. I dare you. I double dare you. |
| 13:46 | <Philip`> | jgraham: That sounds like an awful lot of complexity, just to emulate the functionality that already works with a simple attribute |
| 13:47 | <zcorpan> | would RSS5 define error handling for Atom? |
| 13:47 | <jgraham> | Philip`: Well "already works" has been debated. |
| 13:48 | <taf2> | anyone fimilar with the blob api... if there could be an id and away of loading the blob by id later |
| 13:48 | <taf2> | then that id could be stored in a sql store and recovered later |
| 13:48 | <annevk> | rubys, if it was not for these other fish I'm trying to fry, maybe |
| 13:48 | <rubys> | :-) |
| 13:48 | <taf2> | maybe a getBlobById method? and that would require user permissions? |
| 13:49 | <rubys> | If you actually had spare time, I personally would much rather see an XML5 |
| 13:49 | <annevk> | taf2, HTML5 does not have blobs |
| 13:49 | <annevk> | taf2, in fact, WHATWG has no draft that defines blobs |
| 13:49 | <taf2> | annevk, oh... i thought this was related: http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_blob.html |
| 13:50 | <annevk> | Gears != HTML5, despite what marketing departments tell you ;) |
| 13:50 | <taf2> | apologies if it is not... |
| 13:50 | <zcorpan> | rubys: yeah, with default entities so that we can stop caring about the xhtml2 wg minting new doctypes |
| 13:50 | <annevk> | a blob API might be specified at some point by the W3C, but the details are a bit unclear at this point, taf2 |
| 13:51 | <annevk> | XML5 is pretty much done, but there's no buy-in |
| 13:52 | <annevk> | just a lot of buzz |
| 13:52 | <rubys> | done? as in an implementation that works? |
| 13:52 | <annevk> | there's a Python implementation |
| 13:53 | <annevk> | from which some sort of spec has been generated as well |
| 13:53 | <rubys> | that's not just a prototype, but something that you consider as something that might be useful? |
| 13:53 | <annevk> | missing details are attribute value normalization, character encoding sniffing, and >5 predefined entities iirc |
| 13:53 | <Philip`> | Has it been advertised at all, or mentioned anywhere other than a few posts on your blog? |
| 13:54 | <taf2> | annevk, ah okay, so this isn't the right place to discuss a possible blob api? i guess what i'm finding is if a blob api does come about... it would be nice i it include some method of identifying itself and retrieving it... using the existing storage apis... |
| 13:54 | <annevk> | rubys, if someone packages it it's pretty much like html5lib with a few missing bits |
| 13:54 | <annevk> | taf2, best place would be public-webapps⊙wo |
| 13:54 | <taf2> | annevk, thanks |
| 13:54 | <rubys> | python would make entities easy (it has a builtin function for this), and chardet could address sniffing |
| 13:55 | <annevk> | I mostly meant <?xml ... ?> |
| 13:55 | <rubys> | attribute value normalization, xml style, sucks |
| 13:55 | <annevk> | apparently infinite whitespace is allowed... |
| 13:55 | <annevk> | agreed |
| 13:55 | <Philip`> | annevk: You should sneakily add the XML5 code into html5lib, so it can gain widespread deployment before anyone even knows they should care about it |
| 13:55 | <annevk> | it would sort of break the design principles if that was changed |
| 13:55 | <rubys> | i'll put it on my list of things to look at, which unfortunately is also too long |
| 13:56 | <rubys> | Philip`: +1 |
| 13:56 | <rubys> | I put a "liberal xml parser" in there, but would love to see it replaced with xml5. |
| 13:57 | jgraham | is more than happy with anything that replaces the lxp and is maintained |
| 13:58 | <jgraham> | Or at least keeps passing tests |
| 13:58 | <rubys> | feel free to rip out lxp |
| 13:58 | <jgraham> | Woo |
| 14:58 | <annevk> | so I looked at the charset registry, http://www.iana.org/assignments/charset-reg/TSCII was added in 2007 |
| 15:00 | <Philip`> | "The TSCII scheme was collectively worked out through Net-based discussions in 1998." |
| 15:00 | <Philip`> | Maybe only the registration is new? |
| 15:01 | <annevk> | I suppose |
| 15:01 | <jgraham> | Seems to be unicode incompatible and motivated by having special codepoints for something not unlike ligatures |
| 15:02 | <annevk> | Unicode does not have the TAMIL character? |
| 15:02 | <annevk> | s* |
| 15:04 | <jgraham> | Doesn't have constant-vowel combinations as single codepoints |
| 15:05 | <jgraham> | So there isn't a 1:1 mapping between TSCII and Unicode |
| 15:06 | <Philip`> | (I don't think there's a 1:1 mapping between Unicode and anything except itself) |
| 15:07 | <annevk> | yeah, that seems like a weird definition of compatible to me |
| 15:07 | <jgraham> | Does unicode not have a 1:1 mapping with ascii? |
| 15:07 | <annevk> | Unicode is not an encoding |
| 15:08 | <annevk> | UTF-8 has a superset relation to US-ASCII if that's what you mean |
| 15:08 | <Philip`> | jgraham: A 1:1 mapping between ASCII and Unicode would mean that every Unicode character could be mapped uniquely onto one ASCII character |
| 15:08 | <Philip`> | which isn't true because there's not nearly enough space |
| 15:09 | <jgraham> | OK, I meant a 1:1 mapping between ascii and unicode |
| 15:09 | <jgraham> | i.e. what annevk said |
| 15:10 | <annevk> | (that's not what I said :) ) |
| 15:10 | Philip` | is confused as to who's talking about bytes and who's talking about characters, and who's talking about bijections and who's talking about injections :-) |
| 15:11 | jgraham | thinks a 1:1 mapping between a and b implies that for all items in a there exists a single item in b. It does not imply the reverse |
| 15:11 | <jgraham> | But maybe that is an abuse of English |
| 15:11 | <Philip`> | Wikipedia talks about "one-to-one function" (injection) vs "one-to-one correspondence" (bijection) |
| 15:11 | <Philip`> | so the term "one-to-one" is ambiguous |
| 15:13 | <jgraham> | OK, so what I apparently meant to say is that there is not an injection between TSCII and Unicode |
| 15:13 | <jgraham> | But I doubt that would have made me more clear |
| 15:13 | <Philip`> | Probably not :-) |
| 15:14 | <annevk> | but you can map all of it to Unicode? |
| 15:14 | <Philip`> | I assume the point is that there exists a single-code-unit character in TSCII which requires multiple code units in Unicode |
| 15:14 | <jgraham> | annevk: Yes, but sometimes a single codepoint becomes multiple codepoints |
| 15:14 | <Philip`> | Uh, "code unit" is probably the wrong term |
| 15:14 | <jgraham> | http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn15/Tscii2Unicode2.pdf |
| 15:21 | Philip` | wonders what the limit is for the number of distinct XML parsers you can use in a piece of software while retaining your sanity |
| 15:26 | <annevk> | |
| 15:28 | <Philip`> | annevk: That is sadly incompatible with the requirement to process XML data files |
| 15:31 | <zcorpan> | can't you process xml data files without an xml parser? |
| 15:32 | <Philip`> | Not without the new solution being far worse than using an XML parser |
| 15:36 | Philip` | 's current plan involves processing the same file with Xerces, libxml2 and E4X in different parts of the program |
| 16:11 | <annevk> | http://twitter.com/joshkim/statuses/1227092684 ? |
| 16:12 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: opera 10 joins "Moz & Safari" in your doctype table |
| 16:12 | <Philip`> | annevk: Seems like the obvious answer is "no" |
| 16:13 | <jgraham> | annevk: That's basically how adoption works. Although I wonder who was using XHTML2. I suspect no one but it was percieved that XHTML2 would happen eventually, now people are using HTML5 because it seems to be here now |
| 16:14 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: also, the statement about ie5 in the nutshell is getting a bit dated - no-one has cared about ie5 for quite some time now |
| 19:22 | <gsnedders> | Is there anyway to check whether a compressed HTTP response is conforming and can be decompressed? |
| 19:24 | <hendry> | gsnedders: `man curl` sez --compressed |
| 19:25 | <gsnedders> | hendry: Damnit. That means my code is broken. I don't like cURL anymore :P |
| 19:55 | <annevk> | oh geez |
| 19:55 | <annevk> | www-style is discussing localizing property names |
| 19:55 | <annevk> | where's markp to throw people of bridges |
| 19:58 | <Philip`> | I think you mean "localising" |
| 20:02 | <Philip`> | Yikes - I saw that thread this morning when it had half a dozen posts, including Adam Twardoch pointing out the absurdity of it |
| 20:02 | <Philip`> | I didn't imagine it would grow another thirty messages with people taking it seriously |
| 20:05 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: so it's clear: www-style is the problem we need to solve ;-) |
| 20:28 | <rubys> | annevk: s/of bridges/off bridges/ |
| 20:29 | <virtuelv> | annevk: you read my twit, obviously |
| 20:29 | <virtuelv> | the only people who are to be thrown off bridges work in insurance |
| 20:30 | <virtuelv> | s/people/things/ |
| 20:30 | <virtuelv> | </rant> |
| 20:35 | <Dashiva> | Write your CSS in linear b and no one will steal it |
| 20:43 | <annevk> | thanks rubys |
| 20:44 | <annevk> | virtuelv, no, it's a referene to a post from 2004 from markp |
| 20:49 | <Dashiva> | That one about unicode? |
| 21:00 | <virtuelv> | this one? http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/07/06/nfc |
| 21:15 | <gsnedders> | hmm… |
| 21:15 | <gsnedders> | with gnuplot I'm having xtics overlap |
| 21:20 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Use less xtics? |
| 21:21 | <gsnedders> | :P |
| 21:56 | <sayrer> | Hixie, does your latest message to m.d.platform equate consensus with unanimity? |
| 21:58 | <Lachy> | JohnResig, yt? |
| 22:00 | <JohnResig> | Lachy: hey, yep |
| 22:02 | <Lachy> | JohnResig, if you've got time, can you update your selectors api tests to test for the new expected handling of null and undefined values? |
| 22:03 | <Lachy> | see my latest mail on public-webapps about it |
| 22:04 | <Lachy> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0496.html |
| 22:05 | <JohnResig> | Lachy: so the result will be: No exception through, no elements found (since none are named null or undefined) |
| 22:06 | <Hixie> | sayrer: it's unclear what kind of consensus is intended in the w3c, hence why i covered both options (unanimous agreemment and majority agreement) |
| 22:06 | <Lachy> | yeah, and since they become the strings "null" and "undefined", they should match any <null> and <undefined> elements within the document |
| 22:07 | <sayrer> | Hixie, ok I understand now |
| 22:07 | <Lachy> | the tests I've created for this do createElement("null") and add it to the document, and similarly for undefined, to test that |
| 22:09 | <sayrer> | Hixie, W3C consensus is not in the process document |
| 22:09 | <sayrer> | er, is in the document |
| 22:09 | <sayrer> | it's not unanimity |
| 22:09 | <Hixie> | the process document is unfortunately mostly a piece of fiction in practice |
| 22:09 | <sayrer> | Where unanimity is not possible, a group SHOULD strive to make consensus decisions |
| 22:09 | <Hixie> | well, that may be a bit harsh |
| 22:10 | <Hixie> | but my point is that the w3c doesn't always do what the process says it does |
| 22:10 | <Hixie> | and it's not clear to me what sam wants to do |
| 22:10 | <Hixie> | which is mostly what matters here |
| 22:10 | <sayrer> | I think I disagree, actually |
| 22:11 | <sayrer> | the tricky, unstated, part about consensus based processes is that some people's opinions count more than others |
| 22:12 | <Hixie> | in my experience at the w3c, that is not considered to be the case |
| 22:13 | <sayrer> | it is rarely admitted |
| 22:13 | <Hixie> | no i mean in practice it is not the case in my experience at w3c |
| 22:13 | <Hixie> | i've seen people who have no software, no deployed site, no users, and who rarely use the sites that a feature might be aimed for completely block a feature |
| 22:14 | <sayrer> | my experience working with Sam leads me to believe that will not be a concern here, but I agree that bad management can sink anything |
| 22:14 | <Hixie> | oh i'm not saying it's a concern. the point of my e-mail was just to ask him what his plan was, after having laid out several plans i was aware of being possible. |
| 22:15 | <Hixie> | (it certainly wasn't meant to be exhaustive) |
| 22:15 | <Hixie> | i'm basically just interested in what i can do to avoid the problem he predicted (namely, not being able to progress past october) |
| 22:16 | <Lachy> | Hixie, sayrer, is this the post you're discussing? http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.platform/msg/c76460d93969aea9 |
| 22:17 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 22:17 | <JohnResig> | Lachy: all changed http://ejohn.org/apps/selectortest/ |
| 22:17 | <JohnResig> | Lachy: WebKit has 33 failing now, Firefox has 16 |
| 22:20 | <sayrer> | Hixie, the point of establishing an iterative cycle is so that people don't feel it's now-or-never for their pet issue. Your suggestions sort of invite that kind of feedback. |
| 22:21 | <sayrer> | In some cases, the feature will appear later. Others never will, but that won't block the process. |
| 22:21 | <Lachy> | my internal desktop build of Opera fails 54, though I'm not sure how recent it's version of Presto is. I will try it in core tomorrow at work |
| 22:22 | <Lachy> | thanks JohnResig |
| 22:37 | <Hixie> | sayrer: granted, though that will be more realistic once we have a real spec with a real test suite |
| 22:38 | <Hixie> | sayrer: right now we're trynig to take a technology from infancy to 19 years old in one step, because anything less just delays the point at which the specs catch up with the technology. |
| 22:38 | <Hixie> | s/we're/I'm/, maybe |
| 22:39 | <Hixie> | that doesn't preclude the possibility of smaller steps happening, of course |
| 22:39 | <Hixie> | i think it'd be great to have an HTML 4.1 that just does the same thing but taking HTML from infancy to, say, 12 years old |
| 22:39 | <Hixie> | that is already a giant step though |
| 22:42 | <sayrer> | Hixie, I want to achieve interoperability for Code On Demand styles quickly |
| 22:43 | <sayrer> | I know you understand the advocacy value of certain stages of the W3C process |
| 22:43 | <sayrer> | witness Acid3 |
| 22:44 | <Hixie> | not sure what you mean by "Code On Demand" |
| 22:44 | <sayrer> | where the interface is innovated by web applications instead of being added to clients |
| 22:44 | <Hixie> | and the WHATWG has enough reputation captial now that HTML5 could be fine even without the W3C stamp (modulo patent policy issues) |
| 22:45 | <Hixie> | you mean "writing web pages"? |
| 22:45 | <Hixie> | i don't understand |
| 22:45 | <Hixie> | (btw lest anyone misunderstand the above statement re whatwg or w3c, i do think it's better for html5 to be in the w3c) |
| 22:46 | <sayrer> | I mean web applications |
| 22:46 | <sayrer> | that aren't very transparent and add a lot procedural code |
| 22:46 | <Hixie> | if your goal is to make browsers have fewer bugs in the DOM APIs, then the way forward is test suites and fixing bugs. |
| 22:47 | <sayrer> | yes |
| 22:47 | <sayrer> | but test suites and fixing bugs need rules to drive them |
| 22:48 | <sayrer> | and fewer bugs in DOM APIs is good, but uniform DOMs from a given input are also needed |
| 22:49 | <sayrer> | In other words, I'm more interested in making it easy to write a color picker, than adding a color picker to browsers (though that may also be worth doing) |
| 22:53 | <Hixie> | html5 has plenty of rules :-) |
| 22:54 | <Hixie> | by which i mean, it would be fine to start writing test suites based on the html5 spec as it stands today |
| 22:54 | <Hixie> | we don't need the spec to be in last call or CR to do that |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | (in particular, driving a smaller spec forward isn't going to help make browsers have fewer bugs) |
| 22:57 | <sayrer> | that doesn't match Acid3 |
| 22:58 | <sayrer> | I think lots of the Acid3 tests are lame, but I have to admit it was effective |
| 22:58 | virtuelv | reads backlog, and just knows mr. last is going to quote stuff here, possibly with omissions |
| 22:58 | <olliej> | sayrer: are you suggesting that some (eg. svg) tests in acid3 were not flawless? :D |
| 22:59 | <olliej> | sayrer: s/flawless/useful |
| 23:00 | <sayrer> | olliej, just that they drove competition between us, but they're too far away from IE to raise the baseline in the way that Acid2 did |
| 23:00 | <sayrer> | with the exception of a few that are actually really awful and make experience for our users worse |
| 23:00 | <olliej> | sayrer: oh, i was thinking of the svg tests that only required the methods to not be undefined :D |
| 23:01 | <sayrer> | I didn't know about that one. My least favorite is the XML character encoding one. |
| 23:01 | <olliej> | sayrer: which one was that? |
| 23:01 | <sayrer> | the one that tests whether illegal bytes result in an XML parser halting and catching fire |
| 23:02 | <sayrer> | you guys always did that, we've had our expat hacked up to avoid that for years |
| 23:02 | <olliej> | sayrer: ah, joy :-/ |
| 23:03 | <Hixie> | sayrer: nothing stops someone from writing a test suite based on html5 today, as far as i can tell. |
| 23:03 | <sayrer> | though we use our XML parser for feeds directly |
| 23:03 | <Hixie> | sayrer: i don't really understand what acid3 teaches us about the current situation |
| 23:03 | <sayrer> | like IE does |
| 23:03 | <olliej> | sayrer: i disliked the svg tests because most of them did not actually test anything useful -- that said they did get us to look at weaknesses in our svg impl, and make them better |
| 23:03 | <olliej> | sayrer: especially our old SMIL code that was truly awful |
| 23:04 | <sayrer> | yeah, well, SMIL is kinda awful |
| 23:04 | <olliej> | sayrer: but then, the old code did pass despite being buggy and incomplete |
| 23:04 | <olliej> | sayrer: yes |
| 23:04 | <Hixie> | putting the svg stuff in acid3 was such a mistake |
| 23:04 | <sayrer> | so I was upset that it became a priority |
| 23:10 | <Hixie> | ok time now that i'm done with e-mail and so forth time to take a break. |
| 23:11 | gsnedders | just ignores email that he marks as "to deal with" |
| 23:11 | <gsnedders> | It works quite well |
| 23:24 | <Philip`> | http://research.zscaler.com/2009/02/practical-example-of-cssqli-using.html |
| 23:24 | <Philip`> | That talks about "client-side SQL injection", which doesn't appear to be SQL injection at all |
| 23:25 | <Philip`> | It seems to be saying that when you can use XSS to insert arbitrary code into a target page, you can read that origin's data |
| 23:25 | <Philip`> | (which might happen to include an SQL database) |
| 23:25 | <Philip`> | Fortunately the abbreviation "csSQLi" is horribly ugly so hopefully people won't start using that phrase when they're really just talking about XSS |
| 23:29 | <weinig> | Lachy: is calling querySelectorAll() with no parameters supposed to throw an exception? |
| 23:31 | <gsnedders> | I'm smart. I just split water all over myself trying to drink. |
| 23:32 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: You split water? You could make a pretty good power source by doing that and then burning the hydrogen and oxygen |
| 23:32 | <gsnedders> | *spilt |
| 23:33 | <Philip`> | The slides on http://research.zscaler.com/2009/02/practical-example-of-cssqli-using.html include one showing how csSQLi attacks are far more effective than normal SQL injection, because it's easier to use and lots of sites are vulnerable |
| 23:34 | <Philip`> | and fails to note that the data stored in client-side databases and the data stored in server-side databases are unlikely to be of equivalent value |
| 23:35 | Philip` | hates it when his wireless connection dies in the middle of a multi-line utterance and he has to switch to another computer |
| 23:36 | <gsnedders> | Which has the longer wavelength? Violet light or red light? |
| 23:36 | gsnedders | should know this, but doesn't |
| 23:36 | <Philip`> | Red |
| 23:36 | <Philip`> | maybe |
| 23:36 | <Philip`> | definitely, hence why galaxies are red-shifted because they're moving away and their wavelengths are being stretched |
| 23:37 | <Philip`> | but I could be wrong |
| 23:37 | <Dashiva> | Philip`: I found it funny how he highlights closing the paragraph tag :) |
| 23:37 | <jwalden> | red is longer, lower energy, closer to radio |
| 23:40 | <Philip`> | Dashiva: When you do XSS attacks, it's considered highly impolite to make the resulting markup invalid |
| 23:40 | <Philip`> | so he's got to be very careful to get the right </p>s and <p>s |
| 23:41 | <Philip`> | (Actually he doesn't because he could just put the <script>s inside the <p> and it would be no worse) |
| 23:42 | gsnedders | puts on Rattle & Hum, makes sure he can't see the window in which the DVD is playing, and goes back to work |
