| 02:51 | <Hixie> | comments on what i just checked in would be quite useful |
| 02:51 | <Hixie> | it is a Possible Solution to the Great accesskey Problem |
| 02:51 | <Hixie> | (r3065) |
| 08:20 | <annevk5> | Hixie, domintro for document.commands says document.images |
| 08:21 | <annevk5> | nm, fixed in the next check in |
| 08:21 | <rmccue> | Shouldn't there be some sort of limit on who can change the status on http://www.whatwg.org/ ? |
| 08:22 | <annevk5> | it hasn't been abused so far |
| 08:22 | <Hixie> | rmccue: why? |
| 08:22 | <Hixie> | rmccue: if you feel you shouldn't be allowed to change it... don't change it. :-) |
| 08:22 | <rmccue> | Certain people might not realise what it does. :) |
| 08:23 | <Hixie> | well we can certainly improve the documentation |
| 08:24 | <rmccue> | I figured it would have asked for some sort of authentication before it actually updated, so I apologise for http://twitter.com/WHATWG/status/1685430406 |
| 08:24 | <Hixie> | no worries |
| 08:25 | <Hixie> | i updated the checkbox -- is it clearer now? :-) |
| 08:26 | <rmccue> | Checkbox? |
| 08:28 | <Hixie> | oh hey the checkbox is just for bots. |
| 08:29 | <Hixie> | ok look now :-) |
| 08:30 | <rmccue> | Looks awesome, thanks :) |
| 08:30 | <Hixie> | np :-) |
| 08:52 | <Hixie> | what's a good other name for <command default=""> |
| 09:27 | <Philip`> | annevk5: That's not true - I've abused it |
| 11:36 | <krijnh> | http://realtech.burningbird.net/semantic-web/semantic-web-issues-and-practices/going-non-standard#comment-1369 - Public IRC logs considered harmful |
| 11:37 | <krijnh> | Perhaps I should stop logging? |
| 11:41 | <krijnh> | "It's in black and white." - or I could just change the colors, of course |
| 15:41 | <boblet> | Hi all. Has anyone used hcalendar with html5? did you use <time> for dtstart/dtend? |
| 15:49 | <gsnedders> | Hmm… what should the behaviour of a server be if If-Modified-Since has an invalid value? |
| 15:53 | gsnedders | guesses he should read the spec cover to cover, but he never does that |
| 16:35 | <gsnedders> | http-date is woefully underspecified |
| 16:42 | Philip` | is shocked |
| 16:43 | <gsnedders> | Oh, yeah, I remember now. |
| 16:43 | <gsnedders> | 2616 and 2616bis both subscribe to Postel's law, without saying what the liberal behaviour should be, so just leave everything undefined. |
| 16:47 | <gsnedders> | http://pastebin.com/m1cc1e5d7 is sane insofar as it forbids everything that doesn't match the grammar or is logically invalid |
| 16:47 | <gsnedders> | Not that it works, actually. Woops. |
| 16:51 | <gsnedders> | http://pastebin.com/mf435844 that should |
| 16:52 | <Philip`> | Is the Jul/July inconsistency intentional? |
| 16:53 | <Philip`> | And don't you want to check for e.g. $day < 0? |
| 16:54 | <Philip`> | "$hour == 24 && $minute != 0 && $second != 0" - should be "$hour == 24 && ($minute != 0 || $second != 0)" |
| 16:54 | <Philip`> | "$second > 59" - is it not possible to represent leap seconds? |
| 16:56 | <gsnedders> | No; $day < 0 is handled by regex (it can't get there); yes; HTTP-bis is unclear. |
| 16:56 | <gsnedders> | (From my reading it is pure GMT so no.) |
| 16:57 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: By the way, dotnetdotcom.org appears to give the raw HTTP responses (unlike the pre-parsed data that I had collected), which might be interesting in terms of parsing HTTP |
| 16:58 | <gsnedders> | Entry NULL Entry NULL Entry |
| 16:58 | <gsnedders> | Hmm… |
| 16:58 | <gsnedders> | What if there is null in entry? |
| 16:58 | <Philip`> | There isn't |
| 16:58 | <Philip`> | I assume they must strip all the nulls, or something |
| 16:58 | <gsnedders> | How boring. |
| 16:58 | <Philip`> | (but I've not tried to see exactly what they do) |
| 16:59 | <Philip`> | (but my parser worked correctly under the assumption that nulls were always delimeters) |
| 16:59 | Philip` | thinks it's a bit of a rubbish storage format, so he converted into sensible length-prefixed strings for processing |
| 16:59 | <Philip`> | s//it / |
| 17:00 | <Philip`> | (Also split into multiple chunks, to allow parallel processing) |
| 17:00 | <gsnedders> | Are there any ABNF parser generators that are easy to use? |
| 17:02 | <Philip`> | There's your brain |
| 17:02 | <Philip`> | Not sure what else, though |
| 17:06 | <gsnedders> | http://www.quut.com/abnfgen/ could be useful |
| 17:08 | <MikeSmith> | the datatype definition of the value for the accesskey attribute in the schema needs a name |
| 17:08 | <MikeSmith> | keylist? characterlist? |
| 17:08 | <MikeSmith> | spec says the value the value must be an ordered set of unique space-separated tokens, each of which must be exactly one Unicode code point in length. |
| 17:14 | <Philip`> | It might change in the future to allow keywords, not just characters |
| 17:14 | <MikeSmith> | hmm |
| 17:16 | <MikeSmith> | then we'd probably also want to change the name of the datatype too |
| 17:33 | jgraham | hopes that krijnh is not seriously considering stpping logging\ |
| 17:34 | <Philip`> | If he did, I guess somebody else would take over, so it wouldn't be the end of the world for Mr Last Week |
| 17:36 | <jgraham> | Yeah, I guess I would start logging or something. Although that wouldn' help me catch up with hings I miss when web faction decide to reboot my server |
| 17:41 | <Philip`> | You could get a more reliable server :-) |
| 17:41 | <Philip`> | 16:46:03 up 214 days, 17:48, 3 users, load average: 0.01, 0.01, 0.00 |
| 17:41 | <Philip`> | says mine |
| 17:41 | <Philip`> | (on which I run my IRC client) |
| 17:42 | <inimino> | 16:46:23 up 449 days, 10:24, 13 users, load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.03 |
| 17:43 | <inimino> | take that! |
| 17:43 | <Philip`> | But I only installed this server 214 days ago :-) |
| 17:45 | <inimino> | server companies should sell boxes with pre-cached uptime for bragging rights |
| 17:46 | <inimino> | "aged seven years, never turned off" (ok maybe not) |
| 17:46 | <Philip`> | "aged seven years, never installed any kernel updates" |
| 17:47 | <Philip`> | If I just wanted bragging rights, I could point at: |
| 17:47 | <Philip`> | 17:50:15 up 3587 days, 4:16, 7 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 |
| 17:47 | <Philip`> | and you would have no way of knowing that that's entirely fake |
| 17:48 | <inimino> | you'd have no way of knowing whether I know that 'uptime' truncates the output ;) |
| 17:49 | <Philip`> | Truncates to three digits? |
| 17:49 | <inimino> | yeah |
| 17:50 | <Philip`> | I'm pretty sure I exceeded a thousand days on a Solaris box and it displayed the time just fine :-) |
| 17:51 | <inimino> | ah, but that's not formatted like the Solaris uptime output :) |
| 17:53 | <Philip`> | 5:56pm up 3587 days 1:04, 1 user, load average: 0.77, 0.44, 0.28 |
| 17:53 | <Philip`> | Happy now? :-p |
| 17:54 | <inimino> | "day(s)" |
| 17:55 | inimino | recommends fuschia on chartreuse for the logs |
| 18:03 | <Philip`> | inimino: No, it's definitely "days" |
| 18:04 | <Philip`> | since I ran the command on the real box, and only fraudulently modified the number |
| 18:07 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: But what is real? |
| 18:07 | <inimino> | http://ods.com.ua/win/eng/unix/usail/man/solaris/uptime.1.html |
| 18:08 | <inimino> | I have no way of knowing how many times that has changed in the last 3587 days, though |
| 18:13 | <Philip`> | inimino: My man page is marked as: |
| 18:13 | <Philip`> | SunOS 5.9 Last change: 18 Mar 1994 1 |
| 18:13 | <Philip`> | and says "day(s)", but the actual command says "days" |
| 18:13 | <inimino> | aha! |
| 18:14 | <Philip`> | Oh, hmm |
| 18:14 | <Philip`> | /usr/bin/uptime says "6:18pm up xxx day(s), 1:27, 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.07, 0.20" |
| 18:15 | <Philip`> | but PATH puts /usr/local/bin/uptime first, which is a GNU version |
| 18:15 | <inimino> | that explains it |
| 18:16 | Philip` | blames Solaris for having a silly mixture of GNU and non-GNU tools |
| 18:16 | inimino | always found Solaris more tolerable with GNU everything installed |
| 18:16 | Philip` | never worked out how to install software on Solaris |
| 18:17 | inimino | dimly remembers something about pkg-add |
| 19:39 | <jgraham> | Philip`: Yeah, a more reliable server would also be nice. But it's hard o optimise over cost, uptime, ease of use, speed, frequency of updates, quality of support, based only on the marketing materials on hosting companies websites and my limited knowledge of what the right tradeoff is |
| 19:40 | <jgraham> | Although something not dissimmilar to that was one of the use cases for embedded metadata in HTML 5 so presumaby Hixie will solve that for me any day now |
| 19:50 | <Philip`> | jgraham: It would be much easier if hosting companies gave a single quality score on a uniform industry-wide scale for all of their services, and then you could just pick the highest one you can afford |
| 20:04 | <hsivonen> | Shelley has a point in the comment that MLW quotes in his latest. |
| 20:19 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: What are the examples of Hixie being disrespectful to Sam on IRC? |
| 20:23 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I don't know about Sam. |
| 20:35 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: It would be nice if such accusations were backed up with evidence |
| 20:37 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: it's the perception that counts. if people get a perception from IRC logs that isn't in line of blog camments/emails, they suspect the blog comments/email |
| 20:38 | Philip` | wonders how often IRC comments are misinterpreted because they're not read in their proper context |
| 20:41 | <inimino> | perhaps krijnh could add a row of dancing hamsters to the logs, to impart the proper sense of gravitas |
| 20:42 | <krijnh> | Great idea :) |
| 20:47 | <hsivonen> | http://blog.killerbees.co.uk/2009/05/xml-co-processor.html |
| 20:49 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: I'm not sure what the solution is but it seems like if people were called out for not backing their accusations of bad faith with actual evidence they would be less inclined to make assumptions in line with their existing prejudices and more inclined o read what has actually been said |
| 20:51 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: that's possible |
| 20:52 | <jgraham> | For example Shelly got the quote from Mark wrong which rather changes the possible set of interpretations |
| 20:55 | <Hixie> | As far as I can tell, the reason people think I don't respect RDFa proponents is that they don't want to give use cases (just look at the difficulties we had getting use cases from them) and so when I say "yes but what are the use cases" they take it as some sort of offense |
| 20:55 | <Hixie> | whereas tantek is the other way round -- I suggest something, and _he's_ the one who asks for use cases and sample pages |
| 20:56 | <Hixie> | (shelley even said this explicitly, she had a blog post whose _title_ specifically said that she was advocating not cooperating with us by not "justifying" rdfa) |
| 20:56 | <Philip`> | She was specific about Hixie not bothering to reply to Manu about the RDFa thing, which is good because that made it possible to point out that actually he did (on a different mailing list to where the original post was seen) |
| 20:56 | <Philip`> | so actionable criticisms are good :-) |
| 20:56 | <Hixie> | manu has been by far the most helpful member of the rdf/rdfa community |
| 20:57 | <Hixie> | he and i even had a phone call about this stuff |
| 20:57 | <Hixie> | and he's been pretty much the only person to write many detailed use cases |
| 20:58 | <Hixie> | (the guy from yahoo! was very helpful too, but he's more of a neutral bystander than an rdfa proponent, from what i understand) |
| 20:59 | <Hixie> | anyway, i have one more person to talk to next week about this microdata stuff, and then i'll see what can be done to address these use cases |
| 20:59 | <Hixie> | (i wanted to do it last week but said person wasn't available) |
| 21:58 | <gsnedders> | "a phone call"!? |
| 22:02 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: I'll likely see Avenue Q in June, just because you rave on about it. |
| 22:11 | gsnedders | will also likely go to the Globe twice to see both plays they are producing at the time, As You Like It and Romeo and Juliet |
| 22:20 | <Hixie> | gsnedders: cool |
| 23:03 | <Dashiva> | "You can not argue this because it is factual opinion." |
| 23:04 | <Dashiva> | Axiomatic proof, move over |
| 23:04 | <hsivonen> | Dashiva: what are you quoting? |
| 23:05 | <Dashiva> | Nothing related, it just reminded me of The Proof. |
| 23:47 | <Hixie> | http://identi.ca/notice/3921839 |
| 23:47 | <Hixie> | now people want to physically beat us :-( |
| 23:48 | <weinig> | Hixie: that can only mean you are doing things right |
| 23:51 | <Dashiva> | First they flame you, then they assault you, then you reach CR |