| 04:26 | <othermaciej> | so what's the story with EventSource and server-sent events these days? |
| 04:29 | <Hixie> | it's stable |
| 04:29 | <Hixie> | not aware of any outstanding issues |
| 08:49 | <hsivonen> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009May/0066.html |
| 08:55 | <Hixie> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2009May/0024.html |
| 08:59 | <hsivonen> | context: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2009May/0051.html |
| 09:21 | <hsivonen> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2009AprJun/0112.html |
| 09:28 | <Hixie> | there's a perception that wg groups fail to meet their deadlines because they always do, because the timetables the w3c put forward are wildly unrealistic, because they consider realistic timetables to be too likely to turn people away |
| 09:37 | mhausenblas | seldom agrees with Hixie, but 'they consider realistic timetables to be too likely to turn people away' deserves a +1 ;) |
| 09:39 | <Hixie> | when the htmlwg was chartered, i said what the html5 timetable was |
| 09:39 | <Hixie> | last call in oct 2009, etc |
| 09:39 | <othermaciej> | which was clearly unreasonable, to anyone who had any understanding of the matter |
| 09:40 | <othermaciej> | at this point I am not sure if we will get to Last Call this decade, given Sam's way of talking about it... |
| 09:40 | <Hixie> | they said that was never going to work and instead used this: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter#deliverables |
| 09:40 | <Hixie> | last call june 2008, CR by sept last year |
| 09:41 | <Hixie> | whatwg's html5 will reach LC in oct 2009 |
| 09:41 | <Hixie> | i can't speak as to the w3c's :-) |
| 09:59 | <zcorpan> | "Add a <code title="">type</code> attribute whose value is the string "<code title="">text/html</code>" to <var title="">x</var>" |
| 09:59 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: ^ that seems unnecessary and might be incorrect |
| 10:00 | <Hixie> | i thought i removed the type attribute in the case where it was wrong |
| 10:01 | <zcorpan> | hmm the next step inserts another <link rel="alternate"> |
| 10:01 | <Hixie> | oooops |
| 10:01 | <Hixie> | looks like i have an extra one |
| 10:02 | <zcorpan> | isn't type="" optional anyway? |
| 10:02 | <Hixie> | yeah but seems good to include it if you know it |
| 10:03 | <Hixie> | ok removed the extra one |
| 10:03 | <Hixie> | bed time now |
| 10:04 | <Hixie> | uh |
| 10:04 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: |
| 10:04 | <Hixie> | Possible conformance errors: |
| 10:04 | <Hixie> | "Stream length exceeds limit.": non-document-error io: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/source-validation |
| 13:40 | gsnedders | sighs |
| 13:40 | <gsnedders> | Splitting out the input stream from the tokenizer in PHP html5lib is a lot of work |
| 14:30 | gsnedders | finds a fairly major bug |
| 14:30 | <gsnedders> | Though actually with only CDATA and RCDATA elements having ASCII names it isn't actually a bug that can ever be hit |
| 14:31 | <annevk4> | that doesn't like you discovered a bug then :) |
| 14:34 | gsnedders | wonders whether he should change the tokenizer to allow R?CDATA elements to have non-ASCII names, but seeming it's an anti-optimization, decides against it |
| 15:44 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Why do you want to split it out? |
| 15:45 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: To have multiple different InputStream classes, esp. one for files |
| 15:48 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Ah |
| 15:55 | <gsnedders> | Huh… line 751 tokenizer.py |
| 15:55 | <gsnedders> | Will that not match D followed by any permutation of the characters OTYPE (with repetition allowed)? |
| 15:56 | <gsnedders> | s/O/OC/ |
| 15:57 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: No |
| 15:58 | <gsnedders> | Oh, duh. |
| 15:58 | gsnedders | realizes how dumb that was |
| 15:58 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: It loops with expected=('o', 'O') first and checks the next character against that, etc |
| 15:58 | <gsnedders> | Exactly. |
| 16:04 | <gsnedders> | The difficulty of doing this is mainly because the PHP impl assumes it is a string so it has look-ahead and look-behind for the entire input data. |
| 16:08 | <Philip`> | I don't think the Python version ever did that, but it did assume it could arbitrarily consume and unconsume characters whenever it fancied |
| 16:12 | <takkaria> | yeah, if you can optimise your tokeniser never to use look-behind, that can give you good performance benefits |
| 16:19 | <gsnedders> | We need to look-behind per spec, but we can't look behind in, e.g., an http file resource. |
| 16:23 | gsnedders | finally makes it to the final method |
| 16:30 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Why do we need to use look-behind per spec? |
| 16:30 | <gsnedders> | Oh, no, we don't. |
| 16:30 | <gsnedders> | It's just both PHP and Python impl consume too much :P |
| 16:30 | <Philip`> | It needs look-ahead, which I guess would look like look-behind from a different perspective |
| 16:30 | <gsnedders> | Yeah, indeed. |
| 16:35 | <gsnedders> | The Python deviates from the spec quite a lot when consuming an entity. |
| 16:38 | <Philip`> | The spec isn't written a way that can be efficiently implemented |
| 16:38 | <Philip`> | *in |
| 21:04 | <hsivonen> | "Gregory: What I need to do is to proselytize the use of RDFa for accessibility" |
| 21:04 | <hsivonen> | http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-xhtml-minutes.html |
| 21:14 | <Dashiva> | "Gregory: I would like to a DTD for XHTML 1.1+RDFa+Aria... +role" |
| 21:15 | <Dashiva> | DTD proliferation :) |
| 21:18 | <Philip`> | Sounds like a scalability problem for the W3C, if the number of DTDs they have to host is exponential in the number of technologies they specify |
| 21:21 | <gsnedders> | It's factorial, not exponential. |
| 21:22 | <gsnedders> | Stop trying to paint the W3C in good light :P |
| 21:22 | <Philip`> | I'm pretty sure it's exponential |
| 21:23 | <Philip`> | If you have n technologies, then for each technology you can decide to either add it to the DTD or not |
| 21:23 | <Philip`> | which means you have a choice between 2 values, n times |
| 21:23 | <Philip`> | which results in 2^n possible choices |
| 21:24 | <gsnedders> | Permutations |
| 21:24 | <gsnedders> | You have the number of permutations of specs you have. |
| 21:25 | <Philip`> | No you don't |
| 21:25 | <Philip`> | Order doesn't matter |
| 21:25 | <gsnedders> | Ah, true. |
| 21:26 | <gsnedders> | Duh. |
| 21:26 | <Philip`> | And it's not combinations (nCr) either, because r is not restricted to a single value |
| 21:26 | <gsnedders> | Yeah, true. |
| 21:27 | <Philip`> | (Obviously it wouldn't be exactly 2^n, because nobody's going to want the DTD that contains zero technologies) |
| 21:27 | <Philip`> | (but it'll be O(2^n)) |
| 21:32 | <gsnedders> | 2^n-1, no? |
| 21:33 | <Philip`> | Nooooo! |
| 21:33 | <Philip`> | Constants are ugly |
| 21:33 | <gsnedders> | :D |
| 21:33 | <Philip`> | Just call it O(2^n) :-p |
| 21:38 | <Dashiva> | Order matters if UAs do string matching |
| 21:39 | <Dashiva> | Poor code :( |
| 21:41 | <Philip`> | They can use a canonical ordering |
| 21:41 | <gsnedders> | \sum_{r=1}^{n} nPr then |
| 21:41 | <gsnedders> | Ow. |
| 21:41 | <Philip`> | so that there aren't multiple orderings of the same set of technologies |
| 21:45 | <Dashiva> | What about when users start writing the doctype names by hand? |
| 21:45 | <Philip`> | Throw a fatal error if they didn't use the canonical ordering |
| 22:23 | <Hixie> | i am baffled |
| 22:24 | <Hixie> | when i said last call was october 2009 in 2006, html5 was accused of glacial progress |
| 22:24 | <Hixie> | when i say last call is october 2009 in 2009, html5 is accused of going too fast |
| 22:25 | <gsnedders> | Logic? Peh. |
| 22:25 | gsnedders | throws it out |
| 22:28 | <inimino> | that's only baffling if it's the same people making both sets of accusations |
| 22:34 | <gsnedders> | http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sneddon-atom-export-01.txt — feedback welcome. |
| 22:37 | gsnedders | wonders what to do about IRI for atom:category@scheme |
| 22:40 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: It would be nice if the abstract said what it was actually about |
| 22:40 | <Philip`> | (In particular, what it's meant to be exporting, and from where) |
| 22:41 | <hober> | gsnedders: sounds like a description of the backing store I use for my blog :) |
| 22:45 | gsnedders | makes another tweet probably nobody will understand |