| 00:02 | <sayrer> | I love that no one has explained why font is bad |
| 00:03 | <sayrer> | "you might be able to create inaccessible websites" |
| 00:03 | <sayrer> | still true with html5 |
| 00:03 | <sayrer> | don't let that stop you |
| 03:57 | <ezyang> | Gah, more changes :-) |
| 09:51 | jgraham | notes he did try to explain some problems with <font> |
| 14:05 | <gsnedders> | archtech: The actual parsing of entities we can't really change (because of need for compat. with existing content), what we can change is what is conforming, and making & legal on its own gets fairly complex. |
| 14:05 | <archtech> | gsnedders, the format of entities is that above today |
| 14:06 | <annevk42> | e.g. ©= does turn into ©= |
| 14:06 | <gsnedders> | archtech: It isn't. Things like © do parse like that, and need to for compatibility, even though they are non-conforming. |
| 14:07 | <archtech> | gsnedders, not every non-conforming change should be supported |
| 14:07 | <gsnedders> | archtech: Browser vendors will not make changes to parsing that breaks existing content. |
| 14:08 | <gsnedders> | (And that is absolutely non-negotiable: if the spec changes to something incompatible, we'll just break the spec) |
| 14:08 | <archtech> | gsnedders, does that mean <b> foo <i> bar </i> baz </b> is part of HTML5 |
| 14:08 | <archtech> | ops |
| 14:08 | <archtech> | I mean b i b i |
| 14:08 | <gsnedders> | archtech: It has a defined parse tree. It is non-conforming. |
| 14:08 | <gsnedders> | archtech: Any character stream has a defined parse tree. |
| 14:09 | <archtech> | So is that valid HTML5? |
| 14:09 | <gsnedders> | archtech: No, it is non-conforming. |
| 14:09 | <archtech> | gsnedders, but ©= is? |
| 14:09 | <gsnedders> | archtech: No, that is non-conforming too. |
| 14:09 | <archtech> | I see. |
| 14:10 | <archtech> | So HTML5 defines the exact behavior of non-conforming code. |
| 14:10 | <gsnedders> | Yes. |
| 14:10 | <archtech> | And & as a literal is supported, but non-conforming. |
| 14:10 | <archtech> | For example: M & M |
| 14:11 | <gsnedders> | archtech: That is legal because a whitespace character follows it |
| 14:12 | <archtech> | I see. |
| 14:12 | <archtech> | Thanks for the info, guys |
| 14:13 | <gsnedders> | archtech: The only place you're allowed a & followed by anything within script and style |
| 14:17 | <archtech> | gsnedders, sure |
| 14:17 | <archtech> | those are defined as literal blocks terminated by strictly </script> and </style> I suppose |
| 14:17 | <archtech> | this is their de-facto behavior. |
| 14:17 | <gsnedders> | Yeah |
| 14:17 | <archtech> | nice |
| 14:17 | <gsnedders> | (case insensitively) |
| 14:17 | <archtech> | oh yea |
| 14:20 | <archtech> | I gotta check how html5 deals with textarea |
| 14:20 | <archtech> | ;) |
| 14:20 | <archtech> | entities are supported.. but nothing else :) |
| 14:21 | <archtech> | curious one |
| 14:21 | gsnedders | is kinda running around, but can probably answer most of these questions :) |
| 15:49 | <Philip`> | archtech: Actually they're terminated by "</script" and "</style" (case-insensitively) followed by whitespace or "/" or ">" or EOF |
| 15:53 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: Not EOF, I thought, after the latest change. |
| 15:54 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: Well, I guess the contents to remain, we just drop the end tag |
| 15:58 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: I'm just going by what http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/syntax.html#close-tag-open-state says, for look-ahead recognition of the end tag |
| 15:58 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: You're right. |
| 15:58 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: Ignore me, I'm ignorant. |
| 16:00 | <Philip`> | annevk42: Having not thought about it very much, I dislike the idea of NaCl because it provides a significant drawback to non-x86 CPUs |
| 16:00 | <gsnedders> | NaCI? |
| 16:01 | <Philip`> | (and currently you can use non-x86 CPUs reasonably happy if you're running open source software and web stuff and not Flash, so if lots of people used NaCl then it'd have a significant effect on that) |
| 16:01 | <Philip`> | s/happy/happily/ |
| 16:02 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/ |
| 16:02 | Philip` | suggests gsnedders gets a font where l and I look different :-p |
| 16:02 | <gsnedders> | ah |
| 16:03 | <gsnedders> | They do, they have slightly different heights :P |
| 16:06 | <Philip`> | (You could emulate x86 on other ISAs but it's going to be pretty rubbish at performance, particularly if the code uses SSE, and it's marketed for computation-intensive processes) |
| 16:06 | <Philip`> | s/it's/NaCl is/ |
| 16:10 | <annevk42> | can someone run http://xmlhttprequest.testsuite.org/dump/2009/status/001.htm in IE8? |
| 16:11 | <annevk42> | same for http://xmlhttprequest.testsuite.org/dump/2009/status/statustext.htm |
| 16:12 | <Philip`> | annevk42: "1xundefined,1xundefined,2x200,3x200,4x200" on 001.htm |
| 16:12 | <itpastorn> | FFox: 1xundefined,1xundefined,2xOK,3xOK,4xOK |
| 16:12 | <itpastorn> | MSIE 8: 1xundefined,1xundefined,2xundefined,3x200,4x200 |
| 16:13 | <Philip`> | annevk42: "1xundefined,1xundefined,2xOK,3xOK,4xOK" on statustext.htm |
| 16:14 | <itpastorn> | My MSIE result was from 001.htm |
| 16:15 | <annevk42> | your MSIE results are different :/ |
| 16:15 | <itpastorn> | Let me try again |
| 16:16 | <Philip`> | I definitely get "2x200" on 001.htm |
| 16:16 | <annevk42> | I like your result better :) |
| 16:16 | <Philip`> | not in compatibility view |
| 16:16 | <Philip`> | (I think) |
| 16:17 | <annevk42> | oh wait |
| 16:18 | <itpastorn> | 1xundefined,1xundefined,2x200,3x200,4x200 in non compat view. 1xundefined,1xundefined,2x200,3x200,4x200 in compat view |
| 16:18 | <annevk42> | cheers, can you run them again? I made a small change to see where that undefined comes from |
| 16:19 | <itpastorn> | 1x[object Error],1x[object Error],2x200,3x200,4x200 Compat view |
| 16:19 | <annevk42> | cool |
| 16:20 | <itpastorn> | 1xError: Odefinierat fel.,1xError: Odefinierat fel.,2x200,3x200,4x200 Non-compat view (Swedish for "undefined error") |
| 16:20 | <annevk42> | seems everyone is pretty much the same then apart from Opera :/ |
| 16:21 | <annevk42> | and only WebKit throws the correct exception |
| 17:48 | <archtech> | Philip`, so this would work? </script/ |
| 17:48 | <archtech> | Interesting. |
| 17:49 | <archtech> | I only now realise how painful it is to reverse engineer a standard from a bunch of shoddy implementations ;) |
| 17:49 | <Philip`> | archtech: I don't know whether there's something to throw away incomplete tags and throw away unclosed script elements, in which case you might need </script/> instead |
| 17:50 | <Philip`> | (I remember some discussion about those issues a while ago but don't know what the spec says now) |
| 17:50 | <archtech> | Philip`, I have a slight complaint about the content models. |
| 17:50 | <archtech> | HTML4 seems to define those more clearly, and they match better what display property in CSS exposes |
| 17:51 | <archtech> | Also textarea has content model "text" which is not covered anywhere in the content model section it seems. |
| 17:51 | <Philip`> | archtech: You should probably complain to Hixie :-) |
| 17:51 | <archtech> | Hehe :) |
| 17:51 | <Philip`> | archtech: Also, are you looking at the "HTML 5: The Markup Language" document, rather than the main spec? |
| 17:51 | <Philip`> | in which case "text" is probably a RELAX NG type or something |
| 17:52 | <archtech> | Philip`, I think I'm looking at the last published spec |
| 17:53 | Philip` | actually looks at the spec |
| 17:53 | <Philip`> | Oh, yes, it says "Content model: Text." |
| 17:53 | <archtech> | Actually I'm looking at "W3C Working Draft 23 April 2009" |
| 17:53 | <archtech> | Here: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ |
| 17:53 | <archtech> | Check section 3.4 Content models |
| 17:53 | <archtech> | There's no "text" in there :P |
| 17:53 | <archtech> | I'm not sure also why phrasing/heading content are differentiated? |
| 17:54 | <archtech> | Headings seem to behave mostly like paragraphs. |
| 17:54 | <Philip`> | (It's probably better to look at http://whatwg.org/html5 or http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/ to get the latest version) |
| 17:54 | <archtech> | Ah ok./ |
| 17:55 | Philip` | doesn't really know anything about content models |
| 17:55 | <annevk42> | is "#PCDATA" really that much clearer than "Text"? |
| 17:56 | <archtech> | annevk2, hehe. There's link and PCDATA is defined ;) |
| 17:57 | <annevk42> | there's no link for me under http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#h-17.7 |
| 17:57 | <annevk42> | I agree though that "Text" needs a definition |
| 17:58 | <archtech> | :) |
| 17:59 | <gsnedders> | archtech: CDATA can end with the </ + tagname followed by tab, lf, ff, space, >, /, or EOF |
| 18:01 | <annevk42> | that's not an exhaustive definition |
| 18:01 | <annevk42> | e.g. it does not cover </script foobar> |
| 18:02 | <Philip`> | Why doesn't it cover that case? That's the tag name followed by space, and it ends CDATA |
| 18:02 | <Philip`> | (unless I'm hopelessly mistaken) |
| 18:03 | <annevk42> | archtech, oh, Text is defined in http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#text-0 |
| 18:03 | <gsnedders> | annevk2: it's followed by space, so it does cover that |
| 18:03 | <gsnedders> | annevk2: (The fact that the space is then followed by other stuff is beside the point :P) |
| 18:03 | <annevk42> | I see.. |
| 18:04 | <annevk42> | archtech, but I'd still email if I were you because a) it isn't linked and b) it's defined in a section specific to HTML |
| 18:57 | <Philip`> | If I wrote something like "The smallest positive numbers are 1, 2, 3, <abbr title='4, 5, 6, ...'>...</abbr>", so you can (partially) expand the "..." text via the tooltip (or equivalent in your independent medium), would I be shot for violations against semantics or is it fine? |
| 19:31 | <jjlee> | is it a known issue that html5lib trunk's html5lib.serializer.htmlserializer is broken? |
| 19:32 | <jjlee> | seems somebody changed string constants into numeric ones |
| 19:34 | <jjlee> | I should say, branch "default", I think (I'm new to hg) |
| 19:35 | <jjlee> | hmm, runtests.sh fails with SyntaxError. Presumably that *is* a known issue. |
| 19:36 | <jjlee> | in which case, I guess there are two reasons why http://code.google.com/p/html5lib/ shouldn't say "The SVN trunk is currently rather stable in anticipation of 0.12" |
| 19:36 | <jjlee> | first, it's not stable |
| 19:36 | <jjlee> | second, it's not in SVN any more (I assume) |
| 19:40 | <annevk2> | hmm, jgraham would know more |
| 21:55 | <Lachy_> | gsnedders, re twitter, what exactly are you expecting Audi to win or lose? is it a race or something? http://twitter.com/gsnedders/status/2157634810 |
| 21:55 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: 24 Heures du Mans |
| 21:56 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: They have won every year from 2000 to 2008, except for 2003 which they did not enter. |
| 21:57 | <Lachy_> | is that the french name for 24 Hours of Le Mans |
| 21:57 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: Oui |
| 21:58 | <Lachy_> | I thought Le Mans was already French. I wonder why they say "du Mans" instead |
| 21:58 | <gsnedders> | "le" is the masculine form of the definite article |
| 21:59 | <Lachy_> | ok |
| 21:59 | <gsnedders> | For masculine "of", "du" is used, which means either "of" or "of the" |
| 21:59 | <gsnedders> | So the "le" vanishes |
| 22:00 | <Lachy_> | anyway, I've not seen that race before. What kind of track do they race on? |
| 22:01 | <Lachy_> | found it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_of_Le_Mans#The_circuit |
| 22:02 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: A high speed one. |
| 22:02 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: 24 Heures du Mans |
| 22:02 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: Oh, that on my clip board? |
| 22:02 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_de_la_Sarthe |
| 22:02 | <gsnedders> | Lachy_: There we go, that's what I meant to paste :P |
| 22:05 | <Lachy> | ok, so it seems similar to the Bathurst 24 Hour, except it |
| 22:05 | <Lachy> | it's been running for a lot longer |
| 22:05 | <gsnedders> | A lot quicker cars :) |
| 22:06 | <Lachy> | Are you saying we drive slow race cars in Aus? |
| 22:06 | <gsnedders> | I think it's true that the quickest cars at Bathurst are the slowest at Le Mans |
| 22:07 | <Lachy> | do you know about the Bathurst race? |
| 22:07 | <gsnedders> | a bit |
| 22:07 | <Lachy> | wow, you're the first non-Australian I know who's heard of it |
| 22:08 | <gsnedders> | hehe |
| 22:14 | <annevk2> | per wikipedia Bathurst 24 Hour only ran for years |
| 22:14 | <annevk2> | two years* |
| 22:15 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: (We're talking that the top cars have over 700 hp/tonne) |
| 22:15 | <gsnedders> | annevk2: That's untrue |
| 22:15 | <gsnedders> | No, I'm being dumb. It's 12 hour and 1000km races it's known for. |
| 22:17 | <gsnedders> | (The race that became the 1000km race goes back to 1963) |
| 22:20 | jgraham | is disturbed that there seems to be a useful productive discussion about <video> going on |
| 22:21 | <jgraham> | That violates one of the unshakable pillars of my existance |
| 22:22 | <jgraham> | jjlee: It is known that the html5lib trunk is somewhat broken |
| 22:22 | <annevk2> | that sounds a bit dramatic jgraham |
| 22:23 | <jgraham> | I merged in support for namespaced content in the main treebuilder and it has broken all the bits that I didn't fix on the branch e.g. all the stuff that relies on treewalkers |
| 22:23 | <jgraham> | annevk2: Really? |
| 22:25 | <annevk2> | your existance is in part based and in fact relies on unproductive discussions about <video>? |
| 22:25 | <jgraham> | jjlee: So I should fix it soon I guess. Sorry for the inconvenience |
| 22:27 | <jgraham> | annevk2: It's more that it invalidated my theory that it was no longer possible to have a sensible conversation about any remotely controversial HTML-related topic without one or more of the participants acting like a complete arsehat |
| 22:28 | <jgraham> | So I don't know if this says good things about Mike Shaver and Chris DiBona or bad things about everyone else |
| 22:29 | <annevk2> | lets go for somewhere inbetween |
| 22:30 | <jgraham> | I was going for "both" which was a bit depressing becuase I'm in the set of everyone else |
| 22:53 | <jjlee> | jgraham: np, but if development works that way, maybe it's easier to change that sentence on the web page than to change your style of development :-) |
| 22:59 | <jgraham> | jjlee: Will do; when the sentnce was written it was true. The idea of merging the branch was to fix all the issues rather than just let it sit but that hasn't really happened yet |
| 23:02 | <jjlee> | sure. I live in a glass house, shouldn't throw stones |
| 23:16 | <jgraham> | jjlee: Thanks for complaining, I am much more likely to work on something if it seems like someone actually needs it o work |
| 23:17 | <jjlee> | jgraham: any chance of a patch to expose character indices of tokens being accepted? |