| 02:37 | <webesayz> | Hello |
| 02:39 | <amites1> | anyone here work with the python version of html5lib?? I'm working on debugging an error with processSpaceCharacters and would appreciate any advice |
| 02:40 | <Lachy> | amites1, jgraham and annevk do, but they're not here at this time of night. |
| 02:41 | <Lachy> | amites1, gsnedders|work or Philip` too may be able to help though |
| 02:43 | <amites1> | doesn't seem like any of them are on right now |
| 02:44 | <amites1> | I appreciate your looking out |
| 02:44 | <Lachy> | amites1, they'll most likely be here within about 5 or 6 hours when they wake up |
| 02:45 | <amites1> | *Grin* if I don't have it figured out by then |
| 02:45 | <amites1> | changed servers and upgraded a couple things, everything but PDF generation went smooth |
| 03:46 | takkaria | giggles a bit at the WAI procedure thread |
| 04:37 | <Hixie> | does python have the equivalent of the C-like ?: operator? |
| 04:54 | <gavin_> | Hixie: http://marc-abramowitz.com/archives/2008/05/18/python-ternary-operator/ |
| 04:59 | <Hixie> | thanks! |
| 08:28 | <Lachy> | I can't see what exactly in the proposed procedure that we're not doing, beyond the fact that we haven't yet reached a mutually agreeable solution |
| 08:29 | <Lachy> | and that won't happen as long as the WAI PFWG continues to do nothing but push for one specific solution, without accepting or working with any alternatives |
| 09:28 | <gsnedders|work> | Lachy: I'm probably not a good person to speak to about html5lib for future reference |
| 10:30 | <roc> | I can't stand everyone in public_html being politely dishonest to one another |
| 10:46 | <Hixie> | i'm trying to be politely honest |
| 10:50 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: sometimes it's not possible to be both polite and honest at the same time |
| 10:50 | <MikeSmith> | and you need to make a choice |
| 10:51 | <Hixie> | i usually shut up in those cases |
| 10:51 | <MikeSmith> | me too |
| 11:34 | <othermaciej> | roc: I'm considering being honestly impolite |
| 11:34 | <othermaciej> | but it seems like it would be a waste of time and energy in this case |
| 11:39 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: I recommend you going with your instincts there. |
| 11:39 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: sometimes being honestly impolite is useful |
| 11:40 | <roc> | it doesn't work too well online unfortunately |
| 11:42 | <Lachy> | othermaciej, if you were to be honestly impolite on the mailing list, what would you say? |
| 11:42 | <Lachy> | or rather, what point would you want to make? |
| 11:43 | <othermaciej> | Lachy, given the people who love to read our logs and send creepy emails about them, that would amount to a cowardly way to post to the list |
| 11:43 | <Philip`> | You could say it in our secret IRC channel instead |
| 11:43 | <Lachy> | --> #whatwg-cabal |
| 11:44 | <othermaciej> | Philip`: how do you know I haven't? |
| 11:44 | <Lachy> | shh, don't tell anyone! |
| 11:47 | <Hixie> | if you guys do set up a secret cabal list could you please log it so that i can find your discussions when i do google searches for relevant discussion? |
| 11:49 | <othermaciej> | can't you use Google's abusive monopolistic control of the internet to just log all the traffic anyway? |
| 11:51 | <Philip`> | We could set up the list on Google Wave, so Hixie can use the secret wiretap backdoor to track and analyse the discussions |
| 11:54 | <Lachy> | we need a way to allow robots to index the content, but to keep it secret, a way to block unwanted humans from heading it. |
| 11:54 | <Lachy> | and we don't yet have a Human Exclusions Protocol (humans.txt) |
| 11:54 | <Hixie> | i'm going to go to bed before your conspiracy theories get me in trouble |
| 11:54 | <Hixie> | nn :-) |
| 11:57 | <MikeSmith> | Lachy: you need to run with that Human Exclusion Protocol idea. do an IETF Internet draft |
| 11:59 | <Lachy> | MikeSmith, I was just thinking about an April Fools RFC for that :-) |
| 11:59 | <dbaron> | Would it apply if Koko the Gorilla starts using a Web browser? |
| 11:59 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 12:01 | <Lachy> | Human-Agent: Mike* |
| 12:01 | <Lachy> | Disallow: / |
| 12:01 | <gsnedders|work> | MikeSmith: Quick, change to billyjackass! |
| 12:11 | <othermaciej> | hmm, reading some blog posts for the past few weeks it seems like a remarkable number of people really had faith in XHMTML2 |
| 12:19 | <mookid> | is it going to be possible for javascript to render other formats like PDF in html5? |
| 12:20 | <gsnedders|work> | mookid: I guess the main issue with that is lack of a binary data type |
| 12:20 | <mookid> | hmm |
| 12:20 | <mookid> | ok |
| 12:20 | <mookid> | frustrating because the only option right now is to popup a new window |
| 12:20 | <gsnedders|work> | mookid: Otherwise, I don't think there's anything stopping you (from converting to either HTML/SVG elements, or rendering onto a canvas) |
| 12:20 | <mookid> | eww that's pretty gnarly |
| 12:20 | <gsnedders|work> | mookid: Not just use object or something? |
| 12:21 | <gsnedders|work> | mookid: Well, how else would you render it with Javascript? |
| 12:21 | <gsnedders|work> | mookid: Am I missing what you meant? |
| 12:21 | <mookid> | situation I'm in - if I make XMLHttpRequest to a pdf document |
| 12:21 | <mookid> | how do I get that rendered? |
| 12:22 | <gsnedders|work> | Convert it to a data URI and set an object's data to it? |
| 12:22 | <gsnedders|work> | Why not just set the object's data to the URL you request with XHR? |
| 12:23 | <mookid> | cos it's got custom headers :P |
| 12:23 | <gsnedders|work> | I was guessing that |
| 12:23 | <mookid> | there is one way that I guess would work - which is to render a flash app and pass the data into that |
| 12:23 | <gsnedders|work> | If it contains any null bytes, be warned that Opera at least truncates responseText at that |
| 12:24 | <gsnedders|work> | Converting it to a data URI should work, though |
| 12:24 | <mookid> | yeah XMLHttpRequest is pretty bad |
| 12:24 | <mookid> | are there any plans to update/fix that? |
| 12:24 | <mookid> | can we at least drop the XML infront of it? |
| 12:25 | <gsnedders|work> | The null issue? I guess the answer is I can't comment on that. |
| 12:25 | <gsnedders|work> | We can't really drop the XML in the name because thousands of sites rely upon it being there |
| 12:25 | <gsnedders|work> | Http is equally misleading, as you can make FTP requests too in theory |
| 12:25 | <gsnedders|work> | (or any other scheme) |
| 12:25 | <mookid> | can't you just change it and make the old name a pointer? |
| 12:25 | <gsnedders|work> | Yes, but is it worthwhile changing that? |
| 12:26 | <mookid> | well I think it can be improved anyway |
| 12:26 | <mookid> | the spec could be more vigorous wrt the HTTP spec |
| 12:27 | <gsnedders|work> | We're gonna have to keep backwards compat with XHR forever, more or less, so adding an alias doesn't help. |
| 12:27 | <gsnedders|work> | Vigorous in what way? |
| 12:27 | <mookid> | 3xx forwards are very bad right now in XHR |
| 12:27 | <mookid> | + the object could be structured in a more intuitive fashion |
| 12:28 | <MikeSmith> | http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/ |
| 12:28 | <mookid> | nah it doesnt |
| 12:28 | <mookid> | :P |
| 12:28 | <gsnedders|work> | mookid: That can't really be changed for backwards compat. reasons |
| 12:28 | <mookid> | gsnedders|work: ok so is there room to create a new client library? |
| 12:29 | <gsnedders|work> | mookid: I doubt it'll be added at a browser level (on grounds that XHR already exists) |
| 12:30 | <gsnedders|work> | mookid: What's your issue with redirects? |
| 12:30 | <mookid> | well they're inconsistent and the object makes it very hard to get a handle on what's actually going on |
| 12:30 | <mookid> | the implementations are inconsistent |
| 12:31 | <gsnedders|work> | That's an implementation issue, and all are moving towards the current WD |
| 12:31 | <gsnedders|work> | Actually, I expect the current ED |
| 12:32 | <mookid> | maybe I'm not up enough on XHR but redirects follows are automated for some 3xx codes right? |
| 12:32 | <gsnedders|work> | For "HTTP redirects" |
| 12:36 | <mookid> | scariest idea ever |
| 12:37 | <mookid> | give your javascript sandbox namespaces a URI |
| 12:37 | <mookid> | then I can give an object a data URI |
| 12:39 | <mookid> | so essentially what you're saying is I can't use XHR response data to render a PDF? |
| 12:39 | <gsnedders|work> | huh? |
| 12:40 | <mookid> | nvm =) |
| 12:40 | <mookid> | having an accept header attribute would make my life a lot easier.. ;D |
| 12:41 | <gsnedders|work> | Take the responseText, encode as base64, then add before that data:application/pdf;base64, |
| 12:41 | <gsnedders|work> | How does that not work? |
| 12:41 | <mookid> | what do you do with that from there though? |
| 12:42 | <mookid> | I can't render it or make it available to save to disk in a browser sandbox |
| 12:42 | <gsnedders|work> | var obj = document.createElement("object"); obj.data = foobar; |
| 12:42 | <gsnedders|work> | Then add the obj and if there is a PDF plugin installed, it'll render. |
| 12:42 | <gsnedders|work> | *add the obj to the tree somewhere |
| 12:42 | <mookid> | oh right hmm lol |
| 12:43 | <mookid> | I'm sure I read somewhere you can't do that |
| 12:43 | <mookid> | is that new? |
| 12:44 | <gsnedders|work> | No, but I'm pretty certain that should work |
| 12:44 | <gsnedders|work> | If it doesn't, you've hit browser bugs |
| 12:44 | <mookid> | sound, cheers |
| 12:44 | <gsnedders|work> | There may be some other way that I haven't thought off, though. |
| 12:44 | <gsnedders|work> | Do PDFs contain null bytes often? |
| 12:45 | <mookid> | haven't looked into that yet |
| 12:45 | <gsnedders|work> | As I say, any containing null bytes will fail in Opera |
| 12:46 | <mookid> | ok bear with me here - if the browser has no plugin installed - there's no way to provide a save to disk dialogue box? |
| 12:51 | <mookid> | MikeSmith: was that link for me? |
| 12:54 | <gsnedders|work> | mookid: What the browser does in that case is implementation dependant behaviour. |
| 12:54 | <gsnedders|work> | mookid: But there's no way to force a browser to provide a save dialogue without running in a privileged state |
| 13:13 | <MikeSmith> | mookid: what link? |
| 13:13 | <mookid> | the RDF one |
| 13:14 | <mookid> | RDF vs. LinkedData |
| 13:14 | <MikeSmith> | nope |
| 13:14 | <mookid> | k |
| 13:14 | <MikeSmith> | that was for all us, for our collective edification |
| 13:14 | <mookid> | sweet |
| 13:14 | <MikeSmith> | mookid: you have an interest in linked data? |
| 13:14 | <mookid> | Hmmm - I'd like to say yes |
| 13:14 | <mookid> | but honestly I'm not realy qualified to say that |
| 13:15 | <mookid> | I know REST and I'm working on a layered platform |
| 13:15 | <mookid> | but I'm not using RDF |
| 13:15 | <mookid> | so that article sounds good to me |
| 13:15 | <mookid> | granted.. RDF seems like a pretty nice tool for 'fractal' data graphs |
| 13:16 | <mookid> | it's just more cost to my project right now |
| 13:16 | <mookid> | I'm all set up to introduce an additional RDF layer whenever I need :) |
| 13:16 | <mookid> | thanks to URI's and content negotiation |
| 13:16 | <MikeSmith> | sometimes it costs more to add stuff later |
| 13:17 | <MikeSmith> | I don't actually know much about RDF beyond the very basics |
| 13:17 | gsnedders|work | still isn't sure using URIs to identify things is entirely sensible |
| 13:17 | <gsnedders|work> | I mean, what URI do I use for my grandmother? |
| 13:17 | <mookid> | ... |
| 13:18 | <mookid> | there's a joke there somwhere |
| 13:18 | <MikeSmith> | btw, a note while I'm thinking about it: If somebody ever does do XML5, it should relax the restriction that comments can't contain "--" |
| 13:18 | gsnedders|work | still thinks XML5 should be a strict subset of XML 1.0 4th edition |
| 13:18 | <MikeSmith> | along with all other "backwards compatible with SGML" constraints |
| 13:19 | <mookid> | gsnedders|work: it's all to do with how you actually define a Resource |
| 13:19 | MikeSmith | is reminded that he meant to open a bug about the phrase "backwards compatible" in the spec intro |
| 13:20 | <mookid> | MikeSmith: if I wanted to introduce RDF to my system I'd only have to add another layer of RDF representations ontop of my existing URIs |
| 13:21 | <mookid> | and I can do that easily with Accept/Content-Type headers |
| 13:21 | <Philip`> | gsnedders|work: What do you mean by "strict subset"? (All well-formed XML1 documents must parse to the same DOM when using the XML5 algorithm? That sounds more like a superset to me) |
| 13:21 | <MikeSmith> | can a Resource just be a particular stream of data transmitted over TCP/IP? |
| 13:21 | <gsnedders|work> | Philip`: I mean in terms of document conformance. |
| 13:22 | <gsnedders|work> | Philip`: But yes, the parsing should be a superset, and conforming a subset |
| 13:22 | <Philip`> | gsnedders|work: So all conforming XML5 documents should also be conforming XML1 documents, but not the other way around? |
| 13:22 | <gsnedders|work> | Philip`: Yeah. |
| 13:22 | <gsnedders|work> | Philip`: Because DOCTYPE is evil. |
| 13:22 | <Philip`> | gsnedders|work: Okay, makes sense |
| 13:23 | <mookid> | gsnedders|work: why do you say that? |
| 13:23 | <Philip`> | I suppose my main complaint with XML is not that draconian error handling is bad, but that it's too complex to follow the rules in practice |
| 13:24 | <mookid> | MikeSmith: technically, yes - if you were logging TCP/IP traffic you could give each packet a URI |
| 13:24 | <mookid> | but the actual data trasmitted is a representation |
| 13:25 | <Philip`> | e.g. properly-nested tags and quoted attributes are pretty easy, and the pain is in the complex character requirements and the forbidden sequences like "]]>" and "--" |
| 13:25 | <Philip`> | (and in doctypes) |
| 13:26 | <mookid> | could you use JSON? |
| 13:26 | gsnedders|work | notes XHTML, Atom, and RSS are not JSON, so for most people using XML the answer is no.\ |
| 13:27 | <mookid> | I mean use JSON for HTML5 |
| 13:27 | <gsnedders|work> | If you define a JSON serialization of a DOM, sure. |
| 13:27 | <mookid> | well isn't it better suited than XML?~ |
| 13:28 | <mookid> | I thought there's an issue with XML in terms of what you can actually assume about the data from the order/tag heirarchy |
| 13:29 | <mookid> | there must be most of that work already done within apps like firebug..? |
| 13:30 | <Philip`> | Someone should modify something like http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/misc/sexp.html to work with JSON |
| 13:30 | <mookid> | :) |
| 13:30 | <mookid> | Kris Zyp is/was working on JSON-Schema and json references |
| 13:31 | <mookid> | where schema's all linked together and could reference one another /themselves |
| 13:32 | <mookid> | I dunno exctly how fruity the DOM is but I would imagine you can break it down quite neatly |
| 13:37 | <gsnedders|work> | Anyone from Mozilla around? |
| 13:37 | <gsnedders|work> | Or anyone with a clue of how to report a bug in Gecko? |
| 13:37 | <gsnedders|work> | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=broken-website.html says to go through the Help menu, but I don't have a "Report Broken Web Site" in the nightly I have. |
| 13:38 | <Philip`> | gsnedders|work: Just use Bugzilla normally, and file a bug with a test case? |
| 13:38 | <gsnedders|work> | Philip`: You aren't allowed to do that nowadays. |
| 13:38 | <gsnedders|work> | Oh well, their problem. |
| 13:38 | <Philip`> | Uh, not allowed to file bugs? |
| 13:39 | <gsnedders|work> | "IMPORTANT: if the problem is with a broken web page, you need to report it a different way." |
| 13:39 | <gsnedders|work> | So seeming you're not. |
| 13:40 | <Philip`> | That sounds like it's meant for bug reports like "I visited Yahoo Mail and it doesn't work" |
| 13:41 | gsnedders|work | grumbles |
| 13:41 | <Philip`> | and I'd hope you have more detail and a minimised test case and then you could file a proper bug :-) |
| 13:41 | <gsnedders|work> | I'm reporting one of their tests is broken (and so is their behaviour that passes it) |
| 13:44 | <Philip`> | gsnedders|work: Then just fill out the bug form and put all the relevant details in it |
| 13:47 | gsnedders|work | finds through one really obscure bit of the spec that the tests are right, and he is wrong. |
| 17:04 | <hallvors> | why doesn't the spec allow multi-letter accesskey values? |
| 21:28 | <Darxus> | I'm having a surprisingly difficult time finding XHTML 1.0 and HTML 5 test suites. |
| 21:31 | <takkaria> | what would an XHTML1 test suite test? |
| 21:31 | <jcranmer> | HTML 3.2, obviously |
| 21:32 | <takkaria> | I mean, I wasn't aware there were many testable things in XHTML1 |
| 21:39 | <Philip`> | takkaria: I assume it normatively includes HTML4, so you could test all of HTML4's conformance requirements |
| 21:39 | <takkaria> | I was just trying to find thoser but it looks like w3.org is having problems |
| 21:44 | <Darxus> | takkaria: Browser conformance. |
| 21:53 | <Darxus> | There seems to be no good statistics on how well browsers support XHTML 1.0, and as that is the last standard to support text/html, and IE doesn't support application/xhtml+xml, and it was released 9 years ago, I think that it qualifies as the most important current standard. And I think there should be better browser support statistics on current standards. |
| 21:54 | <jcranmer> | XHTML is predominantly treated as HTML 4.0-serialized-as-XML |
| 21:54 | <jcranmer> | (from my experience) |
| 21:56 | <Darxus> | jcranmer: So you would expect browser conformance to be the same between HTML4 and XHTML 1.0? |
| 22:00 | <Lachy> | Darxus, XHTML as text/html is, as far as the browser is concerned, simply HTML. |
| 22:01 | <Darxus> | Lachy: Thank you. |