| 00:55 | <cardona507> | hello - I want to use offline cache and db - but am unclear how the two relate in terms of code - local storage also - I am kind of unclear about use cases - right now I am trying to help some friends put their books onto the web and we are making them mobile friendly - but I just don't know how to make my cache manifest clearly defined in the db... any advice? |
| 01:14 | <cardona507> | for example with a book - the text and images are all in the markup - so do I need a db at all? or just an cache manifest? |
| 08:56 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: maybe you should skip validation for xml-stylesheet pis that are not in the prolog |
| 08:58 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: since they're not considered to be potential xml-stylesheet pis |
| 08:59 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: maybe, but a possible rationale for checking them is that they're just misplaced and the user would still like their content to be checked |
| 08:59 | <MikeSmith> | but I don't feel strongly about it |
| 09:00 | <zcorpan> | yeah maybe |
| 09:00 | <MikeSmith> | if you think it seems preferable to not check them, I can change it |
| 09:03 | <MikeSmith> | hmm |
| 09:03 | <MikeSmith> | but I see your point |
| 09:04 | <MikeSmith> | if the user sees error messages about the content of the data part, that might cause them to assume it will actually be processed, even though it's misplaced |
| 09:05 | <zcorpan> | yes |
| 09:05 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 09:05 | <MikeSmith> | it's trivial to change -- just need to add an early return |
| 09:06 | <MikeSmith> | should I do the same for the case where it's in the doctype declaration? |
| 09:06 | <MikeSmith> | ah no |
| 09:06 | <MikeSmith> | spec says only to warn about that |
| 09:06 | <MikeSmith> | or doesn't say to warn |
| 09:06 | <MikeSmith> | but that case is just a "should", right? |
| 09:07 | <zcorpan> | you're allowed to skip pis in the doctype |
| 09:07 | <zcorpan> | per spec |
| 09:07 | <zcorpan> | but then the warning should probably say that you've skipped it |
| 09:08 | <zcorpan> | "For potential xml-stylesheet processing instructions that are in the [children] property of a document type declaration information item, xml-stylesheet processors may report to the application the parsing result of invoking the rules for parsing pseudo-attributes from a string, using the processing instruction information item's [content] property as the string. [Definition: If it's not reported to the application, the processing inst |
| 09:08 | <zcorpan> | information item is said to be ignored.]" |
| 09:10 | <zcorpan> | and "Documents should not use xml-stylesheet processing instructions that are in the [children] property of a document type declaration information item." |
| 09:11 | <zcorpan> | technically, <!DOCTYPE x[<?xml-stylesheet lol?>]><x/> is invalid, but you need to process it to tell |
| 09:15 | <MikeSmith> | maybe for both the cases, I should append "To check the contents of the xml-stylesheet instruction, move it and then resubmit the document for validation." |
| 09:16 | <zcorpan> | maybe (Suppressing further errors from this processing instruction.) |
| 09:19 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 09:27 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: OK, I just made those changes and also added warnings for charset and for media, etc., in XSLT indicators |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | and pushed to qa-dev |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | and also made other changes we talked about yesterday |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | see comments at bug 14 |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | oh, that reminds me |
| 09:29 | <MikeSmith> | wanted to ask about a couple remaining errors that aren't XML conformant |
| 09:32 | <zcorpan> | are they errors according to charmod? |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | if (value >= 0xFDD0 && value <= 0xFDEF) { |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | errNcrUnassigned(); |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | } else if (value >= 0x007F && value <= 0x009F) { |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | errNcrControlChar(); |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | those ranges are legal, right? |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | if so, I can change those errors to warnings |
| 09:35 | <zcorpan> | legal according to the xml-stylesheet spec yes, but are they legal according to the charmod spec? |
| 09:37 | <MikeSmith> | ah |
| 09:37 | MikeSmith | goes to check charmod |
| 09:44 | <zcorpan> | can't find anything in charmod |
| 09:48 | <MikeSmith> | it mentions something about not using code points that are for Unicode internal use |
| 09:48 | <MikeSmith> | I wonder if permanently unassigned code points are considered to be for internal use |
| 09:55 | <MikeSmith> | "value >= 0xFDD0 && value <= 0xFDEF" seem to definitely be non-characters, so it seems right to emit an error for those |
| 09:55 | <MikeSmith> | but can't find any must-not prohibition on "value >= 0x007F && value <= 0x009F", so will change that to a warning |
| 12:05 | annevk | has trouble remembering all the places he's been |
| 13:46 | <oskude> | heh, the most best fitting topic i've seen "Please leave your sense of logic at the door, thanks!" when it comes to web-development ;P |
| 13:53 | <annevk> | yeah, browsers... |
| 16:24 | <annevk> | hmm, EUR 530 to get my MacBook fixed |
| 16:24 | <annevk> | doesn't really seem worth it |
| 16:25 | <Philip`> | That's more than the cost of my current main laptop |
| 16:25 | <annevk> | I paid a little more for it, but still... |
| 16:27 | <annevk> | pretty bad that it breaks down in two years :/ |
| 21:53 | <AryehGregor> | I hope the HTMLWG publishes a Last Call soon for the sole reason that then people will stop trying to move the Wikipedia article to "HTML 5" based on looking at the August Working Draft. |
| 21:57 | Philip` | suggests not fighting the people who want to move it |
| 21:59 | <AryehGregor> | Well, then someone else will fight them and move it back. |
| 21:59 | <AryehGregor> | Anyway, it's not much of a fight, took two minutes or something. |
| 22:07 | <GPHemsley> | AryehGregor: Your WerdaBot doesn't appear to be working anymore... :P |
| 22:07 | <annevk> | publishing an interim draft is prolly coming first, if anything |
| 22:07 | <AryehGregor> | GPHemsley, WerdnaBot is Werdna's, not mine. |
| 22:07 | <GPHemsley> | AryehGregor: Well, I meant, for your talk page |
| 22:07 | <AryehGregor> | GPHemsley, nobody talks to me anyway, so no big deal. |
| 22:07 | <GPHemsley> | heh |
| 22:17 | <Hixie> | AryehGregor: ain't nothing wrong with calling it "HTML 5", just like "HTML4" and "HTML 4" are both acceptable |
| 22:17 | <AryehGregor> | Hixie, well, Wikipedia might as well be consistent. |
| 22:17 | <Hixie> | what does it do for HTML4? |
| 22:20 | <annevk> | oh yes, made Ubuntu stream video to my Xbox 360 |
| 22:20 | <annevk> | win win win |
| 22:25 | <AryehGregor> | "HTML 4.0" |
| 22:25 | <AryehGregor> | That's the name used in the spec. |
| 22:26 | <AryehGregor> | Whereas HTML5 uses "HTML5" in the spec. |