| 00:33 | <paul_irish> | i was interested in what specs were broken out of the html5 spec and when.. got any leads for where i should look? |
| 00:33 | <TabAtkins> | The first section of the whatwg spec should detail that. |
| 01:30 | <othermaciej> | paul_irish: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_are_the_various_versions_of_the_spec.3F |
| 01:38 | <paul_irish> | thx tab and maciej |
| 04:32 | <MikeSmith> | http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/jun/10/antiweb |
| 04:33 | <MikeSmith> | breaking news: journalist finds evidence of supposedly growing "anti-Web" movement |
| 06:36 | <hsivonen> | what doess paidContent:UK mean on the anti-Web article? who pays for what? |
| 07:20 | hsivonen | looks for the base URL processing rules again |
| 07:20 | hsivonen | fails to find them in the obvious place |
| 07:21 | <hsivonen> | found it |
| 07:31 | <hsivonen> | paul_irish: http://html5readiness.com/ needs updates for Firefox and Safari--to the version number at least |
| 07:54 | <hsivonen> | <basefont> creates a crazy DOM in IE... |
| 08:10 | <paul_irish> | hsivonen: true. ill try to hit that up next week |
| 08:12 | <hsivonen> | paul_irish: nice |
| 08:13 | <hsivonen> | looks like html5lib's test coverage for basefont and bgsound sucks |
| 08:14 | <paul_irish> | url? |
| 08:21 | <hsivonen> | paul_irish: http://code.google.com/p/html5lib/source/browse/#hg/testdata/ There basically are no interesting tests about <basefont> or <bgsound> |
| 08:22 | <hsivonen> | that is, even if I change the parser notably, no tests starts failing |
| 08:34 | <jgraham> | Do basefont or bgsound do anything unusually magic? |
| 08:34 | jgraham | can't remember and loading the spec is tedius |
| 08:34 | <jgraham> | *tedious |
| 08:35 | <Hixie> | you know even complete has a multipage version now :-P |
| 08:36 | <jgraham> | Well I have a very low tedium thereshold right now :) |
| 08:39 | <jgraham> | Ah, OK, nothing too special |
| 08:40 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: It seems like it should be possible to have tests for every tag that has special behaviour in each mode in which it is special |
| 08:40 | <jgraham> | but I can't work out how to generate the expected output sanely |
| 08:41 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: they are now sensitive to reconstructing the list of formatting elements and to flipping frameset-ok |
| 08:41 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Yeah |
| 08:41 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I was just about to accidentally break both those behaviors |
| 08:42 | <jgraham> | (generating the expected input is also not trivial because you need to know that you should have formatting tags before, or frameset after, the element, in order to test |
| 08:42 | <jgraham> | ) |
| 08:42 | <jgraham> | s/expected/interesting/ |
| 08:44 | hsivonen | hasn't written framesets in years and needs to look up documentation |
| 08:45 | <hsivonen> | w3schools to rescue! |
| 08:48 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: Based on IE behavior, I believe the spec is wrong to set frameset-ok to 'not ok' on <basefont> and <bgsound> |
| 08:48 | <Hixie> | k |
| 08:48 | <hsivonen> | ok. now I can 'break' stuff intentionally instead of breaking stuff accidentally |
| 08:51 | <hsivonen> | I also think that given the function of <basefont> (none) and <bgsound> (not visual), I think it's useless to reconstruct the active formatting elements for them in 'in body' |
| 08:51 | <hsivonen> | s/I think// |
| 08:51 | <Hixie> | no argument there |
| 08:54 | <jgraham> | So we could just remove all the special rules? |
| 08:54 | <jgraham> | Sounds good |
| 08:59 | <hsivonen> | aargh. I still forgot to test <head><noscript><bgsound> with scripting turned off |
| 09:00 | <jgraham> | wiki down? |
| 09:00 | <jgraham> | Oh, no it was just being very very slow |
| 11:00 | <hsivonen> | http://twitter.com/mattmay/status/15798681102 |
| 11:02 | <othermaciej> | who has raised a Formal Objection? |
| 11:03 | othermaciej | is not fully caught up on email |
| 11:12 | <Lachy> | no-one has raised an FO yet. I don't know where Matt has gotten his information from. |
| 11:13 | <othermaciej> | did anyone (other than Shelley) indicate an intent to do so? |
| 11:13 | othermaciej | is rather puzzled |
| 11:17 | <Hixie> | looks like he tweeted that just a few hours after http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0238.html |
| 11:27 | <zcorpan_> | http://www.w3.org/mid/OF4C735B56.D6A802E0-ON8625773E.006210C1-8625773E.006248A3⊙uic - is this how to make emails accessible? |
| 11:27 | <Peter`> | it's clear.. |
| 15:02 | <annevk> | it's quite amazing how often Julian can make the same point |
| 15:02 | <annevk> | even more amazing that I still read it all |
| 15:45 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: <base> was parsed the same as <basefont> in ie6 |
| 15:47 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: should basefont and bgsound break out of noscript in head? |
| 15:49 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: I didn't research noscript interaction yet. I got distracted by other stuff. |
| 15:50 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: but it's hard for me to believe that they'd need to break out of <noscript> in head for Web compat |
| 15:51 | <zcorpan_> | hsivonen: indeed, however breaking out is the default behavior, isn't it? |
| 15:51 | <zcorpan_> | and you can't tell the difference without roundtripping. and basefont and bgsound are invalid anyway |
| 15:56 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan_: my suggestion is to make bgsound and basefont parse just like <link> |
| 15:56 | <zcorpan_> | ok |
| 17:22 | <Philip`> | Did the behaviour of public-html for messages from non-subscribers change some time recentishly? |
| 17:22 | <Philip`> | It used to delay the first message (for manual moderation?) but then accept subsequent ones immediately |
| 17:23 | <Philip`> | but now it sends me a message saying my message was forwarded to the maintainer for manual processing |
| 17:31 | <TabAtkins> | Maybe you should be less spammy, Philip`. |
| 17:32 | <Philip`> | It's the first I've sent to public-html in >2 months |
| 17:33 | <Philip`> | though it's a vaguely technical discussion and not about process and therefore it's probably off-topic for public-html |
| 17:33 | <TabAtkins> | There's your problem, then. |
| 17:50 | <hsivonen> | Looks like Flash 10.1 got finally released |
| 18:54 | <enderandpeter_> | Hello, all you brilliant crafters of the new web |
| 18:56 | <AryehGregor> | Hello, brilliant craftee, or beneficiary thereof. |
| 18:57 | <enderandpeter_> | Oh, I'm quite the novice, believe you me. But I hope to help out where I can... |
| 18:58 | <AryehGregor> | To help out, read the spec and point out anything unclear or wrong. And try using it and tell whatwg⊙wo about it. |
| 18:58 | <AryehGregor> | (or maybe it's @lists.whatwg.org, I forget) |
| 19:03 | <enderandpeter_> | Oh wow. I like the tool for submitting comments about sections. |
| 19:05 | <enderandpeter_> | To tell you the truth, I have not really seriously sat down with any of the W3C specifications. When I familiarize myself about so many web technologies, I find myself focusing on the literature browser makers produce, and general tutorials and guides. I do think understanding that specs themselves is important, to know where everyone's coming from. |
| 19:06 | <AryehGregor> | This channel isn't about a W3C specification. :) |
| 19:06 | <AryehGregor> | But never mind, that's a detail. |
| 19:07 | <enderandpeter_> | Quite true, but I assume that one day HTML5 will because a specification of theirs, won't it? |
| 19:07 | <AryehGregor> | There's a W3C HTML5 specification and also a WHATWG one. The latter is a superset of the former. |
| 19:07 | <AryehGregor> | There's no reason to believe that the WHATWG will go away anytime soon. |
| 19:08 | <AryehGregor> | Some people here would prefer it if the HTMLWG went away instead. |
| 19:09 | <enderandpeter_> | The WHATWG spec is a superset of the W3C one? So there is much the WHATWG one entails that W3C one does not or will not? |
| 19:09 | <TabAtkins> | At the moment, not "much". The exact differences are detailed at the very beginning of the whatwg version. |
| 19:10 | <AryehGregor> | Well, the WHATWG spec is a combination of a bunch of W3C specs plus some extra minor things. |
| 19:10 | <AryehGregor> | The W3C split it up a lot, so the spec called "HTML5" there is a lot smaller, but other parts are in other specs. |
| 19:11 | <enderandpeter_> | I see, I see... Personally, I think the more heads working on conforming web design, the better off the world will be. Well, maybe I will finally sit down and read the darn thing... both I suppose. |
| 19:13 | <enderandpeter_> | Oh man, just to really hammer in my lack of experience, what does it mean that a section is "non-normative". Is there a place you know of where I can get a hold of so much of the jargon these specs use? |
| 19:16 | <AryehGregor> | Try a dictionary, in this case. |
| 19:16 | <AryehGregor> | "Normative" means "binding, required". Non-normative text is explanatory, not binding. |
| 19:19 | <enderandpeter_> | I see. Wow, I didn't mean to sound like THAT much of novice. It's just that I find a lot of technical writing about programming get's very esoteric very easily, so you just never know... |
| 19:33 | <cardona507> | maryz - holding down the spot |
| 19:33 | <TabAtkins> | cardona507: Wrong window again. ^_^ |
| 19:33 | <cardona507> | doh |
| 19:33 | <cardona507> | wow - I gotta work on that :) |
| 19:34 | <cardona507> | sorry bout that |
| 19:37 | <Philip`> | enderandpeter_: Specifications have a special kind of language that most other technical writing doesn't, though to make it more confusing some specifications aren't very consistent at using that language |
| 19:38 | <Philip`> | So it's probably best to ask seemingly obvious questions, because sometimes the answers will be important but unobvious :-) |
| 20:03 | <AryehGregor> | This post is awesome for the inverted answers at the bottom: http://www.xn--8ws00zhy3a.com/blog/2010/06/html5-atom-gone-wrong |
| 20:35 | <TabAtkins> | Heh, that is pretty cool. And luckily easy to reverse. |
| 20:38 | <Philip`> | TabAtkins: Indeed - just stand on your head |
| 20:38 | <Lachy> | AryehGregor, several of those issues that post complains about are not issues at all. The author just failed to understand the spec and blamed his own mistakes on HTML5 |
| 20:38 | <AryehGregor> | Lachy, dunno about that, I was just figuring the upside-down thing was cool. |
| 20:39 | <Lachy> | a couple of them seem like trivial spec bugs that can be fixed in the spec, and not really significant issues to be complaining about. |
| 20:42 | <AryehGregor> | If there are serious problems with the algorithm, they should be fixed. This is part of why two specs is bad, because people with legitimate complaints will say "Well, it's only in that nasty WHATWG spec, so I don't have to worry about it." |
| 20:42 | <AryehGregor> | Same thing with Microdata vs. RDFa. |
| 20:42 | <AryehGregor> | (There might not be serious problems, of course.) |
| 20:43 | <TabAtkins> | Hmm. Looking at the atom format, it appears that <title>s are supposed to be text, not markup. |
| 20:45 | <Lachy> | From the list in that page, issues 1, 3, 4 and 8 are trivial to fix. Issues 5, 6 and 7 are bogus. Issue 2 I'm not sure about, but most likely bogus. Issue 9 is legitimate, but not much that can be done about it and not a serious problem. |
| 20:46 | <TabAtkins> | Issue 2 was discussed on the list. It's bogus as he phrased it, but there can indeed be problems in some circumstances. |
| 20:49 | <TabAtkins> | But the id he claims would be constructed by the html algo is bogus unless the feed is broken (to get that value, the author would have to write <a rel=bookmark href=index>Permalink</a>, essentially). |
| 20:52 | <TabAtkins> | I see no way to comment on his entry, nor any contact info for him anywhere on his site. Way to "blog". |
| 20:53 | <AryehGregor> | TabAtkins, I saw a blog like that recently. |
| 20:53 | <Lachy> | Doesn't matter. Just respond on public-html and state which of the issues Hixie should fix, and which can be ignored |
| 20:53 | <AryehGregor> | Very annoying, because it attributed my idea to someone else. :( |
| 20:54 | <Philip`> | TabAtkins: Some people have better things to do than spend every day moderating comments on their blog |
| 20:54 | <Philip`> | If people want to respond they can just write their own blog post |
| 20:55 | <AryehGregor> | Hixie adopts that policy for his blog, but I'm pretty sure he also has contact info somewhere. |
| 20:55 | <TabAtkins> | That's not a "response". That's a separate entity which happens to be talking about the original post. |
| 20:55 | <TabAtkins> | I'm okay with no comments, but *some* way to contact the author is a requirement. |
| 20:55 | <TabAtkins> | Or else you're just an ass, imo. |
| 20:57 | <Philip`> | You could use one of the IM contacts on http://www.詹姆斯.com/foaf |
| 20:58 | <TabAtkins> | How did you discover that? |
| 20:58 | <Philip`> | I leveraged the magic of RDF |
| 20:58 | <TabAtkins> | Oh, ffs. That list of differences? It's a series of "<sup>1</sup> <span>...</span><br>" in a div. |
| 20:59 | <Philip`> | Actually I just did view source on the index page |
| 21:04 | <hober> | TabAtkins: <atom:title> is an Atom Text Construct, which can be all sorts of things, including HTML. |
| 21:05 | <TabAtkins> | hober: Thanks - I didn't feel like diving into the rfc enough to find the definition of "Text Construct". |
| 21:05 | TabAtkins | is writing up the necessary fixes right now. |
| 21:25 | <KaOSoFt> | There still doesn't seem to be an off-line HTML5 validator, right? Pretty much just like this: http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/ |
| 21:25 | <KaOSoFt> | I know the spec is constantly changing and all, but I'd love to have something like it. |
| 21:25 | <KaOSoFt> | I, for once, do not have Internet at home, and such an extension would make miracles for me. |
| 21:26 | <Philip`> | KaOSoFt: You can (probably) run the Validator.nu code offline |
| 21:27 | <KaOSoFt> | I didn't know it's download-able. |
| 21:27 | <Philip`> | http://about.validator.nu/#src |
| 21:28 | <KaOSoFt> | Wow, thank you. I'll check it out right away! |
| 21:57 | <jgraham> | KaOSoFt: You have to run the build script twice or it will crash in a mysterious way |
| 21:58 | <jgraham> | (unless that got fixed) |
| 21:58 | <KaOSoFt> | Yeah, I read the note in that section. |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | QWE IKTHJGWO;LGKUIAJER5'PLT OGPZ5 |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | ;LGN |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | K 4{W}P"r[f kM"{8og ijBK |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | ]PORTH80 1 |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | hq E{)&Tgfn ] |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | bot fgiu |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | {HN0o5rib 8.on ojvceip'OU;G NWE |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | R |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | IGJH8ow/4nhigf ojnk |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | k |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | hl;W |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | $M{ |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | bguw/n |
| 22:08 | <boaz> | uywr |
| 22:08 | <jgraham> | You lost me at QWE |
| 22:23 | <gsnedders> | Oh hell yeah. Four hour wait at Skavsta for the bus tomorrow! |
| 22:43 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: I didn't even know that was possible |
| 22:48 | <zcorpan_> | does new XMLHttpRequest; make any sense? |
| 22:48 | <jgraham> | Yeah |
| 22:48 | <jgraham> | That always works in ES |
| 22:48 | <zcorpan_> | also for normal functions? |
| 22:49 | <jgraham> | I think so, unless my memory is faulty |
| 22:49 | <zcorpan_> | ok |
| 22:50 | <jgraham> | Yeah just checked by experiment |
| 22:50 | <jgraham> | Anyway I have a rely to that email |
| 22:50 | <jgraham> | *reply |
| 22:50 | <jgraham> | I will find a mail system that lets me send it... |