| 00:18 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: http://trac.webkit.org/export/LATEST/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/parser/residual-style-hang.html doesn't show text in gecko |
| 00:23 | <roc> | AryehGregor: there's no way IE9 will hit 100 on Acid3, because they've said they're not doing SVG Animation or SVG Fonts |
| 00:23 | <TabAtkins> | Man, for real? |
| 00:24 | <roc> | for IE9 anyway |
| 00:24 | <TabAtkins> | I like my animated SVG... |
| 00:24 | <Hixie> | we're going to need to get the browsers together and decide if SVG fonts is really worth keeping, i think |
| 00:24 | <roc> | of course, the fact that Acid3 tests those is a huge misfeature IMHO |
| 00:24 | TabAtkins | doesn't know how he feels about SMIL in general, he just likes having his SVG animate itself. |
| 00:24 | <TabAtkins> | I don't think anyone thinks SVG fonts are really worth keeping. |
| 00:25 | <roc> | Hixie: Doug Schepers has said the SVG group will split out SVG Fonts into their own spec |
| 00:25 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: i mean in the codebases of those who have implemented it |
| 00:25 | <Hixie> | roc: interesting |
| 00:26 | TabAtkins | is using animated SVG in an emulator for a flash game. |
| 00:26 | <TabAtkins> | Just for a conveyor belt, but still. |
| 00:26 | <roc> | Hixie: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2010Jun/0003.html near the bottom |
| 00:26 | <roc> | although the whole message is relevant |
| 00:28 | <roc> | Hixie: regardless of the merits of SVG Fonts, I really strongly feel that SVG Fonts should not become part of the Web platform just because they snuck into Acid3 |
| 00:29 | <Hixie> | i agree |
| 00:30 | <Hixie> | but i don't want to remove them without opera and webkit agreeing to remove support (or at least agreeing that the test shouldn't have them and that they might remove support), because then it just looks like i'm trying to make it easy for firefox to pass after having "tricked" webkit and opera into implementing something, or whatever |
| 00:30 | <roc> | well, if you read the feedback we've been getting for years, including some of the comments on one of my recent blog posts --- http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/06/not_implementin.html#comments --- there is tremendous pressure to implement SVG Fonts because they're in Acid3 |
| 00:30 | <othermaciej> | WebKit's SVG font support is in active use by iTunes Extras |
| 00:31 | <othermaciej> | and perhaps other content |
| 00:31 | <Hixie> | roc: i understand |
| 00:31 | <roc> | Hixie: removing SVG Fonts from Acid3 isn't a decision that SVG Fonts shouldn't be part of the Web platform. It just means letting them stand on their own merits |
| 00:31 | <othermaciej> | (yes, even though they could embed a TTF font in theory just as easily) |
| 00:31 | <Hixie> | roc: that's the idea of the acid tests, after all :-P |
| 00:32 | <Hixie> | roc: you can use that argument for everything in the test |
| 00:32 | <roc> | only for the new-feature stuff |
| 00:32 | <roc> | not for the bug-fix stuff |
| 00:32 | <Hixie> | hard to determine which is which |
| 00:32 | <Hixie> | e.g. is dom events "new-feature stuff" or "bug-fix stuff"? |
| 00:32 | <othermaciej> | I think it would have been better if Acid3 covered things which there was rough consensus should be part of the Web platform |
| 00:33 | <othermaciej> | but it's hard to evaluate what that means in a truly objective way |
| 00:33 | <roc> | Hixie: there has always been consensus that DOM Events should be part of the Web platform |
| 00:33 | <Hixie> | not from microsoft |
| 00:33 | <roc> | they edited the spec |
| 00:33 | <Hixie> | that doesn't mean anything |
| 00:33 | <roc> | ok |
| 00:34 | <roc> | did anyone ask them? |
| 00:34 | <Hixie> | not to my knowledge |
| 00:34 | <roc> | I sort of had the impression they were always "planning" to implement DOM events |
| 00:34 | <roc> | I don't recall them ever pushing back on it |
| 00:34 | <othermaciej> | I don't think they ever disputed the value or propriety of DOM events, they just stopped development for a while after implementing an early draft |
| 00:34 | <othermaciej> | at least that is my impression |
| 00:34 | <roc> | mine also |
| 00:34 | <Hixie> | it's hard to tell, since in my experience they push back on everything until the day they ship it |
| 00:35 | <Hixie> | but anyway |
| 00:35 | <othermaciej> | anyway, since SVG fonts are in actual use, I don't think Apple would favor removing them from WebKit, even if Acid3 removed those tests |
| 00:35 | <roc> | right, I wouldn't suggest removing them from Webkit |
| 00:35 | <othermaciej> | that being said, I personally wouldn't have any objection to dropping/replacing those tests |
| 00:36 | <othermaciej> | I'm responding to Hixie's suggestion that they should be removed from the test if and only if Opera and WebKit-based browsers drop support |
| 00:36 | <Hixie> | my recommendation would be to co-write an e-mail with someone from three of mozilla, webkit, microsoft, and opera, and send it to me asking for the fonts stuff to be removed |
| 00:36 | <roc> | ok |
| 00:36 | <Hixie> | i've no personal objection to removing them, i just don't want a PR problem |
| 00:36 | <roc> | you can probably keep the tests, just use a TTF font instead of an SVG font |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | there's already a TTF test in there |
| 00:37 | <roc> | right |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | the SVG font tests are testing SVG font APIs |
| 00:37 | <roc> | right |
| 00:37 | <roc> | you can test those font APIs with a TTF font |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | oh you mean make new tests? |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | oh |
| 00:37 | <othermaciej> | Microsoft refuses to implement TTF |
| 00:37 | <roc> | no |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | wait, you want to keep those APIs? |
| 00:37 | <roc> | they just did |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: they've implemented it |
| 00:37 | <roc> | yes |
| 00:37 | <othermaciej> | plain TTF? |
| 00:37 | <roc> | yes |
| 00:37 | <TabAtkins> | othermaciej: They're in preview 3. |
| 00:37 | <roc> | yes, I'm stunned too |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: they pass the TTF part of Acid3, at least |
| 00:37 | othermaciej | wonders what the point of WOFF is then |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: so that means they support at least one character from Ahem |
| 00:38 | <hober> | plain OTF too |
| 00:38 | <Hixie> | WOFF does indeed seem rather pointless at this point |
| 00:38 | <roc> | I want to blog about that and refer to their blog posts from two years ago where they said the world would explode if they implemented raw TTF |
| 00:38 | <roc> | but I'll let them off |
| 00:38 | <Hixie> | roc: post that after they ship IE9 :-) |
| 00:38 | <Hixie> | roc: they haven't shipped yet :-) |
| 00:38 | <roc> | there's still the font vendors who will ship WOFF but not TTF |
| 00:39 | <roc> | so we shall see |
| 00:39 | <roc> | but if WOFF becomes pointless, that's OK |
| 00:39 | <othermaciej> | I would be highly surprised if there is any font that is available in WOFF format but not TTF at all |
| 00:39 | <othermaciej> | though I can imagine fonts that are only legally licensed for use on the Web in WOFF format only |
| 00:40 | <roc> | there are --- http://www.fontshop.com/freefonts/ for example |
| 00:40 | <Hixie> | roc: some of these svg font tests seem pretty <svg:font>-specific |
| 00:40 | <roc> | Hixie: ok |
| 00:40 | <Hixie> | roc: maybe in addition to an e-mail, mail me a diff of what you want the tests to be if it's not just removing them wholesale :-) |
| 00:40 | <TabAtkins> | roc: I'd need to check details, but they're *probably* doing what I was told at TPAC, and only allowing linking of TTFs with none of the embedding bits set. |
| 00:41 | <roc> | othermaciej: so, would you co-sign an email "with someone from three of mozilla, webkit, microsoft, and opera, and send it to me asking for the fonts stuff to be removed"? |
| 00:41 | <roc> | TabAtkins: ah yes, as I recall that is exactly what they are doing |
| 00:41 | <TabAtkins> | Which means that almost no commercially-produced desktop fonts will work. |
| 00:41 | <roc> | so only "free" TTFs |
| 00:41 | <roc> | right |
| 00:41 | <roc> | I forgot about that, sorry |
| 00:41 | <zcorpan_> | roc: i'd prefer if the test just made supporting svg fonts optional (like attribute nodes is optional in acid3) rather than just removing the test |
| 00:42 | <othermaciej> | roc: depends on whether it is the sort of thing that could be construed as an official statement on behalf of Apple and/or would draw significant press attention |
| 00:42 | <othermaciej> | in the latter case I would probably need to get sign-off from others at Apple |
| 00:42 | <zcorpan_> | roc: so if you don't support svg fonts at all, you can get full score, but if you do support svg fonts, you need to pass the svg fonts test |
| 00:42 | <roc> | zcorpan_: ok that makes sense |
| 00:42 | <Hixie> | my intention would be to post a blog post announcing the change |
| 00:42 | <Hixie> | dunno how much attention that would get |
| 00:42 | <roc> | othermaciej: that's up to Hixie |
| 00:42 | <Hixie> | probably some |
| 00:43 | <roc> | probably a lot, but can't you phrase it so it's clearly not an Apple position? |
| 00:43 | <Hixie> | yeah i can say "i got an e-mail from roc, maciej, and (whoever)" |
| 00:44 | <othermaciej> | I can certainly try, however, if there is any significant chance it would result in a C|Net story citing the remarks as "Apple says X", I would have to preflight it, or else people would get really upset at me |
| 00:45 | <roc> | Hixie: what if you don't name names, but just say "representatives from Mozilla, Webkit and ..."? |
| 00:45 | <Hixie> | roc: sure, i just assumed that would be considered more formal |
| 00:46 | <roc> | if you say "Webkit" the trail doesn't lead back to Apple |
| 00:46 | <roc> | unless an enterprising reporter crawls this channel, in which case maciej is already in trouble :-) |
| 00:46 | <Hixie> | roc: i really don't mind either way, whatever is most convenient for you -- i just want to have some cover so i can honestly tell people it was a request from a plurality of browser vendors |
| 00:46 | <roc> | sure ok |
| 00:47 | <roc> | zcorpan_: I wonder if Opera would co-sign ... who should I ask? Hakon? |
| 00:48 | <Hixie> | howcome would be good |
| 00:48 | <zcorpan_> | roc: it seems ed wrote the test |
| 00:48 | <Hixie> | ed would be good too |
| 00:48 | <roc> | ok |
| 00:48 | <roc> | I'll ask them |
| 00:48 | <roc> | thanks |
| 00:48 | <Hixie> | ed would be better since howcome and i do the tests together |
| 00:48 | <Hixie> | though cc howcome so he's in the loop |
| 00:48 | <roc> | ok |
| 00:48 | <roc> | will do |
| 00:48 | <Hixie> | thanks |
| 00:49 | <roc> | thank you |
| 00:54 | <doublec> | given the reddit thread and comment's on roc's weblog I suspect the change will result in a fair amount of publicity around the "acid 3 test changed so IE and Firefox can get 100" idea |
| 00:55 | <roc> | if we can get all browser vendors to agree, I hope it will be OK. |
| 00:55 | <Hixie> | doublec: yeah that's why i want the cover and webkit/opera's approval :-) |
| 00:56 | <doublec> | Hixie, yeah I thought I'd just mention it in case someone thought the change would go quietly :) |
| 00:57 | <doublec> | nothing ever seems to happen quietly in the web world |
| 00:57 | <Hixie> | all the attention is making the web better, i think |
| 00:57 | <Hixie> | i'd rather have all this attention than the crickets and tumbleweed of ten years ago |
| 00:58 | <doublec> | true |
| 01:00 | <roc> | yeah |
| 01:01 | <roc> | this is actually a great time |
| 02:03 | <MikeSmith> | a question |
| 02:04 | <TabAtkins> | an answer |
| 02:04 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 02:04 | <MikeSmith> | why is it that WebGL needs TypedArray but canvas 2D context does not? |
| 02:05 | <MikeSmith> | what's different about that 3D api that requires binary support? |
| 02:05 | <Philip`> | The only large arrays in the 2D context are pixel arrays, which are just arrays of octets and therefore easy |
| 02:05 | <Philip`> | 3D needs large arrays of floats (vertex coordinates), shorts (vertex array indices), etc |
| 02:06 | <Philip`> | and large arrays of different types interleaved |
| 02:06 | <Philip`> | (so each array element can encode all the data for a vertex) |
| 02:08 | <othermaciej> | yeah, ImageData is in fact a typed array |
| 02:08 | <othermaciej> | it's just that you don't need more than that |
| 02:27 | <MikeSmith> | Philip`, othermaciej - I see, thanks |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | I think it would be good for vlad to consider adding that as informative background to the Introduction section of the TypedArray spec |
| 02:31 | <Hixie> | how should i detect if a file is an SRT file: by a whitelist of MIME types, by searching for --> on the second non-blank line, by looking for a magic string (which would work for WebSRT but would mean plain SRT files need a trivial modification to be used), some combination thereof, or by some other mechanism? |
| 02:33 | <MikeSmith> | le |
| 02:33 | <MikeSmith> | it would seem like something that did not rely on sniffing would be preferable |
| 02:33 | <MikeSmith> | so, whitelist of MIME types |
| 02:33 | <Hixie> | that's still a kind of sniffing |
| 02:34 | <MikeSmith> | OK, so that type |
| 02:34 | <Hixie> | k |
| 02:34 | <Hixie> | (the problem with "sniffing" is not that it's in-band, but that it's not interoperable) |
| 02:34 | <Hixie> | (this would be interoperable) |
| 02:35 | <Hixie> | if there's no MIME type, do I assume WebSRT or do I bail? |
| 02:38 | <MikeSmith> | playing devil's advocate for architectural-purity/sanity advocates: I guess I would suggest that you bail |
| 02:38 | <Hixie> | well there are quite practical reasons to bail too |
| 02:38 | <Hixie> | i just don't know if they overwhelm the practical reasons not to bail |
| 02:38 | <Hixie> | in practice, most resources have a mime type |
| 02:38 | <Hixie> | it's rare that none be given |
| 02:39 | <Hixie> | (it's usually text/plain or text/html, if it's wrong) |
| 02:40 | <othermaciej> | I think any fallback behavior is ok as long as it's defined |
| 02:40 | <othermaciej> | whether that is hard fail or some kind of sniffing |
| 02:40 | <MikeSmith> | yeah but I guess they are not so rare enough to have not cause serious problems in the past |
| 02:40 | <othermaciej> | the interop problem is mainly if you don't define it |
| 02:40 | <Hixie> | indeed |
| 02:40 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., like that Apache default being to treat everything as text/plain even it if doesn't have a MIME type |
| 02:40 | <othermaciej> | which is why so much video still gets served as text/plain |
| 02:41 | <othermaciej> | the more kinds of resources get sniffed, the harder it is to verify that the full set of sniffing algorithms does not have holes |
| 02:41 | <othermaciej> | therefore I would advocate not doing sniffing for new kinds of formats if there isn't a deep need for it |
| 02:41 | <othermaciej> | (and by "holes" I mean opportunity to make things get sniffed multiple ways to create a security hole) |
| 02:42 | <Hixie> | makes sense |
| 02:42 | <Hixie> | i guess |
| 02:42 | <Hixie> | i dunno |
| 02:42 | <Hixie> | i kinda like unambiguously self-describing formats |
| 02:43 | <MikeSmith> | in general for new specs it seems like the most sane thing for interop is being as unforgiving as possible |
| 02:43 | <MikeSmith> | and keep the option open of adding forgiveness later |
| 02:47 | <MikeSmith> | I wonder if the Typed Arrays spec draft is the first to ever include a section explicitly titled with "Bikeshedding" |
| 02:47 | <MikeSmith> | regardless, I like it. So I hope it starts a trend |
| 02:54 | <MikeSmith> | so does it seem like browser implementors are going to be satisfied with the Typed Arrays spec as a binary-data API in general (rather than just specifically for the WebGL case)? |
| 02:55 | <Hixie> | bbiab |
| 04:00 | <othermaciej> | heh |
| 04:00 | <othermaciej> | (re "Bikeshedding |
| 04:00 | <othermaciej> | " section) |
| 04:31 | <MikeSmithX> | othermaciej: so does it seem to you like the Typed Arrays spec is sufficient as a binary-data API in general (rather than just specifically for the WebGL case)? |
| 04:31 | <othermaciej> | I have not reviewed it closely enough to know |
| 04:32 | <othermaciej> | (yet) |
| 04:32 | <MikeSmithX> | OK |
| 04:32 | <MikeSmith> | I know the other proposals at http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/Binary have already had a lot of discussion |
| 04:33 | <MikeSmith> | I'm kinda wondering if those will continue to be considered/necessary if browsers end up implementing the Typed Arrays spec |
| 04:34 | <othermaciej> | I would like to see typed arrays be the one thing but I have not had time to study close |
| 04:34 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 04:34 | <MikeSmith> | so get to reviewing it, man |
| 04:35 | <MikeSmith> | it's not like you have a bunch more important stuff to do |
| 08:12 | <annevk> | I do think it would be nice if we had a signature for SRT |
| 08:12 | <annevk> | But that would mean subtitle files cannot be exchanged in an interoperable way until players are updated, but given how fast WebM is adopted it might be easy to patch existing players... |
| 08:13 | <annevk> | Especially given how trivial SRT is |
| 08:18 | <annevk> | http://people.opera.com/danield/html5/vuvuzela/ lol |
| 08:48 | <MikeSmith> | hey, I find some signs of good news in my mail for a change |
| 08:49 | <MikeSmith> | Jonas message about Notifications |
| 11:09 | <annevk> | hsivonen, filing bugs on removing crypto strength and language from the UA strenth on Opera now |
| 11:09 | <annevk> | hsivonen, will let you know what the outcome is |
| 12:24 | <annevk> | rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, blah, blah, blah |
| 12:25 | MikeSmith | thinks he knows which message annevk is referring to, but will keep his mouth shut |
| 13:21 | <Philip`> | Lachy: You ought to fix your mail client since it thinks you're called Lachln |
| 13:30 | <Lachy> | thanks |
| 13:48 | <gsnedders> | hsivonen: yt? |
| 13:49 | <gsnedders> | hsivonen: In the "In foreign content" insertion mode, under the "A start tag whose tag name is one: [Long list of HTML element]" step, it seems to reprocess the token in the same state and go into an infinite loop |
| 13:49 | <gsnedders> | hsivonen: What did you do? Change to the secondary insertion mode? |
| 19:48 | <TabAtkins> | Yay, IE9 pp3 *almost* correctly displays my SVG-and-javascript emulator for a flash game. |
| 19:48 | <TabAtkins> | It just messes up one of the SVGs for some reason, and won't animate them yet. |
| 19:49 | <TabAtkins> | Those are possibly related - the messed up one is the animated one. |
| 19:56 | <cardona507> | good ole IE9 |
| 20:20 | <MikeSmith> | for those interested in e-books, and/or specifically in the ePub format - |
| 20:20 | <MikeSmith> | http://www.idpf.org/idpf_groups/IDPF-EPUB-WG-Charter-4-27-2010.html |
| 20:20 | <MikeSmith> | see the Preliminary Solutions section |
| 20:21 | <MikeSmith> | where it lists "Adopt HTML5 Features" |
| 20:22 | <MikeSmith> | also see "Current Industry Problems" the list of problems that they are trying to address with this 2.1 update to ePub |
| 20:22 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., "Need for enhanced global language support" |
| 20:23 | <MikeSmith> | and specific mention of "including but not limited to special line-breaking rules and vertical writing direction" |
| 20:23 | <Hixie> | "it is acknowledged that a number of significant issues would need to be resolved" i wonder what those are |
| 20:24 | <MikeSmith> | dunno |
| 20:24 | <MikeSmith> | but we can try to find out |
| 20:25 | <MikeSmith> | they seem to be taking a fairly pragmatic approach to this update |
| 20:25 | <MikeSmith> | so far |
| 20:25 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., see the statement, "Since most distributed Reading Systems utilize Web browsers to present content to end users, and many standalone Reading Systems utilize Web browser rendering technologies in their implementations, it is desirable to improve alignment with Web standards as implemented by modern browsers." |
| 20:26 | <MikeSmith> | "as implemented" |
| 20:26 | <MikeSmith> | as opposed to, say, "as we would have preferred them to have been implemented" |
| 20:27 | <MikeSmith> | or "as not implemented yet but we will spec things out on the basis of blind faith" |
| 20:28 | <MikeSmith> | keep in mind that ePub 2.0 is normatively based on XHTML 1.1 |
| 20:28 | <Hixie> | they seem to have done a reasonable job overall of being pragmatic within the constraints of not being experts in web tech |
| 20:28 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 20:29 | <MikeSmith> | and switching away from XHTML 1.1 to "as implemented in modern browsers" is a great move to start with, at least |
| 20:30 | <MikeSmith> | anyway, vertical text support is extremely important for e-book-reading use cases in Japan |
| 20:30 | <MikeSmith> | I am told it is for Taiwan also |
| 20:30 | <MikeSmith> | though less so for mainland China |
| 20:31 | <Hixie> | yup |
| 20:31 | <othermaciej> | Apple's version of ePub will (as I'm sure has been previously mentioned) allow arbitrary HTML5 constructs |
| 20:31 | <othermaciej> | and people have in fact used it to embed video and audio and such in books |
| 20:31 | <othermaciej> | which is neat |
| 20:32 | <othermaciej> | from what I hear, there are a number of language features important for books in east asian locales |
| 20:32 | <othermaciej> | and people are pickier about some of them for books than for web sites |
| 20:32 | <othermaciej> | if Apple ends up doing any of them of course we'll feed the work into WebKit so it will be there for websites too |
| 20:33 | <othermaciej> | but I think most of the east asian language issues are mostly CSS level questions |
| 20:34 | <Hixie> | the only two vertical text things i'm aware of for html5 are to do with canvas drawText and captions |
| 20:34 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: yeah, I think for east-asian language/layout issues, it is mostly about CSS-level questions |
| 20:34 | <Hixie> | in canvas' case it's actually already specced, i just commented it out since it depends on CSS spec text that isn't yet written |
| 20:34 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: and I will say that from what I see, people in Japan are definitely much pickier about language features for books than they are for websites |
| 20:35 | <TabAtkins> | We're arguing about vertical-text stuff in the CSSWG right now anyway, spurred mostly by epub. |
| 20:35 | <Hixie> | in the case of subtitles it'll be similarly commented out once i'm done unless css has caught up, but it's already designed in |
| 20:35 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., almost all books -- paperback books, mass-market everyday reading stuff -- uses vertical text |
| 20:36 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: good to hear that the discussion is going on in the CSS WG |
| 20:36 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: is Murakami-san from Antenna House in the gropu? |
| 20:36 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah. |
| 20:36 | <MikeSmith> | ah |
| 20:36 | <Hixie> | the vertical text stuff was being discussed in the csswg 2000, too |
| 20:36 | <Hixie> | when i joined the group |
| 20:36 | <TabAtkins> | He's an editor of one of the relevant specs, actually. |
| 20:36 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 20:36 | <Hixie> | we even went to CR once! |
| 20:36 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, the consensus is still sorta *shrug*. |
| 20:36 | <Hixie> | (and then took it back when fantasai didn't like it) |
| 20:38 | <MikeSmith> | well, Murakami-san can argue with some vehemence, for sure. But his an implementor. Not a browser implementor but anyway an implementor of a fairly complex and powerful application |
| 20:39 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: I guess it's not reasonable to expect everybody in the group to see vertical text as a hugely higher priority |
| 20:40 | <MikeSmith> | maybe a lot of the work on driving it will end up coming from developers on the Chrome team in Japan |
| 20:40 | <TabAtkins> | Well, we all want it. The issue is *how*, because CSS in general contains a lot of assumptions that depend on horizontal text layout. |
| 20:40 | <MikeSmith> | ah |
| 20:40 | <MikeSmith> | I see |
| 20:40 | <TabAtkins> | There's the IE approach, frex, where switching the writing mode to vertical just "rotates" everything, so that, for example, padding-top now adds padding to one of the horizontal sides. |
| 20:41 | <TabAtkins> | But most people in the group think that's stupid. |
| 20:42 | <MikeSmith> | "frex" is an odd choice of a name for that |
| 20:42 | <TabAtkins> | frex = for example |
| 20:42 | <MikeSmith> | ah |
| 20:42 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 20:42 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 20:42 | <TabAtkins> | I'm inconsistent in my usage of that word. |
| 20:42 | <MikeSmith> | didn't grok the abbreviation at first |
| 20:42 | <TabAtkins> | I picked it up from some message board years ago and it's stuck in my head. |
| 20:43 | <MikeSmith> | just struck me in this case because in Japanese it's pronounced same as "flex" |
| 20:43 | <TabAtkins> | Ah. |
| 20:43 | <MikeSmith> | no difference in translitering "r" and "l" |
| 20:44 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah. |
| 20:44 | <MikeSmith> | which is why I thought those freaking horn things were called "bubuzera" |
| 20:44 | <MikeSmith> | because that's what Japanese TV calls them |
| 20:44 | <TabAtkins> | Hahaha. |
| 20:44 | <MikeSmith> | oh, no difference often between "b" and "v" too |
| 20:44 | <TabAtkins> | The correct term is "vulvazookeepers". |
| 20:45 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 20:45 | <TabAtkins> | So, back to technical talk. |
| 20:46 | <TabAtkins> | Another possible solution is to introduce logical-direction equivalents of every physical-direction property, so you can do padding-before, frex, and have it mean padding-top in horizontal writing and padding-left or whatever in vertical writing. |
| 20:47 | <TabAtkins> | This would work "automatically", but only in relatively limited circumstances where you're not adjusting the layout based on writing mode. |
| 20:47 | <TabAtkins> | It also doesn't solve related problems, like the fact that in japanese vertical writing an underline goes on the opposite side of what you'd expect. |
| 20:48 | <TabAtkins> | So a third possibility is to have some sort of selector or media query or whatnot that distinguishes between when a document/element is in vertical or horizontal mode and lets you apply arbitrary CSS to it. |
| 21:06 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: would seem like a good use for media queries |
| 21:07 | <TabAtkins> | There are complications, but yeah, probably. |
| 21:43 | <jgraham> | Random fact of the day: whenever I hear "Let Down" by Radiohead I hear the start skipping and jumping in my head, just like it does on my CD. It is quite disorienting when it plays normally |
| 21:44 | <gsnedders> | doh |
| 21:44 | <gsnedders> | (a deer) |
| 21:44 | <TabAtkins> | a female deer? |
| 21:44 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: You are supposed to be out partying |
| 21:45 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: Sorry, but the fact that myself and a colleague have had that in our heads for the past two months (almost) and sung it numerous times around jgraham is obviously missed on you. |
| 21:46 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Sorry, I chose sanity. |
| 21:46 | <TabAtkins> | I was continuing the song! |
| 21:46 | <jgraham> | I wonder if we could convince the ePub people to support microdata |
| 21:46 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: You were questioning it, though. |
| 21:47 | <gsnedders> | (I may have been punched by jgraham for singing that song.) |
| 21:47 | <gsnedders> | (Multiple times.) |
| 21:47 | <gsnedders> | (He's a big bully.) |
| 21:47 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: At leat I don't hit girls |
| 21:47 | <jgraham> | *least |
| 21:48 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: …normally. |
| 21:48 | <jgraham> | Umm |
| 21:48 | <jgraham> | Ever, really |
| 21:48 | <gsnedders> | (There again, I don't normally either. I just poke them.) |
| 21:48 | <jgraham> | The innuendo levels are rising |
| 21:49 | <gsnedders> | It turns out poking girls makes them jump and scream. |
| 21:50 | <MikeSmith> | poke |
| 21:50 | gsnedders | jumps and screams |
| 21:50 | <jgraham> | I think my innuendo meter just exploded |
| 21:50 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 21:56 | <MikeSmith> | so a read an article that says "HTML5 is to HTML4 as Werner Herzog's 'The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans' is to Abel Ferrara's 'Bad Lieutenant' -- and HTML5 is to Flash as Herzog's 'The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans' is to 'Sex and the City 2' and its underlying franchise.' |
| 21:56 | <MikeSmith> | (whatever all that means) |
| 21:57 | <TabAtkins> | That's the most densely pretentious statement I've ever heard referring to HTML5. |
| 21:57 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: You should get out more |
| 21:58 | TabAtkins | has no clue where he could get out to where he could hear more densely pretentious things, nor does he understand why he would *want* to. |
| 21:59 | <MikeSmith> | it could be that I just made up that entire line on my own |
| 21:59 | <MikeSmith> | or it could also be that I did actually read it somewhere |
| 21:59 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: It is not that pretentious really. I mean they are all films |
| 21:59 | <jgraham> | and one of them is Sex and the City |
| 22:00 | <Hixie> | is it bad that i didn't understand that metaphor at all |
| 22:00 | <TabAtkins> | I suppose I have just never heard of the first two films, nor their directors(?). |
| 22:00 | <jgraham> | I don't understand it at all |
| 22:00 | gsnedders | estimates that almost nobody here has seen Sex and the City |
| 22:00 | <jgraham> | But wikipedia helps |
| 22:02 | AryehGregor | doesn't understand it at all. |
| 22:02 | gsnedders | doesn't ether |
| 22:02 | <gsnedders> | *either |
| 22:04 | <jgraham> | The later "Bad Lieutenant" film apparently borrows from the earlier one, whilst the director claims never to have seen the earlier one. The director of the earlier one is apparently very angry about the existence of the later one |
| 22:05 | <jgraham> | It you believe wikipedia, the earlier one has much more sex than the later one |
| 22:06 | <jgraham> | So I guess the point of the metaphor is that HTML5 is less likely to get you laid |
| 22:07 | <Hixie> | less likely than HTML4? |
| 22:07 | <Hixie> | man if HTML4 was supposed to get me laid i've been doign it wrong |
| 22:07 | <jgraham> | Anyway, it is clearly all wrong |
| 22:08 | <jgraham> | HTML4 is like a Kafka novel |
| 22:08 | <jgraham> | HTML5 is lik Joyce |
| 22:09 | <jgraham> | Flash is like the Very Hungry Catepillar |
| 22:10 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: that description of the relationship between the two Bad Lieutenant films sounds somewhat apt in terms of comparison |
| 22:10 | <MikeSmith> | I guess |
| 22:10 | <MikeSmith> | I did see the first Bad Lieutenant film |
| 22:10 | <MikeSmith> | it is a really awful movie |
| 22:12 | <MikeSmith> | so at least it's nice to hear that Abel Ferrara is angry about Herzog making a film with the same name without telling him ahead of time |
| 22:13 | <MikeSmith> | Ferrara deserves to be made angry in return for foisting on the world the crappiness which is that film |
| 22:14 | <MikeSmith> | and even better to hear that Herzog never actually even watched his movie |
| 22:16 | <MikeSmith> | cool to see that abarth is starting work on the webkit html5 tree builder |
| 22:16 | <abarth> | MikeSmith: it's just a sketch at this point |
| 22:16 | <abarth> | MikeSmith: i'm trying a new control structure now |
| 22:16 | <MikeSmith> | I see |
| 22:16 | <abarth> | the problem is the way the spec is written is hard to implement directly |
| 22:17 | <abarth> | lots of "process blah as if foo" |
| 22:17 | <abarth> | also, as written, you need to make a ton of jump tables and branches for each character |
| 22:17 | <abarth> | which is really slow |
| 22:18 | <abarth> | instead of having the first branch be the insertion mode, i'm trying with the first branch being what token we're dealing with |
| 22:18 | <abarth> | which should push the character loop below all the jumping/branching |
| 22:20 | <MikeSmith> | interesting |
| 22:21 | <MikeSmith> | abarth: is that also in part because it'll make it easier for you to reuse the existing code? |
| 22:22 | <abarth> | MikeSmith: that design is closer to the way the old code works |
| 22:22 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 22:22 | <abarth> | the old code has a hash table keyed off the kind of token |
| 22:22 | <MikeSmith> | ah |
| 22:22 | <abarth> | and then a jump through a function pointer |
| 22:22 | <abarth> | to figure out what to do with the token |
| 22:23 | <TabAtkins> | Where's the html5 test suite? (Or at least as much of it as exists?) |
| 22:24 | <abarth> | TabAtkins: we have a bunch of parser tests |
| 22:24 | <abarth> | TabAtkins: that we stole from henri and then added to |
| 22:25 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: did you mean the parser test suite specifically? or HTML5 in general? |
| 22:26 | <paul_irish> | HTML5 in general |
| 22:29 | <paul_irish> | (I was just asking Tab, which prompted his question).. basically looking for whatever test suites exist that cover what's in HTML5 and friends |
| 22:29 | AryehGregor | discovers that his spam folder has like a billion non-spam things, wtf |
| 22:29 | <TabAtkins> | That's why I skim and clear my spam regularly. |
| 22:29 | <TabAtkins> | once or twice a day keeps the number below 50 at a time, so I can see it all on one page. |
| 22:29 | <AryehGregor> | I guess I need to do that too. |
| 22:30 | <AryehGregor> | Most of mine all goes to one address that I don't use for much, and I have those labeled, so the legit stuff is pretty easy to spot. |
| 22:30 | <AryehGregor> | I got suspicious when the first post of Doug Scheper's post to the WHATWG was missing. |
| 22:31 | <TabAtkins> | Set your filters so that they never spam anything you've labelled. |
| 22:31 | <TabAtkins> | That eliminated 99% of my false positives. |
| 22:31 | <AryehGregor> | I thought it was funny that I didn't get any commit mail the last week or so. |
| 22:31 | <AryehGregor> | Like 90% of my spam is labeled. |
| 22:31 | <TabAtkins> | Oh, heh. |
| 22:32 | <AryehGregor> | It mostly comes from an address I use that has no spam filtering. |
| 22:32 | <TabAtkins> | Well, set *specific labels* to be never spammed. |
| 22:32 | <AryehGregor> | But I should set most of my filters to do that, yeah. |
| 22:32 | <Philip`> | TabAtkins: There's loads of wiki pages with lists of existing test suites |
| 22:32 | <TabAtkins> | Philip`: I have no clue what any of them are. |
| 22:33 | <Philip`> | TabAtkins: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Testsuite#Existing_tests |
| 22:33 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: my spam folder has 9540 e-mails in it, and that's just over the last 30 days. no way i can check that twice a day. :-P |
| 22:33 | <TabAtkins> | paul_irish: ^^^ |
| 22:33 | <Philip`> | TabAtkins: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Existing_Html5_Tests |
| 22:33 | <Philip`> | TabAtkins: etc |
| 22:34 | <TabAtkins> | Excellent, thanks. |
| 22:34 | <paul_irish> | Thx Philip` |
| 22:40 | AryehGregor | doesn't understand why it's so hard to reliably tell apart legitimate mailing lists from spam. |
| 22:41 | <TabAtkins> | For the longest time any mailing-list email from a google employee was getting spammed. |
| 22:41 | <TabAtkins> | (That's when I set all my label filters to never spam.) |
| 22:41 | <AryehGregor> | I was getting that too. |
| 22:41 | <AryehGregor> | Maybe because of SPF or something? |
| 22:42 | <TabAtkins> | Or the lack of it. I just always found it funny that google.com addresses, presumably sent from inside the company, were spammed by gmail's filter. |
| 22:42 | <Hixie> | it wasn't sent from inside the company |
| 22:42 | <Hixie> | that's the problem |
| 22:42 | <AryehGregor> | I'm glad I found out about this mass spammification less than 30 days after it started. |
| 22:42 | <Hixie> | it was sent by the mailing list software |
| 22:43 | <AryehGregor> | Wait, if you have SPF, does that mean you can't send to mailing lists? :/ |
| 22:43 | <Hixie> | i don't know the details |
| 22:44 | <AryehGregor> | Actually, I think it'd only be if the Return-To was set to your address. |
| 22:44 | <Hixie> | i think it's actually Return-Path that matters |
| 22:44 | <Hixie> | and presumably the people who wrote SPF thought of this and the google issue was just misconfiguration |
| 22:45 | <Hixie> | i dunno |
| 22:45 | <AryehGregor> | That's what I meant. |
| 22:45 | <jgraham> | The HTML5 official tests are at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html/ |
| 22:45 | <jgraham> | So far we are doing pretty badly |
| 22:46 | <jgraham> | An insignificant number of tests from Microsoft and a half-finished test harness |
| 22:51 | <AryehGregor> | 1500 e-mails incorrectly marked as spam. Ugh. |
| 22:52 | <Hixie> | wow |
| 22:52 | <Hixie> | that sucks |
| 22:55 | <MikeSmith> | hey, speaking of mail, has there been any agreement/resolution on the list discussion about renaming the @required attribute? |
| 22:55 | <AryehGregor> | I thought the resolution was "keep it, not enough sites to matter". |
| 22:55 | <annevk> | not renaming it |
| 22:56 | <Hixie> | i haven't looked at it yet |
| 22:56 | <Hixie> | depends on what browser vendors are willing to do |
| 22:56 | <Hixie> | opera and chrome don't seem to be willing to implement it as is without hacks |
| 22:57 | <Hixie> | (targetted hacks in opera's case, way over-broad hacks in chrome's case) |
| 22:57 | <Hixie> | so something will probably have to give |
| 22:57 | <Hixie> | i'll have to look more closely at the actual sites to see what we can do |
| 22:57 | <AryehGregor> | Maybe they would be okay with dropping the hacks if Mozilla implements it and evangelizes the sites in question? |
| 22:57 | <AryehGregor> | Mozilla has bigger market share, more likely to convince them. |
| 22:57 | <Hixie> | that might help |
| 23:03 | <annevk> | Jonas seemed to prefer that |
| 23:03 | <annevk> | me too |
| 23:03 | <annevk> | renaming things is no fun |
| 23:07 | <othermaciej> | Hixie: We are considering removing @required from WebKit entirely |
| 23:07 | <TabAtkins> | And replacing it with something? |
| 23:07 | <othermaciej> | at least until (a) it has a name with little enough conflict (for whatever reason) and (b) we actually have UI to tell you what happened if you can't submit a form because of it |
| 23:08 | <othermaciej> | I think the hack of supporting it but only in strict mode is ridiculous and broken |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: well implementing it without hte UI was a terrible idea |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: since the whole point of the feature is the UI |
| 23:08 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, Aryeh has a bug asking webkit to turn off validation until there's UI that I can +1 on. |
| 23:08 | <othermaciej> | Hixie: agreed |
| 23:09 | <AryehGregor> | Someone else from WebKit also agreed on my bug. |
| 23:09 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: i told the people who did it as much, but they kinda blew me off, so... :-) |
| 23:09 | <othermaciej> | anyway, if Mozilla wants to go on a crusade to make the Web safe for an attribute named "required", I'm fine with waiting for the results, but I think the more practical choice would be to rename it |
| 23:09 | <AryehGregor> | They blew me off too. |
| 23:09 | <AryehGregor> | othermaciej, I thought there were only a limited number of sites with compatibility problems. |
| 23:09 | <Hixie> | i'm fine with renaming it too, i just need to look at the facts before i can work out what the right course of action is |
| 23:09 | <Hixie> | and subtitles come first :-P |
| 23:09 | <AryehGregor> | Also, good UI would really help a lot. |
| 23:10 | <annevk> | WebKit shipped without UI? blargh |
| 23:10 | <annevk> | I was told in a bug it would all be okay |
| 23:11 | <othermaciej> | AryehGregor: I believe there are JavaScript libraries that use an attribute named "required" for their own purposes |
| 23:11 | <AryehGregor> | annevk, yep. MediaWiki had to disable form validation completely because of that. |
| 23:11 | <AryehGregor> | othermaciej, oh, bleh. |
| 23:11 | <othermaciej> | AryehGregor: that makes it likely the problem will be widespread |
| 23:11 | <AryehGregor> | I thought Opera only had to blacklist a few smallish sites? |
| 23:11 | <othermaciej> | and it is widespread enough that we actually got bugs |
| 23:12 | <othermaciej> | I'm fine with just disabling the feature til we get this straightened out |
| 23:17 | <annevk> | does seem good to disable those that require UI if the UI is not working |
| 23:31 | <paul_irish> | AryehGregor: was mediawiki using a javascript library in particular that used a required attribute?/ |
| 23:32 | <AryehGregor> | paul_irish, no, it was using required correctly for the most part. The problem was the lack of UI in WebKit. |
| 23:32 | <paul_irish> | ok |
| 23:32 | <AryehGregor> | People were trying to submit forms and they'd refuse to submit, with no error message. |
| 23:32 | <AryehGregor> | Which makes the feature worse than useless. |
| 23:32 | <AryehGregor> | Also, Opera's UI for it is pretty ugly, and that's the only other shipping implementation. |
| 23:39 | <Lachy> | AryehGregor, we know. we have our dev relations guys kicking us internally about the state of our HTML5 form controls. |
| 23:39 | <AryehGregor> | I know you know. :) |
| 23:40 | <AryehGregor> | I just hope we don't have zillions of Safari 5s hanging around forever that we have to sniff around for this. |
| 23:40 | <othermaciej> | some aspects of WebKit's version are ugly too |
| 23:40 | <othermaciej> | Safari update uptake is pretty quick and our release cycles tend to be a year max for major releases |
| 23:40 | <Lachy> | what form HTML5 form controls has webkit implemented these days? |
| 23:41 | <othermaciej> | and we fix significant compat bugs in minor releases |
| 23:41 | <othermaciej> | I think we have at least half-assed implementations of all the new <input> types, but most are not good enough (IMO) to whole-heartedly recommend to developers |
| 23:41 | <Lachy> | oh, type="date" looks like an number control |
| 23:42 | <TabAtkins> | type=color looks like a text input, unfortunately. |
| 23:42 | <Lachy> | and pressing up or down on an <input type="number"> control without a value gives +/- 1.7976931348623157e+308 |
| 23:42 | <othermaciej> | like I said |
| 23:42 | <TabAtkins> | Haha, wow. |
| 23:42 | <othermaciej> | not yet done to good quality |
| 23:43 | <othermaciej> | if anyone would like to be paid by Apple to work in this area, send me a resume |
| 23:43 | <othermaciej> | I will add that many of the controls are even worse on MobileSafari than Safari or Chrome on Mac/Win/Linux |
| 23:44 | <Lachy> | and <input type="week"> starts at the year 1583-W01 :-) |