| 00:04 | <zcorpan_> | nn |
| 00:20 | <smaug_> | hmm, I guess I need to look at how websocket protocol has changed (again) |
| 00:22 | <smaug_> | looks pretty same to v76 |
| 00:22 | <smaug_> | at least as ugly as v76 |
| 00:23 | <Hixie> | yeah only minor changes |
| 00:24 | <smaug_> | ah, the API has changed too |
| 00:24 | <smaug_> | there is now protocols[] |
| 00:24 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 00:25 | <Hixie> | i mailed wellington about it |
| 00:25 | <Hixie> | wasn't sure who else to mail |
| 00:25 | <smaug_> | I wonder what the use case is for that. |
| 00:26 | <smaug_> | Hixie: well, if you could cc me |
| 00:27 | <Hixie> | the protocols[] thing was mentioned on the hybi list |
| 00:28 | <Hixie> | basically the use case was to let someone who implements several protocols in the JS but doesn't know what the server implements simply give the list to the server |
| 00:28 | <Hixie> | and let the server pick |
| 00:29 | <smaug_> | not sure that is a good use case |
| 00:29 | <Hixie> | yeah i wasn't hugely convinced either, but it seemed easy enough to support. |
| 00:31 | <Hixie> | i recommend posting on the hybi thread if you want the protocol changed... i think it was http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02250.html |
| 00:34 | <smaug_> | oh, it was somewhere in that thread |
| 00:38 | <Hixie> | (i didn't see anyone say it was a bad idea, which is why i went with it) |
| 00:59 | <JonathanNeal> | well, just in case |
| 01:00 | <JonathanNeal> | Hixie, the link was http://sandbox.thewikies.com/html-templates/outliner.php?url=http://html5doctor.com/ |
| 01:00 | <JonathanNeal> | And outliner I'm working on. |
| 01:00 | <Hixie> | cool |
| 01:00 | <Hixie> | sorry, missed it earlier |
| 01:01 | <Hixie> | it seems to not handle ln.hixie.ch right |
| 01:01 | <Hixie> | unless i'm missing something |
| 01:04 | <Hixie> | JonathanNeal: it seemed to do better than i expected on the spec itself, but then it has all kinds of weird stuff at the bottom (http://sandbox.thewikies.com/html-templates/outliner.php?url=http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html) |
| 01:04 | <Hixie> | oh, wait, it didn't get any of the numbering right |
| 01:04 | <Hixie> | all the numbers are the ones from the spec itself |
| 01:04 | <Hixie> | still has some way to go it seems :-) |
| 01:05 | <JonathanNeal> | Obviously, still waiting for it to load that link for me. |
| 01:05 | <JonathanNeal> | Oh that's because you don't use any sections. |
| 01:05 | <JonathanNeal> | Got it. |
| 01:05 | <Hixie> | yeah it's all implied sections |
| 01:06 | <JonathanNeal> | Not until you get to Images. |
| 01:06 | <JonathanNeal> | All right, I'll work on that. |
| 01:06 | <JonathanNeal> | That shouldn't be so so hard. |
| 01:08 | <Hixie> | there's also some weirdness... is your parser treating <h1> as <h1> or something? |
| 02:28 | <bga_> | hi :) |
| 03:51 | <roc> | anyone here actually written an application that uses the HTML5 offline application cache? |
| 03:55 | <roc> | failing that, anyone know of any examples of Web apps using the HTML5 offline application cache? |
| 04:01 | <othermaciej> | do you mean "real" ones or would a sample do? |
| 04:01 | <othermaciej> | this is a demo example: http://webkit.org/demos/calendar/Calendar.html |
| 04:01 | <othermaciej> | I am also told it is widely used for real in mobile-targeted Web apps, but I have no concrete examples handy |
| 04:02 | <roc> | I was looking for a real one, but thanks |
| 04:28 | <boblet> | does anyone know what became of allowing a year in @datetime? |
| 07:32 | <Hixie> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0095.html |
| 07:33 | <Hixie> | "Once you've done all that, you are going to be looking at something very similar to TTML" seems to not have turned out to be true |
| 07:33 | <Hixie> | (websrt does all but 1 of his bullet points, if i'm not mistaken) |
| 07:34 | <Hixie> | (actually 2, but the second is something we could add pretty easily) |
| 07:43 | <boblet> | MikeSmith, Hixie: re: mark element, is my use of it to wrap section permalinks when the user hovers over section titles in http://oli.jp/2009/html5-faq/ incorrect? Lachy thought I was stretching the meaning too much, I’m on the fence. 2nd opinion? |
| 07:44 | <Hixie> | i don't understand why <mark> would even remotely be appropriate there, but maybe i'm lacking imagination... what argument would you use to defend it? :-) |
| 07:45 | <abarth> | Hixie: do you have a couple minutes to talk about URL parsing? |
| 07:45 | <boblet> | har! it’s text that isn’t important, is highlighted for reference purposes, and is only relevant when you want a chapter permalink to copy |
| 07:45 | <zdenekkostal> | boblet: Nice page, but using mark is like use styled paragraphs instead of headlines :) |
| 07:46 | <MikeSmith> | boblet: I'm not much help here -- I don't know what the use cases are for mark other than the one of highlighting words in a page that are search terms you used when looking for that page |
| 07:46 | <boblet> | Lachy suggested it should be informationally relevant, not relevant to current action |
| 07:46 | <Hixie> | abarth: sure |
| 07:46 | <abarth> | i was thinking about getting started on it |
| 07:47 | <Hixie> | boblet: "highlighted for reference purposes" seems a bit of a stretch since your default style is to hide it :-) |
| 07:47 | <MikeSmith> | boblet: so I guess I thought the general purpose of mark is to bring the user's attention to some particularly relevant text that they would otherwise have to look for manually |
| 07:47 | <abarth> | now that the parser work is winding down, i should get back to URL stuff |
| 07:47 | <abarth> | Hixie: you mentioned you had strong feelings about how the spec should be structured |
| 07:47 | <Hixie> | abarth: yeah |
| 07:48 | <Hixie> | we have several options here |
| 07:48 | <MikeSmith> | boblet: so I guess using it to highlight permalink markers kinda seems like overkill to me |
| 07:48 | <boblet> | Hixie: well, it’s highlighted for reference when the action of getting the permalink is relevant :) |
| 07:48 | <boblet> | ok, seems I was a little too creative in reading the spec. thanks :) |
| 07:48 | <micheil> | that reminds me.. I need to setup that daily cron job on my server to push the latest spec revisions to that github mirror |
| 07:49 | <Hixie> | abarth: that is, several somewhat orthogonal axes. Rely on or be completely independent from the IRI/URI specs; and define things declaratively or imperatively, being two main ones. |
| 07:49 | <Hixie> | abarth: i think we're best off doing an independent imperative-style spec for this. |
| 07:49 | <abarth> | you don't think we'll run into less trouble later if we output something that the URI spec can parse? |
| 07:49 | <Hixie> | abarth: maybe with a (normative) appendix that defines the semantics in terms of an IRI |
| 07:49 | <Hixie> | abarth: the uri spec doesn't define parsing |
| 07:50 | <abarth> | oh, i thought there was a regular expression in the appendix that did the parsing |
| 07:50 | <Hixie> | abarth: but assuming you mean something the uri spec thinks is valid, then no, because the whole problem is that there are invalid uris we need to handle that have no valid mapping. |
| 07:50 | <abarth> | i see |
| 07:50 | <boblet> | zdenekkostal: btw I’m not sure I understand your metaphor — do you mean this usage (in which case what is the equivalent of headlines) or any use of mark? |
| 07:50 | <abarth> | one annoying thing is that the parsing depends on whether the UA understands a given scheme |
| 07:51 | <Hixie> | abarth: i basically see no value in defining things the way the spec used to have it, or the way [webaddresses] had it, where the implementor has to do some work to pass the string to some other function to do more work |
| 07:51 | <Hixie> | abarth: i think we're better off just defining the parsing once and being done with it |
| 07:51 | <abarth> | ok |
| 07:51 | <Hixie> | abarth: (we can mostly defer to iri/uri for validity definitions, though) |
| 07:51 | <abarth> | we're going to run into trouble later on, but we can deal with that then |
| 07:51 | <boblet> | MikeSmith: btw, sorry not to catch up this week — it became 3 days of meetings. also can you put a flowchart aside for Daniel? Also Kyle has a little something for you to read too |
| 07:52 | <abarth> | there are two mostly independent algorithms: |
| 07:52 | <abarth> | parsing |
| 07:52 | <abarth> | cannonicalization |
| 07:52 | <Hixie> | abarth: re the annoying thing, i think our best bet is to have hard-coded definitions of the special behaviour for the important schemes, and require generic handling of all the remaining schemes |
| 07:52 | <Hixie> | abarth: there are three, i think - parsing, resolving, and canonicalisation/serialisation |
| 07:52 | <abarth> | ok, that includes default ports and whether the scheme uses the authority-style |
| 07:52 | <abarth> | oh, yeah resolving |
| 07:53 | <abarth> | i haven't gotten to that one |
| 07:53 | <Hixie> | the "authority-style" thing is mostly gone in the more recent specs, iirc |
| 07:53 | jgraham | forms the URL-spec cheerleaders club to motivate our heroic editor and entertain the crowds |
| 07:53 | <abarth> | well, foo:bar |
| 07:53 | <abarth> | becomes foo://bar |
| 07:53 | <abarth> | if foo is a "standard URL scheme" |
| 07:53 | <Hixie> | yeah iirc the new uri specs have something generic to say about that, i forget what exactly |
| 07:53 | <abarth> | in GURL parlance |
| 07:53 | <Hixie> | anyway |
| 07:53 | <abarth> | but yeah |
| 07:54 | <Hixie> | my point is i think we can draw a line in the sand and make it Just Work in the future for future schemes, at least for unknown ones |
| 07:54 | <Hixie> | and define what's known |
| 07:54 | <Hixie> | not sure what to do about ports |
| 07:54 | <Hixie> | we should check what the official specs say |
| 07:54 | <abarth> | default ports can cannonicalized away |
| 07:54 | <Hixie> | since they claim to be knowledge-agnostic nowadays iirc |
| 07:54 | <abarth> | for known schemes |
| 07:54 | <abarth> | s/can/get/ |
| 07:55 | <Hixie> | abarth: personally all i need is something to reference for the two red boxes in http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#urls |
| 07:56 | <boblet> | Also what’s the situation with no year-only @datetime? I guess it’s on purpose, but I wonder why given year-month and year-week pattern |
| 07:56 | <abarth> | you need to understand default ports to do security origin comparisons correctly |
| 07:56 | <Hixie> | abarth: ideally also we'd get a slightly less mathematical definition of "absolute url" |
| 07:57 | <Hixie> | abarth: yeah, we might just be stuck with the knowledge thing |
| 07:57 | <Hixie> | boblet: @datetime? |
| 07:57 | <Hixie> | boblet: you mean <ins datetime="">? |
| 07:57 | <boblet> | Hixie: sorry, <time datetime=""> |
| 07:57 | <abarth> | Hixie: in webkit the security origin class has its own table of default ports that separate from the one in the URL library |
| 07:57 | <abarth> | which is kind of goofy |
| 07:57 | <Hixie> | abarth: yeah that's pretty special |
| 07:58 | <abarth> | ok, i think i understand your requirements |
| 07:58 | <abarth> | i'll probably start a github project and start writing something next week |
| 07:59 | <Hixie> | boblet: the point of <time> is two-fold, (1) to make it easier to import times into a calendar, e.g. via microdata, and (2) make styling locale-specific |
| 07:59 | <zdenekkostal> | boblet: When I think about it, using <mark> isn't so bad in this context... really, there is no equivalent for headlines (via my metaphor). My apologize :) |
| 07:59 | <Hixie> | boblet: neither of these makes much sense for years |
| 08:00 | <boblet> | hixie: cool, thanks for explaining |
| 08:01 | <boblet> | zdenekkostal: I thought it was a nice creative use too, but it seems I should just be using the <a> that’s there, and wrapping it in <mark> is stretching <mark>’s meaning a little far :) it’s fun to think about how new elements can be used though huh |
| 08:30 | <zcorpan_> | Hixie: maybe reposition the captions again when the controls stop showing? |
| 08:30 | <Hixie> | i thought of that but figured it'd be better to minimise the jumping around |
| 08:30 | <Hixie> | they'll go away soon enough anyway |
| 08:30 | <zcorpan_> | what if the next cue wants to position the caption where the old caption is now? |
| 08:31 | <Hixie> | well then i guess you get a cascade of problems until such time as it settles down |
| 08:32 | <zcorpan_> | maybe it's not a problem in practice |
| 08:32 | <Hixie> | probably not in most cases |
| 08:32 | <Hixie> | there are pathological cases where it'd be an issue, but they'll be rare |
| 08:33 | <Hixie> | and you can always just toggle the captions on-off if you really want to reset it |
| 08:33 | <Hixie> | (assuming you can do so without the controls showing!) |
| 08:33 | <zcorpan_> | maybe reposition the existing captions when the next one gets showed, if they're repositioned and the controls are no longer visible |
| 08:33 | <Hixie> | imho we should minimise any repositioning |
| 08:34 | <zcorpan_> | that would do nothing in the normal case but still fix the scenario above |
| 08:36 | <Hixie> | imagine a UA that shows control at the top left |
| 08:37 | <Hixie> | and a video that has titles at the bottom except for one title at the top left, which happens to be showing when the controls show, and which are on the screen for a long time |
| 08:38 | <zcorpan_> | yeah, it'd jump around when it's not necessary too |
| 08:38 | <Hixie> | technically a UA could reset the titles whenever it wants, and just claim that it was toggling the captions based on a psychic user interface |
| 08:38 | <Hixie> | but i'd rather not make that explicit |
| 08:38 | <Hixie> | since it'd encourage making the titles jump around a lot more than they need to |
| 08:40 | <zcorpan_> | i wonder how we solve author-provided controls |
| 08:41 | <zcorpan_> | should the author be able to insert and remove a css box and cause the captions to reposition? |
| 08:42 | <zcorpan_> | if not i expect authors are going to reimplement captions with script to support this |
| 08:42 | <Hixie> | author captions are often not overlaid (e.g. youtube isn't) |
| 08:43 | <zcorpan_> | the video mozilla showed on the firefox page when firefox 3.5 was released had captions that moved when the controls showed |
| 08:45 | <Hixie> | uri? |
| 08:47 | <hsivonen> | it's so sad that people fall for stuff like http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-July/027273.html |
| 08:47 | <hsivonen> | (the attack described in that email, that is) |
| 08:49 | <Hixie> | the javascript: thing? |
| 08:49 | <zcorpan_> | Hixie: can't find it anymore |
| 08:52 | <MikeSmith> | there are users who fall for simple phishing e-mails along the lines of "Your credit card number may have been used without your authorization! Go to the following page and type in your name, credit-card number, expiration date, and PIN number to get a report about any authorized uses of your credit-card information." |
| 08:53 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: patch for adding IDs to index for event-handler attributes - http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=892 |
| 08:53 | <Hixie> | "ix"? |
| 08:54 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: ix = index |
| 08:54 | <MikeSmith> | I'm happy to change it something else |
| 08:54 | <MikeSmith> | or of course feel to free to change it to anything you want |
| 08:54 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: the thing that tells you to type letters with modifiers keys |
| 08:55 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: ah, yeah |
| 08:57 | <foolip> | Hixie, was there some good reason for making captions the default kind for <track>? |
| 08:57 | <foolip> | it seems to me that it's more likely that most things will be subtitles, i.e. not including cues for HoH |
| 08:59 | <Hixie> | foolip: i was trying to appease the a11y camp |
| 09:01 | <zcorpan_> | the default should be the most common use, or most uses will be mislabeled (since it works anyway, people will omit kind="") |
| 09:02 | <foolip> | I only remember seeing you an Silvia discussing it, I haven't seen it discussed on the HTML a11y TF mailing list. |
| 09:02 | <Hixie> | foolip: it was a pre-emptive attempt |
| 09:02 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: checked in |
| 09:03 | <foolip> | What would you call timed text in the original language that doesn't include HoH cues? Is that subtitles or captions? |
| 09:03 | <foolip> | I'm interested since that's the kind of timed text I write most and want to label it appropriately. |
| 09:04 | <Hixie> | http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#attr-track-kind defines "subtitles" vs "captions" in a way that I think answers your question |
| 09:07 | <foolip> | it's not translated, so it isn't subtitles. it also isn't suitable either when the audio is muted or for the HoH since it doesn't include things like [door rings], so it's not captions. |
| 09:08 | <foolip> | (but disregarding the spec, I would call it subtitles) |
| 09:08 | <foolip> | anyway... |
| 09:08 | <foolip> | suggest making subtitles the default, but we'll see what others think. |
| 09:14 | <zcorpan_> | hmm, firefox still has websocket.URL |
| 09:15 | <Hixie> | man, the .url/.URL situation is a cluster...uh, is a mess |
| 09:15 | <Hixie> | foolip: please send mail and/or file a bug :-) |
| 09:15 | <foolip> | I will |
| 09:15 | <Hixie> | foolip: also mention that subtitles says translation-only, i'll fix that |
| 09:16 | <foolip> | sure |
| 09:16 | <foolip> | huh, why hasn't your long email hit the archives yet? |
| 09:16 | <Hixie> | the archives are weird |
| 09:16 | <Hixie> | sometimes they seem to be hours behind |
| 09:16 | <Hixie> | i dunno why |
| 09:16 | <foolip> | oh well |
| 09:16 | <Hixie> | other times they're up to the second |
| 09:16 | <Hixie> | anyway, bed time for me |
| 09:17 | <Hixie> | tomorrow i start down the processing-model IMAP folder |
| 09:17 | <Hixie> | which has 1,115 e-mails at the moment! |
| 09:17 | <foolip> | best of luck! |
| 09:18 | <Hixie> | the chart i use has a simplistic estimate -- i just draw a line from the first point to the last point and if it goes down, i predict where it'll hit the x-axis |
| 09:18 | <zcorpan_> | oh, no i was mistesting it |
| 09:18 | <Hixie> | i said that we'd hit CR (the next time we'll be at 0 e-mails) in 2012 |
| 09:18 | <Hixie> | the current estimate is "Estimated date for last e-mail based on the data above: 2012-10-01" |
| 09:19 | <Hixie> | it took about 10 months to get from 1692 e-mails to zero last time i was at 1692 |
| 09:20 | <Hixie> | so that would predict Q2 2011 |
| 09:21 | <Hixie> | i have a wild objective for this quarter of reaching about 50 e-mails by the EOQ, i.e. end of September. |
| 09:21 | Hixie | isn't optimistic |
| 09:27 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: thanks for the index fix .. I find now there were two typos in the patch I sent -- here's a follow-up: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=893 |
| 09:27 | <jgraham> | AryehGregor: (random aside: I think what SteveF's data indicates is that screenreader's assumption that filenames are meaningful is horribly broken) |
| 09:27 | <jgraham> | s/'s/s'/ |
| 09:28 | <jgraham> | Is that correction right? |
| 09:30 | <hsivonen> | argh. lists.w3.org search is "undergoing some routine maintenance" :-( |
| 09:31 | <jgraham> | Is that like routine surgery i.e. involving a non-negligible possibility of death |
| 09:35 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: search is probably broken because I noticed yesterday that the Archived-at message-ID dereferencer thingy wasn't working, so I asked systems team to fix it, and I think they might be doing some more serious fixing on it so that it won't break again |
| 09:36 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: ok |
| 09:36 | <hsivonen> | I managed to locate the email I was looking for without search |
| 09:36 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 09:37 | <MikeSmith> | fyi, I just checked and status note says "will be unavail probably until friday midday" (midday US/East) |
| 09:38 | <jgraham> | Oh jesus |
| 09:38 | <jgraham> | I should unsubscibe from HyBi |
| 09:38 | <jgraham> | It makes me want to cry |
| 09:39 | <jgraham> | Someone is pretending that the "amateur programming" requirement implies "weak-minded" or "IQ less than 90" |
| 09:39 | <jgraham> | To discredit it |
| 09:44 | <Peter`> | Is there a rationale somewhere about why HTML doesn't accept ".1" as a valid floating point, whereas CSS and JavaScript do? |
| 09:44 | <Peter`> | it's rather hard to search for |
| 09:46 | <zcorpan_> | jgraham: i'm considering unsubscribing as well |
| 09:47 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: yeah, there are some real sweethearts on the hybi list |
| 09:48 | <MikeSmith> | the comment "Do we have an issue open about amateur protocol designers and amateur editors? amateur chairs?" was a real gem too |
| 09:49 | <jgraham> | If I was running the list you would be thrown off for messages like that. But I am not, so... |
| 09:50 | <hsivonen> | Remember to object before the polls close! |
| 09:51 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Which polls? |
| 09:51 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: the versioning poll |
| 09:51 | <jgraham> | Oh man. |
| 09:51 | <jgraham> | I didn't even notice that |
| 09:51 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: the other one is less important, but feel free to object to the ascii-ref, too |
| 09:52 | <jgraham> | I was hoping that no one would reply to the ascii ref poll to highlight what an enormous waste of everyone's time it is |
| 09:52 | <jgraham> | But they did :( |
| 09:53 | <foolip> | where's the versioning poll? |
| 09:54 | <foolip> | I've missed that |
| 09:54 | <hsivonen> | foolip: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-101-objection-poll/results |
| 09:54 | <hsivonen> | foolip: doh. sorry |
| 09:54 | <hsivonen> | foolip: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issues-4-84-objection-poll/ |
| 09:54 | <foolip> | hsivonen, thanks |
| 10:01 | <foolip> | I like Grant Simpson's argument about making it easier for the electronic archaeologist |
| 10:02 | <jgraham> | In what sense "like"? |
| 10:02 | <foolip> | Eh, ironically but not mockingly? |
| 10:03 | <jgraham> | Ah |
| 10:03 | <foolip> | I don't doubt it's true, but not terribly important |
| 10:03 | <foolip> | OK, let's object a bit then... perhaps strongly? |
| 10:03 | <jgraham> | It seems to me that just looking markup features present in each version of HTML would be at least as accurate |
| 10:04 | <foolip> | true |
| 10:04 | <foolip> | or the date when archive.org first archived it :) |
| 10:04 | <jgraham> | Possibly moreso because there will be an uptick when browsers start supporting a given construct, so you can date to browser revisions not just spec revisions |
| 10:05 | <Workshiva> | jgraham: I think it's better that people reply and explicitly highlight what a waste of time it is, rather than implicitly |
| 10:06 | <jgraham> | Workshiva: It would only have been worthwhile if it got literally zero replies. Or, more likely, just one, from Julian |
| 10:06 | <jgraham> | SO it was a longshot :) |
| 10:06 | <zcorpan_> | the electronic archive will go away, all that's left after 1000 years is a copy of the spec that a microsoft employee printed and put in a black box |
| 10:07 | <hsivonen> | Microsoft should get stone-carving printers, just in case |
| 10:07 | <Workshiva> | We clearly need to ensure a steady production of printed spec copies then |
| 10:07 | <hsivonen> | I have already recycled the paper of my printed copies |
| 10:09 | <Workshiva> | It might be an interesting exercise to see how many other specs would need to be printed together with HTML5 to actually preserve the technology |
| 10:10 | <jgraham> | Workshiva: Maybe HTML5 + the webkit source code + the gecko source code |
| 10:11 | <jgraham> | Since many of the other specs are insufficient |
| 10:11 | <jgraham> | (moreso than HTML5) |
| 10:11 | <Workshiva> | But then you'd also need to print the specs for the programming languages, and code or specs for all the libraries used too |
| 10:12 | <jgraham> | Is it turtles all the way down? What if the English language is mutated beyond recognition? |
| 10:12 | <foolip> | Are we considering sending HTML5 to an alien civilization for their consideration? |
| 10:13 | <Workshiva> | I'm assuming that English will have a large enough corpus elsewhere to count as axiomatically present |
| 10:13 | <jgraham> | "Aliens mock Earth in Markup language debacle" |
| 10:13 | <jgraham> | (with the right capitalization) |
| 10:16 | <crash\> | In most browser background colors from <body> are mapped to the whole viewpoint, even when the body element hasnt the full height of the viewpoint |
| 10:17 | <crash\> | Is there anything related to this in the specß |
| 10:17 | <jgraham> | Isn't that covered in CSS somewhere? |
| 10:17 | jgraham | doesn't remember if it is quirks vs standards mode but does remember it being explicitly specced |
| 10:18 | <crash\> | I'll look at the CSS spec |
| 10:19 | <Workshiva> | It's in CSS |
| 10:19 | <Workshiva> | For HTML documents, if there's no applicable style on html, the style on body is pushed up |
| 10:19 | <Workshiva> | I guess it was added to XHTML too a while back? |
| 10:20 | <crash\> | "user agents must instead use the computed value of the background properties from that element's first HTML "BODY" element or XHTML "body" element child when painting backgrounds for the canvas, and must not paint a background for that child element. Such backgrounds must also be anchored at the same point as they would be if they were painted only for the root element." |
| 10:20 | <crash\> | thanks |
| 11:00 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmithX: I got http://pastebin.mozilla.org/752429 when trying to respond to the versioning poll |
| 11:27 | hsivonen | wonders if wbs has a length limit on responses |
| 11:27 | <hsivonen> | my list of objections is pretty long |
| 11:40 | <hsivonen> | is http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/spdy/spdy-protocol/spdy-protocol-draft2 the most recent SPDY spec? |
| 11:43 | <Peter`> | I read things about draft 3 in some chromium bug report, specifically about an extra bit for frame priorities, but that hasn't been published yet |
| 11:47 | <hsivonen> | ok |
| 11:53 | <jgraham> | foolip: BTW I started hacking on a little javascript WebSRT parser last night. So if you didn't already make one you are welcome to use that wehn it is finished |
| 11:53 | <jgraham> | It's not designed to be fast or useful or anything though |
| 11:54 | <jgraham> | Just to make me understand the spec a bit |
| 11:56 | <foolip> | jgraham, I'll be delighted to break it for you when it's done! |
| 11:56 | <jgraham> | foolip: That won't be hard |
| 11:56 | <foolip> | jgraham, is it in a public repo somewhere? |
| 11:57 | <jgraham> | foolip: It isn't even in a private repo yet |
| 11:57 | <foolip> | ok |
| 11:57 | <foolip> | let me know :) |
| 11:57 | <jgraham> | I just opened an emacs buffer and started typing :) |
| 12:15 | <zcorpan_> | jgraham: are you intending to have websrt node indirection? |
| 12:16 | <jgraham> | zcorpan_: I haven't read enough of the spec to know what that is yet :) |
| 12:17 | <zcorpan_> | jgraham: the output of the parser is "websrt nodes", and then there's a mapping to dom |
| 12:17 | <jgraham> | Oh I see |
| 12:17 | <jgraham> | Well yes then |
| 12:18 | <jgraham> | I am trying to implement what is in the spec more-or-less as written |
| 12:18 | <zcorpan_> | ok |
| 12:18 | <jgraham> | since the goal is not to be useful |
| 12:18 | <jgraham> | except as feedback |
| 12:19 | <jgraham> | So far my feedback is "this algorithm uses too much goto" |
| 12:19 | <jgraham> | (that is it doesn't trivially map onto a set of, possibly nested, loops) |
| 12:21 | <Philip`> | It's fun to implement these algorithms in functional languages which don't even have loops or break statements and certainly don't have goto |
| 12:27 | <Workshiva> | Lots of tail calls |
| 12:29 | <hsivonen> | I see no new objections at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issues-4-84-objection-poll/results |
| 12:29 | <hsivonen> | are others also seeing the Proxy Error or just not objecting actively? |
| 12:33 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Didn't try since you saw an error |
| 12:44 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: ok. |
| 12:44 | <hsivonen> | it's a bit annoying that techincal problems with the polls themselves are hindering objecting |
| 12:53 | <MikeSmithX> | hsivonen: sorry, was away at dinner and just got back |
| 12:54 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: was one of your comments more than 5629 characters long? |
| 12:55 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: yes |
| 12:55 | <hsivonen> | about 7.8 KB |
| 12:55 | <MikeSmith> | whoah |
| 12:55 | <MikeSmith> | I have found that the WBS backend seems to currently have a bug related to length of comments |
| 12:56 | <MikeSmith> | if a comment is 5629 characters or longer, submitting a response will fail |
| 12:57 | <hsivonen> | what should I do when my objection is longer than that? |
| 12:57 | <MikeSmith> | a workaround is to post a comment to www-archive and then reference the URL in the WBS survery |
| 12:57 | <MikeSmith> | *survey |
| 12:57 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: ok |
| 12:58 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: thanks |
| 12:58 | <MikeSmith> | ym. sorry about the bug.. I don't have access to the WBS backend to troubleshoot it myself, but I have given teh systems team the details |
| 13:00 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: btw, I looked into seeing if I could implement http://bugzilla.validator.nu/show_bug.cgi?id=750 myself .. looked at the corresponding Xerces code to try to see what the LOE would be |
| 13:01 | <MikeSmith> | seems like it's more work than I had thought |
| 13:01 | <MikeSmith> | this is the "supply a DocumentBuilderFactory that instantiates HtmlDocumentBuilder, SAXParserFactory that instantiates sax/HtmlParser" enhancement |
| 13:01 | <MikeSmith> | Yudai: that bug might be another worth looking at |
| 13:02 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: more work in what sense? More work than just providing those classes? or writing those classes is more work than expected? |
| 13:04 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: I think the classes are all that's needed, but I meant writing the classes is more work -- the corresponding Xerces classes are several hundred lines, iirc |
| 13:06 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: the main reason I'm keen on getting that implemented is I really the HTML5 parser that can be easily usable as a drop-in replacement for an XML parser in existing toolchains |
| 13:06 | <MikeSmith> | there seems to be a common misconception that validation tools and such have to be based on XML parsers |
| 13:07 | <MikeSmith> | and so, that XML well-formedness needs to be requirement for validation and such |
| 13:07 | <MikeSmith> | I heard the misconception repeated on an ePub WG call I was on last night |
| 13:08 | <MikeSmith> | some developers involved with the prior epub work have developed a validator - |
| 13:08 | <MikeSmith> | http://code.google.com/p/epubcheck/ |
| 13:08 | <MikeSmith> | that validator is based on jing |
| 13:10 | <MikeSmith> | I have not looked at their code yet, but if I were able to demonstrate that they could use it validate non-WF text/html content.. well, that would say a lot |
| 13:11 | <MikeSmith> | I mean, demonstrate that all they'd need to do is set a couple of Java system properties, and they could validate non-WF text/html content just as they can with XML/XHTML now |
| 13:12 | <MikeSmith> | Lachy: w3c mailing-list search and archived-at link-resolving are down now, and will be at least until midday US/East |
| 13:14 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: I objected by reference. |
| 13:19 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: thanks -- if the bug gets fixed before the poll closes, I will copy and paste the comment back in |
| 13:19 | Workshiva | wonders where dating HTML documents by doctype is a significant use case |
| 13:19 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: ok. thanks |
| 13:19 | <hsivonen> | Workshiva: if the author want to support document dating, the author could just write a *date* on the document... |
| 13:20 | <MikeSmith> | bingo |
| 13:21 | <MikeSmith> | I brings up the question of, What methods to do you use for trying to date *print* documents that are undated |
| 13:22 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: carbon dating? |
| 13:22 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 13:23 | <Workshiva> | Ink dating |
| 13:23 | <Workshiva> | I suppose it's possible to date the paper as well |
| 13:24 | <MikeSmith> | as long as we're on the subject, fonts and proportional spacing are one relatively easy visual indicator |
| 13:25 | <hsivonen> | does that mean that content displayed by Firefox 4 and content displayed by Safari are from different eras? |
| 13:26 | <MikeSmith> | I was thinking about specific case a few years back where some documents surfaced during the Bush vs. Kerry US presidential race that were supposedly from the 1970s |
| 13:27 | <MikeSmith> | and some supposed experts even verified that they were authentic |
| 13:28 | <MikeSmith> | but they were shown conclusively not to be, because they were very clearly produced using typesetting technology -- proportion character spacing and line spacing -- that were not widely available except to commercial printers |
| 13:29 | <MikeSmith> | and the documents were supposedly simple memos that some mid-level military official had typed up (or had a secretary type up) |
| 13:30 | <Workshiva> | Good times |
| 14:31 | <Slaanesh> | Opera using over 8 GB memory, sounds like a feature... |
| 14:37 | <jgraham> | Slaanesh: That doesn't sound good... |
| 14:39 | <Workshiva> | It was growing by 100 MB every few seconds until it decided to die a bit after 8 GB |
| 14:39 | <jgraham> | Can you file a bug? |
| 14:40 | <jgraham> | Also, which version of Opera? |
| 14:40 | <jgraham> | We made some fixes recently but I don't recall which shipped and which did not |
| 14:44 | <jgraham> | (If you file a bug, you get a bug number, right? Let gsnedders or I know) |
| 14:44 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: yeah |
| 14:44 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Well, you get an email address in the form of bug-number⊙boc |
| 14:54 | <Workshiva> | Or I could just use the bug tracker directly :P |
| 14:54 | <jgraham> | Workshiva: That too :p |
| 14:54 | <jgraham> | In that case s/let gsnedders of I know/CC gsnedders and I/ |
| 15:06 | <Philip`> | Does anyone happen to know if common search engines treat as largely equivalent to " "? |
| 15:28 | <hsivonen> | Hmm. Is Spotify for Linux an NPAPI plug-in host? |
| 15:29 | <hsivonen> | is does it print stuff about some other NP_Initialize? |
| 16:41 | <AryehGregor> | jgraham, if no alt text is provided, what are screen readers supposed to provide other than filenames? Should they just always treat it as alt=""? |
| 16:41 | <AryehGregor> | That seems less useful than the app adding as alt text the filename that the user provided on upload (which is likely more comprehensible). |
| 16:44 | <Philip`> | AryehGregor: They could apply heuristics to determine whether the filename is likely to be unreadable garbage or potentially useful |
| 16:44 | <AryehGregor> | They could. Then if they tell it's garbage, what do they use instead? |
| 16:45 | <Philip`> | They could do the same things that the site publishing the content could do |
| 16:46 | <Philip`> | only they have more motivation to choose to do those things (since it affects their paying customers) and more experience than the site owner does |
| 16:50 | <AryehGregor> | They can't, because they don't have the same information. |
| 16:50 | <AryehGregor> | They don't have access to the original filename when the user uploaded the file, for example. |
| 16:50 | <AryehGregor> | Without widespread ARIA support, they also don't have programmatic access to captions and brief descriptions the user might have entered. |
| 17:09 | <jgraham> | AryehGregor: I would provide some generic text. Clearly what the UAs do now is actively harmful to their users |
| 17:09 | <jgraham> | "I" meaning "I as a UA author" |
| 17:09 | <AryehGregor> | jgraham, okay, but that's only mildly better. It's certainly worse than low-quality author-added alt text, yes? |
| 17:10 | <AryehGregor> | So it's a good argument for saying that authors should be required to stick in whatever cruddy auto-generated alt text they can come up with. |
| 17:10 | <jgraham> | AryehGregor: That is far from obvious |
| 17:10 | <AryehGregor> | jgraham, the example makes it seems clear at least in Flickr's case. |
| 17:11 | <jgraham> | AryehGregor: Only because the UA behaviour right now is so user-hostile |
| 17:11 | <AryehGregor> | The original filename is likely better on average than a stock message, at least if you heuristically filter out total gibberish. |
| 17:11 | <AryehGregor> | Maybe, but that's where we stand. |
| 17:12 | <jgraham> | If it just said something generic you could quickly get on with reading the rest of the page which may have more useful information e.g. tags, descriptions, titles, comments, etc. |
| 17:12 | <jgraham> | The user-uploaded filename will in most cases be just as meaningless as the flickr one |
| 17:12 | <jgraham> | since it is just autogenerated by their camera |
| 17:13 | <jgraham> | Indeed flickr uses that as the default title and when people don't change it it is actively annoying |
| 17:13 | <AryehGregor> | Hmm, that's true. |
| 17:13 | <AryehGregor> | For photos. |
| 17:13 | <jgraham> | So I would prefer they just left in blank there too |
| 17:13 | <jgraham> | *it |
| 17:13 | <AryehGregor> | For non-photo images it often won't be true, though, the name is often meaningful. |
| 17:14 | <jgraham> | AryehGregor: Maybe, it's hard to tell |
| 17:14 | <AryehGregor> | Still, if UAs implemented heuristics to not read gibberish filenames, they could apply them to alt text too. |
| 17:14 | <AryehGregor> | I don't know if it hurts to give the UA extra data. |
| 17:34 | <volkmar> | are submit controls not barred from constraint validation to let authors play with setCustomValidity() and :invalid? |
| 17:42 | <AryehGregor> | There's not much point in barring something from constraint validation if it can't become invalid without setCustomValidity() being applied, I guess. |
| 17:50 | <volkmar> | AryehGregor: input type='reset|button' are barred |
| 17:50 | <volkmar> | and button type='reset|button' |
| 17:50 | AryehGregor | doesn't know, then |
| 17:50 | <volkmar> | it looks like all submit controls are not barred |
| 17:51 | <volkmar> | and I don't think we should let any element being invalid with setCustomValidity |
| 18:14 | <dandaman> | soooo |
| 18:15 | <dandaman> | my javascript functions were fine yesterday |
| 18:15 | <dandaman> | then i added some css3 to make sliding transitions on my site |
| 18:15 | <dandaman> | http://pastebin.com/g2q8BSGn |
| 18:15 | <dandaman> | line 2 no longer works |
| 18:15 | <dandaman> | any idea? |
| 18:16 | <dandaman> | even if i take out that slidingtable line |
| 18:16 | <dandaman> | that slidingtable line works btw |
| 18:16 | <TabAtkins> | $('continueIMage') will only select a <continueImage> element. |
| 18:16 | <TabAtkins> | You probably want a . or # in there. |
| 18:16 | <dandaman> | <img id="continueImage" name="continueImage" src="/fax-signup-api/images/continue.png" onclick="if(!isLoading){getNumber($('resultsList').value);}"> |
| 18:17 | <dandaman> | it was working fine yesterday |
| 18:17 | <TabAtkins> | No, $('continueImage') would never have worked at any point. |
| 18:18 | <dandaman> | i have mootools imported |
| 18:18 | <dandaman> | not sure if that makes a difference |
| 18:18 | <dandaman> | but it was working |
| 18:18 | <TabAtkins> | Just change it to $('#continueImage') and try it out. |
| 18:18 | <dandaman> | i threw in an alert right after the continue image line |
| 18:18 | <dandaman> | i tried # and . |
| 18:18 | <dandaman> | both didnt work |
| 18:18 | <dandaman> | rather the alert never showed |
| 18:19 | <dandaman> | it seems like the function just gets stuck at that line |
| 18:19 | <TabAtkins> | This is jQuery, right? |
| 18:19 | <dandaman> | yeah i have jQuery imported |
| 18:19 | <TabAtkins> | Why are you setting the onclick like that in the first place? |
| 18:20 | <TabAtkins> | $("#continueImage").click(function(){ displayPersonalDID($('resultsList').value()); }); |
| 18:20 | <dandaman> | the code i salvaged had it like that, i'll change it to .onclick='display...' |
| 18:20 | <TabAtkins> | No, .onclick won't work either. The object returned by the $() function is *not* a DOM Node. |
| 18:20 | <dandaman> | ok that worked |
| 18:21 | <dandaman> | i'm not familiar with jquery, had no idea there was different syntax for that stuff, i am mainly using it to do the sliding transitions |
| 18:21 | <dandaman> | thanks |
| 18:29 | <hsivonen> | pretty low objector turnout so far |
| 18:51 | <hober> | hsivonen: for which poll? |
| 18:55 | <AryehGregor> | Where's frequency data on how often various elements are used? I always forget this kind of thing. |
| 18:56 | <AryehGregor> | Google did something on this, yes? But I forget what it was called. |
| 18:56 | <Philip`> | http://philip.html5.org/data/ has some :-) |
| 18:56 | <Philip`> | e.g. http://philip.html5.org/data/tag-count-pages.txt |
| 18:57 | <AryehGregor> | Thanks. |
| 18:57 | <Philip`> | You're probably thinking of http://code.google.com/webstats/ |
| 18:57 | <Philip`> | though it's five years old now so things will have changed |
| 19:09 | <AryehGregor> | Philip`, how up-to-date is your data? |
| 19:09 | <AryehGregor> | The elements I'm looking at are way too marginal to show up in Google's stats. |
| 19:11 | <Philip`> | AryehGregor: The one I linked is quite old (maybe about two years?) |
| 19:11 | <AryehGregor> | k, thanks. |
| 19:12 | <Philip`> | I have the dotbot data that's more like a year old, if you want any numbers or searches from that |
| 19:14 | <AryehGregor> | No, basic data is fine. |
| 19:14 | <AryehGregor> | Someone was just asking for support for my claim that practically no one uses <kbd> or <samp>. |
| 19:14 | <AryehGregor> | http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9919 |
| 19:17 | <hsivonen> | hober: both versioning and ascii-ref |
| 19:23 | <hober> | IIRC I thought the counter-CPs covered the arguments pretty well, so I haven't bothered to respond to either |
| 19:23 | <AryehGregor> | Is the beforeload event standardized anywhere? |
| 19:23 | <hober> | that said, I enjoyed reading your reply to the versioning poll |
| 19:40 | <AryehGregor> | Looks like everyone except Opera 10.60 does a lousy job of caching redirects, at least when cookies are involved: http://stevesouders.com/tests/redirects/results.php |
| 19:40 | <Hixie> | hober: btw, thanks for all the spam fighting on the wiki, i was banning someone last night and saw how much you'd done, nice work :-) |
| 19:41 | <hober> | Hixie: no problem |
| 19:41 | <hober> | anne usually catches the ones that make it past me |
| 19:42 | hober | is subscribed to the recent changes feed |
| 19:42 | <hober> | so I catch things pretty early |
| 19:43 | <AryehGregor> | browserscope.org is cool, I never knew about it. |
| 19:45 | <TabAtkins> | Agreed, pretty cool. |
| 19:47 | <estellevw> | wish they provided more detail about the tests |
| 19:51 | <estellevw> | Why is <hr> included in 'grouping' elements in the spec |
| 19:52 | <estellevw> | seems like an odd man out in that section |
| 19:54 | <TabAtkins> | Where is it listed as 'grouping'? |
| 19:54 | <Philip`> | In the table of contents, at least |
| 19:55 | <estellevw> | http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/grouping-content.html#the-hr-element |
| 19:55 | <TabAtkins> | Oh, right. ^_^ <hr> represents a paragraph-level break, grouping content in a way somewhat similar to the other grouping elements. |
| 19:55 | <Hixie> | "grouping" is a poor name |
| 19:55 | <Hixie> | but is the best i could come up with |
| 19:56 | <estellevw> | cause hgroup, which is in sectioning, feeling like 'grouping' is a better name |
| 19:57 | <estellevw> | 'grouping' has meaning in itself that fits elmeents not in that group too |
| 19:57 | <estellevw> | though i can't come up with a better name either ;) |
| 19:59 | <estellevw> | how would you define "grouping"? |
| 20:09 | <estellevw> | i guess formerly block level elements are now divided into sectioning and grouping elements? |
| 20:14 | <slartsa> | anyone ever used kannel? |
| 20:37 | <cardona507> | TabAtkins: how was your talk the other day? |
| 20:37 | <cardona507> | slides? |
| 21:06 | <oal> | Is it possible to remove or change the appearance of the box/arrow of a <select>? |
| 21:06 | <TabAtkins> | No. |
| 21:06 | <oal> | Oh, ok |
| 21:39 | <Hixie> | oops, forgot to update subject line for the last e-mail |
| 21:42 | <Hixie> | crap, did it again! |
| 21:50 | jgraham | hums "and when the first email has the wrong subject he knows he's losing it, and when the second email has the wrong subject he knows he's losing it, oh yeah he's losing it oh yeah he's losing it" |
| 21:50 | <jgraham> | Hmm, that was wrong |
| 21:51 | <jgraham> | Ironically |
| 22:18 | <Hixie> | i need a freely redistributable pretty ASCII art image about 10 lines long |
| 22:18 | <Hixie> | anyone got anything that fits? |
| 22:23 | Lachy | wonders if Sergey is in here? Reviewing his blog post now |
| 22:23 | <aho> | http://whatwg.pastebin.com/Ppe5K1PK |
| 22:23 | <aho> | :> |
| 22:24 | <aho> | there lots of generators online by the way |
| 22:24 | <aho> | http://www.network-science.de/ascii/ <- used that one with the goofy font |
| 22:25 | <Lachy> | Hixie, do you have Astrophy in ASCII art? |
| 22:25 | <wirepair> | probably not what you had in mind, but an awesome ascii font generator i use: http://patorjk.com/software/taag/ |
| 22:29 | <TabAtkins> | Hixie: Got a 20-line one with Patrick Stewart facepalming. |
| 22:30 | <jamesr> | TabAtkins: WANT |
| 22:30 | <TabAtkins> | http://www.jozjozjoz.com/2010/03/22/picard-facepalm-ascii-art/ |
| 22:30 | <TabAtkins> | First place I coudl re-find it. |
| 22:30 | <TabAtkins> | Interestingly enough, it's done in a proportional font. |
| 22:31 | <TabAtkins> | I've seen a better one, though. |
| 22:40 | <colapop> | Is <nav> the best choice for a table of contents block or is there something more targeted? |
| 22:41 | <TabAtkins> | Nah, that's what you want. |
| 23:11 | <Hixie> | aho, TabAtkins: ok so just to clarify, i meant an image, not text, and by "freely redistributable" i meant "has a known copyright situation" :-P |
| 23:11 | <Hixie> | Lachy: unfortunately not |
| 23:11 | <TabAtkins> | Hixie: Wait, what? You want an image of text of an image? |
| 23:12 | <Hixie> | i want an image |
| 23:12 | <Hixie> | ascii art image |
| 23:12 | <Hixie> | a text/plain graphic |
| 23:12 | <Hixie> | not a text/plain graphic of text :-) |
| 23:12 | <AryehGregor> | Who's Sergey, and what blog post? |
| 23:12 | <TabAtkins> | ... |
| 23:12 | <Hixie> | which is what aho suggested :-) |
| 23:12 | <TabAtkins> | So is this going to be text, or pixels? |
| 23:12 | <Hixie> | text |
| 23:13 | <TabAtkins> | Okay, that's what I thought. I was confused why you were telling me this. |
| 23:14 | <nimbupani> | Would it be appropriate to ask questions about inset box-shadows here? |
| 23:15 | <TabAtkins> | You could try, but they kind of confused me. |
| 23:16 | <TabAtkins> | s/ed/e/ |
| 23:16 | <nimbupani> | ok :) |
| 23:16 | <nimbupani> | http://dl.dropbox.com/u/952/pola/index.html |
| 23:16 | <nimbupani> | (sorry please refresh) |
| 23:16 | <nimbupani> | so two images. the one on right has box-shadow without inset |
| 23:17 | <nimbupani> | the one on left has with inset. |
| 23:17 | <nimbupani> | so the box shadow on right renders correctly, but the one on left does not render at all, even tho spec says box-shadows apply to all elements. |
| 23:18 | <TabAtkins> | You been able to do get the inset to work on anything else? |
| 23:18 | <nimbupani> | yeah it works on non-img elms |
| 23:19 | <TabAtkins> | Then it's a browser bug. |
| 23:19 | <nimbupani> | but its like cross-browser :) |
| 23:19 | <TabAtkins> | Then file it on multiple browsers. ^_^ |
| 23:19 | <TabAtkins> | There's no reason an inset shadow shouldn't work on an image. |
| 23:20 | <nimbupani> | yeah :( |
| 23:25 | <Lachy> | AryehGregor, Sergey is someone who e-mailed Hixie and i to review and publish a post on the whatwg blog. |
| 23:29 | <hober> | TabAtkins: how'd the panel go on Wednesday? |
| 23:29 | <TabAtkins> | Good times. |
| 23:30 | <TabAtkins> | I messed up my demo by hacking at it while starting the panel, but we saved it with another demo I'd written earlier. |
| 23:30 | <TabAtkins> | I recommend against flying twice in one day, though. |
| 23:30 | <TabAtkins> | I just wish we hadn't been kicked out of the room. I always love the Q&A - people ask great questions at places like that. |
| 23:35 | <estellevw> | nimbupani: The inset shadow is working |
| 23:35 | <estellevw> | it's just appearing behind the image |
| 23:35 | <estellevw> | set the opacity to 0.5, and you'll see what i mean |
| 23:35 | <nimbupani> | estellevw: but it should appear in front of it ideally :/ |
| 23:35 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, that's a bug. inset bugs go on top of the element. |
| 23:36 | <estellevw> | even on embedded content? |
| 23:36 | <TabAtkins> | Yes? |
| 23:36 | <estellevw> | spec unmemorized: if all browsers have same issue, that might need to be delineated |
| 23:37 | <estellevw> | should be a given, but ... |
| 23:37 | <nimbupani> | estellevw: i dont see the shadows on chrome/firefox as you said |
| 23:37 | <nimbupani> | oh wait let me use a higher pixel value |
| 23:38 | <nimbupani> | no o. |
| 23:38 | <estellevw> | nimbupani: I used firebug to set opacity to 0.5 |
| 23:38 | <estellevw> | and change shadow to inset |
| 23:38 | <estellevw> | img { |
| 23:38 | <estellevw> | -moz-box-shadow:2px 2px 5px black inset; |
| 23:38 | <estellevw> | display:block; |
| 23:38 | <estellevw> | opacity:0.5; |
| 23:38 | <estellevw> | } |
| 23:39 | <nimbupani> | http://dl.dropbox.com/u/952/pola/index.html |
| 23:39 | <nimbupani> | i cannot see any shadow. |
| 23:40 | <estellevw> | FF 3.6.7 |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | man i cannot find any ascii art with a clearly reusable copyright license |
| 23:41 | <nimbupani> | I am on that too, can you send me a screenshot? |
| 23:41 | <nimbupani> | use gyazo if you can :) |
| 23:42 | <estellevw> | so weird. I reloaded and it disappeared. Where should i send screenshot? |
| 23:42 | <nimbupani> | let me PM you. |
| 23:51 | <estellevw> | so, if a box shadow is placed on a transparent gif, you can see it. The image is appearing on top of the shadow, not the other way around |
| 23:51 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, that's definitely a bug. |
| 23:55 | <estellevw> | nimbupani: did you change the code, because now it's work in Opera 10.6, but it wasn't before |
| 23:56 | <nimbupani> | the image on the right will work. |
| 23:56 | <nimbupani> | because it is transparent png. |
| 23:56 | <nimbupani> | so you are right it IS rendering box-shadow but changing opacity will not show that. |
| 23:56 | <estellevw> | ah, ok |
| 23:56 | <nimbupani> | but using transparent png does. |