| 00:00 | <daedb> | Hixie: IE9 shows the h264 video for all mime types |
| 00:00 | <Hixie> | and nothing for the others? |
| 00:00 | <Hixie> | and it starts at the same point for all of the ones that play? |
| 00:01 | <daedb> | nothing under ogg or webm columns |
| 00:01 | <Hixie> | k, thanks |
| 00:01 | <Hixie> | well of the browsers that sniff, that's the most rational behaviour |
| 00:02 | <daedb> | all videos that play look the same to me |
| 00:02 | <Hixie> | excellent |
| 00:03 | <daedb> | I'm only doing a quick look though, nothing too thorough :) |
| 00:09 | <Hixie> | bbiab |
| 00:36 | <nessy> | OMG that web page turns my machine into a turbo-heater! |
| 01:48 | <boblet> | TabAtkins: yt? |
| 02:52 | <othermaciej> | good lord, the NPN thread |
| 02:52 | <othermaciej> | just when I thought dealing with WebSocket protocol stuff couldn't get any more tine-consuming |
| 03:54 | <erlehmann> | anyone aware of a gzip compression implementation in javascript? |
| 03:55 | <jacobolus> | mcarter: did anyone ever do gzip in javascript that you know of? |
| 03:55 | <jacobolus> | erlehmann: you might try asking in channels w/ more specifically javascript devs |
| 03:55 | <jacobolus> | erlehmann: e.g. someone in #node.js might have some idea |
| 03:56 | <erlehmann> | i found one that writes zip files, but behaves funny … it does not compress. |
| 03:56 | <jacobolus> | anyway, good luck. I'm outta here |
| 05:08 | <nimbupani> | hey MikeSmith |
| 05:17 | <MikeSmith> | hey, it's nimbupani |
| 06:36 | <micheil> | annevk5: has anyone bothered to ask the biggest question of websockets: do we actually need protocol extensions? |
| 06:37 | <micheil> | like, I mean, what percentage of users / developers are actually going to use them? |
| 06:38 | <hober> | yes, that point has been raised on a number of occasions on the hybi list |
| 06:38 | <hober> | by maciej, ian, adam, and others |
| 06:38 | <micheil> | right, just thought I'd check |
| 06:39 | <micheil> | because really, I think we're going a little bit over the top with it all. |
| 06:39 | <micheil> | it's meant to be a simple transport method. |
| 06:39 | <micheil> | not the one-and-only ring-to-rule-them-all transport method. |
| 06:40 | <micheil> | like, sending a DVD over websockets, you probably should be doing that. Just use file transfers using http, that's already existent. |
| 06:41 | <micheil> | s/you probably should be doing/you probably shouldn't be doing |
| 06:46 | <cardona507> | one-and-only-ring-to-rule-them-all transport method - nice |
| 06:46 | <hober> | I'm sure you can easily imagine that you're preaching to the choir here. :) |
| 06:47 | <micheil> | good point. |
| 06:47 | <micheil> | I should get a few of the guys I know at Yahoo! to weigh in on it. |
| 06:47 | <micheil> | because I know some of the things they are planning to do / try with websockets are quite what it was necessarily designed for. |
| 06:47 | <cardona507> | you going to the crockford tech talk at yahoo! on the 27th? |
| 06:48 | <micheil> | sadly not. |
| 06:48 | <cardona507> | Yeah - I am looking forward to it |
| 06:48 | <cardona507> | talking about node |
| 06:48 | <micheil> | (well, not that I've been invited to have a plane fair paid :P) |
| 06:48 | <micheil> | wait. 27th august? |
| 06:48 | <cardona507> | heh |
| 06:48 | <cardona507> | yep |
| 06:48 | <cardona507> | next week |
| 06:49 | <micheil> | dang. wouldn't be able to go even if I wanted to. |
| 06:49 | <micheil> | curse exams. |
| 06:49 | <micheil> | :D |
| 06:49 | <cardona507> | http://www.meetup.com/BayJax/calendar/14371278/ |
| 06:49 | <cardona507> | curse exams indeed :) |
| 06:50 | <micheil> | seriously.. pretty much missed any possibility to go to jsconf this year due to exams too. and I get to miss WDS due to more exams. |
| 06:50 | <micheil> | what's with that? |
| 06:50 | <cardona507> | hopefully a good degree |
| 06:50 | <cardona507> | or a good startup partner |
| 06:50 | <micheil> | actually, it's not a degree at all. |
| 06:51 | <micheil> | wrong level of education. |
| 06:52 | <micheil> | cardona507: this would be high school (final year) level. |
| 06:52 | <cardona507> | no way - nice - congrats |
| 06:52 | <cardona507> | I was about to type 'dr?' |
| 06:52 | <cardona507> | :) |
| 06:53 | <micheil> | haha, well, I've actually started my uni degree as well. |
| 06:53 | <cardona507> | computer science? |
| 06:53 | <micheil> | (well, I've completed one of the modules, I still have about 6 core modules of compsci left.) |
| 06:53 | <micheil> | yeah, a computer science degree. |
| 06:54 | <cardona507> | what languages? |
| 06:54 | <micheil> | it's just general at the moment |
| 06:54 | <cardona507> | what language do you intend to focus on? |
| 06:54 | <micheil> | javascript? |
| 06:54 | <micheil> | :P |
| 06:54 | <cardona507> | cool |
| 06:55 | <cardona507> | FTW |
| 06:55 | <micheil> | probably either javascript, C, or Erlang |
| 06:55 | <micheil> | not that I've done much of the latter two |
| 06:56 | <cardona507> | me neither |
| 06:56 | <cardona507> | i like JS though |
| 06:57 | micheil | will bbl. |
| 06:57 | <cardona507> | ttyl |
| 07:41 | <MikeSmith> | bobchao: congrats on what seemed to be a really successful COSCUP |
| 08:16 | <MikeSmith> | hmm, cvs update kinda seems to take a long time when you have a directory with 1034 files in it |
| 09:28 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: This is where we mock you for using CVS, right? |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 10:16 | <annevk5> | netsplit much? |
| 10:16 | <annevk5> | actually, sending DVDs over WebSocket is something the pro-simple camp brought up |
| 10:30 | <Rik`_> | MikeSmith: yeah you're right, other than testing people won't click twice |
| 10:30 | <gsnedders> | eighty4: lunch soonish? |
| 10:31 | <eighty4> | gsnedders: yeah, I'm starting to get hungry. But if I eat to early I will get hungry again to soon |
| 10:31 | <Rik`> | but I see this message while downloading : "loading… loading…" |
| 10:31 | <Rik`> | MikeSmith: is it intended ? |
| 10:31 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 10:31 | <MikeSmith> | Rik`: no, that's a bug |
| 10:31 | <gsnedders> | eighty4: Have more meals! :) |
| 10:31 | <MikeSmith> | Rik`: that I will fix in a bit |
| 10:33 | <eighty4> | gsnedders: that wouldn't work. If I eat 11 I need food again around 17, but that's to early for my girlfriend to eat dinner. So I'd have to eat dinner at 19 as well. That just wouldn't work >< |
| 10:35 | <eighty4> | gsnedders: so what would you like to eat? Would a salad at fräcka frökens work? |
| 10:36 | <gsnedders> | eighty4: I'd rather something bigger |
| 10:36 | <eighty4> | pizza at forno italia? |
| 10:37 | <gsnedders> | That works for me |
| 10:39 | <gsnedders> | eighty4: Meeting outside here at 11:55 work for you? |
| 10:39 | <gsnedders> | (or 12?) |
| 10:40 | <eighty4> | 11.55 works good. Or I could just go right now |
| 10:40 | <gsnedders> | Okay |
| 10:41 | <eighty4> | try to get to forno 2 minutes earlier then everybody else |
| 10:41 | <eighty4> | *me leaves* |
| 10:49 | <MikeSmith> | Rik`: fixed the loading… loading… loading… thing |
| 10:50 | <MikeSmith> | thanks for the feedback and checking, btw |
| 10:51 | <micheil> | hmm.. anyone know who that Shelby Moore on the hybi mailing list represents? |
| 10:52 | <annevk5> | it's some kind of troll |
| 10:55 | <Philip`> | Is it trolling if you don't recognise or accept that that's what you're doing? |
| 10:56 | <micheil> | I believe so. |
| 10:57 | <Philip`> | micheil: Have you seen http://www.glazman.org/weblog/newarchive/2003_01_05_glazblogarc.html#s87008479 for relevant background information? |
| 11:01 | <jgraham> | micheil: http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1041735552&count=1 |
| 11:36 | <micheil> | Philip`, jgraham: do you think it'd be allowed to be mandated that for each protocol extension that a person / group wishes to have, that they show code for the implementation and provide documentation as to how it follows the original intent and goals of the websocket protocol? |
| 11:37 | <micheil> | like, not just psuedo code, but actual code showing how much complexity it would add to the parsing of the packets, etc. |
| 11:37 | <Philip`> | Has anyone agreed to follow the original intent and goals, or even agreed on what the intent and goals are? |
| 11:39 | <micheil> | I always thought that they were to create a simple bi-directional communication channel for which browsers could communicate with servers and servers could communicate with browsers in an asynchronous way. |
| 11:40 | <jgraham> | micheil: What do you mean "protocol extension"? |
| 11:41 | <micheil> | as in, anything added to the framing, handshaking or otherwise that isn't absolutely necessary for the communication of plain data |
| 11:41 | <micheil> | for instance, you message format, as simple as it may seem could be as simple as: |
| 11:41 | <micheil> | [frame-type][frame-length][frame-data] |
| 11:42 | <micheil> | frame-type being something like the flags currently defined |
| 11:42 | <jgraham> | Right, I think it is reasonable to ask people to show the code for cases where they want complexity. And people have been doing that |
| 11:43 | <micheil> | frame-length being the 7bits or what ever we're currently at |
| 11:43 | <micheil> | jgraham: so far I haven't seen much code |
| 11:43 | <micheil> | I've seen outlines of the packet format, but no implementations of it |
| 11:44 | <micheil> | (I'm not too sure I'm even reading the outlines of the packet format correctly) |
| 11:45 | <micheil> | bbl. |
| 11:45 | <jgraham> | micheil: There was one recent message with code |
| 11:45 | <jgraham> | and someone pointed out that it assumed a particularly simple case |
| 11:45 | <jgraham> | so there is evidence that code focuses the discussion somewhat |
| 12:21 | <annevk5> | http://twitter.com/kangax/status/21506116839 hmm |
| 12:22 | <annevk5> | I guess they are not doing that in quirks mode... |
| 15:51 | <MikeSmith> | goddammit |
| 15:51 | <MikeSmith> | is there a way to have mercurial use actual pathnames in diffs |
| 15:51 | <MikeSmith> | instead of whatever this a/ b/ shit |
| 15:52 | <MikeSmith> | jesus |
| 15:52 | <MikeSmith> | I want to meet the jackass who came up with that |
| 15:52 | <Philip`> | Why do you want that? |
| 15:53 | <Philip`> | If you're passing it to patch you can just add '-p1' or whatever to strip it off |
| 15:54 | <MikeSmith> | I'm really the diff from one level above the directory where the .hg subdir is |
| 15:54 | <davidhund> | tidy |
| 15:54 | <davidhund> | erm, oops |
| 15:54 | <MikeSmith> | and I do hg diff anolis/ |
| 15:55 | <MikeSmith> | and I get a diff with: +++ b/anolislib/processes/terms.py Fri Aug 20 00:00:23 2010 +0900 |
| 15:55 | <MikeSmith> | if I do -p1, I will just get +++ anolislib/processes/terms.py Fri Aug 20 00:00:23 2010 |
| 15:55 | <MikeSmith> | right? |
| 15:56 | <Philip`> | Yes (I think) |
| 15:57 | <Philip`> | patch -p1 -d anolis < example.diff |
| 15:57 | <Philip`> | might do something useful |
| 15:57 | <Philip`> | (or might not) |
| 15:57 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 15:57 | <MikeSmith> | will try |
| 17:13 | <MikeSmithX> | http://www.w3.org/Public/Bugs seems to be down |
| 17:13 | <MikeSmithX> | hopefully not for long |
| 17:13 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmithX: Plz fix. Kthxbai. |
| 17:13 | <MikeSmithX> | heh |
| 17:14 | <MikeSmithX> | I've already pinged systems team |
| 17:15 | <jgraham> | MikeSmithX: Did you try M-x butterfly? |
| 17:16 | <MikeSmithX> | jgraham: will try it if I can do it in Vim… |
| 17:17 | <gsnedders> | Also: The Birthday Massacre are awesome. |
| 17:18 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders: I wish you luck finding musical playpals |
| 17:18 | <MikeSmith> | most of my friends dislike most of the music I like |
| 17:18 | <MikeSmith> | so the only appropriate reaction is, too bad |
| 17:18 | <MikeSmith> | friends have their pros and cons |
| 17:19 | <gsnedders> | A managed to not get murdered for putting on metalcore with friend round yesterday. I guess I'm lucky. |
| 17:19 | <jgraham> | Evidence that metal is just silly item #55467 The stupid number of sub-genres |
| 17:19 | <MikeSmith> | but it would help if you weren't so keen on Christian Metalic Emo Noise Rock |
| 17:20 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: What? I thought he was into Christian Metalic Emo Rock Noise! |
| 17:20 | <MikeSmith> | no, gsnedders hates that stuff |
| 17:20 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders: what's wrong with just listening to. e.g. Belle and Sebastian? |
| 17:21 | <MikeSmith> | girls love that stuff |
| 17:21 | <jgraham> | Well he would, if he's into Christian Metalic Emo Noise Rock |
| 17:21 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: More variety needed. |
| 17:21 | <MikeSmith> | I mean it's a great way to impress girls with your sensitivity |
| 17:21 | jgraham | confirms this works :) |
| 17:21 | <gsnedders> | I think ending up curled up in their arms in tears shows sensitivity too. |
| 17:23 | <vals_> | it also gets you closer to their interesting parts |
| 17:23 | <vals_> | but anyway. does anybody know why the talk about which kind of pizza to eat is marked as "important lines" in the logs? |
| 17:24 | <gsnedders> | Because someone marked it as important. |
| 17:24 | <gsnedders> | Probably someone hungry. |
| 17:24 | <vals_> | 8-D |
| 17:26 | <gsnedders> | Also: girls' "interesting parts" are overrated. |
| 17:26 | <paul_irish> | o.O |
| 17:27 | <vals_> | I guess that depends on your taste |
| 17:28 | gsnedders | has been pretty much asexual for the majority of this year |
| 17:28 | <pesla> | :o |
| 17:29 | <AryehGregor> | . . . |
| 17:29 | <gsnedders> | (and more or less aromantic as well) |
| 17:29 | <pesla> | Will the real gsnedders please stand up? |
| 17:30 | <vals_> | I've been aromatic for the majority of this summer |
| 17:30 | <vals_> | too frigging hot |
| 17:30 | <gsnedders> | *aromantic |
| 17:30 | <gsnedders> | No, I did spell it correctly. |
| 17:31 | <vals_> | anyway, I have an actual questio about the new web standard, and specifically the relation between hN and sections |
| 17:31 | <gsnedders> | Damnit, confusing me! |
| 17:31 | <vals_> | yeah, you spelled it correctly 8-D |
| 17:31 | <gsnedders> | hmm, I should probably get the outliner back up |
| 17:31 | <vals_> | (outliner?) |
| 17:31 | <gsnedders> | http://gsnedders.html5.org/outliner/ |
| 17:32 | <gsnedders> | Oh, it's working again |
| 17:32 | <gsnedders> | That makes it simpler |
| 17:33 | <vals_> | so, the question is the following: h1, h2, ... h6 represent headings of (implied) sections, with the relative rank being useful to determine whether a new section starts or just a subsection starts |
| 17:33 | <vals_> | is that correct so far? |
| 17:33 | <AryehGregor> | If you use them that way, yes. The other acceptable thing is to just use <h1> for everything. |
| 17:34 | <gsnedders> | with hn, n is meaningless within section |
| 17:34 | <gsnedders> | outwith of section, n is used to determine whether a new section or subsection starts |
| 17:34 | <vals_> | that's exactly what I wanted to get to. so if I do my sectioning explicitly for each heading, it doesn't really matter what section level I use, right? |
| 17:34 | <gsnedders> | right. |
| 17:35 | <vals_> | now, if I was using CSS for styling, one of the advantages of using different hN is that styling would be automatic, more or less |
| 17:35 | <annevk5> | MikeSmith, isn't it at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/ |
| 17:36 | <MikeSmith> | annevk5: yeah |
| 17:36 | <MikeSmith> | just typoed it |
| 17:36 | <MikeSmith> | anyway, I think it's back up now |
| 17:36 | <vals_> | if I only use h1 and do the sectioning manually, I have to do something to say "style this way every h1 that happens under exactly N sections" |
| 17:36 | <MikeSmith> | I think the mysql server was stopped and restarted |
| 17:36 | <vals_> | (more or less) |
| 17:37 | <gsnedders> | vals_: yeah |
| 17:40 | <vals_> | that's going to be a little painful 8-P |
| 17:43 | <AryehGregor> | That's part of why :any() is proposed. |
| 17:44 | <vals_> | yes, :any() would help a lot, and not just in this case |
| 17:56 | <jeromegn> | hey guys |
| 17:57 | <jeromegn> | is there an easy way to reconnect a websocket when it's closed? |
| 17:57 | <jeromegn> | I'm guessing I have to manually implement that in my app... |
| 18:02 | <eighty4> | gsnedders: aroudn? |
| 18:02 | <eighty4> | *around |
| 18:03 | <eighty4> | gsnedders: I've found you a FF bug that Opera handles as it should (IMO at least :)) |
| 18:53 | <MikeSmith> | Philip`: btw, hg diff seems to have neither a -p nor -d option |
| 18:53 | <MikeSmith> | so its name is not wholly accurate |
| 18:53 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: They're optons on patch |
| 18:53 | <MikeSmith> | maybe it should be call hg deficient-diff |
| 18:53 | <Philip`> | diff doesn't have those options either |
| 18:54 | <MikeSmith> | or maybe hg not-quite-as-deficient-as-the-diff-in-svn-diff |
| 18:54 | <Philip`> | (at least not any with those effects) |
| 18:54 | MikeSmith | scrolls back to read what Philip` said |
| 18:54 | <MikeSmith> | ah |
| 18:54 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: patch. |
| 18:54 | <Hixie> | i wonder how all these formal objections will be handled |
| 18:54 | <MikeSmith> | hai hai hai |
| 18:54 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders, Philip` - I was just testing you guys |
| 18:54 | <MikeSmith> | so, congrats in passing the test |
| 18:55 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/FormalObjection |
| 18:56 | <Hixie> | i mean whether tim is going to do anything with them |
| 18:56 | payman | is away: |
| 18:57 | <Hixie> | (cos there's a number of things i don't particularly like the decisions of, and if tim is going to actually revert any of the decisions, it seems like it'd be worth giving it a shot) |
| 18:58 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: yeah, I imagine that same thought is crossing a few other people's minds |
| 18:58 | <gsnedders> | It seems like overruling a WG decision would piss off a load of people, probably more so than the people already pissed off enough to be raising it |
| 18:59 | <gsnedders> | So, uh, I'd doubt it. |
| 18:59 | <TabAtkins> | Which is why, of course, most FOs just get stamped with a "Thanks for raising, move along now.", as far as I know. |
| 18:59 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: indeed |
| 19:00 | <Hixie> | well i've only been on one transition call, which had an FO discussed, and while I don't think Tim had any idea what the objection was about, I will give him ample credit for apparently giving it quite a fair hearing |
| 19:00 | <Hixie> | (to be fair it was an XBL2 issue so it's not clear anyone actually understood the issue) |
| 19:00 | <TabAtkins> | So no, Hixie, I don't expect anything to happen with the FOs, and I don't think it would be useful to raise any yourself, unless the WG does something *really* stupid. |
| 19:03 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: I don't recommend acting on the assumption that nothing with happen with the formal objections |
| 19:05 | <MikeSmith> | and for any given decision the WG had made, I reckon I can find someone who thinks it is really stupid |
| 19:05 | <TabAtkins> | Oh, MikeSmith, while you're here: Who do I talk to to see if there's anything weird going on with w3's mailing systems that would cause someone to get spammed with over a thousand copies of one of my emails to the CSSWG over the past 2 months? |
| 19:06 | <MikeSmith> | TabAtkins: I recommend going on #sysreq on irc.w3.org |
| 19:06 | <MikeSmith> | and getting attention of the systems team |
| 19:06 | <MikeSmith> | and trying to get a response in real time |
| 19:06 | <TabAtkins> | kk |
| 19:07 | <MikeSmith> | if the person who received the messages can forward them, with the headers |
| 19:07 | <MikeSmith> | that would of course be a huge help |
| 19:49 | <annevk5> | sigh -- http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10202 |
| 19:49 | <annevk5> | I should have advocated more strongly for a codecs attribute of some sorts |
| 19:49 | <annevk5> | any type of media type parsing that involves parameters always gets ugly |
| 20:31 | <jgraham> | annevk5: Does 12 opcodes seem like enough? |
| 20:32 | <jgraham> | It feels like you could quite quickly be adding opcodes that mean "there are more opcodes" |
| 20:34 | <jgraham> | Also, I am increasingly worried about the complete message length stuff. There are lots of SHOULDs and MAYs floating around which I expect to cause interoperability problems |
| 20:35 | <jgraham> | I expect some servers will break with fragmented messages unless clients fragment from the start (e.g. simple servers that only deal with text) |
| 20:39 | <annevk5> | not sure |
| 20:40 | <annevk5> | i suspect you want something for video |
| 20:40 | <annevk5> | maybe json |
| 20:40 | <annevk5> | can't really think of much else |
| 20:41 | <annevk5> | of course, famous last words and all :) |
| 20:47 | <llrcombs> | hmmm |
| 20:47 | <llrcombs> | y'know, a copy/paste API would be great |
| 20:48 | <annevk5> | spec it |
| 20:48 | <vals_> | hm is it just me or it's imposttible to style list item numbers independently from the list item themselves without nesting a p in the li and resetting the style in the p? |
| 20:49 | <annevk5> | yeah, ::marker might solve that at some point |
| 20:51 | <llrcombs> | http://pastebin.com/tJMFxt2t |
| 20:54 | <annevk5> | llrcombs, not a spec :) |
| 20:55 | <MikeSmith> | content should be a list |
| 20:55 | <llrcombs> | so like a copybuffer? |
| 20:55 | <annevk5> | jgraham, so I expect clients to not use fragments |
| 20:55 | <MikeSmith> | so that you can have a history |
| 20:55 | <annevk5> | jgraham, but the magical intermediaries might fragment |
| 20:55 | <annevk5> | jgraham, but since the magical intermediaries are written much later |
| 20:55 | <llrcombs> | like with Jumpcut? |
| 20:55 | <annevk5> | jgraham, deploying them might be impossible if servers do not play ball |
| 20:56 | <MikeSmith> | hey, where's Simon? |
| 20:56 | <MikeSmith> | zcor.. |
| 20:56 | <annevk5> | long break |
| 20:56 | <llrcombs> | so, now I'm pretty much directly cloning UndoManager |
| 20:56 | <llrcombs> | http://pastebin.com/XgZn9Tsi |
| 20:57 | <MikeSmith> | my completion on "zcor..." doesn't work |
| 20:57 | <MikeSmith> | due to lack of Simon presence |
| 20:57 | <MikeSmith> | I guess I have to wait til he gets back |
| 21:07 | <jgraham> | annevk5: Yeah the client doesn't fragment -> server doesn't support fragmentation properly -> intermediaries that fragment break applications to be a problem |
| 21:07 | <jgraham> | + I expect |
| 21:09 | <annevk5> | yeah well |
| 21:09 | <annevk5> | these transcoding proxies always seem a bit of a myth |
| 21:09 | <annevk5> | but who knows |
| 22:35 | <AryehGregor> | "Going forward, I hope that the recommendations made after deliberation by the HTML A11y TF are taken more seriously by the wider group and not unilaterally dismissed." |
| 22:36 | <AryehGregor> | I can't see any way to read that other than "We should make the final decision on anything accessibility-related, not you." |
| 22:36 | <hober> | IIRC N-1 TF recommendations have gone over quite well in the wider WG |
| 22:37 | <Hixie> | clearly #whatwg should send a similar e-mail :-P |
| 22:37 | <AryehGregor> | Yeah, I was thinking of responding. |
| 22:37 | <AryehGregor> | I probably shouldn't. |
| 22:38 | <AryehGregor> | Stuff like: "The HTML5 A11y TF made the recommendation after much discussion and debate, onlist, off-list and via F2F. We are very aware of the pros and cons of @longdesc but decided that its retention was currently the best option." |
| 22:38 | <AryehGregor> | You could replace "HTML5 A11y TF" with "WHATWG", and "retention" by "removal". |
| 22:38 | <AryehGregor> | But it's not worth getting into an argument over. Won't accomplish anything. |
| 22:39 | <Hixie> | i strongly recommend letting them make fools of themselves and not doing the same for yourself |
| 22:39 | <AryehGregor> | I'm still waiting to see how the appeals turn out. |
| 23:19 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: do you know who is responsible for the video codec selection part of chrome? |
| 23:20 | <Hixie> | e.g. what decides to use WebM vs Ogg vs H.264? |
| 23:20 | <Hixie> | roc: ping |
| 23:20 | <TabAtkins> | hixie: Scherkus, I'm told. |
| 23:20 | <Hixie> | any idea if he's on #chromium? |
| 23:21 | <Hixie> | scherkus: ah, he is |
| 23:21 | <Hixie> | er |
| 23:21 | <TabAtkins> | Ah, good. I wasn't about to go searching down that list of /who. |
| 23:22 | <Hixie> | i just typed "sch<tab>" :-) |
| 23:22 | <Hixie> | but i wasn't expecting him to use his name :-) |
| 23:22 | <TabAtkins> | That's only useful about 50% of the time... |
| 23:23 | <roc> | hi |
| 23:25 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: you got roc back now too |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | woohoo, roc's here too! |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | roc: trying to work out what to do with <video> and content-type sniffing |
| 23:27 | <jgraham> | Party! |
| 23:27 | <jgraham> | Or maybe sleep |
| 23:27 | jgraham | goes with that |
| 23:28 | <Hixie> | roc: looks like we have five browsers and more or less five different implementations |
| 23:28 | <Hixie> | roc: what's your position on this topic? |
| 23:28 | <Hixie> | roc: http://hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/html/video/001.html and http://hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/html/video/NOTES may be of interest |
| 23:35 | <roc> | personally I get the feeling we've raced halfway down to the bottom of the slippery slope of the poisoned well |
| 23:36 | <roc> | and much as I hate to do it, we're likely to have to sniff, at least for <video> loads |
| 23:36 | <roc> | and there's a pretty strong argument that if you sniff for <video> loads, you should sniff the same for browsing context loads |
| 23:37 | <Hixie> | would you want to not even sniff for streams with missing content-types? |
| 23:37 | <roc> | otherwise stuff like a "View Video" context menu item breaks oddly |
| 23:37 | <roc> | I think sniffing for streams with no content-type is fine no matter what |
| 23:38 | <roc> | *however* I think the other video guys in the office are more keen to hold the non-sniffing line than I am |
| 23:38 | <Hixie> | what's the benefit of not sniffing when there is a type, given that these types are basically unambiguously sniffable? or are they not? |
| 23:38 | <roc> | but they're not here right now |
| 23:38 | <roc> | here's one |
| 23:40 | <roc> | Hixie: I don't know. It's possible that in some containers you have to read a lot of data to figure out what codecs are present, where that information can be given in the MIME type. Our experts in that area are in the process of joining us... |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | oh you'd want to respect the codecs="" parameter even when it's wrong? |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | or do you just mean to throw out the content early? |
| 23:41 | <roc> | the latter |
| 23:42 | <roc> | Hixie: I assume if we were to sniff, we'd still not even try to load resources whose <source type> is something we cannot render? |
| 23:42 | <Hixie> | i assume so |
| 23:42 | <Hixie> | there wouldn't be any point in the type="" attribute otherwise |
| 23:42 | <roc> | right |
| 23:42 | <Hixie> | haven't tested that though |
| 23:43 | <Hixie> | but that seems like a case that's much more unambiguously useful to honour |
| 23:44 | <Hixie> | right now firefox seems to look at the mime type to pick the codec, and refuses to render mislabelled content, but i haven't tested the codecs="" parameter |
| 23:44 | <Hixie> | s/codec/wrapper/ |
| 23:44 | <roc> | yeah, we try not to be first in the race to the bottom :) |
| 23:45 | <Hixie> | (whatever you call the code that does that) |
| 23:45 | <roc> | but we don't want to be last either :-) |
| 23:45 | <Hixie> | hah |
| 23:45 | <kinetik> | Hixie: with Matroska (and WebM, since the WebM spec doesn't exclude this "feature"), you may have to read an arbitrary amount of ASCII at the start of the file before you can identify it as a valid Matroska file (see the first paragraph of http://matroska.org/technical/specs/notes.html) |
| 23:45 | <roc> | we should be honoring the codecs parameter correctly, we have code (and tests!) for that |
| 23:46 | <kinetik> | but I'm going to propose that the WebM spec is changed to exclude that feature |
| 23:46 | <Hixie> | roc: so if you supported codecs A and B, and a file used A but was labelled video/somethingsupported;codecs=B, you would not play it? |
| 23:46 | <Hixie> | kinetik: wow, that's lame |
| 23:47 | <Hixie> | kinetik: please indeed have them fix that! |
| 23:47 | <roc> | Hixie: that is correct, that's what we do |
| 23:47 | <roc> | or is it? hmm |
| 23:47 | roc | thinks |
| 23:47 | <roc> | no I guess it's not |
| 23:47 | <Hixie> | i guess you don't support enough codecs to actually test that |
| 23:48 | <Hixie> | or do you do the webm codec in ogg? |
| 23:48 | <Hixie> | i guess that'd be one way to test it? |
| 23:48 | <roc> | if the container type is mislabelled, we will reject even if both the label and the resource are something we support |
| 23:48 | <Hixie> | yes |
| 23:48 | <Hixie> | that i have indeed found |
| 23:48 | <roc> | but we don't check that the codecs we got in the resource are the ones advertised |
| 23:48 | <roc> | that would be pretty easy for us to do if we wanted to |
| 23:50 | <Hixie> | doesn't seem like either of these checks are especially useful to the author or user |
| 23:51 | <Hixie> | but they would definitely (if implemented everywhere) lead to mare accurately labeled content |
| 23:52 | <roc> | the brutal truth is that almost all the time, if it's done consistently and can be done unambiguously in a predictable way, sniffing is the most useful for authors and users |
| 23:53 | <Hixie> | i don't know that that's particularly brutal :-) |
| 23:54 | <roc> | it feels brutal to me :-) |
| 23:54 | <Hixie> | the consistency is the hard part |
| 23:54 | <roc> | yeah, those are big "ifs" |
| 23:55 | <roc> | Hixie: there's a small ease-of-implementation benefit for us the way we do things; we can set up the decoder based on the container label early in the load process, instead of having to buffer data, sniff it, construct the decoder, and feed the data back into it |
| 23:55 | <roc> | but clearly that benefit is low priority |
| 23:55 | <Hixie> | that's the container decoder right? |
| 23:55 | <roc> | yeah |
| 23:56 | <Hixie> | the chrome guy was telling me that one of his requirements is that the decoding happens out-of-process, and so he wants to just hand the bytes straight to that other process, and for some reason for them it's easier to just have that work without knowing the type |
| 23:56 | <roc> | the container formats contain authoritative metadata telling you what the codecs are |
| 23:56 | <roc> | we don't have to sniff again |
| 23:56 | <Hixie> | though he said he could add (what he called "artificial") checks for the type |
| 23:56 | <roc> | thankfully |
| 23:58 | <Hixie> | if we could limit how much you have to buffer, would that help? |
| 23:59 | <Hixie> | or is buffering any of the payload vs the headers a problem? |