| 00:17 | <Philip`> | jamesr: It's defined by WebIDL |
| 00:17 | <Philip`> | Hopefully the tests match that behaviour |
| 00:19 | <jamesr> | ah, since they are defined as octet |
| 00:19 | <jamesr> | looks like only opera currently implements that part of WebIDL |
| 00:20 | <jamesr> | Philip`: 2d.text.draw.baseline.bottom is failing on ffx/opera/gecko - is that expected? |
| 00:21 | <jamesr> | ah, has it been updated? |
| 00:22 | <Philip`> | Apparently it passed for me in Firefox 3.7 on Linux some time ago |
| 00:22 | <Philip`> | Some browsers do get it wrong |
| 00:23 | <Philip`> | I don't remember updating it |
| 00:23 | <jamesr> | yeah, i was doing something wrong. bottom.html passes in minefield |
| 00:23 | <jamesr> | but ideographic and hanging fail everywhere |
| 00:24 | <Philip`> | As far as I'm aware, the test font is set up correctly for those and they're just not implemented |
| 00:25 | <jamesr> | ok |
| 00:26 | <Philip`> | (I assume nobody really cares about them - they're just in the canvas spec to match some CSS spec, I think) |
| 00:27 | <jamesr> | sucks to have it in the spec if nobody's doing it |
| 00:30 | <Philip`> | jamesr: I guess that applies to a lot of CSS3 |
| 00:34 | karlcow | is reading about the evercookie nightmare http://samy.pl/evercookie/ |
| 00:35 | <Dashiva> | It was pretty nightmare from the point flash added SharedObjects |
| 00:38 | <karlcow> | Dashiva: yep definitely. I think there will be new-adds on popping up. |
| 02:21 | <variable> | Dashiva, karlcow that attack is nothing new |
| 02:21 | <variable> | I recall reading something like that involving storing unique data in a .png file and reading it back from the cache to restore cookies some years ago |
| 03:36 | <karlcow> | variable: do you have a pointer? that would be cool. |
| 03:37 | <variable> | karlcow, I read it *years* ago |
| 03:39 | <variable> | I wish I had some method of saving bookmarks and searching thru them |
| 03:40 | <variable> | karlcow, what makes the attack so "amazing" now is 1) its all put together in a nice package 2) the public is starting to care ;-) |
| 05:30 | <ivan`> | what happens if a worker can't be started because of process limits? an Error thrown of some sort? (I don't see in the spec) |
| 07:54 | <MikeSmith> | Cache-Control: max-age=0 means "no caching", right? |
| 07:57 | <abarth> | think so :) |
| 07:57 | <abarth> | max-age=-10000 |
| 07:58 | <abarth> | dont' cache it! not even in the past! |
| 07:58 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 08:35 | <annevk> | XBL5! |
| 08:41 | <abarth> | :) |
| 08:42 | <zcorpan> | annevk: the coersion rules break a lot more than html[xmlns] in css -- a browser would never use the coersion rules for web content |
| 08:43 | <zcorpan> | annevk: besides the bug was about xmlns:foo if i understood it correctly :) |
| 08:48 | <hsivonen> | validator.nu is going down for kernel update |
| 08:49 | <hsivonen> | annevk: browsers don't apply the infoset coercion rules anyway |
| 08:49 | <annevk> | he was talking about DOM |
| 08:50 | <hsivonen> | I understand that part of what we are doing is fixing stuff that the XHTML2 WG did in the HTML4 era, but it's really annoying that they've created new problems recently that we are now supposed to fix |
| 08:53 | <hsivonen> | validator.nu is back up. html5.validator.nu going down |
| 08:54 | <annevk> | it depends in how far you consider RDFa an actual problem I suppose |
| 08:58 | <hsivonen> | sigh. Jaunty's security updates end next month. I have to upgrade my servers soon. |
| 09:02 | <zcorpan> | didn't rdfa's prefixes="" solve the problem anyway? |
| 09:02 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: fwiw, I think I fixed the jumpy-headings problem - |
| 09:02 | <MikeSmith> | http://sideshowbarker.github.com/es5-spec/ |
| 09:03 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: nice |
| 09:03 | <MikeSmith> | if you notice other problems or have suggestions, definitely let me know |
| 09:04 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: maybe ask the question on the bug? |
| 09:05 | <hsivonen> | and html5.validator.nu is back up |
| 09:09 | <hsivonen> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Sep/0090.html |
| 09:10 | <hsivonen> | hasn't Hixie proposed Microdata? |
| 09:11 | <zcorpan> | maybe the implication is that microdata doesn't deliver what they need |
| 09:11 | <hsivonen> | might be |
| 09:12 | <annevk> | othermaciej, yeah, I'm hoping the person to write the counter-proposal is not going to be me |
| 09:12 | <othermaciej> | annevk: I'm just shaking the tree in the hope that a volunteer will fall out |
| 09:13 | <annevk> | in fact, I'm pretty sure it won't be as there are lots of other things to take care of |
| 09:13 | <annevk> | heh |
| 09:14 | <annevk> | so hybi is missing its self-impossed deadline of 4 weeks by a month? |
| 09:14 | <othermaciej> | it doesn't require a high degree of expertise to do it, someone would just need to carefully go over the discussion and make a specific proposal such as using the microformats.org wiki, plus a particular description of how registration goes, etc |
| 09:14 | <othermaciej> | what was the 4 week deadline? |
| 09:15 | <annevk> | there was this idea to define the base protocol in 4 weeks |
| 09:15 | <annevk> | and flush out extensions and other things in the next 6 months |
| 09:15 | <othermaciej> | I remember when Hixie suggested that |
| 09:15 | <annevk> | instead Hixie left and it went dead |
| 09:15 | <othermaciej> | I think the change of editors has rendered all previous plans inoperative and thrown open the gates to more features in the base protocol |
| 09:15 | <annevk> | and now everyone has implemented the framing of -76, including Firefox 4 |
| 09:16 | <annevk> | and we'll likely be stuck with that for a long time |
| 09:16 | <othermaciej> | does -76 have the halfway-secure handshake? |
| 09:16 | <othermaciej> | I can't remember |
| 09:17 | <annevk> | -76 has the handshake with the 8 random bytes that were not part of the messaged |
| 09:17 | <annevk> | -d |
| 09:17 | <othermaciej> | ok |
| 09:17 | <othermaciej> | I guess the main thing that sucks about it is that the 8 bytes could break otherwise-working proxies without actually triggering a fast detectable failure |
| 09:17 | <annevk> | better than what Safari shipped (iirc), but still has the "incorrect" framing |
| 09:18 | <othermaciej> | I think we have -76 in WebKit trunk so we'll likely ship it in due course |
| 09:22 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: will you be prefixing the API? |
| 09:22 | <othermaciej> | hsivonen: for WebSocket? unlikely... |
| 09:23 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: ok |
| 09:23 | <othermaciej> | the API seems pretty stable, and we don't usually vendor-prefix things with a draft spec unless there is a lot of reason to expect they will change |
| 09:24 | <othermaciej> | and I am not sure prefixing the API would protect against future protocol changes |
| 09:25 | <othermaciej> | I did at one point suggest prefixing the protocol scheme, so you could use different URLs for different protocol versions, but that suggestion was not met with enthusiasm by WebKit developers |
| 09:25 | <annevk> | I emailed my concern to the hybi list |
| 09:26 | <annevk> | Opera will be shipping -76 relatively soonish by the way, but we can change the moment one of WebKit/Gecko changes relatively easily |
| 09:26 | <MikeSmith> | how do I completely clear my browser cache in Opera? |
| 09:26 | <zcorpan> | format c: |
| 09:27 | <annevk> | Tools -> Delete Private Data |
| 09:30 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: thanks |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: hmm, in spite of checking Delete entire cache there and hitting the Delete button, when I go to opera:cache it still shows that it has files cached for multiple domains |
| 09:35 | MikeSmith | tries restarting his Opera |
| 09:35 | <MikeSmith> | ok, restarting Opera seems to clear it |
| 09:42 | <annevk> | You could file a bug. I have no idea how any of that is supposed to work. |
| 09:42 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 10:01 | <MikeSmith> | ok, I continue to have some behavior in Firefox and Minefield that I can't figure out |
| 10:01 | <MikeSmith> | if somebody can please try this and see if you can reproduce it, I'd appreciate it |
| 10:01 | <MikeSmith> | 1. go to http://sideshowbarker.github.com/es5-spec/#x7.1 |
| 10:01 | <MikeSmith> | 2. hover anywhere over the "7.1 Unicode Format-Control Characters" text |
| 10:01 | <MikeSmith> | 3. click the Ⓔ |
| 10:01 | <MikeSmith> | … pop-up displays a "Table 1 — Format-Control Character Usage" table |
| 10:01 | <MikeSmith> | 4. click the up-arrow at the top right (next to the "x") |
| 10:01 | <MikeSmith> | … a new tab opens, showing an empty page |
| 10:01 | <MikeSmith> | 5. open Firebug on that page and observe that despite not |
| 10:01 | <MikeSmith> | displaying anything, there is content in the DOM… |
| 10:03 | <hsivonen> | ooh <center>! |
| 10:06 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: how is that document created? |
| 10:06 | <hsivonen> | the one that doesn't show up? |
| 10:08 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: abbreviate version is this: |
| 10:08 | <MikeSmith> | var win = window.open(); |
| 10:08 | <MikeSmith> | ... |
| 10:08 | <MikeSmith> | var annoBody = win.document.importNode(document.getElementById("annotation"),true); |
| 10:08 | <MikeSmith> | win.document.body.appendChild(annoBody); |
| 10:08 | <MikeSmith> | win.document.close(); |
| 10:08 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: yt? |
| 10:09 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: ok. that should work. |
| 10:10 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: I tested that it's not a frame constructor integration bug of the usual kind |
| 10:10 | <MikeSmith> | fwiw, the full source of the script is here - http://github.com/sideshowbarker/es5-spec/blob/gh-pages/anno.js |
| 10:10 | <hsivonen> | that is, setting body to display:none and back to block didn't make content show up |
| 10:10 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 10:10 | <MikeSmith> | I wonder if there's some other best-practice way I should be using instead |
| 10:10 | <MikeSmith> | for writing to a new window |
| 10:10 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: I think this one needs a bugzilla entry. Probably in the DOM component. |
| 10:11 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: OK |
| 10:11 | <MikeSmith> | will file it now |
| 10:11 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: thanks |
| 10:11 | <MikeSmith> | thanks for checking it |
| 10:12 | <MikeSmith> | btw, the <center> is from Open Office output from the MS Word source I generated that doc from |
| 10:13 | <MikeSmith> | I cleaned up a lot, but there's some other junk still in there that I probably should still move to CSS |
| 10:13 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: as a workaround, you could try calling .write("<!DOCTYPE html>"); .close(); on the newly-opened document before importing the nodes |
| 10:13 | <annevk> | can someone explain to me how upload events work for forms? |
| 10:13 | <annevk> | i mean, the page will be replaced by some other page right? |
| 10:13 | <annevk> | or is this mainly for encouraging people to submit to <iframe> instead? |
| 10:13 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: ah yeah, I will try that |
| 10:13 | <MikeSmith> | (after I file this bug) |
| 10:15 | <hsivonen> | now I have a guess |
| 10:15 | <hsivonen> | there might be a bug that if you don't .write(), layout never gets started |
| 10:16 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 10:16 | <MikeSmith> | lemme try now |
| 10:16 | <hsivonen> | the life cycle of the document and parser is sad in Gecko in the .open() case |
| 10:17 | <hsivonen> | a bunch of initialization happens on the first .write() instead of .open() |
| 10:17 | <hsivonen> | mainly because I was trying to conform to a legacy API instead of fixing the API |
| 10:18 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: oops. I misread your code |
| 10:19 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: your .open() call is on window instead of win.document |
| 10:19 | <MikeSmith> | aha |
| 10:20 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: my scientific wild-ass guess is that you are importing stuff into a synthetic about:blank document that hasn't had layout started for it |
| 10:20 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: try calling win.document.open(); win.document.write("<!DOCTYPE html>"); win.document.close(); before you import |
| 10:21 | <hsivonen> | and then removing the later win.document.close(); you have now |
| 10:22 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 10:22 | <MikeSmith> | will try it now |
| 10:23 | <MikeSmith> | hmm, first thing is, if I call window.document.open() it replaces the current window instead of opening a new window |
| 10:23 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: I meant calling it on the win variable you assigned the return value of window.open() into |
| 10:23 | <MikeSmith> | d'oh |
| 10:24 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 10:24 | <hsivonen> | if this still doesn't work, I suggest attaching a "load" event handler to win and running the rest of your method from that handler |
| 10:24 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: but clearly, there's a Gecko-side bug to fix here |
| 10:25 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, I will get the bug filed too |
| 10:27 | <david_carlisle> | Hi, is there a version of opera that does inline svg in html5? I tried http://www.nag.co.uk/blog_files/d02agf.html in 10.62, and it just shows the text of <desc> FF4 and IE9 work fine |
| 10:28 | <jgraham> | david_carlisle: Not yet |
| 10:29 | <david_carlisle> | ah, that's why it didn't work then:-) |
| 10:31 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: thanks much |
| 10:31 | <MikeSmith> | just changing the order of the .write seems to fix it |
| 10:37 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: good. must be something to do with starting layout then |
| 10:37 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, seems like |
| 10:47 | <annevk> | http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10694 o_O |
| 10:54 | <zcorpan> | annevk: what? |
| 10:55 | <annevk> | forgot to leave my logic behind |
| 10:56 | <zcorpan> | heh |
| 11:12 | <jgraham> | Does anyone remember why <div><object>a</div> doesn't close the <object>? We have the HTML5 behaviour in current Opera and have a slight site compat. issue from it which Gecko+WebKit have just gained from implementing HTML5 |
| 11:13 | <annevk> | presumably because IE/Opera made <object> scoping? |
| 11:13 | <annevk> | I suspect there might be issues either way |
| 11:13 | <annevk> | going from a single broken page with parsing is really tricky |
| 11:14 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=598895 (new bug for the issue you helped me with) |
| 11:14 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: thanks again for the help |
| 11:15 | <jgraham> | annevk: I know |
| 11:15 | <jgraham> | annevk: I was hoping I could say something in the bug other than "well changing parsing is hard and we can't make everything work" |
| 11:15 | <jgraham> | Which is true but kind of weak |
| 11:18 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: the question is whether there's another way with better site compat (e.g. maybe it should only be scoping for <p> and </p> but not for </div>) |
| 11:19 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: Indeed. But it is hard to tell from insignificant breakage on one site if that is a net win or not |
| 11:19 | <zcorpan> | yeah |
| 11:19 | <annevk> | I'm starting to lean towards abarth "stop tweaking it" pov |
| 11:20 | <jgraham> | I guess it might be closer to legacy gecko/webkit |
| 11:20 | <abarth> | :) |
| 11:20 | <zcorpan> | tweaking is the fun part :) |
| 11:20 | <jgraham> | Well me too, but it sucks to be the person trying to explain that we just have to live with it |
| 11:21 | <abarth> | welcome to the web |
| 11:21 | <abarth> | my name is adam |
| 11:21 | <abarth> | i'll be your host |
| 11:21 | <zcorpan> | GET /tagsoup HTTP/1.1 |
| 11:22 | <zcorpan> | Host: adam |
| 11:22 | zcorpan | awaits response |
| 11:23 | <annevk> | 402 PAYMENT REQUIRED |
| 11:23 | <abarth> | 200 OK |
| 11:23 | <annevk> | aah |
| 11:23 | <abarth> | Content-Length: 27 |
| 11:23 | <abarth> | Content-Length: 2394 |
| 11:24 | <zcorpan> | crap, now i don't know when to stop reading :( |
| 11:24 | <abarth> | Good news: you're now just supposed to stop immediately and close the socket |
| 11:26 | <abarth> | :) |
| 11:26 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I've filed a spec bug about that |
| 11:26 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: my guess is that Hixie's reverse engineering of existing browsers hasn't been perfect |
| 11:27 | <abarth> | zcorpan: :) |
| 11:27 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10427 |
| 11:30 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: iirc this is a case where i decided that opera should follow ie for compat with some site, so Hixie changed the spec to match |
| 11:31 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: IE isn't as scoping as HTML5, either, IIRC |
| 11:31 | <abarth> | hsivonen: how come Firefox fails so many of the HTML5lib tests? |
| 11:31 | <abarth> | is that spec skew? |
| 11:32 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: i think ie6 and ie7 (and maybe ie8) parsing of object depends on whether the plugin was used or not |
| 11:32 | <hsivonen> | abarth: the summary/figcaption stuff I haven't fixed, because there's the outstanding spec bug on <figure> |
| 11:32 | <hsivonen> | abarth: though I was planning on writing patches today anyway |
| 11:32 | <abarth> | ic |
| 11:32 | <hsivonen> | abarth: other than that, I have fixes in my queue |
| 11:32 | <hsivonen> | abarth: and they have review |
| 11:32 | <abarth> | i should sync the tests again |
| 11:33 | <abarth> | when should we change the "-- >" thing in html5lib |
| 11:33 | <hsivonen> | abarth: but only beta7 blockers are allowed to land |
| 11:33 | <hsivonen> | abarth: already changed |
| 11:33 | <abarth> | oh, good |
| 11:33 | <abarth> | beta7 gets cut from trunk? |
| 11:33 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: in fact, <object> is sort of a cdata element in ie, iirc |
| 11:34 | <hsivonen> | abarth: I think we might branch first and bake beta7 on the branch for a few days, but for practical purposes, yes |
| 11:34 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: oh |
| 11:34 | <abarth> | there have been some pretty major things landing between betas |
| 11:35 | <abarth> | like a new JavaScript engine |
| 11:35 | <abarth> | :) |
| 11:35 | <zcorpan> | i read ie9 changed parsing of <object>, i wonder if they now match html5 there |
| 11:36 | <hsivonen> | abarth: AFAICT, Firefox "beta" is what gets offered to a larger audience |
| 11:36 | <hsivonen> | abarth: can't really infer feature-completeness from "beta" |
| 11:36 | <abarth> | how does that differ from the nightly builds? |
| 11:36 | <abarth> | i guess they're more stable |
| 11:37 | <hsivonen> | abarth: stability and publicity |
| 11:38 | <abarth> | strange |
| 11:38 | <abarth> | why did html5lib remove test cases? |
| 11:38 | <hsivonen> | abarth: I moved some tests to new files |
| 11:39 | <hsivonen> | abarth: either because the tests were text editor-unsafe |
| 11:39 | <hsivonen> | abarth: or because the test changed ahead of spec |
| 11:39 | <hsivonen> | abarth: IIRC, I didn't remove any tests |
| 11:39 | <abarth> | i see the new files |
| 11:39 | <abarth> | l don't really have a good way of merging the files |
| 11:39 | <abarth> | i do it by hand |
| 11:41 | <hsivonen> | abarth: fwiw, I landed my queue of fixes to the htmlparser repo today and deployed them on validator.nu (but not livedom.validator.nu yet) |
| 11:41 | <hsivonen> | (I need to work around GWT UA sniffing bogosity to redeploy livedom) |
| 11:42 | <hsivonen> | I really wish GWT feature sniffed and loaded a bit more code |
| 11:43 | <hsivonen> | I can sympathise with wanting to load different code for IE6, but loading different code for WebKit, Gecko < 1.8, Gecko >=1.8 and Opera is BAD |
| 11:43 | <hsivonen> | and what's the deal with supporting Gecko < 1.8 anyway? |
| 11:44 | <hsivonen> | we should start calling window.console "HTML5 console" once it's in the spec :-) |
| 12:01 | <abarth> | tests pushed |
| 12:01 | <abarth> | not that much exciting |
| 12:20 | <hsivonen> | abarth|zZz: umm. It seems to me you pushed back bits that I had specifically moved to different files |
| 12:21 | <hsivonen> | abarth|zZz: specifically, in comments01.dat and entities01.dat |
| 12:23 | <abarth|zZz> | ah, sorry about that |
| 12:23 | <abarth|zZz> | feel free to fix it |
| 12:23 | <abarth|zZz> | we need a better process to merge changes |
| 12:24 | <hsivonen> | abarth|zZz: ok. I'll fix it at some point unless someone else beats me to it. |
| 14:08 | GPHemsley | unsubscribed from the WHATWG mailing list |
| 14:09 | <GPHemsley> | (signal-noise ratio too high for me, personally) |
| 14:09 | <GPHemsley> | (or is it low? anyway, too much I didn't care to read...) |
| 14:10 | <jgraham> | I guess you mean low |
| 14:10 | <jgraham> | Unless you are complaining that there is too mcuh technical discussion that is hard to have an opinion on |
| 14:11 | <jgraham> | and not enough useless bikeshedding that is fun for all the family |
| 14:13 | <hsivonen> | GPHemsley: what's been noise lately? |
| 14:13 | hsivonen | tuned the poster='' thread out |
| 14:30 | <Hixie> | sorry, been on vacation so haven't been able to tone noise down |
| 14:30 | <Hixie> | do i need to do anything on the poster thread? |
| 14:31 | <Hixie> | (i'm mostly back now btw, just going through massive mail backlog) |
| 14:33 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: I don't know. before I tuned out, the content of the thread was appropriate for the list. There were just an unusual number of messages. |
| 14:34 | <Hixie> | ah ok |
| 14:34 | <Hixie> | i'll take a look when i get to figuring out which folder it should go to shortly then |
| 14:34 | <Hixie> | and will see if anything needs doing |
| 14:38 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: for the content of the actual annotations in the annotated ES5 doc, I'm wondering if the audience should be implementors and authors, or just implementors |
| 14:40 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: example I thought of today was the fact that, e.g., parseInt("08") returns 0 and parseInt("010") returns 8 |
| 14:40 | <MikeSmith> | etc. |
| 14:40 | <MikeSmith> | (because the leading zero causes parseInt to assume octal) |
| 14:41 | <MikeSmith> | and the spec doesn't state that explicitly |
| 14:41 | <MikeSmith> | so, I added an annotation for authors |
| 14:41 | <MikeSmith> | just saying, always supply the radix param |
| 14:43 | <MikeSmith> | but… I don't know if the annotations should end up being addressed both to implementors and authors, or if it should be just one or the other |
| 14:44 | <MikeSmith> | I guess the intended-for-author annotations could be marked up to indicate they are for authors -- class=author or whatever |
| 14:45 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: Yeah, t would be helpful to annotate the spec with what is actually required for implementors too |
| 14:45 | <jgraham> | Work around the refusal of ECMAScript committee to fix bugs in the parts that they hope will go away in the future |
| 14:45 | <jgraham> | (bugs in the spec relative to reality I mean) |
| 14:53 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 18:04 | <jgraham> | Oh, hybi how I missed you |
| 18:05 | <Hixie> | what's up there? |
| 18:15 | <mokush> | hey, can anybody expand on the "label" for <track>? |
| 18:15 | <mokush> | http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#attr-track-charset |
| 18:16 | <Hixie> | expand how? |
| 18:16 | <mokush> | the definition in the spec is very very fague |
| 18:16 | <mokush> | at least to me |
| 18:18 | <mokush> | is it a sort-of invisible title attr? |
| 18:23 | <Hixie> | mokush: oh you mean "what does it do?"? |
| 18:38 | <Hixie> | mokush: it basically decides what the browser's name for the track will be |
| 18:38 | <Hixie> | mokush: in its menus and stuff |
| 18:38 | <Hixie> | (sorry for the delay, i'm in and out here) |
| 18:40 | <jgraham> | Hixie: """I think the reluctance to fix it has mostly been due to partisan |
| 18:40 | <jgraham> | politics - either defending the origins and/or a reluctance to causeoffence by it's replacement with another solution.""" |
| 18:40 | <Hixie> | o_O |
| 18:40 | <jgraham> | "it" being the handshake in this case |
| 18:40 | <Hixie> | so glad i got out of that wg |
| 18:41 | <mokush> | Hixie: no prob, I was out too. So it's actualy a short name like "English"? |
| 18:47 | <Hixie> | mokush: yeah |
| 18:47 | <mokush> | does track have even minimal support in any browser? |
| 18:47 | <Hixie> | not yet |
| 18:48 | <Hixie> | it's only just been added |
| 18:48 | <Hixie> | afk, bbl |
| 18:48 | <mokush> | js to the rescue |
| 18:50 | <mokush> | I read somewhere that Safari has some support for captions. |
| 20:02 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: public-html seems to be getting bugmail other than new bugs... |
| 20:03 | <othermaciej> | I see a few today that are keyword changes or resolutions (though it seems just plain comments are not getting through) |
| 20:17 | <jgraham> | othermaciej: In case you are not paying attention, Hybi seems to be discussing the handshake again |
| 20:18 | <othermaciej> | jgraham: is it worth my time to pay attention? |
| 20:23 | <jgraham> | othermaciej: I think it is would be a net win if you pay attention. I'm not sure if you personally will benefit from it |