| 00:12 | <karlcow> | http://twitter.com/ndw/status/25527799850 |
| 00:13 | <karlcow> | >I have joined the HTML Working Group. May the fates have mercy on my soul. -- Norman Walsh |
| 00:30 | <Dashiva> | Souls are deprecated |
| 02:24 | <annevk> | karlcow, looking at some of his other messages; more drama? |
| 02:25 | <annevk> | joining when everything is pretty much done is a bit late though... |
| 02:26 | <annevk> | but on the other hand we can never have enough feedback |
| 02:26 | <annevk> | the more feedback we get the more viewpoints we can consider |
| 02:47 | <Hixie> | what DOM should <option><button><option> give? |
| 02:48 | <othermaciej> | what do browsers do with it? |
| 02:49 | <Hixie> | historically they treated <option> as a void element or ignored it altogether |
| 02:49 | <Hixie> | so they're not especially helpful |
| 02:50 | <Hixie> | <option><div><option> creates the same DOM as <option><div></option><option>, which is the same as <option><div></div></option><option> |
| 02:50 | <Hixie> | but <button> has weird scoping rules |
| 02:51 | <Hixie> | i guess <option><details><option> and <option><h1><option> has the same problem as <button> actually |
| 02:53 | <Hixie> | maybe i just need to make </option> close more forcefully |
| 02:57 | <Hixie> | ok two options that i can see: |
| 02:57 | <Hixie> | 1. make </option> as powerful as </div> |
| 02:58 | <Hixie> | 2. make <option> only imply </option> if the current node is an <option> element |
| 02:58 | <Hixie> | option 2 seems safest |
| 03:38 | <Hixie> | wtf is webkit doing with form.enctype |
| 03:38 | <Hixie> | <form enctype="multipart/formdata"> returns "multipart/form-data" |
| 03:38 | <Hixie> | as does: |
| 03:38 | <Hixie> | enctype="multipart/anything" |
| 03:39 | <Hixie> | enctype="anything/form-data" |
| 03:39 | <Hixie> | enctype="form-data" |
| 03:39 | <Hixie> | enctype="multipart" |
| 03:40 | <Hixie> | enctype="form-data/multipart" |
| 03:40 | <Hixie> | enctype="not-form-data-at-all" |
| 03:40 | <Hixie> | basically it seems to match anything that contains either "multipart" or "form-data" |
| 09:33 | <annevk> | lots of closed bugs |
| 09:35 | <annevk> | ooh, December 8 |
| 09:35 | <annevk> | for some reason I thought the "all addressed" date was October 1 |
| 09:44 | <annevk> | Hixie, should HTML5 register application/x-www-form-urlencoded ? |
| 11:28 | <annevk> | http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/HTML5/DOMParserXMLSerializer/Default.html -- because responseXML is stupid? |
| 11:28 | <annevk> | and since when are they in HTML5? |
| 11:29 | <annevk> | oh, border-radius is part of HTML5 too, I see |
| 11:30 | <annevk> | So HTML5 now means "Web" with emphasis on new features? |
| 12:02 | <jgraham> | Hixie: Re: Bug 10427 (object scoping), we have a couple of different reports of broken sites due to that behaviour. I will dig up the URLs at some point (maybe tomorrow) |
| 12:51 | <karlcow> | annevk, maybe not more drama. I do not think ndw is a drama person. But maybe frustration at a point for him. We will see. |
| 12:52 | <karlcow> | plus I'm not sure there is a list of all discussions which involves XML and what are the specific issues he would like to see addressed. |
| 12:53 | <karlcow> | Maybe that would be a start, an open list of issues and I'm pretty sure for many of them, there was already a discussion about it in the mailing lists. |
| 12:57 | <AryehGregor> | <annevk> So HTML5 now means "Web" with emphasis on new features? <-- Dude, that's what it's meant for years now. |
| 12:58 | <Dashiva> | Except when it means uppity kids destroying the web |
| 12:58 | <jgraham> | You're doing well if you get "emphasis on new features" |
| 16:35 | <Hixie> | anne, if you read this, HTML doesn't really defien application/x-www-form-urlencoded, it just says how to encode it |
| 16:37 | <karlcow> | http://www.opera.com/portal/unw/ I wonder |
| 16:37 | <karlcow> | "The red-hot world of technology gets a breath of fresh, cool air in Oslo on October 14, 2010." |
| 16:40 | <karlcow> | and the source is not more explicit either <meta name="description" content="Information about Opera’s history, vision, executive team, and more" /> |
| 17:47 | <Hixie> | the more i hack the foreign lands the more i think i need to just get rid of the secondary mode and just use the "reset insertion mode" algorithm |
| 17:52 | <Hixie> | anyone remember ms2ger's e-mail in bugzilla? |
| 17:52 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: why does the autocomplete for e-mails not work in the w3c's bugzilla? |
| 17:53 | <Hixie> | ah, @gmail |
| 18:12 | <annevk> | so if HTML5 does not define it... who does? |
| 18:22 | <Hixie> | define what? |
| 18:22 | <Hixie> | oh the form submission type |
| 18:22 | <annevk> | yeah |
| 18:22 | <annevk> | application/x-www-form-urlencoded |
| 18:22 | <Hixie> | well in theory bjorn's draft |
| 18:23 | <Hixie> | i'm not sure what really needs defining |
| 18:23 | <annevk> | well... he's only doing application/www-form-urlencoded |
| 18:23 | <Hixie> | i guess we could define how to interpret it, but people seem to be doing fine without it |
| 18:23 | <Hixie> | what's application/www-form-urlencoded |
| 18:23 | <annevk> | it's a "cleaned up version" |
| 18:23 | <Hixie> | implemented by nobody? |
| 18:23 | <annevk> | some idea from 2006 he just resurrected |
| 18:24 | <Hixie> | bjorn is weird |
| 18:24 | <annevk> | nope, but it has some attractive features, like omitting empty parameters, and using ; rather than & |
| 18:24 | <annevk> | but I don't think it's worth it |
| 18:24 | <Hixie> | like a cross between julian and ms2ger -- all the pedantic quality of ms2ger, with all of the practicality of julian |
| 18:24 | <annevk> | so yeah |
| 18:24 | <annevk> | hahaha |
| 18:25 | <Hixie> | ok well i guess we can define the x- type |
| 18:25 | <annevk> | so yeah, if we define how to write and how to parse the media type is done |
| 18:25 | <Hixie> | can you file a bug with bullet points of what i need to spec? |
| 18:26 | <Hixie> | or send me a mail or something |
| 18:26 | <Hixie> | with the highlights |
| 18:26 | <Hixie> | i can turn it into prose |
| 18:26 | <annevk> | it ties in with abarth <a>.queryParameters proposal too |
| 18:26 | <annevk> | i guess |
| 18:26 | <annevk> | ok |
| 18:27 | <Hixie> | oooh |
| 18:27 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 18:27 | <Hixie> | adam's thing |
| 18:27 | <Hixie> | interesting |
| 18:27 | <Hixie> | we should pull adam into this |
| 18:27 | <Hixie> | that's what we should do |
| 18:27 | <Hixie> | have adam's URL spec define this |
| 18:28 | <Hixie> | annevk: forget filing a bug or whatnot |
| 18:28 | <Hixie> | annevk: let's just give this to adam |
| 18:28 | <Hixie> | annevk: as you say he's already speccing the parsing |
| 18:28 | <Hixie> | s/say/say,/ |
| 18:37 | <AryehGregor> | Has anyone given any thought on how browsers could stop the evercookie PNG cache trick? |
| 18:38 | <annevk> | Hixie, yeah, makes sense that it would define that type |
| 18:39 | <annevk> | AryehGregor, can't that be done with any kind of file and XHR? |
| 18:39 | <AryehGregor> | Yes, the PNG part is immaterial. |
| 18:39 | <AryehGregor> | It's a cache poisoning attack, sort of. |
| 18:39 | <annevk> | (solution: don't cache) |
| 18:39 | <AryehGregor> | What, don't cache anything? |
| 18:39 | <annevk> | i don't think there's much else you can do |
| 18:39 | <AryehGregor> | That's my initial reaction too. |
| 18:45 | <karlcow> | (other not practical solution: don't use javascript) |
| 18:47 | <jcranmer> | karlcow: howis that not practical? ;-) |
| 18:48 | <karlcow> | hehe. |
| 18:49 | <annevk> | ooh, Dexter is back |
| 18:49 | <karlcow> | the last 6 months or one year I have tried different strategies with regards to cookies to see how the browsers UIs make it difficult to really have a control on them. |
| 18:50 | <annevk> | Hixie, hsivonen was suggesting foreign lands could just be a namespace check? |
| 18:50 | <karlcow> | There is a lot of things which could be done on the side of PIM with regards to browsers |
| 18:51 | <annevk> | Hixie, also, you wrote "<code title="">annotation-xml</code> in the SVG namespace" |
| 18:51 | <Hixie> | annevk: yeah, dunno how that would work though |
| 18:51 | <Hixie> | oops |
| 18:51 | <annevk> | Hixie, I think that should be MathML namespace and needs a <span> too probably |
| 18:51 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 18:52 | <annevk> | AryehGregor, regarding Web == HTML5; you know, it never really got to me that much |
| 18:53 | <annevk> | AryehGregor, here in my ivory tower; most web developer friends also get the distinction, but when I was at the Adobe thing the other day... |
| 19:23 | <Hixie> | man what is it with people describing solutions before problems |
| 19:25 | <aho> | too much jeopardy |
| 20:00 | <annevk> | the type=date impl in WebKit is weird |
| 20:02 | <annevk> | or in Chrome, that is |
| 20:02 | <AryehGregor> | It's crazy. |
| 20:03 | <AryehGregor> | It implements it like a number-picker. |
| 20:03 | <AryehGregor> | The person developing HTML5 forms support for Chrome appears to believe that it's okay to dump semi-functional behavior into releases. |
| 20:04 | <AryehGregor> | First no validation UI, now this. Blech. |
| 20:13 | <itissid> | hey I wanted to ask about this sandbox feature i read on the blog... What does an iframe gave to do with insecure content? Culd it nt be just anywhere other than the iframe? Unless i am missing something fundamental here... |
| 20:20 | <AryehGregor> | itissid, if your insecure content isn't in an iframe, that's what srcdoc is meant to handle. |
| 20:42 | <itissid> | Here is my story, its a bit long,pls bear... I am making a chrom extension that saves pages as HTML strings and displays them later... The only way to display after safely is using dataURL scheme and then do a location.replace(). The problem with this is it wipes out all the scripts of the previous page.. |
| 20:42 | <itissid> | Although this protects me from some XSS rather than I use the much more vulneralble document.write() |
| 20:43 | <itissid> | I cant run those scripts if i use the dataURI scheme.. |
| 20:45 | <itissid> | So Some one suggested i use sandboxing |
| 20:46 | <itissid> | Now what i want to understand is that if i have a an HTML string can i limit its cross-origin policy using sandbox... |
| 20:48 | <itissid> | Cause i want to use document.write() as it preserves the scripts in the head tag |
| 20:50 | <annevk> | AryehGregor, it appears validation is now simply not enforced? |
| 20:50 | <AryehGregor> | annevk, yes, thankfully. |
| 20:50 | <AryehGregor> | Until they can get some real UI for it. |
| 20:51 | <AryehGregor> | Have you seen Firefox's UI? It's in nightlies, and it looks pretty slick. |
| 20:51 | <annevk> | AryehGregor, it sucks a bit that it comes in pieces |
| 20:51 | <annevk> | the outline? looks nice, yeah |
| 20:51 | <annevk> | I wonder what they'll do for <input type=date> |
| 20:51 | <annevk> | but I guess that's not going to make Firefox 4 |
| 20:52 | <AryehGregor> | What comes in pieces? |
| 20:52 | <AryehGregor> | I don't think the outline is good for stuff that the user hasn't touched yet. |
| 20:52 | <AryehGregor> | But the UI generally looks good. Unlike Opera's, no offense. |
| 20:53 | <annevk> | HTML5 forms support comes in pieces |
| 20:53 | <AryehGregor> | Well, as long as it falls back gracefully, it seems fine. |
| 20:53 | <annevk> | it gets more and more painful to decide whether to use a library for a control or not at this point |
| 20:54 | <AryehGregor> | I don't think it's such a big deal. If the built-in stuff isn't good enough, use the library. Better yet, use a library that uses whatever native stuff is available. |
| 20:55 | <AryehGregor> | Firefox's UI for manually-set errors is good so far, a library could use that to implement date-pickers and such seamlessly. |
| 21:01 | <AryehGregor> | Hixie, there is no "diff given below" at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9828 |
| 21:02 | <Hixie> | yeah my script fails to submit the link whenever the page has non-UTF-8 text on it |
| 21:02 | <Hixie> | not sure how to fix it |
| 21:02 | <AryehGregor> | What would cause such a crazy bug? |
| 21:04 | <annevk> | AryehGregor, it's not a big deal, it just means that detection is getting more complicated over time |
| 21:04 | <AryehGregor> | annevk, seems inevitable. |
| 21:08 | <AryehGregor> | Hixie, An error occured while submitting your comment. Please let ian⊙hc know. |
| 21:08 | <itissid> | AryehGregor: Hey, I may seem like a noob but does the following seem reasonable. What i want to do is to maintain the javascripts in the original browsing context. Now the problem is that location.replace('NEW HTML PAGE IN STRING') would destroy that. So If I created an Iframe element and put my 'NEW HTML PAGE IN STRING' in that , along with a sandbox attrribute, it would protect me from XSS... |
| 21:08 | <itissid> | ...attacks? |
| 21:08 | <Hixie> | AryehGregor: yeah bugzilla is screwed right now |
| 21:08 | <AryehGregor> | itissid, I don't really know anything about those APIs, sorry. |
| 21:08 | <itissid> | Anyone else? |
| 21:08 | <Hixie> | AryehGregor: i can pass you the script (perl) if you want to figure it out :-) |
| 21:09 | <AryehGregor> | Hixie, no thanks, I don't do Perl. |
| 21:09 | <Hixie> | :-0 |
| 21:09 | <Hixie> | :-) even |
| 21:10 | <annevk> | itissid, why not iframe.srcdoc = htmlstring ? |
| 21:10 | <annevk> | (and also set sandbox, of course) |
| 21:11 | <itissid> | annevk: So you suggest I add that small iframe element to the HTML of my original browsing context? |
| 21:12 | <itissid> | I am making a chrome extension so i dont need to worry about other browsers.. |
| 21:12 | <Ms2ger> | Hixie, in http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5508&to=5509, annotation-xml in the *SVG* namespace? |
| 21:14 | <annevk> | itissid, wherever you want to display this HTML I suppose |
| 21:14 | <annevk> | itissid, not sure if srcdoc is supported by Chrome |
| 21:15 | <annevk> | Ms2ger, already reported |
| 21:15 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, thanks |
| 21:16 | <AryehGregor> | No one has objected to decentralized-extensibility, or is the survey software broken or something? |
| 21:17 | <Hixie> | can someone translate http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9817 for me? I have no idea what the problem is. |
| 21:17 | <Hixie> | Ms2ger: yeah anne pointed it out |
| 21:17 | <Hixie> | thanks |
| 21:17 | <annevk> | AryehGregor, has someone objected to centralized? |
| 21:17 | <annevk> | I'm planning on objecting, unless I don't have to |
| 21:17 | <annevk> | well, objecting |
| 21:18 | <annevk> | saying it's highly unlikely we'll implement it |
| 21:18 | <annevk> | but maybe that wasn't needed with this proposal; I should read it again |
| 21:20 | <AryehGregor> | The only non-zero-edit proposal that got to vote is sane enough that I don't think it's totally out of the question that it would be accepted if there weren't a lot of strong objections. |
| 21:21 | Ms2ger | would rather not be crossed with julian |
| 21:21 | <Hixie> | hah |
| 21:21 | <Hixie> | so nobody can explain http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9817 for me? |
| 21:22 | <annevk> | Hixie, I looked at it (sparing Leif's comments) |
| 21:22 | <annevk> | Hixie, I'm not quite sure either |
| 21:22 | <annevk> | Hixie, if this is about tabindex I do not get it and something else does not appear in the specification |
| 21:25 | <Hixie> | ok i'll mark it NEEDSINFO again |
| 21:25 | <Hixie> | i wish i didn't have as much trouble understanding bugs filed by a11y people |
| 21:26 | <Ms2ger> | Don't we all? |
| 21:28 | <AryehGregor> | Presumably they also wish they didn't have as much trouble being understood by us. |
| 21:30 | <Ms2ger> | I try to avoid presuming things about what the a11y people want |
| 21:31 | <AryehGregor> | I don't think it's much of a presumption that they want Hixie to change the spec, and that they've figured out that sometimes he doesn't get what they're asking. |
| 21:31 | <Hixie> | from what i hear they think i'm lying when i say i don't understand |
| 21:31 | <Hixie> | so... |
| 21:31 | <Hixie> | anyway |
| 21:32 | <Craig`> | hey guys, haven't really done much socket programming, is it possible to create an irc client using websockets? |
| 21:32 | <Ms2ger> | Also, self-closing tags in html! |
| 21:32 | <Ms2ger> | Craig`, no |
| 21:32 | <Ms2ger> | See the note in the spec that says exactly that |
| 21:32 | <Craig`> | actually thinking about it i think i remember reading that note |
| 21:32 | <Philip`> | Hixie: Maybe ask for suggested replacement spec text? Perhaps that'd make their meaning more explicit |
| 21:33 | <Craig`> | actually, probably, i should read the html5 spec then move on from there, leaving websockets 'til last |
| 21:33 | <Hixie> | Philip`: that usually just confuses me more, because i end up with text that is clearly wrong, but still no idea why they want it |
| 21:33 | <Philip`> | Oh, it already says "<summary> should not support tabindex" which seems an explicit suggestion |
| 21:39 | <annevk> | twitter has so much going for it |
| 21:40 | <annevk> | take this: http://twitter.com/johnfoliot/status/25607580283 followed by http://twitter.com/terrahawkes/status/25608513143 both in my retweet stream thanks to @mattur :) |
| 21:40 | <itissid> | annevk: Ok srcdoc support does not exist for chrome... |
| 21:41 | <itissid> | Even something like this src="data:text/html-sandboxed,%3Chtml%3E%3Ch1%3EHello%20World%3C/h1%3E%3C/html%3E" wont work.. |
| 21:42 | <annevk> | itissid, at this point it's prolly best to ask the Chrome guys |
| 21:43 | <itissid> | Hmm |
| 21:50 | <itissid> | annvek: Just so i know i am testing this correctly I made a small iframe with a sandbox attribute and a link to google... I put this code http://jsbin.com/olale3 in a local file and fired it up on my browser... If sandboxing works that should not allow me to navigate to google right? |
| 21:52 | <annevk> | why not? |
| 21:52 | <Hixie> | annevk: hahahaha that's an awesome reply |
| 21:52 | <Hixie> | spot on |
| 21:54 | <itissid> | as in there is a link to google in that HTML text in the iframe... The idea is that I cant make cross-origin requests.. |
| 21:55 | <annevk> | itissid, that's now how it works |