| 00:12 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: so where will the Nov 16-18 TC39 be? |
| 00:12 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: no idea, the discussion has left me rather confused |
| 00:14 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 00:14 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: maybe olliej knows |
| 02:07 | Philip` | wonders why people on the hybi list seem to believe that a protocol is secure iff nobody on the list can demonstrate a fully-detailed concrete attack |
| 02:38 | <webr3> | anybody know if there's a javascript reference implementation of the html 5 parsing rules? |
| 03:05 | <JoePeck> | webr3: heh, I have a feeling a JS implementation would cheat and do something like: var temp = document.createElement('div'); temp.innerHTML = htmlString; |
| 03:05 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 03:05 | <JoePeck> | webr3: of course in an HTML5 compatible browser =) |
| 03:05 | <JoePeck> | Hixie: don't you have a tool? |
| 03:05 | <Hixie> | hsivonen ported his java code to JS iirc |
| 03:06 | <Hixie> | http://livedom.validator.nu/ i think |
| 03:06 | <JoePeck> | thats what I was thinking of =) |
| 03:26 | <webr3> | JoePeck, was thinking about more on the server side / nodejs or similar |
| 03:26 | webr3 | also needs a streaming parser on the client side - will sort something out though myself, could be fun |
| 12:43 | <annevk> | Ms2ger, ah, you have been fixing DOM Core some more, great |
| 12:43 | <annevk> | Ms2ger, you don't have a W3C account? |
| 12:44 | <Ms2ger> | I do |
| 12:44 | <Ms2ger> | w3c hg never seems to work, though |
| 12:45 | <annevk> | do you use https? |
| 12:45 | <Ms2ger> | Yes |
| 12:45 | <annevk> | https://username⊙dwo/hg/domcore wfm usually |
| 12:45 | <annevk> | prefixed with hg push |
| 12:47 | annevk | pushed it |
| 13:06 | <annevk> | is there a good resource somewhere that explains the need for multiple browser engines to exist? |
| 13:16 | <Dashiva> | Even if there was no need, there would still be multiple |
| 13:16 | <annevk> | a document explaining there is no need would be fine too |
| 13:17 | <annevk> | there's a few things that come to mind, like not wanting to be locked into particular bugs; getting too afraid of changes |
| 13:19 | <annevk> | competing on performance and quality giving different strategies a chance to compete with each other benefiting all in the end |
| 13:20 | <Ms2ger> | How about you write it? :) |
| 13:21 | <annevk> | I was hoping that would not be needed :) |
| 13:21 | <Philip`> | It also seems important to prevent one organisation from dictating the platform, since they'll have incentives to do things that benefit themselves at the expense of others |
| 13:22 | <Dashiva> | Well, that's why I said there would always be multiple engines |
| 13:22 | <Dashiva> | Because someone would say "This is wrong" and fork it |
| 13:23 | <Philip`> | If that were always the case, why do lots of monopolies still exist today? |
| 13:23 | <Dashiva> | Such as? |
| 13:27 | <Philip`> | Not necessarily on the web, but in lots of fields - once someone's platform becomes entrenched it's very hard to successfully fork it |
| 13:27 | <Dashiva> | But this is the web |
| 13:28 | <Philip`> | If Microsoft had been a little better at getting people to use ActiveX then it would have been far harder for any other browser engines to become successful |
| 13:29 | <Dashiva> | Then it wouldn't be the web |
| 13:31 | <Dashiva> | (And maybe more relevantly, it wouldn't be a browser engine anymore, it would be a plugin platform) |
| 14:11 | <Milossh> | it would be disaster |
| 21:22 | <boaz> | shepazu: here? |