| 02:05 | <webr3> | do any browsers support secure websockets with client side certificates? |
| 09:39 | <hsivonen> | Is the spec supposed to cover stopping the parser on assigning to location.href during the parse? |
| 09:40 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5642&to=5643 ? |
| 09:41 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: yeah. thanks. that's hard to locate by looking at the full spec :-( |
| 09:43 | <hsivonen> | the spec is annoyingly hard to follow here :-( |
| 09:44 | <hsivonen> | I'm unable to tell from the spec if the load event for the aborted document should fire and if it should fire synchronously :-( |
| 09:45 | <jgraham> | This is kinda a dumb thing to say… but wouldn't firing the load event for the aborted document be quite strange |
| 09:45 | <jgraham> | ? |
| 09:45 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: this is the Web platform. I can't rely on what makes sense. |
| 09:46 | <hsivonen> | I was hoping the spec would have the answers. Do I need to test this myself now? |
| 09:46 | <jgraham> | I know, I know, on the web "strange" is just a synonym for "probable" |
| 09:48 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: ^ |
| 09:58 | <hsivonen> | so it appears onload doesn't fire, but it's not clear to me from Gecko code why that is |
| 11:03 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Your latest blog entry keeps floating to the top of planet.mozilla.org |
| 11:40 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I edited it today with advice to update RequireJS to 0.15.0 |
| 11:41 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: It would be more friendly if it was not considered new for every update |
| 11:42 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I don't really know what's happening there |
| 11:42 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: that is, previously Venus handled this case OK for my feed |
| 11:43 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: but now my feed is different. it no longer contains the full text of the newest post. |
| 11:43 | <gsnedders> | hsivonen: Are you updating atom:updated? |
| 11:43 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I have no idea why |
| 11:43 | <hsivonen> | gsnedders: I can't remember. the feed is generated by a script that has been running for 5 years without maintenance and it's too scary to touch it before I have time to do a rewrite |
| 11:44 | <gsnedders> | hsivonen: If you update atom:updated, you've signified a major update to the entry, FWIW. |
| 11:45 | <hsivonen> | gsnedders: that's probably what the script does, because it just looks at the modified date on the file system |
| 11:45 | <hsivonen> | sorry everyone. my feed sucks. I really want to rewrite it when I have time. |
| 11:45 | <hsivonen> | but I haven't had time |
| 11:47 | <hsivonen> | (yes, this also means I'm not dogfooding the V.nu HTML parser there, since the script predates the existence of the parser) |
| 11:47 | <hsivonen> | any ideas how to flag minor edits when there's no database--just flat files? |
| 11:48 | <hsivonen> | usually this isn't a problem because usually I don't keep editing a post over a period of four days |
| 11:48 | <gsnedders> | I did for a while have a prototype system that just stored entries on fs as Atom Entry documents |
| 11:48 | <hsivonen> | I store plain HTML files |
| 11:49 | <hsivonen> | my system is very retro in many ways |
| 11:49 | <hsivonen> | I still don't have Pingback or comment support |
| 11:50 | <jgraham> | Hmm, abarth is asleep |
| 11:50 | <gsnedders> | Damned night-time! |
| 11:50 | <jgraham> | abarth|zZz: Fancy resyncing the webkit tests with html5lib when you wake up? You seem to have some tests from http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10314 |
| 11:51 | <jgraham> | s/from/for/ |
| 11:53 | <hsivonen> | maybe I should have my site sources in one dir and what apache sees in another and have some kind of automated build process in between |
| 11:54 | <hsivonen> | by now I'm too much on the record on certain blogging systems doing things wrong, so now I can't just take one off the shelf |
| 12:35 | <annevk> | hsivonen, you can just omit atom:updated and use atom:modified instead |
| 12:35 | <annevk> | hsivonen, that would be more accurate |
| 12:35 | <annevk> | (I'm recalling this element from several years back when I was still somewhat involved with feeds so a quick check wouldn't hurt.) |
| 12:37 | <hsivonen> | annevk: thanks |
| 12:43 | <zcorpan> | annevk: re testrunner, could it support subdirectories? could it skip helper files? could it support document.domain tests by reporting results with postMessage? :) |
| 12:45 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: I have plans |
| 12:45 | Ms2ger | notes http://ms2ger.freehostia.com/tests/runner/?path=../html-official/ |
| 12:45 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: Oh, interesting |
| 12:46 | <jgraham> | My plan involves adding a manifest file to each directory |
| 12:46 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, that's what I do :) |
| 12:47 | <jgraham> | {tests:{"001.html":{flags:[], type:javascript, requires_top_level_context:false}}, "subdirs":["more_tests"]} |
| 12:47 | <jgraham> | and so on |
| 12:47 | <jgraham> | with reasonable defaults |
| 12:47 | <jgraham> | Oh and number_expected:10 |
| 12:48 | <jgraham> | For tests that should report > 1 result |
| 12:48 | <jgraham> | Also, support for running reftests and manual tests |
| 12:48 | <Ms2ger> | Wasn't Tab working on that? |
| 12:49 | <jgraham> | reftests just by loading the ref and the test in two iframes positioned on top of each other and allowing the tester to flip between them |
| 12:49 | <jgraham> | Assuming browser vendors will implement real reftest support themselves |
| 12:49 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: Yeah, I'm not really sure what he was doing |
| 12:50 | <jgraham> | Code that is already written is nice |
| 12:51 | <Ms2ger> | Code that is written and available is even nicer |
| 12:51 | <annevk> | zcorpan, it's mostly an indication that I rather not have us go ahead with what there is now |
| 12:51 | <Ms2ger> | Also, Philip`'s tests are nice |
| 12:51 | <annevk> | zcorpan, I'm not really the right person to make it I think, but I thought I could at least try to get a proof of concept |
| 12:51 | <annevk> | (also found a crasher in WebKit) |
| 12:52 | <Ms2ger> | That always happens to me |
| 12:52 | <jgraham> | Yeah, in-browser test harnesses suck for that reason |
| 12:53 | <jgraham> | But there is no standard for driving browsers from the outside yet |
| 12:53 | <Ms2ger> | Mozilla runs most tests in an iframe, actually |
| 12:53 | <annevk> | having browsers crash is a pretty bad sign |
| 12:53 | <annevk> | imo |
| 12:53 | <annevk> | (for the browser) |
| 12:53 | <jgraham> | How do they deal if a test crashes? |
| 12:54 | <Ms2ger> | Fix the crash :) |
| 12:54 | <Ms2ger> | Or disable the test |
| 12:54 | <annevk> | it's like OS crashes, except it takes a little less long to reboot |
| 12:54 | <annevk> | zcorpan, btw, feel free to add some thoughts in a reply |
| 12:54 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: when I tried to write a test with the HTML WG test harness, I found the test to be much more verbose than a mochitest |
| 12:54 | <jgraham> | Well I guess we can try the "you should never crash" approach |
| 12:55 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Can you point me to code? |
| 12:55 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: it would be super-nice to be able to do ok(bool, "Message"); |
| 12:55 | <annevk> | same for you, Ms2ger, especially if you already have a test runner :) |
| 12:55 | <Ms2ger> | "Just use mine" :) |
| 12:55 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: the basic problem is having to wrap everything in the test functions |
| 12:56 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, that's not in the HTML spec, can't require that browsers don't crash |
| 12:56 | <Ms2ger> | That would be out of scope |
| 12:56 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: The requirement that drives that is wanting to catch unexpected errors |
| 12:56 | <Ms2ger> | window.onerror :) |
| 12:56 | <jgraham> | Without assuming window.onerror |
| 12:56 | <jgraham> | Don't want to rely on the platform we are testing too much :) |
| 12:57 | <annevk> | I do agree that having window.onerror would have been nice |
| 12:57 | <Ms2ger> | Is it just Webkit we're waiting for? |
| 12:58 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: (I agree it is not perfect but I am not sure I have seen a concrete suggestion for a better design that would have met all the requirements) |
| 12:58 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: And Opera I think |
| 12:58 | <Ms2ger> | Oh |
| 12:58 | <Ms2ger> | Go and implement it then :) |
| 12:58 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I'd prefer browsers that don't have onerror implement it |
| 12:58 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/852544 |
| 12:58 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Not a reasonable solution, sadly |
| 12:59 | <Ms2ger> | Also, ok instead of assert_true is nice |
| 12:59 | <hsivonen> | would it be feasible to make a function ok that creates some kind of closure thingy with test and assert_true and calls it immediately? |
| 13:00 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: in the pastebin case, I couldn't just do ok(false, "boo"); in scripts that aren't supposed to run |
| 13:00 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: then the loops where I test the resulting arrays abort if one test fails |
| 13:00 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: which sucks |
| 13:00 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Feasible, yes. A reasonable optimisation? I'm not sure. Also I don't think it would work for your case |
| 13:00 | <Ms2ger> | while () {test(...)} |
| 13:01 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: If they are logically seperate tests, make seperate async_test calls |
| 13:01 | <zcorpan> | how do you test window.onerror if the harness uses window.onerror? |
| 13:01 | <jgraham> | That is, for each item in the array create one Test not one assert |
| 13:01 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: hmmkay. |
| 13:01 | <hsivonen> | this is so much harder than writing a mochitest for this stuff :-( |
| 13:02 | <Ms2ger> | hsivonen, how about you write a manual test? :) |
| 13:02 | <jgraham> | Pulling in the whole of Mochikit is a big dependency though |
| 13:02 | <Ms2ger> | Microsoft would approve it |
| 13:02 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: Don't |
| 13:03 | <jgraham> | It's bad for my blood pressure ;) |
| 13:03 | <hsivonen> | if this is all about window.onerror, it seems to me that it's the wrong optimization to let some browser developer avoid an window.onerror implementation and make everyone's test writing more costly |
| 13:04 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I don't care about all of mochikit. I only care about ok() and signaling when I'm done |
| 13:04 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: so, I am not opposed to making the API better if we can do so. What are the actual requirements for your case? |
| 13:05 | <jgraham> | You want to do ok(bool, message) |
| 13:05 | <jgraham> | But you want to do it at load time |
| 13:05 | <hsivonen> | 1) I want to be able to call ok(bool, message) an arbitrary number of times |
| 13:05 | <hsivonen> | and |
| 13:05 | <hsivonen> | 2) I want to have another method to call to signal that the test is done and I won't call ok() anymore |
| 13:05 | <jgraham> | Which is a bit problematic because the current harness assume it knows how many tests will run by the time the load event fires |
| 13:05 | <hsivonen> | without any wrapper methods |
| 13:06 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: why does it need to know that? |
| 13:06 | <jgraham> | Because it signals doneness per-test rather than per-file |
| 13:06 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: where did that requirement come from? |
| 13:07 | <jgraham> | It was an arbitary decision I think |
| 13:07 | <jgraham> | Although I might have forgotten something I was thinking about at the time |
| 13:07 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: then I suggest it be fixed. |
| 13:07 | <jgraham> | Let me think about it |
| 13:08 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: fwiw, I think mochitest has a bad default of assuming the test is done on onload. |
| 13:08 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I find that I almost always end up calling SimpleTest.waitForExplicitFinish() and SimpleTest.finish() |
| 13:08 | <hsivonen> | so the default might as well be that you always have to signal finish explicitly |
| 13:09 | <jgraham> | So the point was this: You might have many tests in a file. They might respond to different events. You might not know the order of eacxh of those events |
| 13:09 | <jgraham> | Therefore to have doneness signalled globally you have to maintain state in the test file |
| 13:09 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I think you shouldn't optimize for that case |
| 13:09 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I have had that problem with mochitest exactly once |
| 13:09 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: an in that case, I did my own even counting |
| 13:10 | <hsivonen> | and called finish() when the right number of events had been seen |
| 13:10 | <jgraham> | So I think my design doesn't actually _require_ all tests to be known onload |
| 13:11 | <jgraham> | It just requires there to be at least one test active onload, and each test to be added whilst there is still one active test |
| 13:13 | <jgraham> | But making use of that fact is somewhat hacky |
| 13:15 | <jgraham> | So I could add a Mochitest-like harness.wait() or something |
| 13:15 | <hsivonen> | I could live with that |
| 13:15 | <hsivonen> | but I think the optimal design would be: |
| 13:15 | <hsivonen> | 1) The harness waits by default without paying attention no onload |
| 13:16 | <jgraham> | I am somewhat loathe to add the ok(bool, message) thing because I want people to wrap as much code as possible inside the test() |
| 13:16 | <hsivonen> | 2) The test calls ok() and arbitrary number of times. |
| 13:16 | <hsivonen> | 3) The test calls finish() |
| 13:17 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: why? my experience so far is that it's a bad idea to wrap more than one assertion in one test(), because if one assertion fails, the rest don't run |
| 13:17 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Because many tests have significant setup code that could error |
| 13:17 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: how significant is significant? |
| 13:18 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: I don't know how to answer that |
| 13:18 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: is http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/content/base/test/test_bug604660.html?raw=1 significant? |
| 13:18 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I find that mochitests are typically simpler than that |
| 13:19 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: and that test WFM as a mochitest |
| 13:19 | <jgraham> | That is *huge* amounts of setup code comparatively speaking |
| 13:19 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I get a feeling that the harness is optimized for more complex cases than what I see in practice |
| 13:19 | <jgraham> | So yes |
| 13:20 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: well, that case works nicely as a mochitest |
| 13:20 | <hsivonen> | with ok() and finish() |
| 13:20 | <hsivonen> | and nothing fancier than that |
| 13:21 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: It works as a mochitest either because the code other than the ok() call rarely fails (e.g. the XHR never fails) or because your systems deal with such failures in some way |
| 13:21 | <jgraham> | The only overhead I am adding is a single test(function() {}) |
| 13:21 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: it assumes XHR never fails |
| 13:22 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: If XHR failed, something would be very badly broken anyway |
| 13:22 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I believe you are adding much more overhead, because I find I'd have to turn each ok() into test+assert_true |
| 13:23 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: I am generally not happy making the assumption that the only things that can fail are what isw being explicitly tested |
| 13:23 | <jgraham> | Especially for cross-browser tests |
| 13:25 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I'd rather add an ok(false, "XHR failed"); error handler to XHR itself than wrap everything in test() |
| 13:25 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Doing that for every possible point of failure doesn't scale |
| 13:26 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: would your approach save Mozilla from random orange? |
| 13:26 | <hsivonen> | if not, what's the win? |
| 13:26 | <hsivonen> | (I might be less unhappy if the harness came with for-dummies documentation explaining common patterns) |
| 13:26 | <jgraham> | I know that javascript has a sucky syntax for anonymous functions, but apart from that, and the corresponding typing overhead, I don't clearly understand your objection |
| 13:27 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: (there is at least some documentation in the latest verion of the harness) |
| 13:27 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: (it may not meet your requirements) |
| 13:27 | <hsivonen> | the basic objecting is that Mozilla's mochitest is proof that an easier system can be made, so I'm unhappy about the prospect of having to write to a harder to use system |
| 13:27 | <hsivonen> | *objection |
| 13:28 | <jgraham> | I expect that Mochitests would fail in unexpected ways when run in browsers that they weren't originally tested in |
| 13:29 | <jgraham> | and that the tests themselves would provide little information about what went wrong |
| 13:29 | <hsivonen> | I think I'd be more OK with testing my tests in 4 engines than with dealing with boilerplate |
| 13:29 | <hsivonen> | I don't think I'd be able to write tests without testing in browser anyway |
| 13:30 | <jgraham> | Me neither. But I don't typically test in IE, for example |
| 13:30 | <hsivonen> | I think test() won't save us from people assuming random engine-specific details |
| 13:31 | <hsivonen> | the only way to avoid that is to try the tests in multiple engines |
| 13:31 | <jgraham> | It won't save us, but it ought to make it clearer what is going on when they do |
| 13:32 | <jgraham> | I don't know, I might be entirely wrong about this. But it at least isn't *obvious* to me that I made the wrong tradeoffs |
| 13:32 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: sorry about being so grumpy after all the work you've done, but the experience of trying to write a test case with the harness really sucked for me compared to what I'm used to |
| 13:33 | <jgraham> | I will investigate the thing about waiting for an explicit done call |
| 13:34 | <jgraham> | (I assume you will not be surprised if that is still subject to the timeout for the page)? |
| 13:34 | <hsivonen> | frankly, my reaction was along the lines of "WTF? Complexity!" :-( |
| 13:34 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: the timeout was truly bizarre, IMO |
| 13:34 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: that is, that some tests waited for a timeout until passing |
| 13:35 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Hmm? |
| 13:35 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: it makes sense to me to have a timeout that fails a test is the test hasn't passed by a deadline |
| 13:35 | <jgraham> | That sounds like what is supposed to happen |
| 13:35 | <hsivonen> | also, the mix of manual and automated tests in the W3C harness was *really* weird |
| 13:36 | jgraham | disclaims all responsibility for that |
| 13:36 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I might have misunderstood how the timeout was used |
| 13:38 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Oh, I just realised, we have a bug tracker :) |
| 13:38 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Can you file the bug in W3C bugzilla |
| 13:39 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: sure |
| 13:39 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Thanks. And I appreciate the feedback btw. The goal wasn't to make people miserable or stop them contributing :) |
| 13:46 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11321 |
| 13:47 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Thanks. I was actually expecting a bug on the timeout issue you saw though :) |
| 13:54 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: oh :-) |
| 13:54 | <hsivonen> | I'll file if I see it again |
| 13:55 | <hsivonen> | now that I tried to look for it, I discovered that http://test.w3.org/html/tests/approved/getElementsByClassName/ has an assertion per file |
| 13:55 | <hsivonen> | which scares me from the scalability POV |
| 13:55 | <hsivonen> | since each file has some overhead |
| 13:55 | <jgraham> | It is the usual style at Opera |
| 13:56 | <jgraham> | Because our test systems were originally designed for (and still prefer) one file === one result |
| 13:56 | <jgraham> | It does indeed have a perf. impact |
| 13:57 | <jgraham> | (biab) |
| 14:01 | <cyberix> | WebSocket W3C spec says that when a message arrives you get an onmessage event. Where is that event defined? |
| 14:08 | <annevk> | you get a message event |
| 14:08 | <annevk> | the interface that event implements is defined in HTML5 |
| 14:08 | <annevk> | it's called MessageEvent |
| 14:12 | <cyberix> | how about the others |
| 14:12 | <cyberix> | onopen is supposed to give me an "open" event |
| 14:13 | <cyberix> | is there an OpenEvent defined in HTML5 then? |
| 14:14 | <annevk> | I think that implements the basic Event interface |
| 14:59 | <jgraham> | Aww MS2ger just quit |
| 15:00 | <jgraham> | And I was about to complement him on his award for "best use of LaTeX in a discussion of HTML" |
| 15:00 | jgraham | wonders if Ms2ger is actually male |
| 15:01 | <jgraham> | Also on his second prize for "best use of PDF in a discussion of HTML", narrowly losing out to Microsoft due to their superior grasp of comic irony |
| 15:02 | <Philip`> | 20:50 * Ms2ger should actually get around to creating bugs for the warnings he's fixed locally |
| 15:02 | <Philip`> | Sounds like he considers himself to be male |
| 15:03 | <jgraham> | Good enough for me |
| 15:04 | <Philip`> | Or, at least, sounds like considered himself to be male two months ago |
| 15:04 | <Workshiva> | 'he' might not be self-referential |
| 15:05 | <annevk> | Workshiva, stop trolling ;p |
| 15:06 | <Workshiva> | It's no fair that he gets off so easily when I have to deal with people who think I'm a girl all the time :P |
| 15:10 | <annevk> | problem? |
| 15:13 | <Philip`> | def to_test((r,g,b,a)): |
| 15:13 | <Philip`> | - return '%d,%d,%d,%d' % (r, g, b, int(a*255)) |
| 15:13 | <Philip`> | + return '%d,%d,%d,%d' % (round(r), round(g), round(b), round(a*255)) |
| 15:13 | <Philip`> | I wonder if that addresses all of Ms2ger's comments |
| 15:14 | <annevk> | he quit, so we might never know |
| 15:19 | <Philip`> | Hmm, yeah, looks like that's all of it |
| 16:36 | <jgraham> | Anyone know how the lsit of SVG element names to case-shift came about? Doesn't seem to be the full SVG-tiny 1.2 list since it is missing e.g. solidColor |
| 16:39 | <Philip`> | From the spec: |
| 16:39 | <Philip`> | <!--<tr> <td> <code title="">solidcolor</code> <td> <code title="">solidColor</code> (SVG 1.2)--> |
| 16:40 | <Philip`> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008May/0520.html |
| 16:40 | <Philip`> | "I haven't added anything from SVG 1.2." |
| 16:40 | <jgraham> | That makes no sense |
| 16:40 | <jgraham> | The spec *references* 1.2 |
| 16:41 | <jgraham> | Apart from the textArea thing |
| 16:41 | <jgraham> | Which is just silly |
| 16:41 | <annevk> | damnit |
| 16:41 | <Philip`> | http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7378 |
| 16:41 | <annevk> | I forgot to upload the latest version of web-apps-tracker to SVN |
| 16:42 | <annevk> | and now I've modified an older copy instead and overwritten what was there |
| 16:42 | <annevk> | <--- idiot |
| 16:42 | <jgraham> | Philip`: Thanks |
| 16:43 | <Philip`> | Not sure if any of that actually answers your question, but it appears to be an intentional omission |
| 16:43 | <jgraham> | Well it means the spec is internally inconsistent and confusing at least |
| 17:03 | <annevk> | so on http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker W3C bugs are now in a separate column and clickable |
| 17:03 | <annevk> | as long as Hixie does not change the formatting (on a separate line, starting with Fixing http...) it should remain working |
| 17:03 | <annevk> | I also put everything in SVN |
| 17:04 | <annevk> | jgraham suggested not making the "Comment" field clickable on diff result pages |
| 17:05 | <annevk> | the downside of doing that is when viewing several diffs at once you would no longer be able to click through to a specific revision |
| 17:05 | <annevk> | does anyone care about that? |
| 17:06 | <tabatkins> | Why can't you just change it to be the id that's clickable? |
| 17:06 | <annevk> | not usable? |
| 17:07 | <tabatkins> | Less usable than making the comment clickable? |
| 17:09 | <annevk> | I want a large clickable area |
| 17:10 | <TabAtkins> | Okay, then you're probably stuck. Why does jgraham want the comments not clickable? |
| 17:10 | jgraham | thinks that TabAtkins's suggestion is sensible |
| 17:10 | <jgraham> | It interferes with text section in some browsers |
| 17:10 | <jgraham> | *selection |
| 17:12 | <jgraham> | (which I want to copy bug links) |
| 17:12 | <annevk> | bug links? |
| 17:12 | <annevk> | they are now separate |
| 17:12 | <annevk> | have their own column |
| 17:14 | <jgraham> | On the individual diff page though |
| 17:14 | <jgraham> | ? |
| 17:14 | <annevk> | everywhere |
| 17:17 | <jgraham> | s/B/Bug/ and I am happy |
| 17:17 | <annevk> | and the other one Rev? |
| 17:29 | gsnedders | sighs |
| 17:29 | <gsnedders> | It turns out removing HTMLElement.all support breaks a fair bit :\ |
| 17:46 | <a-ja> | are there currently any browser implementations of websrt? |
| 17:53 | <karlcow> | a-ja: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=websrt |
| 17:53 | <karlcow> | https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&product=WebKit&content=websrt |
| 17:53 | <karlcow> | for browsers with Open bug tracker, it seems not. |
| 17:56 | <karlcow> | a-ja: there are possibilities of doing through javascript |
| 17:56 | <karlcow> | see http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/more-accessible-html5-video-player/ |
| 17:59 | <a-ja> | karlcow: tks.....reading now |
| 18:10 | <Rik`> | karlcow: wrong search, you're only searching for open bugs |
| 18:11 | <karlcow> | Rik`: on webkit |
| 18:11 | <Rik`> | on mozilla too |
| 18:13 | <karlcow> | for mozilla by selecting all you get the same empty result |
| 18:13 | <Rik`> | i'm not saying the result is different |
| 18:13 | <karlcow> | hihih |
| 18:13 | <Rik`> | just that the queries used won't tell you if there is an implementation |
| 18:13 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: What was the compiz grid widget you liked? I upgraded to lucid recently, so I should actually be able to use it. |
| 18:14 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: Grid |
| 18:14 | <gsnedders> | (Sorry, I know jgraham too well…) |
| 18:14 | <Rik`> | if you want to know if something is implemented, you specifically want to search for closed bugs |
| 18:15 | <karlcow> | Rik`: I doubt it will be already implemented :) |
| 18:16 | <Rik`> | and if something is implemented, it will have some bugs :) |
| 18:26 | <TabAtkins> | gsnedders: Thanks, got it done. Just discovered that, since I operate my monitors in portrait mode, it's not as useful as I'd like, but still. |
| 19:32 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: what is hard to follow? It looks like your question is answered. |
| 19:35 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: it was hard to locate "abort" from location.href |
| 19:35 | <Hixie> | well it's not specific to location.href |
| 19:35 | <Hixie> | it's just any navigation |
| 19:36 | <Hixie> | that's like saying you can't find the parser from location.href :-) |
| 21:25 | <jgraham> | Oh yay let's have another discussion about bugmail |
| 21:31 | <zcorpan> | argh, now i can't escape html wg accessibility whinings even at sitepoint :( |
| 21:31 | <jgraham> | hober: Doesn't public-html-bugzilla get *all* bugmail |
| 21:31 | <hober> | I think so, yeah |
| 21:31 | <jgraham> | hober: not just new bug notifications |
| 21:31 | <jgraham> | That is too much :) |
| 21:32 | <hober> | I'm actually subscribed to public-html-bugzilla, so I wouldn't mind the public-html CCing going away. |
| 21:32 | <jgraham> | I really never want to get email from someone adding a a11y label to a bug ever again |
| 21:32 | <TabAtkins> | Same here. |
| 21:56 | <Hixie> | http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E14571_01/apirefs.1111/e15862/toc.htm ...! |
| 21:59 | <annevk> | context? |
| 22:00 | <Hixie> | i had no idea people were using Selectors in such wild ways |
| 22:01 | <Hixie> | they've basically taken selectors and added a whole bunch of new pseudos and stuff for their needs |
| 22:01 | <Hixie> | it's cool |
| 22:01 | <Hixie> | found it while looking for ":ltr pseudo-class" |
| 22:01 | <TabAtkins> | Selectors are all kinds of sexy for some reason. They're just plain a pretty darned usable DSL. |
| 22:02 | <Hixie> | dsl? |
| 22:02 | <TabAtkins> | domain-specific language |
| 22:02 | <Hixie> | ah, yes |
| 22:03 | <hober> | jgraham: yeah, I could do without those myself. on the other hand, I don't want to miss technical discussion that happens in random bugs |
| 22:03 | <TabAtkins> | Argh, "svn up" keeps quitting immediately with "skipping ." and I dont' know how to override it. >_< |
| 22:04 | <Hixie> | what does svn status say? |
| 22:04 | <TabAtkins> | Hixie: Limiting myself to suggesting things in public drafts means that I actually have to do some work, which is a good thing. |
| 22:04 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: Don't you like work with the svn authors? |
| 22:04 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 22:04 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: can't argue with that :-P |
| 22:04 | <TabAtkins> | Hixie: Oh, that's why. ". is not a working directory". Huh. |
| 22:05 | <TabAtkins> | s/directory/copy/ |
| 22:05 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: n00b |
| 22:05 | <Hixie> | lol |
| 22:05 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: ...maybe? |
| 22:05 | <Hixie> | the mature gsnedders is in the house :-P |
| 22:05 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: Pretty sure Hixie does anyway |
| 22:05 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: Do you work with Hixie? |
| 22:05 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: Yes. |
| 22:05 | <jgraham> | We can solve this using Logic! |
| 22:05 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: Well, in the same company. |
| 22:06 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: But "works with" isn't transitive in a useful sense. |
| 22:06 | <TabAtkins> | "works in the same company as" is, but that doesn't help me much in a company this large. |
| 22:06 | <jgraham> | Dammit, you with your reason |
| 22:06 | <jgraham> | Why can't things just be simple |
| 22:06 | <gsnedders> | Why do you have it here? |
| 22:06 | <gsnedders> | You were meant to leave it at the door! |
| 22:06 | <TabAtkins> | ...this directory is CVS-versioned. That's why. |
| 22:07 | <jgraham> | Also, this is the point at which I hate on svn for a while |
| 22:07 | <jgraham> | Hah |
| 22:07 | <jgraham> | Just when you thought "oh man I have to use SVN" you find it got worse |
| 22:07 | <jgraham> | Next you know you will find one subdirectory requires Visual Source Safe |
| 22:07 | <jgraham> | And someone else locked the files in 1998 |
| 22:08 | <jgraham> | and still has the lock |
| 22:08 | <TabAtkins> | Luckily no one in the csswg is *that* crazy. |
| 22:08 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: lol |
| 22:09 | <Hixie> | i recommend (not that i've done it) having an alias for svn and cvs that works out which is appropriate and calls the right one :-) |
| 22:09 | <Hixie> | though i have directories that are intentionally both, for added amusement |
| 22:09 | <TabAtkins> | Or I can just remember that for some reason csswg still runs on cvs, while everything else I do is on svn. |
| 22:10 | <Hixie> | yeah i know that feeling |
| 22:10 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: http://twitter.com/glazou/statuses/21942648163 <-- are you sure no one is that crazy? |
| 22:11 | <TabAtkins> | Bert just use CVS, is all. That's a handleable level of crazy. |
| 22:11 | <jgraham> | (OK, I guess using VSS would be a whole level of crazy above predicting the demise of the web as we know it) |
| 22:11 | <jgraham> | (but still) |
| 22:12 | <Hixie> | btw if you do work on lists i have a bunch of e-mails of feedback i've been collecting over the years |
| 22:12 | <TabAtkins> | http://twitpic.com/37709c |
| 22:12 | <TabAtkins> | I'm working on Lists *right now*. |
| 22:12 | <Hixie> | oh cool |
| 22:12 | <Hixie> | let me forward you the batch |
| 22:14 | <Hixie> | sent |
| 22:18 | <cardona507> | TabAtkins: that picture is wack |
| 22:19 | <cardona507> | I am traveling to kauai in a couple of week and am not looking forward to the preflight grope |
| 22:19 | <cardona507> | *weeks |
| 22:19 | <TabAtkins> | cardona507: Choose the grope over the nudie picture, at least. |
| 22:19 | <cardona507> | the story of my life |
| 22:19 | <cardona507> | :) |
| 22:19 | <TabAtkins> | Hah. |
| 22:20 | jgraham | seems to be alone in being unbothered by the idea of a tetrahertz imaging scan |
| 22:21 | <jgraham> | Or x-ray backscatter |
| 22:21 | <TabAtkins> | I'm bothered by the existing evidence that the pictures are capable of being saved, and were in fact saved in some cases already. |
| 22:21 | <jgraham> | Not sure if they are the same |
| 22:22 | <Rik`> | have you seen how they do it in Israel? http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother |
| 22:22 | <TabAtkins> | Plus the emerging reports of attractive women being disproportionately selected to go through them. |
| 22:22 | <Philip`> | Even if they save the images, you're just one of millions, so why would anyone care about you? |
| 22:22 | <jgraham> | I somewhat share Philip's view |
| 22:23 | <Philip`> | Your body isn't that interesting |
| 22:23 | <jgraham> | After the first 10,000 people going through that day I don't think I am anything special |
| 22:23 | <TabAtkins> | Rik`: Yeah, they're a bit more sane there. On the other hand, they also don't quite have the racism issues we have in America (that is, it seems to be more okay to be racist in particular directions in Israel), so the issue with subjective profiling isn't as large. |
| 22:23 | <TabAtkins> | I, um, don't care that someone may be taking pictures of ten thousand *other* naked people home along with mine. |
| 22:23 | <TabAtkins> | Or, you know, my wife. |
| 22:24 | <cardona507> | or my kid |
| 22:24 | <jgraham> | It is more bothering for children, yes |
| 22:24 | <TabAtkins> | I care that I, or my wife, may be forced to have naked pictures taken of us that we can't control. |
| 22:24 | <jgraham> | But I am not talking about other people |
| 22:24 | <jgraham> | I am talking about myself |
| 22:24 | <TabAtkins> | So, hey, forcing the line to move a bit slower as I get a grope seems like a lesser evil. |
| 22:25 | gsnedders | is more scared of the grope… |
| 22:25 | <jgraham> | I am no more bothered *personally* than if anyone takes any other picture of me that I can't control |
| 22:25 | <gsnedders> | But there again, I'm absurdly ticklish. |
| 22:25 | <bckenny> | just make sure to wear a kilt |
| 22:25 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: You're seriously equally okay with a normal picture and a naked picture? |
| 22:25 | <Rik`> | I'm bothered that we have to go through such stupid measures to travel |
| 22:25 | <TabAtkins> | gsnedders: That makes it better! |
| 22:26 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: Given that it is one of hundreds of thousands and low resolution, yes |
| 22:26 | <TabAtkins> | Hixie: Damn, this is a lot of feedback. |
| 22:26 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: You're odd, then. |
| 22:26 | <jgraham> | What are they going to do? Publish my penis size on the internet? |
| 22:27 | gsnedders | is not convinced airport security in general is justifiable |
| 22:27 | <jgraham> | And if they did, what bad thing would happen? |
| 22:27 | <bckenny> | even if you're ok with it, not being bothered by something is an extremely poor criteria for judging TSA policies |
| 22:27 | <Philip`> | Maybe someone will send the entire image database to Wikileaks |
| 22:27 | <bckenny> | that would be awesome |
| 22:27 | <TabAtkins> | gsnedders: It's not. It's ridiculous. There are a million better places to commit terrorism than *on* an airplane. |
| 22:27 | <jgraham> | Oh, it might be an entirely unnecessary security measure |
| 22:27 | <jgraham> | I don't know |
| 22:27 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: e.g., the bombing on the TGV in the 1980s |
| 22:28 | <jgraham> | I don't understand why terrorists are still so obsessed with planes in general |
| 22:28 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: I am not, in general, okay with people seeing me naked without my permission (and my wife's permission, for that matter). |
| 22:28 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Because it's more visually dramatic, and hence increases the fear induced in people |
| 22:29 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: Can you justify that rationally? |
| 22:29 | <bckenny> | http://www.theonion.com/articles/local-man-foremost-expert-on-what-the-terrorists-s,18432/ |
| 22:29 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: I sort-of assumed it was mainly the symbolism value |
| 22:29 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: Don't need to, as the majority of the public thinks similarly. ^_^ |
| 22:30 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: Not a very forward looking response |
| 22:31 | <jgraham> | (imagine the conversation were instead about burning witches) |
| 22:31 | <bckenny> | now youre being silly |
| 22:31 | <jgraham> | Not at all |
| 22:31 | <jgraham> | I think |
| 22:31 | <zcorpan> | annevk: thanks for the bug column |
| 22:31 | <jgraham> | *) These are likely silly security measures |
| 22:32 | <jgraham> | *) Most of the people making a fuss have no rational reason to be concerned |
| 22:32 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: yeah |
| 22:32 | <jgraham> | *) There is some cause for complaint about images being saved |
| 22:33 | <cardona507> | did you just reference burning witches? |
| 22:33 | <bckenny> | yes, and backdoors should be required in all encryption systems |
| 22:33 | <Rik`> | jgraham: you don't mind people seeing you naked ? |
| 22:33 | cardona507 | waits for the nazi mention |
| 22:33 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: Sigh. Okay. While I appreciate the idea that other people would find me desirable, I get squicked out by the idea that they are directly deriving sexual gratification from an image of me. As well, society in general has long considered viewing the body a privacy issue, and my thoughts are in line with that. I consider it an invasion of my privacy to look at me naked without my express permission, and thus need a really good |
| 22:33 | <bckenny> | the slope is slippery in all directions! |
| 22:33 | <gsnedders> | Rik`: That's not a rational reason. |
| 22:33 | <gsnedders> | Rik`: That's a purely emotion one. |
| 22:33 | <Hixie> | i'd be fine going through the TSA line naked if only the TSA staff were naked also |
| 22:33 | <Hixie> | it's the imbalance that's the problem, IMHO |
| 22:33 | <TabAtkins> | A "clothing optional" airport might be okay, yeah. ^_^ |
| 22:33 | <Rik`> | so if jgraham doesn't mind, I assume he is naked all day long for every activity? |
| 22:34 | <bckenny> | mutual groping? |
| 22:34 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: dirname looks like dimname |
| 22:34 | <jgraham> | Rik`: My coworkers would not appreciate that |
| 22:34 | <TabAtkins> | (That doesn't fix the fact that it's still very easy to smuggle in sufficient explosive via the rectum, which can't be detected short of a cavity search or a full Xray.) |
| 22:34 | <jgraham> | and also it would be cold |
| 22:34 | <Hixie> | having said that, the entire thing is a complete joke, because not only does it not help security (e.g. there's no cavity search, the highest risk isn't passengers, etc) but it actually makes it worse by providing an unscreened soft target |
| 22:35 | <jgraham> | (the slim possibility that they would be sexually excited by me is so far down on the list of concerns with that plan it doesn't register) |
| 22:35 | <bckenny> | 4th ammendment isnt contingent on someone getting off to a picture of me |
| 22:36 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: yeah, not sure what to do about that |
| 22:38 | <jgraham> | (I can see that females might have more to worry about from that point of view. Although frankly attractive females are being identified as such, and treated accordingly, scanner or no) |
| 22:39 | <jgraham> | (and there is a genuine issue around children) |
| 22:39 | <Hixie> | how does http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11297 even happen |
| 22:39 | <Hixie> | i don't understand |
| 22:39 | <TabAtkins> | There is a difference of kind between someone paying a little extra attention to attractive females and attractive females actively being singled out for nudie pictures to be taken of them. If you don't admit that you're being unreasonable. |
| 22:39 | <Hixie> | jgraham: there's also a genuine issue around people who have had scarring experiences in their past who may be triggered by being touched or by the thought of being seen naked |
| 22:40 | <Hixie> | the whole thing is a joke though because it's predicated on a lie |
| 22:40 | <Hixie> | (that anything here is making us safer) |
| 22:43 | <jgraham> | Hixie: Agreed. |
| 22:44 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: Saving images is not ideal. But really they are rather low resolution and it is hard to imagine anyone who works with them every day for an extended period getting anything unprofessional out of them |
| 22:44 | <TabAtkins> | jgraham: You have a very poor imagination. |
| 22:45 | <cardona507> | no doubt |
| 22:45 | <jgraham> | But in any case, I stand by my original assertion that I personally have no problem with going through such a scan, except that I highly doubt it is useful for security |
| 22:46 | <Dashiva> | Anyone saying those images are low resolution clearly never surfed for porn in the 90s |
| 22:46 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: People are rather quickly conditioned to things they see all the time |
| 22:46 | <gavin> | jgraham: I feel the same way (doesn't bother me personally) |
| 22:46 | <gsnedders> | Or surfed porn on a mobile |
| 22:46 | <bckenny> | unprofessional? http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/miami-airport-tsa-officer-charged-assault-manhood-jokes/story?id=10583691 |
| 22:46 | <jgraham> | Hence the (apparent) trend toward more violent porn |
| 22:47 | <AryehGregor> | Does http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother freeze up Firefox 4b7 for anyone but me? |
| 22:47 | <zcorpan> | gsnedders: depends on the resolution of the mobile screen |
| 22:47 | <AryehGregor> | Also, I've flown on El Al (Israeli state airline) a couple of times, and lots of people I know have gone many times. I don't remember it personally, but the interview is apparently very effective, it's not just racial profiling. |
| 22:47 | <cardona507> | wow he beat the shit out of someone for saying he had a small penis |
| 22:48 | <AryehGregor> | They ask you a series of unpredictable questions about what you'll be doing and where you're from and so on, and they're watching you. |
| 22:48 | <AryehGregor> | If you're really planning on blowing up the plane, you won't have honest answers and will have to make them up on the spot, and that's not hard to catch. |
| 22:48 | jgraham | always wonders how you judge the effectiveness of such things |
| 22:49 | <jgraham> | I mean you can hardly have a control sample |
| 22:49 | <TabAtkins> | AryehGregor: Yeah, definitely - I've been through similar. The point is, though, that with a subjective profiling like that, it's easier for racist biases to play in, which I think is a bigger no-no in America. But shrug, it's probably what we'll have to do. |
| 22:49 | <zcorpan> | "are you going to blow up the plane?" "no" "ok" |
| 22:49 | <gsnedders> | AryehGregor: Why not just blow up a major train route instead? |
| 22:49 | <gsnedders> | AryehGregor: Or a notable building? |
| 22:49 | <jgraham> | (in Spain they x-ray luggage before you get on the train) |
| 22:50 | <AryehGregor> | gsnedders, you can, which is why it's not reasonable to go overboard here. |
| 22:50 | <zcorpan> | gsnedders: too easy |
| 22:50 | <jgraham> | (but you could just drop a concrete block on the line or something) |
| 22:50 | <bckenny> | "how are you going to blow up the plane?" "well i made this liquid explosive...wait a minute..." |
| 22:50 | <AryehGregor> | In fact, Palestinian terrorists do mostly target Israeli buses/malls/discos/etc., not planes. |
| 22:50 | <Hixie> | the way you stop terrorist attacks is by not giving the terrorists reason to blow stuff up (e.g. don't go and wage warn on their country) and by having good intelligence (which is how the vast majority of attacks are stopped) |
| 22:51 | <bckenny> | also, incompetent terrorists |
| 22:51 | <Hixie> | yeah well that's the primary line of defence, sure |
| 22:51 | <AryehGregor> | And sometimes people catch them as they're trying to pull off the attack. |
| 22:51 | <AryehGregor> | I doubt that not giving them reason to blow stuff up is effective, relative to the costs. |
| 22:51 | <Hixie> | making everyone happy is worth the cost :-) |
| 22:52 | <AryehGregor> | Unless you happen to mostly disagree with the policies they object to anyway. |
| 22:52 | <jgraham> | The problem is that people often want mutually contradictory things |
| 22:52 | <TabAtkins> | I'm totally in favor of just going for full-frontal paradise engineering. ^_^ |
| 22:53 | <jgraham> | Which is why you can get away with wishing for "world peace" if you are going for Miss World and other such intellectual prizes, but less so in serious discourse |
| 22:53 | <AryehGregor> | As a general rule, if something would make everyone happy then we'd be doing it. If we're waging war on some country, it follows that at least one person must prefer waging war to not waging war, since you can't fight a war without at least one person's support. |
| 22:54 | <AryehGregor> | TabAtkins, yeah, but that only really works to appease hedonists. In particular, if people have preferences about how other people behave even when that doesn't affect them, you're unlikely to be able to please everyone no matter what. |
| 22:55 | <TabAtkins> | With sufficient engineering, you can make everyone a hedonist by definition, e.g. because you've eliminated pain and now people only experience gradations of pleasure. |
| 22:55 | <AryehGregor> | (I guess I don't really mean only hedonists. Depends how literally you mean "paradise".) |
| 22:55 | <AryehGregor> | That doesn't help if people have preferences unrelated to pleasure. |
| 22:56 | <AryehGregor> | E.g., if religion A thinks everyone from religion B needs to be converted, and conversely, you can never make both groups happy without changing one group's preferences (e.g., forcibly converting them). This can happen with secular beliefs too. |
| 22:56 | <TabAtkins> | Sure, but combine that with greatly enhanced empathy, possibly augmented by something like low-level electronic telempathy, and you've pretty much eliminated anger too. |
| 22:56 | <AryehGregor> | It's not about emotion, it's about principled beliefs. |
| 22:56 | <TabAtkins> | So people can disagree and still be cool. |
| 22:57 | TabAtkins | ultimately believes in reworking humanity substantially. |
| 22:57 | <AryehGregor> | It's not like adherents of one religion think the other religion should be eliminated because they're angry, it's because they believe that God said so and will reward or punish everyone in a manner incommensurably greater than any earthly pleasure depending on whether they listen to him. |
| 22:58 | <AryehGregor> | (at least in the typical Abrahamic model) |
| 22:58 | <jgraham> | http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd102710s.gif <-- why this discussion started |
| 22:58 | <Hixie> | AryehGregor: well i guess one solution would be to go and find god and ask him what he meant exactly |
| 22:58 | <Hixie> | AryehGregor: assuming there is a god |
| 22:58 | <TabAtkins> | It's very rare for someone to actually want to kill someone without anger being involved at some point, or insanity. |
| 22:59 | <AryehGregor> | TabAtkins, you're very, very mistaken. |
| 22:59 | <AryehGregor> | Hixie, that's a nice idea, but it doesn't seem likely to be effective. Whether God exists isn't really material here, only whether people believe he does. |
| 22:59 | <TabAtkins> | AryehGregor: Really? |
| 22:59 | <AryehGregor> | I mean, of course you could just reeducate everyone to your preferred tolerant belief system, that'd do the trick. |
| 23:00 | <AryehGregor> | TabAtkins, yes. Like, say, all executions. |
| 23:00 | <espadrine> | http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11297 is a copy-&-paste from http://josephjiang.com/entry.php?id=338 |
| 23:00 | <AryehGregor> | Which were very common until very recently. |
| 23:00 | <TabAtkins> | I imagine greatly enhanced empathy would generally eliminate executions, too. |
| 23:00 | <gsnedders> | /nice/. |
| 23:01 | <jgraham> | Are we considering genetic engineering tolerance into the population, or what? |
| 23:01 | <TabAtkins> | Sure, either genengineering or cyborging. |
| 23:01 | <gavin> | you could argue that executions are indirect, institutionalized expressions of anger |
| 23:01 | <webr3> | do any browsers modify the Accept header sent based on the @type attrib on <a> ? if-not-why-not |
| 23:01 | <AryehGregor> | TabAtkins, do you plan to *force* everyone to be empathic? If not, people would refuse as soon as they saw that similar-minded people radically changed their beliefs upon becoming more empathic. |
| 23:02 | <AryehGregor> | gavin, seems like a stretch. Execution is a means of deterring behavior society deems harmful, and could exist even in a totally nonemotional species. |
| 23:02 | <TabAtkins> | AryehGregor: I haven't decided how I feel about that yet. I mean, it's violating their prerogative of mind-freedom, but *not* forcing them is allowing them to continue suffering. |
| 23:02 | <krijnserver> | -_- |
| 23:02 | <gsnedders> | webr3: No. Because, um, nobody thought to do it originally? I guess there's little more reason than that. (And any change now bears a cost.) |
| 23:02 | <jgraham> | (if you use something like genetic engineering it can spread through the population naturally in a few generations with sufficient initial coverage) |
| 23:02 | <krijnserver> | How is the peoples of the internets here? |
| 23:03 | <AryehGregor> | Like if you had a big swarm of robots, you can easily imagine them destroying any robots that don't follow their game plan. |
| 23:03 | <TabAtkins> | krijnserver: Yo. |
| 23:03 | <AryehGregor> | TabAtkins, that argument totally reminds me of the ending dialog with Khergan in Arcanum. |
| 23:03 | <webr3> | gsnedders, ack would have been nice for conneg - think it's worth mentioning on a list? |
| 23:03 | <krijnh> | Are the logs still fine? |
| 23:03 | <TabAtkins> | AryehGregor: Didn't play/read/watch Arcanum (choose whichever is appropriate). |
| 23:03 | <gsnedders> | webr3: The answer will basically be: get browsers to implement it. |
| 23:03 | <AryehGregor> | jgraham, only if it's adaptive. If people don't like it, they'll refuse to breed with the ones who have it. |
| 23:04 | <AryehGregor> | TabAtkins, it's an RPG, one of my favorite of all time. |
| 23:04 | <AryehGregor> | Apparently it's Kerghan. |
| 23:04 | <AryehGregor> | TabAtkins, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkBrIrQikWY |
| 23:05 | <TabAtkins> | AryehGregor: The wikipedia page for arcanum consists solely of his final speech. ^_^ |
| 23:05 | <webr3> | gsnedders, ahh, I won't hold my breath then :p |
| 23:05 | <gsnedders> | webr3: The answer then will be, I expect, prove it won't break sites. |
| 23:06 | <AryehGregor> | TabAtkins, ? I don't see it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcanum:_Of_Steamworks_and_Magick_Obscura |
| 23:06 | <TabAtkins> | Ah, sorry, wikiquote actually. |
| 23:06 | <webr3> | gsnedders :) thanks for feedback, will stick it on my to do list, it's one of those nice to haves but can live without things |
| 23:06 | <gsnedders> | webr3: Also, there's the question of whether the page author knows better than the UA about the user's preferences for MIME type |
| 23:06 | <AryehGregor> | TabAtkins, the video is cooler. |
| 23:07 | <TabAtkins> | AryehGregor: Yeah, paradise engineering often verges off into areas that sound similar to the more nuanced grand villain speech. |
| 23:07 | <TabAtkins> | AryehGregor: The notable difference being that making everyone happy is at least conceivably a good outcome, as opposed to killing everyone. |
| 23:07 | <Dashiva> | Just make sure you have a short or no mustache |
| 23:08 | <AryehGregor> | TabAtkins, man, weren't you paying attention to the speech? Killing everyone is totally a good way to make everyone happy, in the setting of Arcanum. |
| 23:08 | <webr3> | gsnedders, good point - I need to think about this more.. one could always use the content-location instead of the conneg uri in the @href if needing direct access to a particular flavour.. |
| 23:08 | <TabAtkins> | AryehGregor: No, it seems that it's talking about a lack of pain, not a surplus of happiness. |
| 23:08 | <TabAtkins> | no pain != happy |
| 23:09 | <gsnedders> | certainly not if you're a masochist |
| 23:09 | <AryehGregor> | Well, the point he's making is that all the souls are much happier dead than alive. |
| 23:09 | <AryehGregor> | Of course, one problem with this story is inconsistent preferences. |
| 23:09 | <gsnedders> | webr3: also think about what if a page author wants to deliberately abuse it |
| 23:09 | <TabAtkins> | That's one problem, yeah. |
| 23:09 | <AryehGregor> | In that setting, people prefer to be alive while they're alive, and prefer to be dead while they're dead, so there's no clear justification for mass-moving them one way or the other. |
| 23:10 | <AryehGregor> | Also, Firefox is still frozen using 100% CPU from trying to open this: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother |
| 23:10 | <Rik`> | AryehGregor: i'm not seeing this |
| 23:10 | <AryehGregor> | What version, 4b7? |
| 23:10 | <Rik`> | hmm, no nightly |
| 23:11 | <TabAtkins> | AryehGregor: Indeed. On the other hand, having fun all the time with the full varied experiences of life seems much less objectionable. |
| 23:12 | <AryehGregor> | Well, but you're biased. |
| 23:12 | <TabAtkins> | ? |
| 23:12 | <AryehGregor> | If you were dead, you'd see things the opposite way, clearly. |
| 23:12 | <AryehGregor> | (in Arcanum's setting) |
| 23:12 | <AryehGregor> | You're just advocating what you're used to based on your current preferences. |
| 23:12 | <TabAtkins> | I'm not proposing to alter the dead. Just the living. |
| 23:13 | <AryehGregor> | gfxSkipCharsIterator::IsOriginalCharSkipped(int*) |
| 23:13 | <webr3> | gsnedders, cheers :) |
| 23:13 | <webr3> | all: anybody know if any browsers support client side certificates over wss:// ? |
| 23:13 | <AryehGregor> | Seems to be an infinite loop in there. |
| 23:15 | <AryehGregor> | Yeah, it's all gfxSkipCharsIterator. |
| 23:15 | AryehGregor | doesn't seem to have a full stack trace |
| 23:15 | <AryehGregor> | Reproducible for me. |
| 23:15 | <AryehGregor> | Anyone else want to test on 4b7? |
| 23:25 | <gavin> | what platform? |
| 23:26 | <AryehGregor> | Linux, Ubuntu 10.10. |
| 23:28 | <gavin> | where are you getting the stack? about:crashes? |
| 23:28 | <gavin> | worth filing a bug, CC me if you do |
| 23:28 | <AryehGregor> | No, gdb (copy-pasted boilerplate, I don't know how to use it). |
| 23:28 | <AryehGregor> | Let me look at about:crashes. |
| 23:28 | <gavin> | about:Crashes is only useful if you get the crash reporter dialog and submit the crash |
| 23:29 | <AryehGregor> | Well, here it just froze at 100% CPU, I had to kill it. |
| 23:29 | <AryehGregor> | So I guess it's not useful. |
| 23:29 | <gavin> | oh, I misread |
| 23:29 | <gavin> | thought you were crashing |
| 23:46 | <jamesr_> | you can force kill it while locked and get a crash report that way |
| 23:46 | <jamesr_> | the stack should still be useful |
| 23:54 | <AryehGregor> | Force-kill it in what way? kill -9? How will it get the stack trace that way? |
