00:33
<annevk>
i'm not really
00:33
<annevk>
uncharted 2 is addictive
00:37
<TabAtkins>
Ah, kk. Response about what CSSOM needs out of a propdef, then?
00:47
<annevk>
nothing I think
00:47
<TabAtkins>
Kk, cool.
00:47
<annevk>
ooh, I guess a few things
00:47
<annevk>
like serialization and such
00:47
<annevk>
kind of depends on how we do things
00:47
<TabAtkins>
Well, that's not defined in the propdef table.
00:47
<TabAtkins>
Specs should define that, of course, but in a separate section.
00:48
<annevk>
and I guess what interfaces the property implements
00:49
<TabAtkins>
Oh, btw, we're going to have a team start an experimental implementation of CSSOM Values early next year. What's the latest version of your proposal?
00:49
<annevk>
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/ ?
00:49
<annevk>
plus some emails
00:49
<annevk>
there's nothing new
00:49
<annevk>
since last time since I'm awaiting impls
00:49
<annevk>
so that sounds great :)
00:50
<TabAtkins>
Ah, great. I didn't realize there was a difference between the dev and public version of CSSOM currently.
00:50
<annevk>
what is the public version?
00:50
annevk
is confused
00:51
<TabAtkins>
Oh, hrm. I guess there isn't one. In that case, I just didn't look down in that section before.
16:21
<espadrine>
Hello, does anyone know if there is a way to make firebug work on the latest minefield?
16:22
<espadrine>
It yells at me: "Firebug is incompatible with Minefield 4.0b9pre"
16:28
<smaug____>
espadrine: better to ask in moznet #firebug
19:23
<karlcow>
confused
19:24
<karlcow>
http://www.google.com/preferences
19:24
<karlcow>
give the choice between html, pda, xhtml
19:24
<karlcow>
I was curious about what they mean by xhtml
19:24
<karlcow>
and it seems… they still send html
19:25
<Philip`>
I think it only has any effect on mobile devices, or something
19:26
<karlcow>
which means that Google thinks Opera browsers == Mobile
19:30
<miketaylr>
shocking
20:33
<karlcow>
not sure the discussion about void elements make sense at all and help understand the TF
21:37
<TabAtkins>
karlcow: No, it doesn't. It's a trivial and unimportant syntax nitpick.
21:47
<karlcow>
I would be more interested to see if there are issues with round trip "html5 -> xhtml5 -> html5" without losing information.
22:02
<TabAtkins>
karlcow: XML's whitespace rules are different, so there's probably some possibility of change in there.