| 00:00 | <Hixie> | english has some annoying homonyms. I keep writing things like "Follow the following steps" and "Apply any applicable conventions" |
| 00:07 | <othermaciej_> | "Apply any applicable conventions" sounds like a tautology |
| 00:11 | <annevk> | Hixie, fwiw, the favored pattern is inheriting from EventTarget |
| 00:11 | <annevk> | maybe we should even get rid of "implements" |
| 00:12 | <annevk> | and just have supplements and inheritance, though I guess that does not cover Navigator... |
| 00:13 | <annevk> | Hixie, as for "follow the following steps", I use "run these steps" or "these steps must be run" |
| 00:18 | <Hixie> | why would inheriting from EventTarget be preferred? |
| 00:19 | <Hixie> | what if there's something else that all these things need to do? |
| 00:19 | <Hixie> | annevk: yeah i never commit a "follow these following", but man do i end up writing it a lot in my first drafts |
| 00:19 | <zewt> | what about "following following the following" |
| 00:19 | <annevk> | with respect to EventTarget it's just an observation |
| 00:20 | <annevk> | I've had several requests to make Node inherit from it |
| 00:20 | <Hixie> | inheriting from EventTarget seems like a misunderstanding of how OOP works |
| 00:20 | <annevk> | the Indexed DB stuff inherits from it |
| 00:20 | <annevk> | XHR does |
| 00:20 | <annevk> | but that can all change of course |
| 00:21 | <annevk> | I'll try to remember to ask around again as to why it's preferred |
| 00:21 | <zewt> | "following following the following, follow the following" okay I'll stop now |
| 00:22 | <hober> | zewt: that's verging on the buffalo sentence |
| 00:22 | <zewt> | the who? heh |
| 00:22 | <zewt> | sounds like a curious way of defining an infinite loop |
| 00:22 | <hober> | zewt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo |
| 00:23 | <Hixie> | annevk: in particular, what if the thing also implements array-like magic, and i have an ArrayHost interface that it has to implement. How would one decide which it inherits from? |
| 00:37 | <yuhong> | Just read this: http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/papers/opera.html |
| 00:37 | <yuhong> | Personally I'd have proposed a new version of XHTML in lieu of XHTML2. |
| 00:38 | <yuhong> | One tag level compatible with XHTML1, and would be compatible with HTML4 if Appendix C was followed. |
| 00:39 | <yuhong> | Something like basically what XHTML5 is now. |
| 00:40 | <Philip`> | That sounds like it would suffer from the fatal problem of being XML |
| 00:42 | <zewt> | is there any standard in common use that competes with XML in the category of overdesign? heh |
| 00:42 | <yuhong> | But it even with that would be better than what XHTML2 was becoming at the time. |
| 00:43 | <yuhong> | That proposal would probably gain more acceptance, and ideally would replace the existing XHTML2 working group. |
| 00:45 | <yuhong> | Though I am not sure if that is possible. |
| 00:45 | <Philip`> | Given that XHTML1 achieved about zero adoption (except for causing people to put slashes and weird doctypes in their HTML4ish documents), and XHTML2 achieved much less, it's not that much of an achievement to gain more acceptance than them |
| 00:45 | <yuhong> | I mean getting more votes for the proposal. |
| 00:47 | <yuhong> | XHTML2 had worse screw-ups than being XML. |
| 00:50 | <yuhong> | I mean getting more votes for the proposal with W3C members.. |
| 00:53 | <markthema31> | Can anyone help me with an html5 canvas issue? |
| 00:58 | <Philip`> | markthema31: Maybe - what's the issue? |
| 01:01 | <markthema31> | I want to use a canvas element as the background for my site. I have a php script that randomly chooses an image to display. When I set everything up, I can see my javascript navigation menu, but the image is hidden behind the canvas. |
| 01:10 | <Philip`> | markthema31: Does the same thing happen if you replace the canvas with e.g. another image? |
| 01:11 | <markthema31> | let me check |
| 01:20 | <markthema31> | nope. http://markssite.co.cc/canvas.html |
| 01:21 | <markthema31> | I removed everything els on the page. |
| 01:21 | <markthema31> | else* |
| 02:12 | <aliudalius> | Does anybody know if a new draft of the websocket protcol has been posted anyplace since the one that expired on the 17th? I haven't been keeping up on this the last couple of months, has anything changed? |
| 02:35 | <Hixie> | aliudalius: -06 should be out soon, but -05 shouldn't have expired yet |
| 02:53 | <roc> | TabAtkins: I hope you're not here |
| 02:54 | <roc> | TabAtkins: more precisely, ping but I hope you're not here |
| 03:21 | <jamesr_> | roc: he doesn't seem to be |
| 03:21 | <roc> | maybe you'll do |
| 03:28 | <roc> | jamesr_: so, in Chrome, in WebMediaPlayerImpl::OnPipelineInitialize, is this code: |
| 03:28 | <jamesr_> | oh dear |
| 03:28 | <roc> | // TODO(hclam): change this to report the correct status. |
| 03:28 | <roc> | SetReadyState(WebKit::WebMediaPlayer::HaveEnoughData) |
| 03:28 | <jamesr_> | yeah i have no idea |
| 03:29 | <roc> | so I dunno if you know anything about HTML5 video, but Chrome just fires the "canplaythrough" event when videos start loading |
| 03:29 | <roc> | so scripts that listen to that event start playing the video right away no matter what |
| 03:29 | <jamesr_> | and then realplayer it up? |
| 03:29 | <roc> | whereas in browsers that implement that event properly, the event will not necessarily fire right away |
| 03:30 | <roc> | the result of course is that users file bugs against Firefox, "Chrome starts playing this video faster than Firefox" |
| 03:30 | <jamesr_> | how do you determine when to fire it? |
| 03:30 | <roc> | crude bandwidth estimation |
| 03:30 | <jamesr_> | some guess off of download rate + video length |
| 03:30 | <jamesr_> | hm |
| 03:30 | <jamesr_> | how accurate is that in practice? |
| 03:30 | <roc> | anyway, we face a race to the bottom here |
| 03:31 | <jamesr_> | i am sympathetic but completely ignorant about this part of the codebase |
| 03:31 | <jamesr_> | if you file a bug i can cc the right peeps |
| 03:31 | <roc> | ok |
| 03:32 | <roc> | thanks |
| 10:39 | <hsivonen> | does Opera reload the page when assignin to window.location.hash? |
| 10:39 | <othermaciej> | that would be insane |
| 10:40 | <hsivonen> | why do the slides at http://hsivonen.iki.fi/html5-lecture/2011/slides.html show the progress spinner each time I swich slides in Opera_ |
| 10:40 | <othermaciej> | (I don't know if it's actually false, but it would break the web) |
| 10:40 | <hsivonen> | and why do the slides switch so slowly? |
| 10:40 | <hsivonen> | I wonder if there\d be a cross/browser way to center the slide content |
| 10:41 | <hsivonen> | display: table-cell; maybe? |
| 10:41 | <othermaciej> | that I cannot answer |
| 10:41 | <othermaciej> | vertically center? |
| 10:41 | <hsivonen> | currently, the slides use -moz and -webkit flexbox |
| 10:41 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: horizontally and vertically |
| 10:42 | <hsivonen> | apparently vertical centering in CSS is still FAIL after all these years :-( |
| 10:43 | <othermaciej> | vertical centering only works for tables |
| 10:43 | <othermaciej> | well, at least using vertical-align |
| 10:43 | <Rik`> | hsivonen: vertical centering and layout in general |
| 10:44 | <Rik`> | Microsoft's latest attempt looked nice |
| 10:44 | <othermaciej> | you can set % top and bottom values and absolute position, but that only helps if the height of the centered content is known |
| 10:46 | <hsivonen> | TabAtkins: the slides work for me in Chrome on Mac |
| 12:42 | <Ms2ger> | foolip, vendor prefixes are removed when the spec goes to CR |
| 12:47 | <MikeSmith> | http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/daegu11/daegu_press.htm |
| 12:48 | <MikeSmith> | «MPEG intends to develop a new video compression standard in line with the expected usage models of the Internet. The new standard is intended to achieve substantially better compression performance than that offered by MPEG-2 and possibly comparable to that offered by the AVC Baseline Profile. MPEG will issue a call for proposals on video compression technology at the end of its upcoming meeting in March 2011 that is expected to |
| 12:48 | <MikeSmith> | to a standard falling under ISO/IEC “Type-1 licensing”, i.e. intended to be “royalty free”.» |
| 12:49 | <MikeSmith> | is AVC the same as H.264? |
| 12:51 | <MikeSmith> | anybody heard anything about those plans? Are they serious about it or is some kind of attempt to spread uncertainty? |
| 12:52 | <MikeSmith> | hmm |
| 12:52 | <MikeSmith> | Rob Glidden at least seems to be taking it seriously |
| 12:52 | <MikeSmith> | http://www.robglidden.com/2011/02/mpeg-envisages-royalty-free-mpeg-video-coding-standard/ |
| 12:53 | <MikeSmith> | or at least not dismissing it straight out |
| 12:54 | <MikeSmith> | and Florian Mueller |
| 12:55 | <MikeSmith> | http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/02/royalty-free-mpeg-video-coding-standard.html |
| 20:45 | <kevogod> | Shh |
| 22:44 | <sephr> | Should http://www.google.com and http://www.google.com. share the same origin? |