| 00:08 | <AryehGregor> | I like the phrase "ipso facto" a lot, but I've discovered it doesn't really mean anything, so I never get a chance to use it. This makes me sad. |
| 00:10 | <TabAtkins> | Assign a meaning to it and use it consistently. |
| 00:10 | <zewt> | give ipso facto a de facto meaning :| |
| 00:11 | <TabAtkins> | But it does mean something. You can usually substitute "thus" for it, and so you can probably replace some of your "thus"es with "ipso facto". |
| 04:04 | <Hixie> | ok whatwg.org and hixie.ch are now IPv6-enabled |
| 06:37 | <annevk> | sure felt like six months :p |
| 06:37 | <Hixie> | can't argue with that :-) |
| 07:04 | <annevk> | AryehGregor, are your specs in some bitbucket or other repository somewhere? |
| 07:08 | <Hixie> | is order of enumeration of JS objects defined at all? |
| 07:09 | <Hixie> | it seems to be order of creation but deleting then resetting a property doesn't seem to move it to the end |
| 07:10 | <annevk> | it's defined to be unordered but implementations have to do at least creation order to not break web pages |
| 07:11 | <Hixie> | is there a way to move a property to the end of the order? |
| 07:11 | <Hixie> | short of creating a whole new object... |
| 07:11 | <annevk> | http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Web_ECMAScript#Property_Enumeration |
| 07:11 | <annevk> | no idea :/ |
| 07:12 | <Hixie> | oh well |
| 07:12 | <Hixie> | thanks anyway |
| 07:12 | Hixie | updates that wiki page with what he's found about "delete" |
| 07:28 | <annevk> | http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hodges-websec-framework-reqs |
| 07:32 | <annevk> | the introduction especially is an interesting read |
| 07:33 | <Hixie> | i have a page which consists primarily of a two-cell css table fixed positioned to the viewport, where the right cell is shrink-to-fit and the left cell fills the rest of the available space |
| 07:33 | <annevk> | security seems to be getting impossibly hard |
| 07:33 | <Hixie> | i'd like the left cell to be overflow:auto in case its contents are too big to fit the available space in the viewport |
| 07:33 | <Hixie> | is there a way to do that? |
| 07:33 | <Hixie> | everything i've thought of has the table cell grow to fit the contents |
| 07:34 | <Hixie> | which defeats the point (it means the whole viewport scrolls and i lose the right cell) |
| 07:34 | <annevk> | table-layout:fixed was sort of designed for it I think but never really implemented well? |
| 07:34 | <annevk> | I'm not really sure |
| 07:34 | <Hixie> | table-layout:fixed requires that i know the right cell's width ahead of time, i think |
| 07:34 | <Hixie> | i hope TabAtkins' drafts solve this |
| 07:35 | <annevk> | there's a new value for width that means shrink-to-fit |
| 07:35 | <annevk> | not sure if that works |
| 07:35 | <annevk> | well it does in Mozilla, but in combination with table-layout:fixed... |
| 07:36 | <hsivonen> | I'm losing track of goings on at the IETF. What's the story behind there being an informational Internet-Draft and a standards track ID about Do Not Track by different authors? |
| 07:36 | <annevk> | it's a bit sad that to date nobody has figured out table layouts |
| 07:36 | <annevk> | and written it down |
| 07:36 | <annevk> | hsivonen, didn't follow that one |
| 07:38 | <Hixie> | annevk: the problem is my shrink-to-fit cell comes on the same row as my as-big-as-possible cell |
| 07:38 | <Hixie> | annevk: so i don't think table-layout:fixed can solve it |
| 07:38 | <Hixie> | even if implemented per spec |
| 07:38 | <annevk> | karlcow, would be nice if there was a dedicated category for http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/03/open-web-weekly-summary.html |
| 07:45 | <hsivonen> | karlcow: nice to see that they let you link to lists.whatwg.org from the W3C blog |
| 07:45 | <annevk> | I think that may be a first |
| 07:47 | <annevk> | karlcow, also, it needs a more compelling title |
| 07:47 | <annevk> | karlcow, extremely long name followed by two digitized dates just confirms the W3C is boring |
| 07:48 | <annevk> | so we still haven't announced developers.whatwg.org on the blog |
| 07:48 | <annevk> | I tried getting hold of ben to do it, but that seems difficult :) |
| 07:49 | <annevk> | anyone minds if I go ahead and write a short note? |
| 07:51 | <annevk> | (no response in an hour means I'll go ahead) |
| 07:54 | <karlcow> | for title, I adopted the same model than http://my.opera.com/karlcow/blog/index.dml/tag/web%20standards%20links :) It was my decision. I accept my boringness |
| 07:55 | <karlcow> | for category, yes good suggestion. I will put that on the todo list. |
| 08:12 | <annevk> | I need a todo list |
| 08:16 | <karlcow> | nah you do not need, you are younger than me. |
| 08:17 | <annevk> | Maybe, but I'm so unprepared for the next three months... And behind on silly things like administration. |
| 08:18 | <annevk> | Immediate future (i.e. until this weekend) is pretty much sorted though :) |
| 08:21 | <karlcow> | I'm looking forward the reports of your trips when you are back. Pretty exciting. |
| 09:09 | <abarth> | annevk: i've failed at every todo list system i've tried |
| 09:16 | <annevk> | :) |
| 09:16 | <annevk> | me too |
| 09:16 | <annevk> | my current approach is memory, sometimes notes in TextWrangler since I'm using that a lot, and notes in my calendar |
| 09:17 | <annevk> | and putting objects like letters in obvious places :) |
| 09:41 | <karlcow> | http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wallaby/ |
| 09:41 | <karlcow> | "Convert Adobe Flash FLA files into HTML and reach more devices" |
| 10:28 | <annevk> | i have a very short blog post now |
| 10:28 | <annevk> | anyone wants to review before it goes live? |
| 10:31 | <annevk> | http://blog.whatwg.org/html5-for-web-developers |
| 10:33 | <aho> | looks fine |
| 10:49 | <annevk> | per twitter it seems quite a few people hadn't seen it yet |
| 11:29 | <annevk> | oh wow, our type=color implementation makes use of <datalist>? |
| 11:29 | <annevk> | I did not know |
| 11:55 | <annevk> | hmm, updating event-source tests has to wait a little |
| 11:56 | <annevk> | EventSource, even |
| 11:57 | <karlcow> | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12668552 |
| 11:57 | <karlcow> | From 25 May, European laws dictate that "explicit consent" must be gathered from web users who are being tracked via text files called "cookies". |
| 12:43 | <zewt> | always nice when politicians stick their heads into stuff without even trying to understand it |
| 13:04 | <aho> | "Currently, most browsers support low-complexity AAC and MP3 audio [...]" <- yea right, apple :v |
| 13:05 | <Lachy> | aho, where's that quote from? |
| 13:05 | <aho> | http://developer.apple.com/library/safari/documentation/AudioVideo/Conceptual/Using_HTML5_Audio_Video/AudioandVideoTagBasics/AudioandVideoTagBasics.html |
| 13:06 | <zcorpan> | does chrome support AAC? |
| 13:07 | <Lachy> | if they're counting Safari, current versions of Chrome and IE9, then perhaps 3 out of 5 is technically "most" |
| 13:07 | <zcorpan> | or was it thrown out together with h.264? |
| 13:07 | <jgraham> | Lachy: Weird calculus you have there |
| 13:07 | <Lachy> | it's supported in MP4 along with h.264, and support should disappear when they remove it |
| 13:08 | <Lachy> | jgraham, I'm not doing calculus. |
| 13:08 | <zcorpan> | didn't they remove it already? |
| 13:08 | <aho> | Safari on the desktop (Mac OS X and Windows) supports all media supported by the installed version of QuickTime <- this includes he-aac, right? |
| 13:08 | <jgraham> | Lachy: You have a system for calculating |
| 13:08 | <Lachy> | I thought they were planning to do it in 5 months |
| 13:08 | <zcorpan> | oh |
| 13:08 | <aho> | afaict i need ogg/vorbis and (he?)-aac for ie9 and safari |
| 13:10 | <aho> | and i gotta use the mp4 container for that, right? |
| 13:11 | <aho> | 3gp should theoretically work, too |
| 13:11 | <aho> | *scratches head* |
| 13:11 | zcorpan | thought 3gp was the same thing as mp4 |
| 13:11 | <jgraham> | Lachy: (fwiw see meaning 2 under http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0116730#m_en_gb0116730 ) |
| 13:11 | <aho> | 3GP (3GPP file format) is a multimedia container format defined by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) for 3G UMTS multimedia services. |
| 13:12 | <aho> | MPEG-4 Part 14 or MP4 file format, formally ISO/IEC 14496-14:2003, is a multimedia container format standard specified as a part of MPEG-4. |
| 13:12 | <aho> | oh and there is mov, too |
| 13:12 | <Lachy> | jgraham, ok. I just assumed you meant meaning 1, since that's the only usage I've heard before |
| 13:12 | <aho> | iirc flash supported these 3, but i don't have a clue about safari or ie9 |
| 13:13 | <jgraham> | Lachy: Think also "lambda calculus" |
| 13:13 | <Lachy> | jgraham, I have no idea what "lambda calculus" means |
| 13:13 | <aho> | guess mp4 is the safest bet |
| 13:13 | <jgraham> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus |
| 13:15 | <Lachy> | zcorpan, "These changes will occur in the next couple months but we are announcing them now to give content publishers and developers using HTML <video> an opportunity to make any necessary changes to their sites." |
| 13:15 | <Lachy> | http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html |
| 13:15 | <Lachy> | so they don't say exactly when they will remove it |
| 13:16 | <zcorpan> | k |
| 13:19 | <aho> | http://html5doctor.com/native-audio-in-the-browser/ <- omits aac... meh :l |
| 13:35 | <hsivonen> | I guess different people have different idea of what counts as "removal". removal in nightly, dev, beta or stable |
| 13:39 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: is it removed in some of them? |
| 13:40 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: I think I read somewhere it's now removed in nightly and dev. I didn't verify. |
| 13:42 | <zcorpan> | canPlayType in dev chrome gives me '' for canPlayType('video/mpeg') but 'maybe' for audio/mpeg |
| 13:42 | <hsivonen> | what about video/mp4? |
| 13:43 | <zcorpan> | oh right, audio/mpeg is mp3 |
| 13:43 | <zcorpan> | 'maybe' for audio/mp4 and video/mp4 |
| 13:44 | <hsivonen> | does it actually play an H.264 test file? |
| 14:12 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: yes |
| 14:13 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: ok. I guess my source or my recollection was wrong then. |
| 14:27 | <hsivonen> | Hmm. no mention of the DoJ/MPEG-LA story on Daring Fireball |
| 14:31 | <karlcow> | annevk: category done. http://www.w3.org/QA/archive/open_web/ |
| 14:35 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: I notice that investigation seems to be limited to just the anti-competitive positioning against VP8 |
| 14:37 | <MikeSmith> | and not the broader issue of whether the H.264 patent pool itself was accumulated in good faith according to this initial assertions they made about its purpose and scope |
| 14:37 | <MikeSmith> | remember there was an analysis that somebody did about that last year |
| 14:38 | <MikeSmith> | something like, their initial claim is that it would be limited to just a couple dozen patents -- less that 50 or whatever |
| 14:38 | <MikeSmith> | but despite that it ballooned into what it is now |
| 14:38 | <MikeSmith> | 500+ patents or whatever |
| 14:41 | <MikeSmith> | hmm, more like 800, I guess |
| 14:41 | <MikeSmith> | the Nero lawsuit |
| 14:42 | <MikeSmith> | filed last May |
| 14:42 | <MikeSmith> | and don't remember hearing much about it since |
| 14:42 | <zewt> | i think the world needs more patent abuse at levels beyond absurdity |
| 14:42 | <zewt> | nothing less will get anything changed, heh |
| 15:33 | <erlehmann> | zewt, more abuse does not necessary yield revolution. |
| 15:34 | <zewt> | not sufficient, but possibly necessary |
| 15:36 | <erlehmann> | ? |
| 15:38 | <zewt> | more abuse is not sufficient to trigger reform, but it does seem necessary for it to ever happen. not that I hold out much hope in any case |
| 15:38 | <erlehmann> | do we need more hashbangs to abolish them entirely? |
| 15:39 | <zewt> | i don't think there's much or any parallel :) |
| 15:40 | <zewt> | (and they'll never be abolished until the history API is universally available--so the ball's still in UAs' court on that one) |
| 15:43 | <zcorpan> | video implementors, see http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12267 |
| 15:48 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: You don't derive humor from race conditions? |
| 15:51 | <Philip`> | What if it's a three-legged race condition? |
| 15:54 | <jgraham> | Today a pancake race condition would be more apropos |
| 15:55 | <jgraham> | (for i18n purposes I am required to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrove_Tuesday#Festivities at this point) |
| 15:56 | <zcorpan> | i thought today was fettisdagen |
| 15:56 | <zcorpan> | so semla race condition |
| 15:57 | <jgraham> | Is that where someone offers you semla and you run away screaming? |
| 15:58 | <zcorpan> | it's where you line up 20 semlor and the first one to eat them all wins |
| 15:58 | <zcorpan> | (i.e. 20 semlor per contentant) |
| 15:58 | <jgraham> | I fear you might not be joking |
| 15:58 | <zcorpan> | i just made it up |
| 15:59 | <zcorpan> | but i'd love to watch such a race |
| 15:59 | <jgraham> | Still it sounds plausible |
| 15:59 | <jgraham> | I bet you could convince people it is a tradition |
| 16:38 | <virtuelv> | cute little replaceState() hack: http://grack.com/blog/2011/03/07/abusing-the-html5-history-api-for-fun-and-chaos/ |
| 16:46 | jgraham | notes that abarth has committed to the html5lib repo 5 times with 5 different email addresses |
| 17:09 | <annevk> | lesson learned: even when WHATWG news seems spread all over, still post it to the blog |
| 17:51 | <annevk> | character encoding registry still malfunctioning |
| 17:52 | <annevk> | maybe once I'm back I'm interested in updating my research again and actually write a spec |
| 18:22 | <AryehGregor> | annevk, my specs are at aryeh.name/gitweb.cgi if I have nowhere else specific to put them. |
| 18:52 | <annevk> | yay more URLs |
| 19:10 | <Ms2ger> | We just need someone to put specs in bzr... |
| 19:11 | <AryehGregor> | Is there an established term for "a Node or its ancestor"? The original DOM Range spec uses "ancestor container". |
| 19:11 | <AryehGregor> | I guess I'll go with that for now. |
| 19:18 | <annevk> | ancestor or self |
| 19:18 | <annevk> | I think |
| 19:18 | <annevk> | or maybe that's just XPath |
| 19:18 | <AryehGregor> | "If foo is an ancestor or self of bar"? |
| 19:18 | <AryehGregor> | Doesn't read well. |
| 19:20 | <zewt> | "if foo is bar or an ancestor of bar" |
| 19:20 | <AryehGregor> | I was using that, but it gets awkward if you need it a lot. |
| 19:20 | <AryehGregor> | Old definition of "partially contained": A Node is partially contained in a range if either it is the same as or an ancestor of the range's start node but is neither equal to nor an ancestor of its end node, or is the same as or an ancestor of the range's end node but is neither equal to nor an ancestor of its start node. |
| 19:20 | <AryehGregor> | New definition: A Node is partially contained in a range if it is an ancestor container of the range's start but not its end, or vice versa. |
| 19:21 | <zewt> | strange term; "ancestor container" doesn't suggest "same node" at all to me |
| 19:22 | <AryehGregor> | I know, it's a bad name. |
| 19:22 | <AryehGregor> | I didn't make it up. |
| 19:23 | <Philip`> | AryehGregor: I have a book that says a node is its own ancestor |
| 19:23 | <AryehGregor> | It might help to know that "container" really means "node", in the original context. |
| 19:23 | <Philip`> | but not its own proper ancestor |
| 19:23 | <AryehGregor> | Philip`, yes, that would be the mathematical way to do it. |
| 19:23 | <AryehGregor> | It was my first thought, really. |
| 19:23 | <AryehGregor> | But it's confusing to non-mathematicians. |
| 19:23 | <AryehGregor> | "I'm my own grandpa!" |
| 19:23 | <zewt> | Philip`: i don't think using that definition of "ancestor" is a good idea--programmers don't think of the term that way |
| 19:23 | <Philip`> | To avoid ambiguity, call it an improper ancestor :-) |
| 19:24 | <zewt> | that's so much clearer :P |
| 19:25 | <AryehGregor> | An improper ancestor would be an ancestor that's not not proper, i.e., the node itself. |
| 19:25 | <AryehGregor> | It would be a possibly-improper ancestor. |
| 20:29 | <twisted_> | how come there's a huge difference in rendering (nowadays?) between gecko and webkit? |
| 20:29 | <twisted_> | I suddenly have a lot of inconsitencies... |
| 20:30 | <Ms2ger> | There usually isn't |
| 20:30 | <twisted_> | Ms2ger: I know but i got a certain design atm |
| 20:30 | <twisted_> | where it looks perfect in Webkit and totally fubar'd in firefox |
| 20:30 | <twisted_> | and really... confused |
| 20:35 | <AryehGregor> | twisted_, link? |
| 20:35 | <roc> | create a minimal testcase and post it here :-) |
| 20:35 | <twisted_> | sure wait a sec lemme upload |
| 20:39 | <aho> | note that firefox 3.x doesnt use the html5 parser. some valid constructs are completely b0rked. e.g. <a ...><div>...</div></a> will *randomly* break. it's a timing issue which depends on reflows. as such, things like gzip, length, latency, and the phase of the moon affect it :I |
| 20:39 | <twisted_> | AryehGregor: http://bastardoperatorfromhell.org/~jakoury/contact.html |
| 20:40 | <kbrosnan> | roc: ^ |
| 20:40 | <twisted_> | oh and I get one interesting error which I understand but... thought I was allowed |
| 20:41 | <twisted_> | not allowed to use a <header> inside a <header> but I thought it's allowed if you start a new <section> or <article> |
| 20:41 | <aho> | twisted_, section and so forth need a display:block |
| 20:41 | <aho> | try eric's new reset |
| 20:41 | <aho> | it's a good starting point |
| 20:41 | <aho> | http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/css/reset/ |
| 20:42 | <aho> | (unknown elements default to display:inline) |
| 20:42 | <twisted_> | cool talking a look |
| 20:43 | <twisted_> | aho: small change but getting closer |
| 20:43 | <zcorpan> | twisted_: what's the use case for header in section or article in header? |
| 20:44 | <twisted_> | well I'm afraid indeed that I gotta rewrite that part... hehe... I started on index.html and worked from there but THERE the header made sense |
| 20:44 | <twisted_> | here it should just be a normal div I think |
| 20:44 | <Ms2ger> | zcorpan, s/header in section/section in header/? |
| 20:44 | <aho> | twisted_, add overflow:hidden to #top |
| 20:45 | <zcorpan> | Ms2ger: no |
| 20:45 | <zcorpan> | header in (section or article) in header |
| 20:46 | <Ms2ger> | That's not the canonical operator precedence :) |
| 20:47 | <zcorpan> | twisted_: i'm asking because maybe the spec should be changed if there is a use case. what did you have when it made sense? |
| 20:48 | <twisted_> | zcorpan: well, on the index page I had a <header> because it was the top part of the page (the head) and underneat it had the rest. but INSIDE that header I needed later to add some other thingies and that also needed a header inside... |
| 20:49 | <twisted_> | thing I'm missing the most for an <article> is something in between <header> and <footer> (like a <body>) |
| 20:49 | <twisted_> | cause explaining that <article> had a column-count of 2 makes everything go all whooey, but now I wrap the <p>'s inbetween <header> and <footer> in a <div> |
| 20:50 | <roc> | twisted_: looks like we don't support position:relative with 'right' and 'bottom' |
| 20:51 | <AryehGregor> | o_O |
| 20:51 | <AryehGregor> | Isn't that kind of basic? |
| 20:51 | <twisted_> | roc: it _suddenly_ works |
| 20:51 | <twisted_> | I refereshed and poof |
| 20:51 | <twisted_> | it looks the same |
| 20:51 | <roc> | AryehGregor: I don't think anyone ever uses anything but 'left' and 'top' for relative positioning |
| 20:51 | <roc> | until now! |
| 20:51 | <roc> | I didn't even know you *could* use right and bottom |
| 20:52 | <twisted_> | roc: well cause this crazy designer thought of aligning it to the right |
| 20:52 | <twisted_> | and then it's easier to measure it from there |
| 20:52 | <twisted_> | roc: used it before btw |
| 20:52 | <AryehGregor> | I guess for relative positioning, right and bottom are equivalent to the negative of left and top? |
| 20:52 | <roc> | yes |
| 20:52 | <twisted_> | checkout the prijzen.html |
| 20:52 | <AryehGregor> | For absolute positioning, obviously there's a really big difference, so you'd use all of them. |
| 20:52 | <roc> | sure |
| 20:52 | <roc> | we would have noticed by now if right and bottom didn't work for abs-pos :-) |
| 20:52 | <zewt> | heh |
| 20:53 | <zewt> | nothing's better than the things that are broken and seem like they can't possibly actually be broken |
| 20:53 | <twisted_> | \o/ |
| 20:53 | <twisted_> | ok now off to fiddle with getting custom radiobuttons |
| 20:54 | <twisted_> | this designer wants to have a 3px solid #a40061 border around a circle |
| 20:54 | <twisted_> | instead of the normal thingies |
| 20:54 | <twisted_> | grrr |
| 20:54 | <roc> | wow, I think we don't even have a bug on file about this |
| 20:55 | <twisted_> | roc: refresh this: http://bastardoperatorfromhell.org/~jakoury/contact.html position problem has been solved |
| 20:55 | <twisted_> | but only thing I changed... was the overflow: none |
| 20:55 | <roc> | oh wait |
| 20:55 | <twisted_> | so... dunno |
| 20:55 | <roc> | we do have code for this |
| 20:55 | <roc> | so something else is broken |
| 20:55 | <roc> | I dunno |
| 20:55 | <roc> | need minimal testcase, etc |
| 20:55 | <roc> | at least file a bug |
| 20:56 | <roc> | please |
| 20:56 | <roc> | thanks |
| 21:02 | <twisted_> | roc: uhm... I'd love to but... not sure what just fixed it actually |
| 21:02 | <twisted_> | *magic* |
| 21:05 | <roc> | oh, that was my psychic powers |
| 21:06 | <roc> | many developers find that their presence makes users unable to reproduce bugs |
| 21:22 | <twisted_> | roc: it's the common law of computing |
| 21:22 | <twisted_> | users call for their sysadmin (me) and suddenly the problem they had is gone |
| 21:23 | <twisted_> | big chance that when I check tomorrow the bug is back ;) haha |
| 21:33 | <twisted_> | question maybe someone here can clarify: I understand that during development of new features there's a -webkit or -moz prefix to a css property but for example the border-radius and -moz-border-radius has (afaik) the same syntax. Why not then have it as just border-radius? |
| 21:36 | <bfrohs> | There are still bugs with -moz-border-radius |
| 21:37 | <bfrohs> | This way, you know -moz-border-radius will have the bugs, while border-radius in a future version of firefox will not |
| 21:37 | <bfrohs> | (at least not major bugs that they know about) |
| 21:37 | <twisted_> | ;) |
| 21:37 | <twisted_> | hmm makes sense |
| 21:43 | <Ms2ger> | Also, they don't have the same syntax for the longhand, iirc |
| 21:45 | <twisted_> | this site is gonna be an all nighter I'm afraid |
| 21:45 | <twisted_> | pff |
| 21:57 | <jamesr> | -moz-border-radius is not the best example |
| 22:01 | <zcorpan> | twisted_: you can't know that border-radius is going to have the same syntax until the spec is finished |