| 07:40 | <izhak> | whatwg.org is slowed down. |
| 07:41 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 07:41 | <MikeSmith> | so maybe it wasn't because of twitter traffic to web-apps-tracker after all |
| 07:42 | <MikeSmith> | for what Hixie said previously, I think it might be some crawler hitting the svn server |
| 07:44 | <izhak> | the number of crowlers is going to create problems soon |
| 07:46 | <izhak> | *crawlers. |
| 08:22 | <MikeSmith> | anybody remember when the download attribute was added to the spec? |
| 08:23 | MikeSmith | is trying to find the rev number so he can open a reminder vnu bug |
| 08:31 | <MikeSmith> | http://html5.org/r/6318 |
| 08:36 | <zcorpan> | oh, that was more recent than i thought |
| 08:36 | zcorpan | was going to guess "about a year ago" |
| 08:37 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, seems like at least |
| 08:38 | <hsivonen> | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167303 might be relevant to some spec feature requests |
| 08:38 | <MikeSmith> | but it was only last summer |
| 08:38 | <hsivonen> | the WONTFIX status that is |
| 08:41 | <MikeSmith> | "I am not sure if js is a good language for parsing arrays of bytes" |
| 08:44 | <MikeSmith> | god I just looked at the dates on the bug |
| 08:49 | <yolin> | is there a html validator in javascript? |
| 08:50 | <hsivonen> | yolin: AFAIK, no |
| 08:54 | <MikeSmith> | yolin: would be great to have one |
| 08:54 | <yolin> | MikeSmith, yeh I was thinking the same, where to start? |
| 08:55 | <MikeSmith> | start simple and work up from there |
| 08:55 | <MikeSmith> | I think Hixie has some ideas about implementing a checker in JS |
| 08:56 | <yolin> | ok, great! |
| 08:56 | <jgraham> | I would be careful to start from a position of ignorance. Otherwise I would feel overwhelmed and give up |
| 08:56 | <jgraham> | ;) |
| 08:56 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 08:56 | <MikeSmith> | yeah :) |
| 08:56 | <yolin> | :D |
| 08:57 | <jgraham> | But seriously, it sounds like a nice idea |
| 08:57 | <yolin> | is the current validator at w3c code avaliable? |
| 08:57 | <yolin> | its in Java right? could be ported to Javascript? |
| 08:57 | <MikeSmith> | if you mean the current-current w3c validator, you don't want to look at that code |
| 08:57 | <yolin> | oh... |
| 08:57 | <MikeSmith> | yolin: the java code id validator.nu |
| 08:58 | <MikeSmith> | the existing W3C validator is perl code and based on SGML parsing and other ugly stuff |
| 08:58 | <MikeSmith> | yolin: I really would suggest not looking at existing code |
| 08:58 | <MikeSmith> | and not using any off-the-shelf general schema-checking mechanism |
| 08:58 | <yolin> | okay |
| 08:59 | <MikeSmith> | but doing it all from scratch |
| 08:59 | <MikeSmith> | but that's just my opinion |
| 08:59 | <MikeSmith> | though, there is no existing general schema checking in JS |
| 08:59 | <MikeSmith> | as far as I know |
| 09:00 | <yolin> | I would have to implement the HTML5 parsing algo? |
| 09:00 | <MikeSmith> | no |
| 09:00 | <jgraham> | There is already an implementation of that |
| 09:00 | <MikeSmith> | not that at least |
| 09:00 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 09:00 | <jgraham> | Dunno if it has parse error detection though |
| 09:00 | <MikeSmith> | there are a couple of implementations |
| 09:00 | <MikeSmith> | I think it does |
| 09:00 | <MikeSmith> | well |
| 09:00 | <MikeSmith> | it depends on which one you mean |
| 09:01 | <jgraham> | I was thinking of the dom.js / David Flanagan one |
| 09:01 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, I think that one might |
| 09:01 | <MikeSmith> | there is another one that Aria Stewart did for node.js |
| 09:02 | <yolin> | dom.js is for dom manipulation in node, will it help for validating html? |
| 09:03 | <MikeSmith> | it has a separate html parser that can be used standalone |
| 09:04 | <MikeSmith> | https://github.com/andreasgal/dom.js/blob/master/src/impl/HTMLParser.js |
| 09:04 | <yolin> | oh great |
| 09:05 | <MikeSmith> | hmm |
| 09:05 | <MikeSmith> | it doesn't look like it reports parse errors though |
| 09:06 | <jgraham> | In all honesty, if you want to write a validator, adding parse error detection to the parser isn't the most difficult part :) |
| 09:06 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 09:06 | <hsivonen> | yolin: you could try compiling the Validator.nu code to JS using GWT |
| 09:06 | <hsivonen> | yolin: you'd need to rework parts that touch java.io |
| 09:06 | <hsivonen> | at least |
| 09:07 | <hsivonen> | yolin: or you could use GWT only for the non-schema parts and use a JS-based RELAX NG engine for the schema parts |
| 09:07 | <yolin> | lemme check validator.nu |
| 09:08 | <jgraham> | FWIW I think Hixie's idea was that you implement one class per tag and let that class be responsible for running whatever checks are relevant to that tag. I guess tehre was more to it than that, but that's al I remember at the moment |
| 09:09 | <yolin> | yes, thats seems like a good idea to handle the complexity |
| 09:13 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: yeah, that's the way I remember it too |
| 09:13 | <MikeSmith> | so it would all be custom code specifically for checking HTML |
| 09:13 | <MikeSmith> | rather than a generic mechanism |
| 09:14 | <MikeSmith> | and one big advantage is that you could fine-tune the error messages |
| 09:15 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: so I think it would be useful to streamline and consolidate that presets in the validator |
| 09:15 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., ARIA and SVG and MathML are all now actually part of HTML |
| 09:15 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: yeah, makes sense to flatten those instead of offering them as options |
| 09:15 | <MikeSmith> | so I think we don't really need separate options for those |
| 09:16 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 09:16 | <MikeSmith> | will do that too, then |
| 09:16 | <hsivonen> | though the UI should probably still say which version of MathML and SVG it is using as a reference |
| 09:16 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: also do we actually want to keep the separate SVG 1.1 checker? |
| 09:17 | <MikeSmith> | I wonder if anybody actually uses that or wants it |
| 09:17 | <hsivonen> | also, let's get rid of "(experimental)". this stuff is now real in practice |
| 09:17 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 09:17 | <MikeSmith> | that too |
| 09:17 | <shepazu> | I would prefer to keep an SVG 1.1 checker… I don't think that most SVGs are (or even will) be in an HTML document |
| 09:18 | <MikeSmith> | shepazu: OK |
| 09:18 | <MikeSmith> | there's a problem with the schema, though |
| 09:18 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: I think we should keep the schema that allows <svg> as the root element, yeah |
| 09:18 | <MikeSmith> | hai |
| 09:18 | <MikeSmith> | shepazu: I'm trying to recall, but remember I e-mailed the SVG WG a while back? |
| 09:18 | <hsivonen> | XHTML Basic can probably be zapped |
| 09:19 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 09:19 | <MikeSmith> | will do that |
| 09:19 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: thank you |
| 09:19 | <shepazu> | MikeSmith: emailed about what? |
| 09:19 | <MikeSmith> | shepazu: to ask that the SVG 1.1 relaxng schema be updated to fix ... something |
| 09:19 | <MikeSmith> | I would need to check my mail to see |
| 09:19 | <shepazu> | oh, yeah |
| 09:20 | <shepazu> | we'd need to make a new SVG RNG |
| 09:20 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 09:20 | <shepazu> | berjon was going to do that for us |
| 09:20 | <shepazu> | but... |
| 09:20 | <MikeSmith> | the response from heycam and chris at the was, that SVG 1.1 is not an official product of the SVG WG and they are not maintaining it |
| 09:21 | <shepazu> | yeah |
| 09:21 | <MikeSmith> | which kind of bummed me out to hear that |
| 09:21 | <MikeSmith> | kind of put a damper on my enthusiasm for pursuing the fix |
| 09:21 | <MikeSmith> | whatever it was |
| 09:22 | <MikeSmith> | anyway, i'll look back at it at some point |
| 09:22 | <shepazu> | wish we had the resources to make an RNG |
| 09:22 | <shepazu> | I'll bring it up again |
| 09:22 | <MikeSmith> | I think I may have already made the change in the validator.nu copy of the schema |
| 09:22 | <MikeSmith> | can't remember |
| 09:22 | <MikeSmith> | but I think maybe all I was asking was for that change to be ported back upstream |
| 09:22 | <MikeSmith> | ah yeah yeah yeah |
| 09:23 | <MikeSmith> | I remember now |
| 09:23 | <MikeSmith> | it's because you dudes made a change to the spec, like, just a few months ago!! |
| 09:23 | <MikeSmith> | this "second edition" trickery or whatever |
| 09:24 | <MikeSmith> | where you try to pretend it's not, um, a living standard that occasionally might need updating |
| 09:24 | <MikeSmith> | made a change that loosened some constraint |
| 09:25 | <shepazu> | aren't all specs "living standards"? |
| 09:27 | <MikeSmith> | well, the good ones are at least |
| 09:27 | <MikeSmith> | if by "living" it means acknowledging that they are going to continue to be updated |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | and not updated just by addition of errata or subsequent "editions" |
| 09:31 | <MikeSmith> | shepazu: anyway, since we are going to be continuing to have that SVG 1.1 standalone-checking option, it would be good to have somebody take ownership of that schema and make sure it actually checks the constraints in the current spec |
| 09:31 | <MikeSmith> | actually this also affects the HTML checker |
| 09:31 | <MikeSmith> | because that same schema is used to check SVG in HTML |
| 09:32 | <shepazu> | yeah, but nobody on the SVG WG knows how to make an RNG (as far as I know) |
| 09:32 | <MikeSmith> | well |
| 09:32 | <MikeSmith> | geez |
| 09:32 | <MikeSmith> | when I started working with RNG I didn't know either |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | and it ain't rocket science man |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | anybody who has ever edited a DTD can learn it easily |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | the compact syntax at least |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | not the XML syntax |
| 09:34 | jgraham | keeps reading RNG as "Random Number Generator" |
| 09:34 | <shepazu> | if you want to help us, MikeSmith, that would make it easier |
| 09:35 | <shepazu> | but right now, I'm going to sleep |
| 09:36 | <MikeSmith> | hai |
| 09:36 | <MikeSmith> | I can definitely help you |
| 09:36 | <MikeSmith> | get your beauty sleep :) |
| 09:37 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: hey if you could do my manual testing today i could leave early and go to the gym or so |
| 09:38 | <zcorpan> | or doesn't it work like that? :( |
| 09:40 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 09:40 | <MikeSmith> | manual testing should be something given as penace, during confession |
| 09:40 | <MikeSmith> | that would be a genuine incentive to not sin further |
| 09:42 | <jgraham> | It kind of does work like that |
| 09:42 | <jgraham> | But with the normal assumption that we are all sinners |
| 12:41 | <david_carlisle> | hsivonen_: "though the UI should probably still say which version of MathML and SVG it is using as a reference", if you belived the whatwh living standards mantra you'd use the latest and greatest version of each (and I wouldn't have had to knock out a mathml2/3 hybrid: for you:-) |
| 12:42 | <david_carlisle> | s/whatwh/whatwg/ |
| 13:35 | <jgraham> | david_carlisle: (that sort of requires that the people writing the spec also believe in the living standard mantra and don't introduce big backwards-incompatible changes or complexity that prevents people from adopting the new version) |
| 13:35 | <jgraham> | (not sure if that applies to MathML 2 -> 3 or not) |
| 14:10 | <davidb_> | hi all! |
| 14:29 | <david_carlisle> | jgraham: MathML3 -> 2 hasn't got backward compat issues, but Mike and Henri wanted to be able to keep validator closer to mathMl2 as that's closer to what browsers implement today (apart from IE/mathPlayer which does mathML3) (same reason people other than browser makers ask for versioned html, actually) |
| 15:40 | <Ms2ger> | "SVG 1.1 is not an official product of the SVG WG" |
| 15:40 | <Ms2ger> | Say what? |
| 15:42 | <shepazu> | Ms2ger: MikeSmith meant to say that the SVG 1.1 *RNG* was not produced by the SVG WG, and that we don't maintain it |
| 15:42 | <shepazu> | the RelaxNG schema |
| 15:42 | <shepazu> | not the spec |
| 15:42 | <Ms2ger> | That makes slightly more sense |
| 15:44 | <Ms2ger> | Totally not what he said, though |
| 17:36 | <jgraham> | I love it when irccloud dies |
| 17:36 | <jcranmer> | looks ike it |
| 17:36 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, so, my review comments? :) |
| 17:37 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: I fixed them didn't I? |
| 17:37 | <jgraham> | Dunno how one says on github "this commit fixes these issues" |
| 17:38 | <Ms2ger> | Not in HG |
| 17:38 | <jgraham> | Hmm OK |
| 18:00 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: Pushed |
| 18:21 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, thanks |