| 03:35 | <Von_Davidicus> | So what, precisely, are the advantages of upgrading a page from HTML 4.01 to HTML 5? |
| 04:14 | <Hixie> | Von_Davidicus: what do you mean by "upgrading a page from HTML 4.01 to HTML 5"? |
| 04:15 | <Von_Davidicus> | As in changing the Document Type Declaration to <!DOCTYPE html> and implementing the needed changes to make it all valid and--if need be--fixing the JavaScript so that it works with the resultant code. |
| 04:16 | <Hixie> | there's no advantage to changing the doctype line unless you are changing it from something that used to trigger quirks mode |
| 04:16 | <Hixie> | if that is the case, the advantage is slightly saner browser behaviour in weird cases |
| 04:17 | <Von_Davidicus> | I don't think it triggered quirks mode. |
| 04:17 | <Hixie> | if it's not valid contemporary HTML then the advantage to making it so is you avoid whatever problems are the reason for us to make it invalid |
| 04:17 | <Hixie> | but if the page is working fine, there's no reason to do make work |
| 04:18 | <Von_Davidicus> | Well, according to the HTML5 validator, I was abusing the tar out of the headers element. |
| 04:18 | <Hixie> | (most HTML4 docs should still be valid today if they were strict mode docs and didn't do anything problematic) |
| 04:18 | <Hixie> | <headers>? |
| 04:18 | <Von_Davidicus> | er... |
| 04:18 | <Von_Davidicus> | headers attribute. |
| 04:18 | <Hixie> | aah |
| 04:18 | <Hixie> | yeah, the validator is much better now than validators in the html4 days were |
| 04:18 | <Von_Davidicus> | They weren't referring to an ID set in the table, but to IDs of input elements. |
| 04:18 | <Hixie> | hah |
| 04:19 | <Hixie> | that is indeed the kind of thing the modern validators will catch if they're following the spec :-) |
| 04:20 | <Von_Davidicus> | I kinda like the [data-*] attribute--that's what I used to replace what I was using the headers attributes for (I came up with [data-keywords]) |
| 04:22 | <Von_Davidicus> | Is there a way to say "this data-* attribute should work like an IDREFS attribute"? |
| 04:26 | <Von_Davidicus> | One thing I liked about using the headers attribute was if I had a keyword that was misspelled or something (which meant the script wouldn't work), it showed up as a warning. The relevant page is http://www.mrinitialman.com/Furcadia/DragonSpeakLines.shtml |
| 04:36 | <Hixie> | Von_Davidicus: data-* is just useful for scripts, so the way you make it work like an idrefs attribute is to make the script treat it like an idref attribute |
| 04:37 | <Hixie> | Von_Davidicus: if you want warnings, just have your script check that the values are right and call console.warning() if they're not |
| 04:53 | <Von_Davidicus> | Okay. |
| 04:57 | <Von_Davidicus> | By the way, with the way you phrased your comment, you made it sound like data-* was created mainly for scripts. Is that true? :) |
| 05:18 | <Hixie> | only for scripts, pretty much |
| 05:18 | <Von_Davidicus> | *Nod.* |
| 05:36 | <Von_Davidicus> | I'll admit--I've done some pages where an upgrade from HTML 2.0 wouldn't change much. |
| 05:37 | <Hixie> | i know the feeling :-) |
| 05:38 | <Von_Davidicus> | Oh, and I've figured out something: I've finally discovered that XSLT is great when it's used as a client-side processing language (such as referencing multiple XML files or creating an SVG diagram out of an XHTML document). How does it hold up against, say, a *server*-side processing language? Aaaaaaahm.... |
| 05:38 | <Von_Davidicus> | So, it's got advantages over XHTML. |
| 05:39 | Hixie | is skeptical that XSLT is great anywhere, but ok |
| 05:39 | <Von_Davidicus> | The only Server-Side language XSLT can outperform? Server-side includes. And I'm not certain about that, either. |
| 05:41 | Von_Davidicus | dusts off SSI from time to time--such as when a page is SO big that it's a pain to update. |
| 07:20 | <Von_Davidicus> | Thanks, Hixie. That script-based solution works well. |
| 07:20 | <Hixie> | np |
| 07:21 | <Von_Davidicus> | I think I've realized why I use XSLT. |
| 07:21 | <Von_Davidicus> | I think I do it to show that I *can* pull it off. |
| 07:22 | <Hixie> | that's a fine reason to solve a rubix cube |
| 07:23 | <Hixie> | not necessarily a good reason to use a programming language :-P |
| 07:24 | <Von_Davidicus> | Maybe not. But I'd hate to let something I learned go comepletely to waste. And I *have* used webhosts before that didn't have server-side capabilities. |
| 07:25 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 07:25 | <Hixie> | i recommend reading up on something called the "sunk cost fallacy" |
| 07:25 | <Von_Davidicus> | *glares at Furnation* |
| 07:28 | <Von_Davidicus> | Furnation is/was (these days, mostly 'was'), a *very* well-known web host within a certain fandom, and it was one of those hosts that ran on donations as well as their own publishing company. The latter was a good idea and might have carried the host better if they hadn't dropped the ball so often they left a permanent dent on the floor. |
| 07:29 | <Von_Davidicus> | But it had no server-side capabilities. Not even includes. |
| 07:30 | <Von_Davidicus> | So I suppose in *that* situation, it would be either hardcode everything, use XSLT, or use frames. |
| 07:47 | <Von_Davidicus> | Not sure what would be considered the bigger coding sin these days: XSLT or frames. |
| 07:56 | <Ms2ger> | XSLT |
| 08:09 | <AryehGregor> | Von_Davidicus, you could build it all using AJAX! |
| 08:09 | <AryehGregor> | Then at least if someone else needed to take over maintaining it, maybe they would understand your code . . . |
| 08:11 | <Von_Davidicus> | AJAX is based on JavaScript. I'm not sure which would be worse, trying to understand someone else's XSLT or trying to understand someone else's JavaScript. |
| 08:11 | <AryehGregor> | A lot of people actually know JavaScript. |
| 08:11 | <AryehGregor> | Nobody except you and four other people knows XSLT, or indeed has ever heard of it. |
| 08:12 | <AryehGregor> | The other four people are members of the XSLT WG. |
| 08:13 | <AryehGregor> | (I'm being mean -- I'm sure it's better-known than lots of other niche technologies. In #whatwg we're just bitter about it because it's one of the technologies *we* have to deal with and it just makes our lives more difficult.) |
| 08:13 | <AryehGregor> | (Slightly.) |
| 08:14 | <Von_Davidicus> | why does it make your lives more difficult? |
| 08:15 | <AryehGregor> | Because browsers still support it. |
| 08:15 | <AryehGregor> | And it's fairly large and complicated. |
| 08:15 | <AryehGregor> | The web is complicated enough. |
| 08:15 | <AryehGregor> | We don't need more things that are complicated but that almost no one uses. |
| 08:18 | <Von_Davidicus> | How does that get in the way of HTML5 development? |
| 08:18 | <AryehGregor> | It doesn't get in the way of it, much. But we're trying to define the web platform as a whole, so things that aren't worth the effort to define and implement properly are things we'd prefer just go away. |
| 08:19 | <Von_Davidicus> | Oh, okay. |
| 08:19 | <AryehGregor> | XSLT is marginal and self-contained enough that I don't think we hate it too much, though. |
| 08:19 | <AryehGregor> | Unlike, say, quirks mode. |
| 08:20 | <Von_Davidicus> | I just remembered something: Doesn't AJAX require the *server* to support it? Because I think I tried AJAX on Furnation and it didn't work. |
| 08:20 | <AryehGregor> | No, I'm pretty sure not. |
| 08:20 | <AryehGregor> | It's just an async HTTP request. (Or sync, as the case may be.) |
| 08:21 | Von_Davidicus | looks at his Coach Random Website, and wonders if it's worth it to switch it over to HTML5. |
| 08:21 | <Ms2ger> | Don't speak of sync xhr ;) |
| 08:23 | <Von_Davidicus> | Why not? |
| 08:33 | <Von_Davidicus> | What would you guys say? |
| 08:34 | <Von_Davidicus> | Currently, it's an XML+XSLT+XSD website. |
| 08:39 | <AryehGregor> | Sync XHR murders performance. It causes the page to freeze until the request completes. |
| 08:39 | <AryehGregor> | These days we never ever expose sync APIs to regular pages unless they're guaranteed to return very quickly. |
| 08:39 | <AryehGregor> | Anything else is async, like IDB. |
| 08:39 | <AryehGregor> | localStorage is similar. |
| 08:39 | <AryehGregor> | We expose sync APIs to workers, though. |
| 08:48 | <Von_Davidicus> | Hello, annevk. |
| 08:49 | <annevk> | hey |
| 08:50 | <Von_Davidicus> | Question: should I take an old site of mine that's written in XML+XSLT+XSD and redo it as HTML5? |
| 08:54 | <annevk> | heh, that's kind of hard for me to answer :) |
| 08:54 | <Philip`> | Von_Davidicus: Yes - it might not provide any benefit to the site itself if it's already working fine, but it might cure you of your constant desire to use XSLT |
| 08:54 | <Von_Davidicus> | It *is* online. |
| 08:57 | AryehGregor | concurs with Philip` |
| 09:13 | <Von_Davidicus> | So, Philip? Instead of using XSLT as a client-side language, I should be using COBOL for server-side? |
| 09:24 | <Von_Davidicus> | Question about HTML5. Is it possible to have one list reference another as being a continuation of that list? |
| 09:25 | <Ms2ger> | No |
| 09:25 | <Ms2ger> | You can use the start attribute to fix up the numbering |
| 09:25 | <Von_Davidicus> | Oh, the start attribute is back? |
| 09:26 | <Von_Davidicus> | I know HTML 4.01 Strict didn't allow it. |
| 09:26 | <Ms2ger> | It is |
| 09:29 | <Von_Davidicus> | Only time I'd ever used it was to see what Lynx would do with an <ol> that went over the numbering limit. |
| 09:31 | <Ms2ger> | What did it do? |
| 09:33 | <Von_Davidicus> | It went from 2,147,483,647 to -2,147,483,648 |
| 09:34 | <Von_Davidicus> | That being said, it's hard to imagine an ordered list so long that it would surpass the limit for the roman numeral styles. |
| 09:38 | <Von_Davidicus> | The highest they can show is MMMCMXCIX or mmmcmxcix (depending on whether you're using upper or lower case). That's 3,999 <li> elements (unless you're playing with the count), which gets into the realm of "can the average computer handle this webpage". :) |
| 15:01 | <Ms2ger> | "The jQuery forum appears to be completely dysfunctional without JavaScript enabled, which is sad" |
| 16:27 | gsnedders | wonders about optional static typing for ES again, and decides it's probably better not to think about |
| 16:28 | <Ms2ger> | Correct |
| 16:28 | <gsnedders> | So, SpiderMonkey is impl ES6 by default, V8 is impl ES6 behind an experimental pref… |
| 16:31 | gsnedders | wonders |
| 16:33 | <Ms2ger> | We really should have implemented Number.mozIsNaN... |
| 16:36 | <gsnedders> | Ms2ger: Yes, prefixes are definitely better! |
| 16:41 | <gsnedders> | Heh, broken 10k unread emails on www-style. |
| 16:41 | <gsnedders> | I really should just leave the WG. |
| 16:57 | <Hixie> | i wish addHitRegion() would be implemented already :-) |
| 17:44 | <Hixie> | is there a spec for MouseEvent? |
| 17:45 | <Hixie> | (for UAs firing events using it, that is, not for the interface) |
| 17:46 | <Hixie> | in particular i'm interested in what said spec says to set offsetX to |
| 17:46 | <Hixie> | hm, looks like http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom-view/#extensions-to-the-mouseevent-interface does it |
| 17:46 | <Hixie> | wonder how accurate that is |
| 17:49 | <Ms2ger> | Hixie, only one way to find out... Write tests ;) |
| 17:50 | <Hixie> | kinda am |
| 17:50 | <Hixie> | (i'm writing code that uses it, we'll see if it works!) |
| 18:02 | <Hixie> | aw man |
| 18:02 | <Hixie> | want. addHitRegion(). |
| 18:44 | <jgraham> | Hixie: If writing code that used something counted as writing tests, the web would be well tested and have great interoperability |
| 18:55 | <asmodai> | I guess most of you saw http://vimeo.com/43380467 ? |
| 18:56 | <Ms2ger> | I've heard of it |
| 18:57 | <Ms2ger> | hsivonen debunked some points at http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Bad_Ideas |
| 19:00 | <Hixie> | people fall into three camps as far as i can see: |
| 19:00 | <Hixie> | 1. people who don't realise the web sucks |
| 19:01 | <Hixie> | 2. people who realise the web sucks but don't understand why it is so wildly successful and so make silly suggestions for improving it that themselves fail |
| 19:01 | <Hixie> | 3. people who write web standards and go home and cry every night |
| 19:02 | <Hixie> | the guy in that video falls very clearly into #2: he doesn't understand what he's criticising |
| 19:03 | <Hixie> | (e.g. he thinks the w3c had anything to do with canvas having .arc(), he doesn't understand html's version history, he doesn't understand how paragraphs are specced, etc) |
| 19:03 | asmodai | pats Hixie |
| 19:03 | <asmodai> | Hixie: Hope you don't cry too much every night |
| 19:08 | <asmodai> | I personally think he does have some valid points on weird behaviour and some things not being straightforward. |
| 19:08 | <Hixie> | yes |
| 19:08 | <Hixie> | the web sucks |
| 19:09 | <asmodai> | And in some other areas he really generalises. |
| 19:09 | <Hixie> | nobody argues that |
| 19:09 | <asmodai> | Heh |
| 19:14 | <jarek> | why there are no b-splines in SVG? |
| 19:15 | <jarek> | were they considered not useful enough? Is there an easy way to emulate them with beziers? |
| 19:15 | <Ms2ger> | Because W3C |
| 19:15 | Ms2ger | runs |
| 19:15 | <jarek> | Silverlight has b-splines... |
| 19:16 | <Hixie> | you may have better luck getting a real answer from #svg on w3c's irc network |
| 19:17 | <Hixie> | since it looks like none of us know :-) |
| 19:17 | <Hixie> | canvas doesn't have b-splines because apple didn't add them when they invented canvas and nobody has made a convincing argument for them since |
| 19:17 | <Hixie> | but i dunno about svg |
| 19:18 | <asmodai> | Ms2ger: lol |
| 19:20 | <spobat> | :) |
| 19:20 | <Ms2ger> | Good morning |
| 19:20 | <Philip`> | Canvas should support NURBS, because NURBS is a great acronym |
| 19:21 | <Ms2ger> | Philip`, only after you fix all the canvas test bugs :) |
| 19:21 | <spobat> | non uniform rational b splines? |
| 19:21 | <Ms2ger> | Apparently so |
| 20:46 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: What's the reason not to have a circle API in canvas, BTW? "API usability" not a good enough reason? :) |
| 20:48 | <Hixie> | what would it do? |
| 20:48 | <Hixie> | add a circle to the path? fill a circle? |
| 20:50 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: The same as drawArc? |
| 20:51 | <Hixie> | assuming you mean the same as "arc()" (there's no drawArc), then what's the point of having two functions that do the same thing |
| 20:56 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: API usability. |
| 20:56 | <gsnedders> | arc() isn't obviously what you want for a circle. |
| 20:56 | <Hixie> | API usability is as much helped by adding convenience functions as it is hurt by having a large surface area |
| 20:56 | <gsnedders> | Sure, there's no *technical* advantage. |
| 20:57 | <Hixie> | is ellipse() obviously what you want for a circle? |
| 23:12 | <gsnedders> | Heh, so easy to make Erik Arvidsson's email mean Google's webapps aren't on the "open web". |
| 23:12 | <gsnedders> | (Email to es-discuss, this is) |
| 23:12 | <gsnedders> | There again, given they have UA sniffing to start with on many things, that's rather self-evident. |