| 03:04 | <Hixie> | wow, the htmlwg is still arguing over r6890 while we're up at r7200. i sure hope they find an editor soon or it's going to be a huge amount of work just coordinating upstreaming of patches. |
| 07:32 | <annevk> | Hixie: will you consistently use "Fix some typos or copypasta." from now on? |
| 07:32 | <annevk> | Hixie: could filter those from the tweets too maybe, although nobody has complained much |
| 07:42 | <annevk> | tantek: is there a catch somewhere? sounds too good to be true |
| 08:10 | <tantek> | annevk - which part? |
| 08:11 | <annevk> | tantek: opus |
| 08:17 | <tantek> | well we're not out of the woods yet. we still need to see Webkit/Chrome/Safari updates. |
| 08:40 | <annevk> | do other audio codecs have faster decoders/encoders by any chance? |
| 08:40 | <annevk> | article didn't mention that |
| 08:40 | <annevk> | or hardware support |
| 08:41 | <tantek> | well you can try the Firefox 15 beta on your Android and see how well it does: firefox.com/beta |
| 08:44 | <annevk> | heh |
| 11:12 | <ruby_on_tails> | data in localStorage is never deleted ? what happens if 500 sites use 5mb of it on my machine ? |
| 11:12 | <ruby_on_tails> | how does an average user clear it ? |
| 11:21 | <smaug____> | that is up to the UA |
| 11:24 | <Philip`> | An average user will have way more than 2.5GB of free disk space, so it won't be a problem |
| 11:30 | <ruby_on_tails> | but that doesnt sound good |
| 11:36 | <smaug____> | [OT] I hope we could get rid of localStorage. It is a horrible API. |
| 13:18 | <Yaffle> | Hello!!! |
| 13:19 | <Yaffle> | @annevk, XMLHttpRequest has 50ms delay for progress events, WHY??? |
| 13:34 | <annevk> | it's not a delay |
| 13:37 | <Yaffle> | delay or not, it is |
| 13:37 | <Yaffle> | why??? |
| 13:40 | <Yaffle> | what do "50ms" in the XMLHttpRequest2 spec??? it is a bug |
| 13:40 | <annevk> | it's just an interval |
| 13:40 | <Yaffle> | for what? |
| 13:40 | <annevk> | so that they don't fire too often |
| 13:40 | <Yaffle> | it is also a delay, |
| 13:40 | <Yaffle> | because |
| 13:40 | <Yaffle> | "50ms or for every byte transmitted, whichever is least frequent." |
| 13:41 | <Yaffle> | so, progress will not fire for every byte(s), but there are will be a delay |
| 13:41 | <annevk> | not sure what you're trying to say |
| 13:41 | <Yaffle> | why this delay is needed? |
| 13:42 | <Yaffle> | i need latency = 1ms, not 50 ms |
| 13:42 | <annevk> | you'll have to explain a bit more and preferably in form of an emali |
| 13:42 | <annevk> | email* |
| 13:43 | <Yaffle> | Opera, Chrome, Firefox updates "responseText" every 10-12 ms |
| 13:43 | <Yaffle> | Chrome, Firefox fires "readystatechange" for every responseText update |
| 13:43 | <Yaffle> | so, it is fired more often, then "progress" |
| 13:43 | <annevk> | well that's a bug in Chrome/Firefox |
| 13:44 | <annevk> | but we can fire progress more often I guess if people want that, you haven't really elaborated on why it's needed, please include that in the email |
| 13:44 | <Yaffle> | don't think so |
| 13:45 | <Yaffle> | i want "progress" events for every byte(s) received; for 50 ms interval, i can use setInterval(callback, 50) |
| 13:46 | <annevk> | well, want is not a use case |
| 13:47 | <annevk> | I'm going back to my weekend now, this is getting boring |
| 13:48 | <Yaffle> | i can fix spec myself |
| 13:48 | <Yaffle> | just give access |
| 13:48 | <Yaffle> | whatwg is LOL |
| 14:35 | Ms2ger | wonders if anybody has tried to implement a WebIDL array |
| 15:18 | <zewt> | annevk: try not to get trolled heh |
| 15:35 | <Hixie> | annevk: i thought i was still sending you "typo" and "xref"... my script is just expanding those for e-mail purposes, i think... did i screw up? |
| 15:37 | <zewt> | uh, why is a Chair hopping on webapps and saying "take this discussion elsewhere" |
| 15:37 | <zewt> | since when does that ever happen--don't recall ever seeing it before since I subscribed |
| 15:39 | <zewt> | ah he's probably the webappsec chair |
| 15:39 | <zewt> | and didn't notice that it's cc: webapps |
| 15:54 | <[tm]> | zewt: good example of why cross posting is bad |
| 15:59 | <zewt> | eh |
| 15:59 | <zewt> | sometimes multiple audiences are relevant to a discussion and expecting everyone on one list to subscribe to the other for one thread is unreasonable |
| 19:36 | <annevk> | Hixie: ah, I didn't realize those were different |
| 19:37 | <annevk> | zewt: have to give people a chance, but that was going nowhere |
| 19:38 | <zewt> | yeah, just the "stop talking" thing never really happens on webapps |
| 23:13 | <norbert_> | hey all |
| 23:13 | <norbert_> | I just read this: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/07/21/2040257/html5-splits-into-two-standards |
| 23:14 | <norbert_> | and I'm curious, is this something that recently happened? |
| 23:14 | <norbert_> | or is /. reporting old stuff, and this is basically what you wrote about in Jan. 2011 http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5 |
| 23:19 | <Philip`> | norbert_: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Jul/0119.html is probably the most relevant discussion of the new news |
| 23:20 | <norbert_> | thanks |
| 23:20 | <Philip`> | (I haven't actually read that, but I presume it's relevant...) |
| 23:21 | <Philip`> | Previously the W3C version of the spec was mostly a subset of the WHATWG version, generated from the same source and edited by the same editor, but now they're effectively two independent forks (the WHATWG one with the original editor, the W3C one looking for a new editor), as far as I'm aware |
| 23:44 | <norbert_> | maybe W3C and WHATWG can at least agree on some kind of canvas standard? |