| 05:25 | <zcorpan> | TabAtkins: specs choose their editors |
| 05:51 | <kennyluck> | TabAtkins, do you have a saved version of your test? http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/1724 gives me red too, on Chrome 23. |
| 09:22 | <jgraham> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2012Aug/0048.html |
| 09:23 | <jgraham> | So I guess that is one indication of who will be the HTML Technical Editor |
| 09:23 | <jgraham> | or whatever the W3C job title was |
| 09:24 | <jgraham> | s/will/could/ |
| 09:46 | <kennyluck> | jgraham, "so I have hope that we will meet again". If that's the W3C job, wouldn't the chance of meeting again be like s/I have hope that//? |
| 09:47 | <jgraham> | kennyluck: Perhaps, or perhaps it is understatement |
| 09:48 | <jgraham> | This is kind of pointless speculation ofc |
| 09:48 | <kennyluck> | *shrug* |
| 10:02 | <annevk> | jgraham: the stars say yes, but it's been a while since I checked |
| 10:03 | <darobin> | jgraham: it's speculation almost to the point of being kremlinology :) |
| 10:03 | <jgraham> | annevk: You use astrology to try and figure out the W3C? I guess it might be a unique case where it isn't less accurate than other methods… |
| 10:06 | <darobin> | kennyluck: or perhaps it is just that CoreMob doesn't meet at TPAC and other such regular gatherings that I usually attend (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Aug/0097.html) |
| 10:07 | <annevk> | darobin: still hoping for you to start that movie career one day |
| 10:08 | <darobin> | annevk: oh, I had no idea you wanted to get rid of me *that* bad |
| 10:08 | <annevk> | get rid of you? I want to see the output :) |
| 10:09 | <darobin> | aww sweet |
| 10:10 | <jgraham> | When you say "movie" are you thinking "arthouse French movie with lots of nudity"? |
| 10:10 | <darobin> | well hey, if jgraham's speculation is right, maybe I can just let the WHATWG work and spend the time writing a movie ;) |
| 10:10 | <darobin> | jgraham: why bother with arthouse? |
| 10:10 | <annevk> | jgraham: what are you implying? |
| 10:11 | <annevk> | darobin: easy money :) |
| 10:11 | <jgraham> | darobin: Is there such a thing as a non-arthouse French movie? |
| 10:11 | <annevk> | (and successfully done already, minus the movie, see e.g. P2P APIs) |
| 10:11 | <annevk> | jgraham: Taxi |
| 10:12 | <annevk> | jgraham: also Taxi 2 and Taxi 3 |
| 10:12 | <darobin> | jgraham: oh, yeah, plenty — Taxi is only the start of it |
| 10:12 | <annevk> | whoa, there's even Taxi 4 |
| 10:12 | <annevk> | not sure I've seen that |
| 10:12 | darobin | doesn't believe he was ever getting paid for anything to do with P2P APIs |
| 10:13 | <annevk> | Intouchables was an awesome recent French movie |
| 10:13 | <annevk> | darobin: I was referring to letting WHATWG do the work and then publish it elsewhere |
| 10:14 | <darobin> | I quite liked it, though I wouldn't go for awesome just yet — awesome acting though |
| 10:14 | <darobin> | annevk: yeah, but how useful is that if it doesn't involve profit ;-) |
| 10:14 | <annevk> | prolly got the W3C some extra Members |
| 10:14 | <annevk> | "we're doing P2P now! join us" |
| 10:15 | <annevk> | HTML5 put the W3C in the center of the developer community again too |
| 10:16 | <darobin> | ayup |
| 10:16 | <darobin> | that's why I was thinking about NextStand, to show what the steps after OpenStand are |
| 10:17 | <darobin> | but I'm not motivated enough to take it much beyond a tweet |
| 10:17 | <darobin> | annevk: how much of you will we be seeing around? |
| 10:17 | <annevk> | I was gonna reply with "WHATWG" but then Twitter failed me |
| 10:18 | <annevk> | seems like not much in the W3C environment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Aug/0028.html |
| 10:18 | <annevk> | now I'm not getting paid by any Members I don't really feel like giving in on stuff I believe in |
| 10:19 | <annevk> | but I'll give them some time to properly reply before doing anything drastic |
| 10:19 | <darobin> | WHATWG isn't where I would see NextStand just yet, though closer on a number of aspects for sure |
| 10:20 | <annevk> | not like I'm in a hurry |
| 10:20 | <darobin> | yeah I saw that post, I was just wondering in general |
| 10:28 | <annevk> | haha, where did marcosc say that? |
| 10:30 | <annevk> | ah found it |
| 10:31 | <annevk> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2012JulSep/0020.html |
| 15:24 | <Ms2ger> | TabAtkins, not here... |
| 15:24 | <Ms2ger> | (Re "our parsing is officially retarded.") |
| 15:37 | <dglazkov> | good morning, Whatwg! |
| 18:57 | <Hixie> | annevk? |
| 18:59 | <Ms2ger> | Doesn't look like it |
| 19:01 | <Hixie> | if i do a same-origin xhr that results in a redirect to another origin, does it always fail? |
| 19:01 | <Hixie> | oh, no, i see |
| 20:25 | <JonathanNeal> | Word. |
| 20:25 | <JonathanNeal> | TabAtkins: Did you catch my gist with the notes? |
| 21:24 | <wycats> | Has anyone given any thought to making it possible to indicate a list of supported events via WebIDL (other than via event handler IDL attributes)? |
| 21:35 | <jamesr> | wycats, what's your definition of supported? |
| 21:36 | <jamesr> | you can construct an event with any sort of name and dispatch it at any EventTarget in JS if you like |
| 23:03 | <wycats> | jamesr: but you can't say "this interface supports an event named foo" |
| 23:03 | <wycats> | which is actually a useful thing to be able to know |
| 23:05 | <Hixie> | what does that mean? |
| 23:05 | <jamesr> | what do you mean by "supports" ? |
| 23:06 | <jamesr> | it will do something in particular when given an event foo? |
| 23:06 | <jamesr> | or it will generate an event foo in some circumstance? |
| 23:10 | <Hixie> | and if the latter, which circumstance? |
| 23:56 | <JVoracek> |