| 05:54 | <adlwalrus1> | Are the *all* of the "special-"/"control-" characters in HTML represented by the class [<!>"'=/&] ? |
| 17:41 | <GPHemsley> | annevk: So, does that mean there is no consensus on DOM0? Has there been any attempt to document existing behavior (rather than standardize to an ideal that hasn't been implemented)? Have there been any efforts to remove unused legacy items? |
| 17:50 | <GPHemsley> | Also, is (window.)navigator obsolete, or what? |
| 18:48 | <GPHemsley> | Hixie: Is the Navigator object (as documented in 7.5.1) intended to encourage modern continued usage? The non-legacy values (particular for appName and appVersion) seem to suggest so. |
| 18:48 | <GPHemsley> | 7.5.1.1 in particular |
| 18:57 | <GPHemsley> | Hixie: Trying to determine the appropriate action for this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61071 |
| 19:02 | <jgraham> | GPHemsley: There are other uses for navigator as well as the app* stuff |
| 19:02 | <jgraham> | e.g. geoloaction lives under navigator |
| 19:02 | <jgraham> | *geolocation |
| 19:02 | <GPHemsley> | jgraham: Yeah, that original question is obsolete now :P |
| 19:03 | <jgraham> | I don't think the spec makes a relative value judgement between the various options for those properties |
| 19:04 | <jgraham> | But I would be very reluctant to change the values myself |
| 19:04 | <jgraham> | It seems likely to cause breakage for no good reason |
| 19:04 | <GPHemsley> | Well, it would help if it made clear whether the implementation is only for legacy value, or if there is intention afoot to bring it back into modernity |
| 19:05 | <GPHemsley> | because the description of "a string representing the version of the browser in detail" does not match Firefox's current value for appVersion, which is also not "4.0" |
| 19:06 | <GPHemsley> | so, the way I'm reading the spec right now, Firefox is not in compliance with this section |
| 19:06 | <GPHemsley> | (full) |
| 19:07 | <GPHemsley> | in an unrelated question: where are the tests that the spec's section tags refer to, and why aren't they linked directly? |
| 19:09 | <GPHemsley> | while we're looking at this section, is there some sort of guideline for determining whether "the platform on which the browser is executing" is formatted properly? What if different browsers specify the same platform differently? |
| 20:40 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: not sure why we need consensus on DOM0 |
| 20:41 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: we just need to document the platform |
| 20:41 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: DOM0 is just some historical term to mean everything not in DOM and JavaScript at the time of writing (back in '98 or whatever) |
| 20:41 | <GPHemsley> | ok, wasn't clear on that |
| 20:41 | <GPHemsley> | (no docs ;)) |
| 20:42 | <GPHemsley> | annevk: feel free to answer all my other questions, though :P |
| 20:43 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: not sure what you mean with document existing behavior versus standardize an ideal |
| 20:43 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: do you have an example of the former and one of the latter? |
| 20:43 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: and we have removed plenty of stuff |
| 20:44 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: see various "remove" bugs filed on browsers (some by me) |
| 20:44 | <annevk> | Ms2ger fixed some for Gecko |
| 20:45 | <smaug____> | GPHemsley: no one is standardizing the ideal |
| 20:46 | <smaug____> | expect perhaps with new APIs |
| 20:46 | <GPHemsley> | annevk: I was just trying to clarify where DOM0 stood in the spectrum of specifications (since older specs tended to ignore the current behavior and standardize the ideal). |
| 20:46 | <GPHemsley> | I wasn't accusing anyone of anything :) |
| 20:46 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: DOM0 is not a spec |
| 20:46 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: and DOM1-3 are obsolete |
| 20:46 | <GPHemsley> | well, that was part of what I was clarifying ;) |
| 20:47 | <GPHemsley> | annevk: So, does DOM4 (and the other specs before it) spec the entirety of the DOM, or just subsets? |
| 20:48 | <GPHemsley> | I'm not clear on the line of succession |
| 20:48 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: it's prolly best to start from http://platform.html5.org and find out if you have a feature in a browser that's not covered by the specs mentioned there |
| 20:49 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ is pretty clear on what it replaces |
| 20:49 | <GPHemsley> | alright, nevermind all that |
| 20:49 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: what is left in limbo at the moment are UI Events |
| 20:49 | <GPHemsley> | my current questions right now are about Navigator |
| 20:49 | <annevk> | but we'll get to those eventually |
| 20:50 | <GPHemsley> | which is in the HTML spec |
| 20:50 | <GPHemsley> | well, actually, I have more questions |
| 20:51 | <GPHemsley> | are DOM1 and DOM0 mutually exclusive? |
| 20:51 | <GPHemsley> | as in, DOM0 + DOM1 + JS = state of the browser in '98? |
| 20:51 | <annevk> | spec != term, so yes |
| 20:52 | <annevk> | well + HTTP + HTML + CSS |
| 20:52 | <GPHemsley> | right |
| 20:52 | <GPHemsley> | ok |
| 20:52 | <GPHemsley> | so, was DOM0 documented somewhere? or just bits and pieces everywhere? |
| 20:53 | <annevk> | what do you mean by documented? |
| 20:53 | <annevk> | I don't really understand what you're trying to find out |
| 20:53 | <GPHemsley> | like, the way the HTML spec is now |
| 20:54 | <annevk> | I just told you there was no spec |
| 20:54 | <GPHemsley> | ok, so then I should take that as a "no"? |
| 20:54 | <annevk> | documented, most likely, in spec form, no |
| 20:54 | <GPHemsley> | ok |
| 20:54 | <GPHemsley> | so moving on to the Navigator object |
| 20:56 | <annevk> | what's in the spec now is in draft and somewhat contradictory |
| 20:56 | <GPHemsley> | oh? |
| 20:56 | <GPHemsley> | how so? |
| 20:57 | <annevk> | well can't ask for the version of the browser in detail and warn at the same time that could be used for profiling |
| 20:57 | <annevk> | none of that seems entirely finished to me, mostly because nobody has implemented this from the spec |
| 20:57 | <annevk> | the spec was written with the implementations in mind, but it hasn't been fed back into the implementations |
| 20:58 | <annevk> | at least as far as I know |
| 20:58 | <annevk> | anyway, I'm gonna get some sleep |
| 20:58 | <GPHemsley> | ah, ok |
| 20:58 | <GPHemsley> | which tests are used for the WHATWG version of the spec? |
| 20:59 | <GPHemsley> | the W3C ones? |