| 00:00 | <TabAtkins> | The styling leave something to be desired, but seems okay. |
| 00:01 | <Hixie> | yeah, too many lines |
| 00:01 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, and I think the yellow is too much. Just bolding would probably be enough. |
| 00:01 | <TabAtkins> | Also: whoops, forgot to never ever open up the Inspector on the single-page spec. |
| 00:02 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 00:02 | <Hixie> | i make that mistake regularly |
| 00:02 | <Hixie> | in dev builds it's not too bad |
| 00:02 | <Hixie> | it just doesn't do anything useful until you've done it three or four times |
| 00:02 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, plus my new machine helps out. |
| 00:02 | <TabAtkins> | Woo z620! |
| 00:02 | <Hixie> | i think i'll keep the yellow, for some of the other examples it's really necessary to have more than bold |
| 00:03 | <Hixie> | and it'd be weird to be inconsistent |
| 00:03 | <TabAtkins> | Could you slightly reduce the brightness, then? I don't like bright yellow against off-white backgrounds. |
| 00:03 | <Hixie> | yeah, could do that |
| 00:03 | <Hixie> | paste a hex code? |
| 00:04 | <TabAtkins> | Maybe #e6e600? |
| 00:05 | <TabAtkins> | hsl(60, 100%, 45%) |
| 00:05 | <Hixie> | reload? |
| 00:05 | <TabAtkins> | Ah, better! |
| 00:05 | <TabAtkins> | It's an ugly color, but it doesn't strain my eyes. |
| 00:07 | <Hixie> | hah |
| 00:07 | <Hixie> | yikes that is ugly |
| 00:07 | <Hixie> | i'll poke at it some more :-P |
| 00:09 | <Hixie> | how about http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/sections.html#usage-summary-0 ? |
| 00:09 | <Hixie> | too bright again? |
| 00:09 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah. It's just something about a light, bright color against gray or near-gray that causes eye-strain for me. |
| 00:10 | <TabAtkins> | I think it's because I can't clearly make out the boundary. |
| 00:10 | <Hixie> | oh i guess the examples _are_ gray, aren't they |
| 00:10 | <Hixie> | they're so light that i forget |
| 00:10 | <Hixie> | hmm |
| 00:10 | <TabAtkins> | Not a huge fan of it against white either, but I'm used to that. |
| 00:12 | <Hixie> | how about it now |
| 00:19 | <Hixie> | also, can we please make the right hand side of attribute selectors accept unquoted numbers |
| 00:19 | <TabAtkins> | Sigh, I've messed that up so often. |
| 00:19 | <Hixie> | glad it's not just me |
| 00:20 | <TabAtkins> | The colors are great, thanks. |
| 00:20 | <Hixie> | cool |
| 00:20 | <Hixie> | (every time, i spend minutes trying to work out what's wrong) |
| 00:20 | <Hixie> | reload for an attempt at cleaning up at least some of those lines |
| 00:20 | <Hixie> | wait |
| 00:20 | <Hixie> | not done yet |
| 00:20 | <TabAtkins> | Problem with accepting numbers, of course, is that it's not exact. <foo x=05> won't match foo[x=05] |
| 00:20 | Hixie | twiddles thumbs |
| 00:20 | <Hixie> | yeah, maybe if it's numbers = should do a numeric comparison |
| 00:21 | <Hixie> | i proposed <= >= < > and so on years ago |
| 00:21 | <Hixie> | [rowspan>5] |
| 00:21 | <TabAtkins> | Makes sense to me. |
| 00:21 | <Hixie> | ok reload now |
| 00:21 | <Hixie> | http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#usage-summary-0 |
| 00:21 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, better. |
| 00:21 | <Hixie> | cool. |
| 00:21 | <Hixie> | ok |
| 00:21 | <Hixie> | well |
| 00:22 | <Hixie> | that was an entire afternoon spent on one editorial bug that asked for something slightly different than what i provided, so clearly my time was well spent here |
| 00:22 | <Hixie> | home! |
| 00:22 | <Hixie> | bbl |
| 02:53 | <Hixie> | cabanier: canvas has always used web idl, ever since, in fact since before, web idl existed... |
| 02:53 | <Hixie> | cabanier: (as has the rest of HTML, since it's just one spec really) |
| 02:54 | <cabanier> | hixie: I agree |
| 02:54 | <Hixie> | what i just says contradicts what you said in http://www.w3.org/mid/83F37C1A4497B54589EAEDC750D03A9473B4B551⊙ncac |
| 02:55 | <cabanier> | hixie: I just didn't see any bug on the recent changes |
| 02:55 | <cabanier> | hixie: oops |
| 02:55 | <Hixie> | :-) |
| 02:55 | <cabanier> | hixie: yeah. the spec always referred to webIDL |
| 02:56 | <cabanier> | hixie: I should have proofread that email |
| 03:00 | <cabanier> | hixie: If that is so, were there bugs logged on WebIDL or did you just fix the interface? |
| 03:00 | <Hixie> | how do you mean? |
| 03:01 | <cabanier> | the old interface didn't match the behavior so you fixed it so it does. |
| 03:01 | <cabanier> | was that in response to a bug report? |
| 03:01 | <cabanier> | It's not in the change log... |
| 03:01 | <Hixie> | either a bug report, an e-mail, me seeing it while going through the spec proofreading, or any number of other things |
| 03:01 | <cabanier> | :-) |
| 03:01 | <Hixie> | which revision in particular are you talking about? |
| 03:02 | <cabanier> | http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps@7129 340c8d12-0b0e-0410-8428-c7bf67bfef74 |
| 03:02 | <Hixie> | oh ages ago |
| 03:02 | <cabanier> | June 11: [giow] (2) Update to take into account WebIDL's 'double' vs 'unrestricted double' change. |
| 03:03 | <Hixie> | probably just did that because i saw an e-mail go by about the changes to webidl |
| 03:05 | <cabanier> | OK. I sent out a correction. |
| 03:05 | <cabanier> | thanks for letting me know! |
| 03:06 | <Hixie> | no worries, just got confused :-) |
| 03:14 | SamB_MacG5 | wonders why the CSSWG can't manage to style their ToC links like links |
| 03:15 | <Hixie> | i imagine they don't want to |
| 03:16 | <SamB_MacG5> | is it spite? |
| 03:16 | <Hixie> | unlikely |
| 03:16 | <Hixie> | probably just a different sense of aesthetics |
| 03:17 | SamB_MacG5 | continues to believe it is done to confuse him |
| 03:18 | SamB_MacG5 | sorta wishes there was a way to specify userstyle based on what stylesheets a document used ... |
| 03:20 | SamB_MacG5 | would make one to override http://dev.w3.org/csswg/default.css |
| 03:49 | <Hixie> | jgraham: dude, you need to indent your test cases. :-P (e.g. http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=1562 ) |
| 06:36 | <zcorpan> | TabAtkins: apparently ed isn't on board, at least |
| 06:51 | <annevk> | oh lol, whether the ? or # is included matters for the terminology? |
| 06:51 | <hsivonen> | annevk: thanks. email sent to www-style about window.screen |
| 07:12 | <zcorpan> | annevk: why call it .isInvalid rather than simply .valid or .invalid (depending on which case is more likely to check for truthness in an if statement)? |
| 07:13 | <annevk> | But Klaasen, the Dutch national coordinator for counterterrorism and security: "Why can’t I trust people?" |
| 07:13 | <annevk> | hahahaha |
| 07:13 | <zcorpan> | (i'd think .valid since it seems more useful to do stuff with a valid url than with an invalid one) |
| 07:13 | <annevk> | -- http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/proposed-eu-plan-to-stop-terrorist-sites-even-more-ridiculous-than-thought/ |
| 07:14 | <annevk> | mkay |
| 07:14 | <annevk> | looks like ValidityState has that too |
| 07:14 | <zcorpan> | ah yeah |
| 07:15 | <annevk> | zcorpan: you have the same nick on github? |
| 07:15 | <zcorpan> | yes |
| 07:18 | <annevk> | zewt: I think I'm going to leave relative URLs to libraries for now (in the manner you proposed on the list) |
| 07:18 | <annevk> | zewt: afaict there's no native code in browsers for those things at the moment |
| 07:33 | <annevk> | tantek: basically, I considered aligning the terminology with the API, but kept them different for now since a) names as scheme/query/fragment are quite widespread and understood (I think) and b) it makes it somewhat clearer there's an API on top of some internal concepts |
| 07:34 | <annevk> | tantek: this is in particular true for "scheme", which is the name exclusively used when defining new types of URLs |
| 07:42 | <zcorpan> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JulSep/0835.html looks like an excellent example of how we want people to go about proposing a new feature |
| 07:45 | <zcorpan> | (asking people to come up with a solution and detailed processing model as in http://blog.whatwg.org/proposing-features has proven to be unhelpful for the forums since it makes people focus on a particular solution instead of focusing on use cases and requirements) |
| 07:50 | <annevk> | write an updated blog post ;) |
| 07:50 | <annevk> | and maybe update the FAQ |
| 07:54 | <zcorpan> | i edited http://forums.whatwg.org/bb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=41&p=159 |
| 07:54 | <zcorpan> | but maybe the faq should say that directly and the forums post just point to the faq |
| 07:55 | <zcorpan> | for the faq, the step discussing with implementors i think puts people off and isn't really a requirement |
| 07:55 | <zcorpan> | i mean, not as a first step |
| 07:56 | <zcorpan> | i think step one should be "forget about your solution" :-P |
| 07:58 | <annevk> | yeah, I think you're right |
| 07:58 | <annevk> | the people typically directed to these things just need to know it's about "use cases" |
| 08:51 | <zcorpan> | i edited http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F to what i think works better in practice |
| 09:25 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: with the frameset change, don't you need to apply display:block on the frameset element? |
| 10:05 | <jgraham> | http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/constraints/web/ccss-uwtr.pdf is mildly interesting is something of a historical curio at this point |
| 10:05 | <jgraham> | *if something |
| 10:25 | <zcorpan> | hmm, document.all is undefined in standards mode in webkit now? |
| 11:37 | <zcorpan> | will "why can't i trust people" be the next meme? |
| 14:04 | <zcorpan> | [tm]: you know the status of the publishing in html wg? |
| 14:07 | <SamB_MacG5> | zcorpan: how are you checking for document.all ? |
| 14:08 | <SamB_MacG5> | you know that it's specified to pretend to be undefined, right? |
| 14:08 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: I heard that [tm] is unavaliable |
| 14:09 | <jgraham> | Maybe ask plh |
| 14:10 | <zcorpan> | SamB_MacG5: yeah i know. i got an exception when using it and removing the doctype made it work, but now when i test again it works in standards mode. dunno what happened last time |
| 14:11 | <SamB_MacG5> | typo or something? |
| 14:11 | <zcorpan> | SamB_MacG5: the test i had was http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=1801 |
| 14:11 | <Ms2ger> | zcorpan, throws in Gecko, as expected |
| 14:11 | <zcorpan> | (it saying 'undefined' in the log means document.all is available; it saying an exception was thrown means it wasn't) |
| 14:12 | <zcorpan> | (opera returns the param) |
| 14:12 | <SamB_MacG5> | ah |
| 14:12 | <zcorpan> | maybe i looked at firefox and thought i was looking at chrome? dunno :-) |
| 14:13 | <SamB_MacG5> | yeah, that's throwing in TenFourFox for me as well |
| 14:13 | <zcorpan> | browsers look much the same these days |
| 14:16 | SamB_MacG5 | is a *bit* surprised that Gecko conditionalizes document.all on standards mode |
| 14:17 | <Ms2ger> | It's terrible, terrible code |
| 14:17 | <SamB_MacG5> | what does this "rendering mode: CSS1Compat" part mean? |
| 14:18 | <Ms2ger> | No quirks/limited quirks mode |
| 14:18 | <Ms2ger> | Also known as standards/almost standards |
| 14:18 | <zcorpan> | SamB_MacG5: http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-document-compatmode |
| 14:19 | <zcorpan> | Ms2ger: any change you're gonna make document.all available in standards mode? :-) |
| 14:19 | <Ms2ger> | No :) |
| 14:19 | SamB_MacG5 | sees it in both Safari (WebKit 534.49.0) and TenFourFox 15 |
| 14:20 | <Ms2ger> | zcorpan, we are planning to make doc.all emulate undefined rather than the mess we have now, though |
| 14:20 | SamB_MacG5 | wonders how you're *supposed* to find out what version of WebKit Safari is using |
| 14:20 | <zcorpan> | Ms2ger: what does that mean? |
| 14:21 | <jgraham> | SamB_MacG5: Never, ever ask about how document.all works in Gecko. Trust me on this. |
| 14:21 | <SamB_MacG5> | okay |
| 14:22 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, indeed so :) |
| 14:22 | <jgraham> | It's not so much "here be dragons" as "here be dragons guarding a minefield around a black hole" |
| 14:24 | <Ms2ger> | Try http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/1803 for example |
| 14:26 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: ok, i'll email plh |
| 14:54 | <jgraham> | Hixie: Browsers need to work out that I am editing mixed javascript/html and give me a keybinding that indents nicely, like tab in emacs (except that doesn't work so well in mixed documents) |
| 15:55 | <Ms2ger> | krijnh, still not updating |
| 15:56 | odinho | pats his ~/irclogs folder |
| 16:05 | <Ms2ger> | zewt++ |
| 16:48 | <Hixie> | zcorpan_: thanks for updating the faq, that's way better |
| 16:49 | <zcorpan_> | Hixie: cool, thanks |
| 16:49 | <Hixie> | zcorpan_: i might change it to say that you can stop after sending the use cases to the list, since at that point if the use cases are good it'll get added regardless, and if they're bad it doesn't matter how good the solutions are |
| 16:49 | <Hixie> | zcorpan_: and some people get attached to their solutions and get upset when others are picked |
| 16:50 | <zcorpan_> | Hixie: yeah i considered the same thing |
| 16:50 | <Hixie> | see also the bottom section of http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/What_you_can_do |
| 19:44 | <Hixie> | abarth: do you know what https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85778 was about and whether i resolved it? |
| 19:44 | <Hixie> | abarth: i don't see e-mail pending on the topic |
| 20:05 | <krijnh> | Ms2ger: sorry, missed a line :/ Should be fixed now and auto-update again |
| 20:05 | <abarth> | Hixie: we had a thread about it on whatwg |
| 20:05 | <Ms2ger> | Yay :) |
| 20:05 | <abarth> | Hixie: i think we decided to put the requirement in the CSP spec rather than the HTML spec |
| 20:07 | <abarth> | Hixie: May 7 |
| 20:07 | <abarth> | Subject: <iframe srcdoc> and Content-Security-Policy |
| 20:07 | <abarth> | on june 22 you said "Fair enough. I think this belongs in the CSP spec, though." |
| 20:28 | SamB_MacG5 | wonders wtf happened to the "media" tab in tenfourfox's "Page Info" window |
| 20:28 | SamB_MacG5 | thinks maybe tenfourfox needs a restart or something ... |
| 21:16 | <Hixie> | abarth: k, so i don't have to do anything here? |
| 21:16 | <abarth> | correct |
| 21:16 | <Hixie> | excellent |
| 22:54 | <zewt> | why am I being postincremented |
| 22:54 | <zewt> | do I look like an lvalue |
| 22:58 | <TabAtkins> | ...yes? |
| 23:01 | <zewt> | Hixie: you must know that nothing will stop programmers from offering solutions to problems; it's sort of in our nature :) |
| 23:02 | <Hixie> | and nothing will force me to pay attention to them :-P |
| 23:02 | <Hixie> | (at least not until the problem has been established) |
| 23:52 | <annevk> | what's the deal with using @w3c.org? my filters use @w3.org :/ |