04:17
<Hixie>
You are receiving this mail because:
04:17
<Hixie>
You are the assignee for the bug.
04:17
<Hixie>
You are watching the QA Contact of the bug.
04:17
<Hixie>
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.
04:17
<Hixie>
You are watching the reporter of the bug.
04:17
Hixie
. o O ( looks like I have all the bases covered )
04:45
<Hixie>
jgraham: feedback on https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16801 would be helpful
07:32
<kennyluck>
hi
09:35
<annevk>
GPHemsley: we do and that's not a reason to add more :-)
09:35
<annevk>
GPHemsley: in fact, for encodings we actively try to remove those from implementations to reduce complexity
09:35
<annevk>
GPHemsley: remove those that can be removed*
10:12
<asmodai>
So coming back to that Chrome / Sony website password saving, seems the HTML has autocomplete="off" which Chrome is honouring.
10:13
<asmodai>
And the other person used Opera which did save it, does that mean Opera's ignoring that part?
10:45
<Stevef>
FYI submitted patch to add <main> to webkit https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103172
11:57
<Ms2ger>
Oh wow
11:58
<Ms2ger>
select.options == select in IE?!
17:30
<GPHemsley>
annevk: My point is, the fact that we have "too many" is not a convincing enough argument. I want to know what the actual flaws in EOT are.
17:34
<Ms2ger>
GPHemsley, you need a stronger case to add a format to the web platform forever than just not seeing obvious flaws
17:35
<GPHemsley>
Ms2ger: EOT is supported by at least one browser and there is a number of content on the Web that uses it. I'm not seeing the distinction between this and many other things that were implemented.
17:36
<Ms2ger>
It's implemented by just one browser, and I haven't heard of pressure on other browsers to implement it
17:37
Philip`
thought EOT had dodgy patent issues (plus a pretty rubbish specification which consists largely of fragments of C code)
17:37
<GPHemsley>
Ms2ger: But is there not a substantial number of workarounds to serve EOT only to IE?
17:38
<Ms2ger>
Sorry?
17:38
<GPHemsley>
Philip`: Patent issues is one thing; specifications with mostly fragments of C code seem to be pretty common, unfortunately.
17:38
<Ms2ger>
If people serve EOT only to IE, there certainly is no case for other browsers to implement it
17:39
<GPHemsley>
Ms2ger: I know there's a font-face workaround for something about IE; I just don't remember what it is.
17:39
<Ms2ger>
I vaguely seem to remember old IEs didn't understand the format() thingy
17:39
<GPHemsley>
ah
17:40
<GPHemsley>
There's also the fact that EOT is mentioned in css3-fonts
17:40
<Ms2ger>
I hope you don't mind me saying that css3-fonts is quite the dodgy spec :)
17:41
<GPHemsley>
You are free to say whatever you want; I'm just gathering information. :)
17:41
<GPHemsley>
Ms2ger: But could you elaborate?
17:43
<Ms2ger>
Let's say I hope that http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Nov/0305.html isn't representative for the entire spec
17:44
Ms2ger
sees "Layout engines often convert base character plus combining character sequences into precomposed characters if they exist."
17:48
<GPHemsley>
so your main objection to the spec is that it doesn't actually say what UAs are *supposed to* do, it just says what they *sometimes* do?
17:49
<zewt>
(sounds like a description of some of the worst specs i've had to read)
17:51
<GPHemsley>
hmm... found this: http://novemberborn.net/2008/07/sifr3web-fonts-eot-140
17:52
<GPHemsley>
http://novemberborn.net/2008/07/sifr3web-fonts-eot-140#comment-1097 makes an argument against
17:54
<zewt>
neon green background hurts my eyes
17:59
<GPHemsley>
hmm... there seems to be very little input/discussion about CSS fonts in general
18:00
<GPHemsley>
there is a whole www-font mailing list that basically just gets John Daggett's CCs from www-style
18:04
<GPHemsley>
background on the patent issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2012JanMar/0013.html
18:07
<GPHemsley>
If anyone is considering registering a new media type, this may help: http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype
18:09
<GPHemsley>
wow, even the IETF mailing list archives are stuck in the past...
18:32
AryehGregor
seems to have misplaced his editing repo somehow, how did that happen?
18:32
<AryehGregor>
Oh, good, I have a github mirror.
18:33
<AryehGregor>
Yay for DVCS!
18:33
AryehGregor
doesn't know how the repo on his server vanished, though, WTF
18:36
AryehGregor
finds it
18:36
AryehGregor
has not touched this setup in six months and is very confused
18:37
<AryehGregor>
Oh, wow, I forgot how complicated it is to add a lousy test. Sigh!
18:37
AryehGregor
leaves it for tomorrow
18:38
<AryehGregor>
Ooh, and the spec is totally broken for this case. Yay!
22:00
<annevk>
AryehGregor: if you want github.com/whatwg/editing and editing.spec.whatwg.org, let me know
22:01
<annevk>
GPHemsley: basically, we want to support as few features as possible as every feature has quite a big cost
22:02
<annevk>
GPHemsley: since only Microsoft does EOT, just as with their old filters or VML, it's not really gonna happen and will save everyone a bunch of trouble figuring out how it works