| 00:17 | <annevk> | heycam: DataTransferItemList has a deleter, cannot find "indexed property setters" in specs that might use such a thing |
| 00:18 | <annevk> | heycam: cutting that might be good, in general it seems we should have a fresh look at APIs we define and in particular collection-like APIs |
| 00:18 | <annevk> | heycam: not exactly clearcut what we should do for those |
| 00:18 | <heycam> | yeah |
| 00:18 | <heycam> | I think deleters and creators are the real problem |
| 00:19 | <heycam> | because then you have to worry about sparse lists etc. |
| 00:19 | <heycam> | setters by themselves aren't so bad, except that without handling sparseness you're not going to be able to use the Array.prototype functions nicely anyway |
| 00:19 | <heycam> | I think it's strange that DataTransformItemList uses a deleter |
| 00:20 | <heycam> | it's kind of un-javascripty to remove the item and then shift all the other items over |
| 00:21 | <annevk> | not the first time Hixie has been accused of un-JavaScript-y APIs |
| 00:21 | <heycam> | heh |
| 00:21 | <heycam> | is that something that's been implemented yet? |
| 00:21 | <annevk> | doubt it |
| 00:21 | <annevk> | the whole drag & drop thing is full of interoperability holes still :/ |
| 00:21 | <heycam> | ok |
| 00:22 | <annevk> | I wonder if the HTML WG put it risk |
| 00:22 | <annevk> | anyway, bedtime |
| 00:22 | <heycam> | I'll file a bug to consider removing index setters/creators/deleters |
| 00:22 | <heycam> | gnight |
| 00:22 | <annevk> | cool |
| 00:22 | <annevk> | nn |
| 01:10 | <Hixie> | isn't being accused of making "un-JavaScript-y APIs" a compliment? :-) |
| 03:47 | <Krinkle> | Hm.. XHR and AJAX sound cool, but XML really isn't... Shouldn't XMLHttpRequest be renamed? |
| 03:48 | <zewt> | um. no |
| 03:48 | <Hixie> | it should, yes |
| 03:48 | <Hixie> | but it cannot |
| 03:48 | <Krinkle> | Especially given that it doesn't make an http request for... XML |
| 03:48 | <Hixie> | it's like 13 years too late to rename it |
| 03:48 | <Krinkle> | (or can, anyway) |
| 03:48 | <Krinkle> | aliases aren't hard |
| 03:48 | <Hixie> | it doesn't necessarily make HTTP requests only |
| 03:48 | <Hixie> | aliases are horrible, they just make things more complicated without adding features |
| 03:48 | <zewt> | adding new names for things don't reduce confusion |
| 03:48 | <Hixie> | which means more bugs, for no benefit |
| 03:49 | <zewt> | that's about as confused an idea as calling megabytes "mibibytes" |
| 03:49 | <Hixie> | (and it doesn't necessarily make requests, e.g. you can use it for uploads. It's just an entirely incorect name.) |
| 03:49 | <zewt> | but it's just a name, and one name is always better than two names :) |
| 03:51 | <Hixie> | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiFJWL83KaA talks in part (at some point) about how it got its name, btw |
| 03:51 | <Hixie> | short story: politics at microsoft |
| 03:51 | <Krinkle> | dl.domintro::before { display: table; |
| 03:51 | <Krinkle> | eh.. ? |
| 03:51 | <Krinkle> | lol |
| 03:51 | <zewt> | there have been much worse consequences of politics at microsoft |
| 03:51 | <Hixie> | true dat, true dat |
| 03:51 | <Krinkle> | sure |
| 03:52 | <zewt> | and as problems on the web go, what we call xhr is buried about five miles deep |
| 03:52 | <Krinkle> | right, display table because width-auto doesn't "work" |
| 03:53 | <Krinkle> | http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#domintro |
| 03:53 | <Krinkle> | http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#the-open()-method |
| 03:53 | <Hixie> | what i want is 'width:intrinsic' |
| 03:53 | <Hixie> | which dbaron defined like a decade ago |
| 03:53 | <Hixie> | but the csswg is glacial |
| 03:53 | <dbaron> | well, writing a spec for the keyword is easy |
| 03:53 | <dbaron> | the harder part is writing a spec for its behavior |
| 03:54 | <Hixie> | pretty sure i saw a definition for that too :-) |
| 03:57 | <Krinkle> | I've been trying to figure out the relationship between W3 and whatwg. Can someone maybe enlighten me in a nutshell? |
| 03:58 | <Krinkle> | It appears that the living standard by whatwg is transparently transferred as the working draft at W3 |
| 03:58 | <Hixie> | the relationship is complex and has many levels |
| 03:58 | <Hixie> | but as far as HTML goes, the short story is this: |
| 03:58 | <Krinkle> | I don't see any documents with state "Stable" or "Recommendation" at whatwg, only at W3. |
| 03:59 | <Hixie> | I write the spec as a WHATWG living standard, and the W3C comes behind, usually a few weeks behind, and copies and pastes what I do into their drafts |
| 03:59 | <Hixie> | then they make some changes to break it (IMHO, of course they probably think they're making it better) and then they publish it again on their site |
| 03:59 | <zewt> | read "recommendation" as "recommended if you want to implement something out of date" |
| 03:59 | <Hixie> | Krinkle: http://whatwg.org/html is as stable as it gets (unless you mean something different than i do by "stable") |
| 04:00 | <Hixie> | (by "stable" i mean "most likely to describe stuff that doesn't change in the future") |
| 04:00 | <Krinkle> | For example: |
| 04:00 | <Krinkle> | http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-treewalker |
| 04:00 | <Krinkle> | http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/#interface-treewalker |
| 04:00 | <Krinkle> | http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Traversal-Range/traversal.html#Traversal-TreeWalker |
| 04:01 | <zewt> | "treacherously retro" |
| 04:01 | <Hixie> | ah well as far as the DOM spec goes the story is different |
| 04:01 | <Hixie> | and I don't fully understand it |
| 04:04 | <Krinkle> | if I were a web browser implementor, what I would be looking for is "what version to implement" and "where are tests to confirm it works properly" (the latter I understand is a work in progress) |
| 04:05 | <Krinkle> | especially for the DOM, unit tests would be very nice. There's been some progress I saw lately but it appears mostly free-form and not automated or standardized. |
| 04:07 | <Krinkle> | e.g. a page I can point my browser too and have it execute all tests for the DOM (either by loading all at once, or loading in with progress thru ajax, navigating from one page to another automatically with an iframe etc.) e.g. with testrunner or qunit whatever etc. |
| 04:07 | <Krinkle> | I would be interested in helping development of this. Is there a plan / group of people actively working on this? |
| 04:08 | <Hixie> | for the DOM, browser vendors follow dom.spec.whatwg.org |
| 04:08 | <Hixie> | because it's the most likely to describe what they should implement |
| 04:08 | <Hixie> | for html, generally speaking (maybe not microsoft) they follow http://whatwg.org/html |
| 04:09 | <Hixie> | again because it's the one that's most likely to have the most bugs fixed |
| 04:09 | <Krinkle> | http://whatwg.org/html == http://html.spec.whatwg.org --> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ |
| 04:09 | <Hixie> | yup |
| 04:10 | <Hixie> | the latter is too long to type :-) |
| 04:10 | <Krinkle> | that url doesn't even contain "html" |
| 04:10 | <Hixie> | yeah, it predates the effort being called HTML |
| 04:10 | <Hixie> | back in 2004 when that URL was minted, there were two specs, Web Forms 2.0 and Web Apps 1.0, which eventually became together known as HTML5, and later just HTML |
| 04:10 | <Krinkle> | k |
| 04:11 | <Krinkle> | http://www.whatwg.org/specs/ looks weird O_O logo after title and a layout I haven't seen before |
| 04:12 | <Krinkle> | nice: http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/ |
| 04:12 | <Krinkle> | I imagine other urls will eventually transfer to *.spec.whatwg.org as well ? |
| 04:12 | <Hixie> | all but html. already are, i think |
| 04:12 | <Hixie> | and html. has a redirect |
| 04:12 | <Krinkle> | right |
| 04:13 | <Hixie> | moving the html spec is more work than it's worth, so i expect we'll stick to the redirect for the forseeable future |
| 04:14 | <Krinkle> | hm.. http://spec.whatwg.org/ is the same as http://www.whatwg.org/specs/ |
| 04:14 | <Hixie> | yup |
| 04:15 | <Hixie> | you can even go to http://spec.whatwg.org/web-apps/ :-) |
| 04:15 | <Krinkle> | oh |
| 04:16 | <Hixie> | i really should just make that a redirect, though, since reading the html spec there won't work (broken links, etc) |
| 04:17 | <Krinkle> | So regarding tests |
| 04:18 | <Hixie> | jgraham: ping for question about tests |
| 04:20 | <Krinkle> | Earlier this month I was working on a javascript implementation of DOM4 interface TreeWalker (https://github.com/Krinkle/dom-TreeWalker-polyfill) having had a test suite would've helped a lot. I ended up writing my own (and I actually found out a few bugs in the spec while at it, these have been fixed since, :) ) |
| 04:24 | <Krinkle> | Hixie: Looks like jgraham's been /away for a while (200+ horus) |
| 04:25 | <Hixie> | yeah, holidays |
| 04:26 | <Hixie> | ask again in a week or two :-) |
| 04:26 | <Krinkle> | k |
| 05:40 | <Hixie> | i don't understand what https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20051 means |
| 05:41 | <zewt> | nor does the person asking, i'd suspect |
| 05:42 | <Hixie> | i find more often than not they do and english just isn't their first language |
| 05:42 | <Hixie> | but unfortunately in the meantime i still don't understand what they're saying :-( |
| 05:42 | <Hixie> | (well more often than not they don't reply at all. but when they do...) |
| 11:05 | <annevk> | Krinkle|detached: there's tests here: http://w3c-test.org/webapps/DOMCore/tests/ |
| 11:05 | <annevk> | Krinkle|detached: Ms2ger is somewhat involved in that effort |
| 11:05 | annevk | doesn't really know what's going on |
| 21:41 | <Yuhong> | "break it (IMHO, of course they probably think they're making it better)" |
| 21:41 | <Yuhong> | Hixie: I think break it is an exaggeration. Last time I checked, most changes are editorial or other stuff that is unlikely to affect browsers. |
| 21:42 | <Yuhong> | Hixie: I do agree that versioning don't make sense even as a buzzword. |
| 21:43 | <Yuhong> | More on XMLHTTPRequest, BTW: http://www.alexhopmann.com/story-of-xmlhttp/ |
| 23:40 | <Yuhong> | "for html, generally speaking (maybe not microsoft) they follow http://whatwg.org/html"; |
| 23:42 | <Yuhong> | I wonder what a [MS-HTML5] documenting IE's deviations from W3C HTML 5.0 would look like. |