| 01:48 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: Julian's site, maybe? |
| 01:48 | <MikeSmith> | are they Content-Location header tests? |
| 03:10 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: I think it's sad that people in the HTML WG have to waste time responding to the question about whether Microdata should be normative or not |
| 03:10 | <MikeSmith> | you might just as well be making them vote on whether the HTML5 spec itself should be normative or not |
| 03:11 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: on the one hand, I wish we just had consensus going in on that question, but on the other hand, I prefer to have it be a clear WG decision than to face a formal objection to a purely chair decision |
| 03:11 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: but I see your point |
| 03:11 | <MikeSmith> | and I see your point from your perspective as chair |
| 03:12 | <othermaciej> | looks like there is a reasonably clear trend in answers so far |
| 03:12 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 03:12 | <othermaciej> | we will also have to do the same process for polyglot and alt-techniques, which may be even more controversial |
| 03:13 | <othermaciej> | (and which are less of a slam dunk because there's no implementation impact) |
| 03:14 | <MikeSmith> | yeah those are very different cases from the Microdata case and I think those merit having people in the group take time to respond |
| 03:17 | <MikeSmith> | btw I think along with the difference about implementation impact the reason Microdata is different is that Microdata was a part of the HTML spec, and the spec itself is obviously normative so the Microdata spec is also normative |
| 03:17 | <MikeSmith> | it was never split out for the purposes of making its normativity a question to discuss |
| 03:17 | <MikeSmith> | any more than Web Storage or whatever |
| 03:17 | <MikeSmith> | anything else that was split out |
| 03:19 | <MikeSmith> | but anyway |
| 03:21 | <tantek> | where's the survey? |
| 03:22 | <MikeSmith> | hey tantek |
| 03:22 | <MikeSmith> | survey is at othermaciej: in other news I hope it's not considered an abuse if I write a |
| 03:22 | <MikeSmith> | oops |
| 03:22 | <tantek> | I do wonder, if an "HTML microformats" draft also made its way to HTMLWG - would the same sets of folks be for / against it being "normative" |
| 03:22 | <MikeSmith> | wrong paste |
| 03:22 | <MikeSmith> | https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/microdata-status-preference-poll/results |
| 03:22 | <MikeSmith> | tantek: dunno |
| 03:23 | <MikeSmith> | that would be a very different question |
| 03:23 | <tantek> | or would microdata advocates suddenly switch to the "but we already have a way" attitude |
| 03:23 | <MikeSmith> | ah |
| 03:23 | <MikeSmith> | I see what you're saying |
| 03:23 | <tantek> | is it a question of multiple approaches vs. one and only one approach |
| 03:23 | <MikeSmith> | no I don't think the microdata advocates would do that |
| 03:23 | <tantek> | or is it a question of team A vs. team B |
| 03:23 | <MikeSmith> | none of the above |
| 03:23 | <tantek> | and thus both would oppose a team C. |
| 03:24 | <tantek> | well, I tend to prefer specing multiple approaches and letting web authors etc. decide |
| 03:24 | <MikeSmith> | it's a question of one person trying to abuse the process vs a bunch of other people who don't feel that strongly about microdata but are being compelled to state the obvious |
| 03:26 | <othermaciej> | tantek: I doubt microdata advocates would object to a microformats spec on principle |
| 03:26 | <othermaciej> | there was no serious attempt to block HTML+RDFa |
| 03:27 | <tantek> | othermaciej but HTML+RDFa is not really competitive with microdata in the market place of authorship (web authors have pretty much ignored HTML+RDFa) |
| 03:27 | <tantek> | OTOH, microformats (still) has quite a bit of momentum with authors |
| 03:27 | <tantek> | it's easy to not have to block something that's not a "threat" |
| 03:27 | <tantek> | or heck, even makes your preferred technology look better in comparison ;) |
| 03:28 | <othermaciej> | from what I've seen, folks who are down with microdata usually see microformats as a complement and sometimes even see microdata as a potential tool for building specific microformats |
| 03:29 | <tantek> | othermaciej - yes, my experience matches that as well, now that you mention it |
| 03:29 | <tantek> | and in fact, we've worked hard with microformats2 to separate the syntax and vocabulary so you could, say, use microformats2 vocabularies with microdata syntax for example (if that's your preference). |
| 03:30 | <tantek> | ok that makes much more sense, as technologies are designed to be more complementary, there's more complementary support (from the people involved). |
| 03:34 | <tantek> | survey answered with rationale: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/microdata-status-preference-poll/results? |
| 03:34 | <tantek> | Thanks for the heads-up MikeSmith, othermaciej |
| 03:34 | <MikeSmith> | hai |
| 03:37 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: so I was going to say I hope it's not considered an abuse if I speculatively attach to a bug a WebKit mac-platform-specific layout test without actually running the test in my environment |
| 03:37 | <MikeSmith> | for the purpose of un-failing the mac-ews bot |
| 03:38 | <MikeSmith> | the problem I am having is that I have a chromium build enviornment and my test works in that environment and with the chromium-ews bot |
| 03:38 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: nothing wrong with using the ews bots for testing, though if the patch is not meant to be reviewed as-is, it would probably be nicer to not flag it and manually submit to ews |
| 03:40 | <MikeSmith> | I can't actually submit it to ews myself I don't think. I don't have the perms, do I? I'm not a committer |
| 03:41 | <othermaciej> | well I can help you out if that turns out to be an issue |
| 03:41 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 03:42 | <MikeSmith> | anyway the test I wrote passes in my environment and the chromium-ews bot but fails for mac because apparently chromium exposes different AX landmark information to the AT layer than mac does |
| 03:43 | <othermaciej> | I think ax tests regrettably require platform-specific results |
| 03:44 | <MikeSmith> | OK so I'm realizing that nobody seems to actually care much what chromium ax does, but they do care what mac does, and that's what most all of the existing ax layout tests are checking |
| 03:44 | <MikeSmith> | anyway I think I know how to fix it now |
| 03:45 | <MikeSmith> | after having gotten some guidance from Chris Fleizach and James Craig |
| 03:46 | <othermaciej> | great |
| 03:47 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: as far as the plaform differences, yeah I know. But it seems like the chromium behavior on OSX should be made to match the mac behavior. There's no good reason for it to be different. |
| 03:47 | <MikeSmith> | but I know that's not your problem to solve |
| 03:47 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: you're probably right that chromium-mac should match mac, but I thought the chromium-ewe bot ran on linux |
| 03:48 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 05:21 | <ginger> | MikeSmith: it may well be a Chromium bug! |
| 05:26 | <MikeSmith> | ginger: the specific thing is that mac exposes the landmark as AXSubrole and just AXGroup for AXRole; e.g., AXRole: "AXGroup", AXSubrole: "AXLandmarkMain" |
| 05:27 | <MikeSmith> | but in my environment testing with chromium DRT, it exposes the landmark as AXRole and nothing for AXSubrole |
| 05:28 | <MikeSmith> | ginger: see the main-element-expected.txt contents at https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=182695&action=review |
| 05:31 | <MikeSmith> | hmm but another thing is, I think if I run Accessibility Inspector on the actual Chromium binary, for the same test case, what it exposes the same thing that mac does |
| 05:31 | <MikeSmith> | the right thing |
| 05:31 | <MikeSmith> | the landmark as AXSubrole and just AXGroup for AXRole |
| 05:32 | <jamesr> | MikeSmith, have a WebKit bug? i can add folks who are knowledgable (and care) about AX stuff on the chromium team |
| 05:32 | <MikeSmith> | it makes no sense for the DRT behavior to be different from the Chromium behavior |
| 05:33 | <jamesr> | i don't personally know much about that area |
| 05:33 | <MikeSmith> | jamesr: thanks -- bug is https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103172 |
| 05:34 | <MikeSmith> | the test uses this thing window.accessibilityController |
| 05:34 | <jamesr> | oh hmm, they're already cc'd |
| 05:34 | <MikeSmith> | ah OK |
| 05:34 | <jamesr> | and that patch bug isn't (obviously) related to AX roles |
| 05:34 | <jamesr> | seems to be a feature? |
| 05:34 | <jamesr> | and it's passing on the cr-linux EWS bot? |
| 05:35 | <MikeSmith> | jamesr: yeah, for adding a <main> element |
| 05:35 | <jamesr> | MikeSmith, well like i said - not my area. Dominic Mazzoni (dmazzoni) and Alice Boxhall (aboxhall) are your contacts for chromium AX questions |
| 05:35 | <MikeSmith> | needs and accessibility layout test to land |
| 05:35 | <jamesr> | i'm not going to spend time on <main> of all things |
| 05:35 | <MikeSmith> | ok, thanks again |
| 05:35 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 05:36 | <annevk> | beautiful tweet MikeSmith |
| 05:36 | <MikeSmith> | jamesr: I would not spend any time on it either if I could get somebody else to do it instead |
| 05:37 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: you read Chinese now? |
| 05:37 | <MikeSmith> | you'Re making progress, grasshopper |
| 05:37 | <MikeSmith> | soon it will be time for you to walk the rice paper without leaving any footprints |
| 05:37 | <jamesr> | google translate has fun with it, at least |
| 05:37 | <jamesr> | "The speed of light is modified around the the symmetric fusion field of biophysics hidden truth of the universe. The W3C to destroy Judah because he accidentally discovered these secrets. Web browser development team used to conceal the truth about the Holy Spirit pendulum optical universe is HyperNet. The rules for encryption of the time, in the Ogg Theora video codec. As eight legs scorpion eight notes in an octave" |
| 05:37 | <MikeSmith> | but first you much snatch these pebbles from my hand |
| 05:38 | <jamesr> | which sounds like a relatively normal post to one of the W3C's security lists |
| 05:38 | <MikeSmith> | hahaha |
| 05:38 | <MikeSmith> | lol |
| 05:41 | <MikeSmith> | jamesr: I think I will submit that as my official response for this HTML WG poll about whether the Microdata spec should be normative or not |
| 05:43 | <jamesr> | MikeSmith, R=me if you submit the google translated version |
| 05:43 | <jamesr> | i really like "As eight legs scorpion eight notes in an octave" |
| 05:45 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: unfortunately I could only judge what Google Translate offered |
| 05:46 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: but one day I will snatch those pebbles from your hand anyway and walk the rice paper without trace |
| 05:55 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: I am sure you will |
| 05:56 | <MikeSmith> | jamesr: I can see you are man of philosophy |
| 06:01 | <MikeSmith> | ginger: so the test I made is using window.accessibilityController with DRT and that's what is showing AXRole: AXLandmarkMain. So if running Accessibility Inspector with the actuall Chromium binary sees something different than that (as it seems to be), then I guess that means there's something wrong with Chromium window.accessibilityController that causes it to not be showing what it should be showing |
| 07:18 | <stevefaulkner> | MikeSmith: re layout test issue, I will ping dominic mazzoni |
| 07:20 | <MikeSmith> | stevefaulkner: thanks |
| 07:21 | <MikeSmith> | it's not blocking main, because I'm just going to drop the chromium test and have only a mac-platform ax test |
| 07:22 | <MikeSmith> | for this patch the mac platform test is the only one anybody was asking for |
| 07:23 | <MikeSmith> | but outside of that I would really like to know why my test is passing with the test runner but the actual browser exposes something different than what my test does |
| 07:24 | <stevefaulkner> | MikeSmith: OK, have mailed dominic ccd you |
| 07:24 | <MikeSmith> | thnaks |
| 07:26 | <stevefaulkner> | MikeSmith: re micro data, its not a big ask to answer the survey |
| 07:26 | <stevefaulkner> | and if it helps us move on then worth it |
| 08:11 | <stevefaulkner> | MikeSmith: check you email, dominic responded in detail |
| 08:11 | <stevefaulkner> | oh you already did :-) |
| 08:12 | <MikeSmith> | yp |
| 08:12 | <MikeSmith> | thanks again man |
| 08:12 | <MikeSmith> | Dominic's explanation was very helpfull |
| 09:32 | <hsivonen> | whoa, whoa! Someone has used the Schematron custom schema feature of Validator.nu! |
| 10:36 | <hsivonen> | sent comments to yet another W3C mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/ |
| 10:41 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: wow who's using that Schematron part? |
| 10:41 | <MikeSmith> | oh ITS? |
| 10:53 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: dunno who is using it. (I don’t log that kind of stuff.) |
| 11:03 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: I bet you a million dollars it was probably Jirka testing something |
| 11:04 | Ms2ger | uses the Schematron part |
| 11:04 | <Ms2ger> | MikeSmith, time to pay up :) |
| 11:04 | <MikeSmith> | I think there are maybe 25 people in the whole world who have ever written a Schematron schema |
| 11:04 | <MikeSmith> | damn |
| 11:04 | <MikeSmith> | Ms2ger: Norm, you finally gave yourself away, man |
| 11:04 | <Ms2ger> | Oh crap |
| 11:04 | <MikeSmith> | you had me tricked for a long tiem |
| 11:05 | <MikeSmith> | ladies and gents, let me introduce you to my good friend Norm Walsh aka Ms2ger |
| 11:06 | <MikeSmith> | Ms2ger: seriously you got to be kidding me |
| 11:06 | <Ms2ger> | MikeSmith, don't you think it was the perfect guise? |
| 11:06 | <MikeSmith> | oh you are |
| 11:06 | <MikeSmith> | it was |
| 11:07 | <MikeSmith> | up til now I was sure you were Larry Masinter |
| 11:07 | <Ms2ger> | Excuse me?! |
| 11:07 | <MikeSmith> | damn |
| 11:08 | <MikeSmith> | that's exacty what Larry would say! |
| 11:08 | <MikeSmith> | just like that |
| 11:08 | <MikeSmith> | with the "?!" |
| 11:08 | <MikeSmith> | in fact he has actualy seriously said "Excuse me?!" to me like that |
| 11:09 | <MikeSmith> | so now you have me confused |
| 11:10 | <Ms2ger> | Eggcelent |
| 11:11 | <MikeSmith> | Ms2ger: so perhaps what it is instead is, your "Ms2ger" is actually multiple people using the same nick, as back when you were doing that same kind of thing with your "Mr Last Week in HTML5" blog posts |
| 11:12 | <Ms2ger> | If that's what floats your boat, my dear |
| 11:12 | <MikeSmith> | Ms2ger: oh man your true persona is finally emerging |
| 11:13 | <MikeSmith> | you must feel freer now, like a great weight has been lifted |
| 11:13 | <hsivonen> | hmm. the descriptive text at http://thebjoernhoehrmannproject.org/ has changed |
| 11:13 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: I blame Ms2ger. |
| 11:13 | <smaug____> | Hmm, something is not quite right when reviewing patches which implement something from the spec by far the most of the time goes to trying to understand what the spec says |
| 11:13 | <Ms2ger> | MikeSmith, don't get Bj�rn involved! |
| 11:14 | <hsivonen> | smaug____: I had that happen to me today when reviewing the ITS patches for V.nu |
| 11:14 | <MikeSmith> | smaug____: that could never be true with the HTML spec |
| 11:14 | <MikeSmith> | Ms2ger: ok, Björn |
| 11:17 | <MikeSmith> | smaug____: if you have a problem following implementing something in the HTML spec, it is axiomatic that the reason is, you're not thinking hard enough. Or not rightly. You must think as the spec does. You must *become* the spec. You must become _palpable_. |
| 11:19 | <MikeSmith> | Ms2ger: for the record, Norm Walsh is a god. Or at least a demi-god. |
| 11:19 | <smaug____> | yeah, obviously I'm the problem |
| 11:19 | <MikeSmith> | smaug____: now you're learning |
| 11:19 | <Ms2ger> | Clearly the spec was not written for dragons |
| 11:20 | <MikeSmith> | Larry is a good too. Just a different kind |
| 11:20 | <MikeSmith> | it's like Loki and Thor |
| 11:21 | <MikeSmith> | I wrote a lot of XSLT but pretty much everything I know about XSLT I learned from reading Norm's XSLT code for the DocBook stylesheets |
| 11:22 | <MikeSmith> | just as I learned Java from reading Henri's validator code |
| 11:23 | <Ms2ger> | Just don't ever learn C++ from any code of mine |
| 11:23 | <MikeSmith> | damn |
| 11:23 | <MikeSmith> | too late |
| 11:24 | <MikeSmith> | that's been my strategy |
| 11:26 | <MikeSmith> | btw I like how Bjarne Stroustrup says the "++" in the name of the language represents all the extra bloat that he/they added due to lack of ability/will to tell people No when they asked for features to be added to it |
| 11:26 | <MikeSmith> | a la SVG |
| 11:27 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie aat least is great about saying No |
| 11:29 | <MikeSmith> | smaug____: anyway for extra enlightenment you should try implemeenting the outline-algorithm in the spe, an elaborate part of which is something that ends up being a noop when you go to implement it |
| 11:30 | <MikeSmith> | and when you go to write the code, you scratch your head and say, there's no way Hixie would take a bunch of time to write in this complicated thing that's really just a noop, so I guess I must be doing something wrong |
| 11:32 | <MikeSmith> | and then two hours later after going over it with a fine-tooth comb, you figure out, No, the whole complicated thing really is just a noop |
| 11:33 | <smaug____> | :) |
| 11:39 | <Stevef> | why isn't <title> content taken into account in the outline algorithm? |
| 11:43 | <MikeSmith> | Stevef: dunno. I've never thought about it. But yeah it seems reasonable that it should be |
| 11:44 | <MikeSmith> | btw gsnedders implementation of the outline algorithm actually takes alt text for images into account |
| 11:45 | <MikeSmith> | for the case where you have like <h1><img alt="My Website!! src=foo.png></h1> |
| 11:58 | <Stevef> | cool, not in the validator oultine? |
| 11:59 | <MikeSmith> | Stevef: no, because it's not required by the spec |
| 11:59 | <MikeSmith> | still it seems like a good refinement |
| 11:59 | <Stevef> | that seems like a bug in spec |
| 12:00 | <MikeSmith> | perhaps so |
| 12:01 | <Stevef> | if the outline algorithm actually gets implemnted anywhere it matters then... |
| 12:04 | <MikeSmith> | if anybody cared enough to propose a feature for automatically including a generated TOC in a document, then it would matter |
| 12:04 | <MikeSmith> | and it would make sense for browsers to implement the outline algorithm to generate that |
| 12:04 | <MikeSmith> | I'm kind of surprised that more Web devs have not asked for such a feature |
| 12:06 | <Stevef> | the only user agent implementation i know of i.e. JAWS appears only to modify heading level based on nesting (and does that poorly) it doesn't represent the outline tree |
| 12:47 | <MikeSmith> | Stevef: dogs bites man |
| 12:48 | <MikeSmith> | if JAWS ever actually implemented anything innovative, that'd be a "man bites dog" story |
| 12:48 | <MikeSmith> | the fact that JAWS doesn't implement something, or implements it poorly seems unsurpising |
| 12:49 | <MikeSmith> | I guess a thing to do would be to see if the NVDA devs have interest or not |
| 12:50 | <MikeSmith> | or if somebody could get them to chime in on on it and say if they see it has a feature that they could do something useful with |
| 13:03 | <Stevef> | MikeSmith: NVDA would probably look to firefox to implement the outlining in the acc layer |
| 13:04 | <MikeSmith> | Stevef: works for me :) |
| 13:05 | <MikeSmith> | so if NVDA though it was important enough, they could help make the case to Mozilla |
| 13:05 | <Stevef> | have raised it with dbolter etal no bites |
| 13:05 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 13:08 | <Stevef> | think the algorithm needs further work before I would advocate it |
| 14:33 | <zewt> | http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-DOMString DOMString is immutable by definition, right? |
| 14:35 | <Ms2ger> | I guess so |
| 15:33 | <scrieler> | hi, our ez publish community has some validation errors because our template extension with some meta tags aren't listed for validation. content-type content-language copyright MSSmartTagsPreventParsing for example, do I need a account to add it in the wiki? |
| 16:53 | <scrieler> | any admin here? |
| 16:55 | <Hixie> | GPHemsley: ping ^ |
| 17:02 | <dglazkov> | good morning, Whatwg! |
| 17:03 | <tantek> | good morning dglazkov! |
| 17:07 | <GPHemsley> | Hixie, scrieler: You talkin' to me? |
| 17:10 | <scrieler> | I am looking for an admin because I get some meta tag validation errors in our ez publish community template, the validator says I have to add this to your wiki, but the account register is blocked. can u help me? |
| 17:11 | <TallTed> | scrieler - can you give us the URL you're trying to work with? |
| 17:11 | <GPHemsley> | scrieler: Ah, sure. (Though so could many others in here.) I need a username and an e-mail address from you. |
| 17:21 | <Ms2ger> | 'This should be "at-keywork token" instead.' |
| 17:21 | <Ms2ger> | I don't think so... |
| 17:34 | <scrieler> | I am wondering why <meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE" /> is listed as error although it's listed on the wiki meta page, do anybody has an idea? |
| 17:35 | <Ms2ger> | Because the validator has to update |
| 17:36 | <scrieler> | ah, ok, thanks |
| 17:36 | <Hixie> | GPHemsley: sorry, was just breezing through and figured you'd be able to help :-) |
| 17:36 | Hixie | leaves again |
| 17:37 | <GPHemsley> | Hixie: That's fine. But I do want to make the point that you don't actually have to be an admin to register users on the wiki. |
| 18:33 | <dbaron> | talking about the spec for <input> is rather painful... "default value" and "defaultValue" aren't distinguished in speech very well |
| 18:51 | <Hixie> | dbaron: call the latter "dot default value" |
| 18:53 | <Hixie> | wtf is public-html-admin |
| 18:53 | <Hixie> | how the heck can one wg need so many mailing lists |
| 18:54 | <Ms2ger> | Lots of people with nothing better to do than send emails |
| 18:59 | <annevk> | TIL that calling out the security theater at the airport while customs is checking your bag (again and again) makes people uncomfortable. |
| 18:59 | <annevk> | But really, my electric toothbrush was close to my laptop charger and that made it suspicious? What kind of operation are they running? |
| 19:02 | <Ms2ger> | Oh dear |
| 19:02 | <Ms2ger> | Did you get arrested? |
| 19:06 | <annevk> | No, but he did ask me who I worked for. So I said I was unemployed. He then asked what I did. I said I did some pro bono work and now get some funding from a charity. He then wondered whether I meant the artist Bono and after that wondered where this Pro Bono corporation was based. Explaining that it's a Latin expression did not help. |
| 19:07 | <annevk> | In the end he wished me best of luck with the charities. I think I've been standing there for ten minutes or so. |
| 19:07 | <dbaron> | annevk, customs, or security? |
| 19:08 | <annevk> | Good point, security. The guy that did the screening. |
| 19:09 | <dbaron> | My experience with customs in Europe is that usually there's a door marked "nothing to declare" and a door marked "something to declare", and sometimes there isn't even anybody watching which door you go through to take a declaration. |
| 19:11 | <Ms2ger> | There's customs is Europe? |
| 19:14 | <Hixie> | Ms2ger: when you exit or enter shengen, yeah |
| 19:14 | <annevk> | dbaron: Yeah my bad, it's security screening that's the problem. Getting stopped by customs has been a while. |
| 19:14 | <dbaron> | Hixie, no, I think it's the EU |
| 19:15 | <dbaron> | Hixie, when I arrived at Heathrow, after immigration and baggage claim, there were 3 lines: |
| 19:15 | <dbaron> | (1) flights from the EU (2) flights not from the EU, nothing to declare (3) flights not from the EU, something to declare |
| 19:15 | <Hixie> | where were these lines going? into the UK? |
| 19:15 | <Hixie> | or into the airport's zones? |
| 19:15 | <dbaron> | yeah, entering the UK |
| 19:16 | <Hixie> | right, so you've already exit shengen |
| 19:16 | <Hixie> | schengen, sorry |
| 19:16 | <Hixie> | (uk isn't part of schengen) |
| 19:16 | <dbaron> | Terminal 1 arrival, directed into the immigration queue (my flight from US, nearby flight arriving from Schengen, both have to go through UK immigration), separate baggage claims for the flights but not-segregated, and then you're supposed to go through the door depending on which flight you were on |
| 19:17 | <dbaron> | right, but my point is that it looked like whether you had to go through customs was a function of whether you were coming from the EU |
| 19:17 | <dbaron> | but they were mostly trusting you to go through the right line |
| 19:17 | <Hixie> | sure, because irish flights probably go to a different terminal |
| 19:17 | <Hixie> | as did domestic flights |
| 19:18 | <dbaron> | not necessarily a different terminal, but different paths within that terminal, at least |
| 19:18 | <Hixie> | i bet people on flights from switzerland into that area were also to go through the EU line |
| 19:18 | <Hixie> | because switzerland is in schengen but not in the EU |
| 19:19 | <Hixie> | usually the signs say "[EU] [+]" |
| 19:19 | <Hixie> | where EU is the EU flag |
| 19:19 | <Hixie> | :-) |
| 19:20 | <Hixie> | (dunno what people from Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway are supposed to do. Just guess that they count as EU?) |
| 19:20 | <Ms2ger> | Stay in their isolation? |
| 19:21 | <annevk> | Hixie: they're the same as Switzerland |
| 19:21 | <Hixie> | yeah but i've never seen the signs say that |
| 19:21 | <Hixie> | the signs either say "Schengen", or have the EU and swiss flags |
| 19:22 | <Hixie> | in my (admittedly limited) experience |
| 19:22 | <Ms2ger> | You may have been looking for Swiss flags :) |
| 19:22 | <annevk> | Hmm, maybe I should start paying some attention to that. I usually only see "EU" which I take it means Schengen for all intents and purposes. |
| 19:23 | <Hixie> | Ms2ger: valid |
| 19:23 | <Hixie> | annevk: yeah, but there's like 7 countries that aren't in the EU that are in schengen (or have equivalent agreements), and 2 that are in the EU and not in schengen... |
| 19:23 | <Hixie> | so it's not actually the same |
| 19:23 | <Hixie> | which makes it very confusign for them to use an EU flag for it |
| 19:24 | <Ms2ger> | It's not like Brits would identify with the EU flag |
| 19:25 | <Hixie> | but it's not like the norwegians would either |
| 19:25 | <Hixie> | well that's ironic |
| 19:25 | <Hixie> | chrome just gave me the "a script has hung" dialog |
| 19:25 | <Hixie> | while i was searching the spec for "slow script" to find out if the spec said anything about the "a script has hung" dialog |
| 19:29 | <dbaron> | wikipedia has a nice diagram somewhere |
| 19:32 | <annevk> | dbaron: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Supranational_European_Bodies.png ? |
| 19:32 | <dbaron> | annevk, yes, exactly |
| 19:32 | <annevk> | in context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area#Territories_of_Schengen_states_outside_the_Area |
| 19:32 | <dbaron> | (I started to look for it, and then got distracted by email) |
| 19:32 | <annevk> | Quite a mess :-) |
| 19:33 | <dbaron> | It might well be the "EU Customs Union" that matters as to whether you go through Customs... I'd guess. |
| 19:34 | <dbaron> | indeed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Customs_Union |
| 19:36 | <Ms2ger> | Europe \o/ |
| 19:36 | <annevk> | Ah yeah, this is why I could bring "cheap" cigarettes and alcohol to Norway for my former colleagues |
| 19:37 | <annevk> | But I guess it was because of Schengen that there was almost never an actual passport check in Oslo... |
| 19:38 | <Hixie> | annevk: do you know anything about http://www.w3.org/mid/DF0A84C4-AEAB-4716-B23F-FB3BA48BDE3C⊙gc ? |
| 19:41 | <annevk> | My recollection is that Content-Location is a piece of crap. |
| 19:42 | <Hixie> | k |
| 19:42 | <Hixie> | so i should just ignore that? |
| 19:42 | <annevk> | Hixie: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009AprJun/0084.html |
| 19:42 | <annevk> | I wonder if they actually solved that issue taking our concerns into account... |
| 19:43 | <Hixie> | ok well i'm just punting on this then |
| 19:44 | <annevk> | http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/154 looks like they plan on dropping it affecting the base URL |
| 19:44 | <annevk> | so I think you can just defer to them |
| 19:45 | <annevk> | Hixie: I can email a reply if you want |
| 19:45 | <Hixie> | don't reply on my account |
| 19:46 | <annevk> | no, just give the guy a pointer to the httpbis stuff |
| 19:46 | <annevk> | if you're planning on not replying for now that might be nice |
| 19:46 | <Hixie> | fine i shall reply |
| 19:47 | <Hixie> | you and your politeness |
| 19:47 | <Hixie> | :-P |
| 19:48 | <Hixie> | there, done |
| 20:35 | <Hixie> | i wish all the feedback i got was as easy to deal with as jwatt's |
| 20:41 | <Yuhong> | /msg NickServ identify asdasd |
| 20:41 | <miketaylr> | uh oh |
| 20:41 | <miketaylr> | Yuhong: time to change your pw |
| 20:43 | <Yuhong> | ls |
| 20:43 | <Yuhong> | Anyway, I wrote this analysis of the HTML legacy parsing based on the Netscape classic source: |
| 20:43 | <Yuhong> | http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8318911/why-does-html-think-chucknorris-is-a-color/12630675#12630675 |
| 20:45 | <Yuhong> | This is the source that was to be used for the cancelled "Mariner" project. |
| 20:46 | <Yuhong> | On which I posted this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070858 |
| 20:49 | <Yuhong> | BTW, the whole thread is worth reading: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5062761 |
| 21:38 | <jgraham> | Hixie: You could arrange that by rejecting any feedback not from jwatt |
| 21:39 | <Hixie> | i don't think that would lead to the spec quality improvements i want |
| 21:40 | <jgraham> | This is what happens when you don't state all the constraints :) |
| 21:40 | <Hixie> | :-( |
| 21:49 | <Hixie> | it's amazing how steady the rate of new bugs is |
| 22:00 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: you around? |
| 22:00 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: i'm poking at the anchoring thing of <dialog> |
| 22:00 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: specifically, loop protection |
| 22:01 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: i think your solution (enforcing the total ordering on dependencies to be tree order) is the only solution that i've seen that works |
| 22:02 | <Hixie> | TabAtkins: but it's unfortunate, and i was wondering if you'd thought of anything to solve this in a different way |
| 23:04 | <Hixie> | huh. i'd forgotten that overflow:Scroll doesn't clip descendent position:absolute content. |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | i wonder what we do with anchored dialogs that are inside overflow:scroll areas. |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | 1. that are anchored to things outside the overflow |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | 2. that are anchored to things inside the overflow |
