| 09:53 | <annevk> | Hixie: still awake by any chance? |
| 09:53 | <annevk> | Hixie: I think the time might have come to write Fetch |
| 09:53 | <annevk> | Hixie: not sure if this is years early or not, prolly is |
| 09:55 | <annevk> | It seems likely we'll get a new API for XMLHttpRequest that uses Promises/Futures and given the changes suggested around application cache by Mozilla/Google having requests better architecturally defined seems like a good thing. Mostly because I don't like all the monkeypatching that others seem fine with. |
| 10:10 | <odinho> | Yeah, fetch ftw :-) |
| 10:11 | <jgraham> | So, did someone make the appcache proposal public yet, or are we still supposed to join a private club? |
| 10:11 | <annevk> | jgraham: slightlyoff's controller thing is still private I believe, mostly to make it somewhat coherent as I understand it |
| 10:12 | <annevk> | Personally I don't think there'd be much backslash against just having it public from the start, but I guess his experience differs from mine |
| 10:12 | <annevk> | If you give him your GitHub ID though you should be fine |
| 10:13 | <odinho> | That's the joining of the private club-part is about :] |
| 10:14 | <jgraham> | I have no idea how being private helps make it coherent. He is of course welcome to ignore other people's input until the proposal is in a state that he is happy with, if he choses |
| 10:16 | <jgraham> | (my experience is that "too much feedback" is the opposite of the normal problem) |
| 10:17 | <annevk> | jgraham: so is mine, but maybe things are different in TC39 land |
| 10:38 | <annevk> | http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Fetch#Model |
| 10:49 | <darobin> | annevk: I was thinking about the "Fetch results in a network error response unless the scheme is one of..." bit in Fetch that we were chatting about |
| 10:49 | <darobin> | I reckon that if there's a controller that's not the default one it should decide whether to honour those itself |
| 10:50 | <annevk> | That's an interesting idea for sure |
| 10:50 | <darobin> | where by "those" I mean those not in that list |
| 10:50 | <darobin> | it's not that I have a super strong use case for that, but it introduces the possibility of a soft transition to a new scheme should one be needed |
| 10:50 | <darobin> | and it seems "sane" |
| 10:51 | <annevk> | It still leaves navigation as an open issue. Do you want to dispatch to an external application, or should that too defer to Fetch? |
| 10:53 | <annevk> | So e.g. navigation handles javascript and for Fetch schemes it defers to Fetch, and for anything else it's OS/browser-specific |
| 10:53 | <darobin> | ideally you want to be able to say "if I don't handle this, defer to whatever the default is" which could well be an external app if there is one |
| 10:54 | jgraham | wonders how register*Handler fits into this |
| 10:55 | <darobin> | yeah I was wondering as well |
| 10:56 | <darobin> | I'm guessing that it is part of the default handling |
| 10:56 | <darobin> | there are two distinct paths though |
| 10:56 | <darobin> | one is navigation, then fetch; the other is just fetch |
| 10:56 | <darobin> | r*H only wire into navigation |
| 10:56 | <darobin> | (unless I've missed something) |
| 11:38 | <annevk> | That is correct |
| 11:39 | <annevk> | I think we may have defined some of those features too quickly given the underlying architecture is not fully fleshed out. |
| 11:39 | <annevk> | Of course the same is bound to happen with this Controller proposal |
| 11:39 | <hsivonen> | who is the expected audience for Glenn Adams' TLS analogy? |
| 11:39 | <hsivonen> | the W3C Team? |
| 11:41 | <Ms2ger> | He still has an audience? |
| 11:43 | <annevk> | Is this on public-html? |
| 11:43 | <hsivonen> | annevk: -admin, I think |
| 11:44 | <annevk> | Why does that still have an audience? :-) |
| 11:50 | <Ms2ger> | Or public-html itself, for that matter |
| 11:57 | hsivonen | wonders if real end users actually use the DLNA stuff |
| 12:08 | <annevk> | The amount of variables that go into fetching a resource is kinda bloated: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Fetch#Request |
| 12:09 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: ^^ at some point you might want to reconcile the controller stuff with that |
| 12:13 | <Stevef> | Ms2ger: hehe |
| 12:17 | <annevk> | odinho: can you take a look to see it's about right? |
| 12:17 | <annevk> | (anyone else is welcome to do that too, of course) |
| 12:26 | <darobin> | hahahahaha "<annevk> I think we may have defined some of those features too quickly given the underlying architecture is not fully fleshed out. |
| 12:26 | <darobin> | isn't that What We Do? |
| 12:26 | <darobin> | hsivonen: people use DLNA stuff a little bit here and there when well constrained to a usable UI; so not much |
| 12:27 | <darobin> | I reckon Opera's proposal can actually help there |
| 12:27 | <annevk> | Well personally I have mostly been defining the underlying architecture and have not created many new features. And the features I did create were not that great (e.g. CORS). |
| 12:29 | darobin | fidgets around annevk to find the button to turn sardonic humour back on |
| 12:29 | <annevk> | URL is new of course, but I first figured out how they work. I will probably still have messed up though :-) |
| 12:30 | <annevk> | darobin: I see :-) |
| 12:31 | <annevk> | darobin: The problem is that I largely think that is what people are doing. They create all these APIs on top of something they do not actually comprehend, to solve a couple of use cases to some approximation. |
| 12:31 | <odinho> | annevk: Looks about right, although why do you say CORS is special in that it also needs this: <blabla>, and not just list it with everything else? |
| 12:32 | <annevk> | odinho: yeah, that should be merged in too in the big ugly blob that is Request |
| 12:33 | <odinho> | Won't win a beauty contest. |
| 12:33 | <annevk> | uhuh |
| 12:39 | <darobin> | annevk: you are entirely right, it's what we've all been doing for too long |
| 12:39 | <darobin> | that's why fixing the plumbing and not just working on the porcelain is useful |
| 12:40 | <darobin> | it's also why I think the general approach (warts nonwithstanding) taken for IDB was actually correct |
| 12:41 | <annevk> | Well if it was, we wouldn't be discussing Cache objects and such I think... |
| 12:42 | <annevk> | Storage is kind a different though, it's a new thing and there's not really any existing architecture it would hook into. That's different for navigation timing and APIs like that. |
| 14:08 | <MikeSmith> | fwiw there's a W3C ebooks workshop in New York today. I assume it'll have an IRC channel |
| 14:16 | <slightlyoff> | MikeSmith: adding you |
| 14:16 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: thanks |
| 14:16 | <MikeSmith> | thanks make |
| 14:16 | <MikeSmith> | thanks *man |
| 14:25 | <hsivonen> | hmm. I the BBC rep the first one to state that it's their requirement that the CDM behind EME constitude an effective technical protection measure for legal purposes? |
| 14:25 | <hsivonen> | not that anyone would be surprised by that being a requirement, but did it really take this long for someone who wants EME to say it? |
| 14:27 | <hsivonen> | *costitute |
| 14:28 | <hsivonen> | s/I/Is/ |
| 14:31 | <slightlyoff> | can someone unpack the "EME" acronym for me? |
| 14:32 | <hsivonen> | slightlyoff: Encrypted Media Extensions |
| 14:33 | <hsivonen> | slightlyoff: It's the Microsoft/Google/Netflix API for bootstrapping DRM |
| 14:34 | <slightlyoff> | thanks |
| 14:34 | <slightlyoff> | got it...I know the API, didn't have the acronym |
| 14:38 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Where did the BBC person say that? |
| 14:41 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: public-html-admin |
| 14:42 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: so I'm getting the sense that Future is more or less complete at this point, before adding it to DOM however, I think we should fly it by TC39 to see how much they'll change it because ending up with 2 APIs (on top of DOMRequest which is already going around) would be bad |
| 14:43 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: DOMRequest needs to be re-worked as a simple sub-class |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: if we keep DOMRequest, is it really worth it to also have DOMFuture? |
| 14:44 | <slightlyoff> | I'm assuming that there will be many DOMFuture subclasses to fill in semantics for specific APIs that aren't in DOMFuture |
| 14:44 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: see what I did with the ProgressFuture |
| 14:44 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: also, what do you think about the name "EventedFuture" isntead of "DOMFuture"? |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | sure, but DOMRequest is what DOMFuture is |
| 14:45 | <slightlyoff> | where's the spec for that? |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: EventFuture then |
| 14:45 | slightlyoff | hangs ignorance out to dry for everyone else to see |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: dunno where DOMRequest's spec is, mounir might know |
| 14:46 | <darobin> | I thought DOMRequest was just specified as a comment in a bugzilla somewhere... |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | Yeah could be. It's Mozilla's currently somewhat crappy version of promises |
| 14:47 | <annevk> | But per mounir it could be elevated to the feature set of DOMFuture |
| 14:47 | <darobin> | ah, no, it's been "formalised" https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/DOMRequest |
| 14:48 | <darobin> | last I checked they'd just designed it on a napkin, I don't think they'd mind having an improved version |
| 14:48 | <slightlyoff> | readyState needs to die in a fire |
| 14:48 | <darobin> | a slow, painful one, please |
| 14:48 | <slightlyoff> | ok, so yeah...I think we can supplant this if we have spec author buy-in |
| 14:48 | <slightlyoff> | who do I need to talk to about DOMRequest? |
| 14:48 | <darobin> | Jonas or Mounir I would guess |
| 14:49 | <darobin> | annevk: how about EventfulFuture? :) |
| 14:49 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: mounir |
| 14:49 | <slightlyoff> | darobin: Evented says "this is a future with events" |
| 14:49 | <jgraham> | May you live in Eventful times? |
| 14:49 | <annevk> | darobin: yes they mind |
| 14:49 | <annevk> | darobin: otherwise I wouldn't be raising this |
| 14:49 | <slightlyoff> | darobin: "Eventful" is a value judgement ;-) |
| 14:50 | <darobin> | jgraham: I was precisely thinking of it as something to put in a cookie |
| 14:50 | <darobin> | annevk: ah, I got the opposite impression, but that was from a while back — I guess they've started using it in more places now |
| 14:50 | <darobin> | and I also guess I should s/they/you/ :) |
| 14:51 | <annevk> | darobin: it also depends on who you talk to, since Mozilla, you know, yadayada |
| 14:52 | <annevk> | I personally don't care that much, but I don't really know the Firefox OS space that well; I just noticed that mounir does really care |
| 14:53 | <darobin> | well that's also our opening: right now it's only in FxOS |
| 14:53 | <darobin> | and is only returned by mozPrefixed things (I would fucking hope) |
| 14:53 | <darobin> | so there's still time to change it |
| 14:54 | <annevk> | We don't prefix everything anymore. I suggest you read up on hsivonen's writing on the matter. |
| 14:58 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: yeah, it was so weird that people kept naming state readyState |
| 14:58 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: I argued a few times against it, and people were like "but readyState is there..." |
| 14:59 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: not to mention the horrible integer-based constants |
| 14:59 | <zewt> | how ready are you? 71! |
| 14:59 | <annevk> | over 9000! |
| 15:00 | <zewt> | my favorite is how even this last year i still had to define readystate constants since opera apparently didn't have them |
| 15:00 | <zewt> | (for xhr) |
| 15:01 | <volkmar> | darobin, annevk, slightlyoff: there is kind of a spec for DOMRequest here: http://mounirlamouri.github.com/sysapps/proposals/RunTime-Security/Overview.html#domrequest-interface |
| 15:02 | <volkmar> | quickly written though |
| 15:02 | <zewt> | "However, this callback mechanism makes the code barely readable"? really? heh |
| 15:04 | <zewt> | a common interface would make it easier to write a wrapper that says "call this callback when all of these things have finished", which currently takes per-interface work |
| 15:04 | <volkmar> | darobin, annevk, slightlyoff: regarding DOMRequest vs DOMFuture, my feeling is that the main advantage of DOMFuture compared to a Future type in ECMAScript is that DOMFuture could be used by current APIs that have a similar mechanism |
| 15:04 | <darobin> | annevk: I thought that the API stuff in FxOS was prefixed (early looks certainly seemed to indicate so) |
| 15:04 | <volkmar> | like IndexedDB |
| 15:05 | <volkmar> | the main differences between IDBRequest/DOMRequest and DOMFuture are some names (result vs value, success vs accept, error vs reject) |
| 15:05 | <annevk> | volkmar: so now you're volkmar again; do you have the same confusing policy as odinho? |
| 15:06 | <volkmar> | ? |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | darobin: most of it might be, sure, but there's no guarantees |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | volkmar: I thought started using mounir as nick |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | you /\ |
| 15:07 | <volkmar> | annevk: I'm using volkmar on freenode, mostly for historical reasons, I should change though |
| 15:07 | <jgraham> | You're mounir? |
| 15:07 | <volkmar> | yes, I am |
| 15:07 | <jgraham> | Every day is a new surprise |
| 15:08 | <jgraham> | (usually bad) |
| 15:08 | <jgraham> | (so this was quite OK by comparison) |
| 15:15 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: can you create a Fetch component inside WHATWG on W3C Bugzilla? |
| 15:19 | <MikeSmith> | yup |
| 15:19 | <annevk> | grand |
| 15:20 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: you the assignee? |
| 15:20 | <annevk> | afraid so |
| 15:20 | <annevk> | Unless anyone else here wants to volunteer to maintain CORS and HTML fetch for the next decade? |
| 15:21 | MikeSmith | doesn't raise his hand |
| 15:21 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: you got a draft yet? |
| 15:22 | <annevk> | no, just bugs :) |
| 15:22 | <annevk> | actually |
| 15:22 | <annevk> | it'll replace fetch.spec.whatwg.org if you meant to get a URL for the thing |
| 15:22 | <MikeSmith> | I just need a URL for now, so that's fine |
| 15:35 | <odinho> | annevk: Since I got a laptop, I'm always odinho_home now. :P |
| 15:35 | <odinho> | annevk: So to reduce the confusion of Ms2ger who thought I was always at home (Velmont on freenode), I renamed the home account to odinho now. |
| 15:45 | <annevk> | odinho: certainly helps having a single nick |
| 15:55 | <odinho> | annevk: I had a single nick back in the olden' days before University :-) |
| 16:01 | <jgraham> | darobin: Nice, but you should have included unapproved tests |
| 16:01 | <jgraham> | That would give you 200-ish microdata tests, among others |
| 16:01 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, no, you guys should submit them ;) |
| 16:02 | Ms2ger | wanders off |
| 16:02 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: I'm really not that excited about spending time rearranging tests when darobin already has a script to help |
| 16:03 | <jgraham> | (and Opera won't pay me to do it :( ) |
| 16:04 | <darobin> | jgraham: I don't want to take unapproved tests into account, taking those into account involves submitting them properly :) |
| 16:05 | <jgraham> | That is very silly |
| 16:05 | <darobin> | jgraham: I have a script to help, but it needs human guidance |
| 16:05 | <jgraham> | ]The "approved" tests were no better than the unapproved ones |
| 16:05 | <darobin> | yes but they're not in the right places |
| 16:05 | <darobin> | I want to get them in the right places |
| 16:05 | <jgraham> | The *only* real distinction was that Kris had copied some of them over to approved/ but not others |
| 16:06 | <darobin> | jgraham: if you can go through the submissions from Opera and tell me which of those tests go where, I'm happy to do the grunt work with my scripts and all |
| 16:06 | <darobin> | yeah, but we're moving away from that way of doing things — now we have a review process :) |
| 16:06 | <darobin> | if you tell me "all in that dir go with that section, all those there go yonder, etc." I'll do the work |
| 16:07 | <darobin> | it's figuring out where to move stuff that takes me time |
| 16:07 | <darobin> | I want to kill that "submissions" directory eventually |
| 16:07 | <darobin> | please help me kill it! |
| 16:07 | <darobin> | and tell Lars-Erik that you should be paid to do that |
| 16:08 | <darobin> | paid extra time even |
| 16:08 | <darobin> | and fed with those delicious Ikea cookies |
| 16:08 | <jgraham> | Hah |
| 16:08 | <darobin> | he did say he was going to task you guys on this |
| 16:09 | <darobin> | just pretend he told you by way of me :) |
| 16:09 | <jgraham> | Dude, those aren't cookies, they're essential components of the furniture |
| 16:09 | <jgraham> | https://github.com/w3c/html-testsuite/tree/master/old-tests/submission/Opera/microdata is fairly straightforward to place |
| 16:09 | <jgraham> | Since there is one file |
| 16:09 | <jgraham> | and it covers "microdata" |
| 16:10 | <darobin> | ok, that much I can manage |
| 16:11 | <jgraham> | annevk: https://github.com/w3c/html-testsuite/tree/master/old-tests/submission/Opera/classList looks like one for you? |
| 16:12 | <annevk> | I would never have used tabs |
| 16:12 | <annevk> | or linked to TR/ |
| 16:12 | <annevk> | or used type="" |
| 16:12 | <jgraham> | annevk: I know you didn't *write* it |
| 16:12 | <annevk> | oh |
| 16:12 | <jgraham> | I mean it's for the DOM spec, not HTML |
| 16:13 | <annevk> | I see, Ms2ger handles that |
| 16:13 | <darobin> | jgraham: that microdata test, does it cover just the DOM stuff or the whole spec? |
| 16:13 | <annevk> | I'm in the camp that thinks all tests should be in one repo |
| 16:13 | darobin | agrees with annevk |
| 16:14 | <jgraham> | Well I am happy for them to all be in one repo |
| 16:14 | <darobin> | ms2ger should just create a dom directory there and put all the DOM tests in there |
| 16:14 | <jgraham> | But at the moment if you are collecting DOM tests you should take that one |
| 16:14 | <jgraham> | and if you are not, you should be |
| 16:14 | <darobin> | just move it in the repo! |
| 16:14 | darobin | points jgraham at his question from above |
| 16:15 | <jgraham> | darobin: I don't see how it would work without also depending on 5.2 |
| 16:15 | <jgraham> | (in the WhatWG spec ofc) |
| 16:15 | <darobin> | I'm just asking because I don't want to bother reading them if I don't have to :) |
| 16:15 | <darobin> | so I'll take that as "Yes" |
| 16:16 | <annevk> | jgraham: I should be managing tests? |
| 16:17 | <annevk> | jgraham: hmm |
| 16:17 | <jgraham> | annevk: Well someone should be |
| 16:17 | <annevk> | Can I use the I'm not paid to do that card? |
| 16:17 | <annevk> | jgraham: Ms2ger is managing tests afaik |
| 16:17 | <annevk> | jgraham: and actively creating new tests |
| 16:18 | <jgraham> | I have no idea why https://github.com/w3c/html-testsuite/tree/master/old-tests/submission/Opera/documentwrite has a few random tests |
| 16:18 | <jgraham> | annevk: Oh well then you should tell Ms2ger about that test when he's around ;) |
| 16:18 | <darobin> | Ms2ger: review for you: https://github.com/w3c/html-testsuite/pull/24 |
| 16:18 | <darobin> | jgraham: you see why it's taking a while to move these things around? |
| 16:20 | <jgraham> | darobin: I believe everything in https://github.com/w3c/html-testsuite/tree/master/old-tests/submission/Opera/historyinterface is for #the-history-interface |
| 16:23 | <jgraham> | https://github.com/w3c/html-testsuite/tree/master/old-tests/submission/Opera/html5lib/tests goes in the obvious place, but note that some/all of those already seem to be there |
| 16:23 | <darobin> | ms2ger: and https://github.com/w3c/html-testsuite/pull/25 (you can blame jgraham for these) |
| 16:23 | <annevk> | When should we add new Text() and such? |
| 16:23 | <darobin> | now? |
| 16:23 | <annevk> | Yeah, now seems about right |
| 16:24 | <jgraham> | Also those html5lib tests run in 3 different modes |
| 16:24 | <annevk> | the only one that's problematic is new Element and I'll just defer that |
| 16:24 | <jgraham> | No idea how to represent that |
| 16:24 | <darobin> | isn't new Node() a problem? |
| 16:24 | <annevk> | darobin: oh yes, I'm not going up the chain; there won't be new CharacterData either |
| 16:25 | <darobin> | ah, good to hear |
| 16:25 | <darobin> | I was afraid there'd be all that new stuff |
| 16:25 | <annevk> | are you punning? |
| 16:25 | <darobin> | haha |
| 16:25 | <darobin> | actually I wasn't |
| 16:25 | <jgraham> | #htmloptionscollection-0 for https://github.com/w3c/html-testsuite/tree/master/old-tests/submission/Opera/htmloptionscollection |
| 16:26 | <darobin> | at some point slightlyoff was arguing that all should be constructible — I was concerned that he may have convinced you |
| 16:26 | <darobin> | jgraham: may I introduce you to a few nice git commands that I know of? |
| 16:26 | <slightlyoff> | darobin: wait, what *shouldn't* be constructable? |
| 16:26 | <jgraham> | darobin: I am happily using git over irc :p |
| 16:26 | <slightlyoff> | darobin: non-constructable is insane from a JS perspective |
| 16:26 | <jgraham> | Oh no |
| 16:26 | jgraham | hides |
| 16:26 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: Node, CharacterData |
| 16:26 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: Element prolly too |
| 16:27 | <slightlyoff> | ok, so those are like Mixins |
| 16:27 | <darobin> | oh dear me, I should never have awakened that debate again |
| 16:27 | <jgraham> | slightlyoff: In this case abstract base classes |
| 16:27 | <slightlyoff> | or abstract classes |
| 16:27 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: yup |
| 16:27 | <slightlyoff> | but if it's a concrete class.... |
| 16:27 | <annevk> | slightlyoff: the concrete ones I'm gonna work on right now |
| 16:27 | <slightlyoff> | and anyway, in JS, even your "abstract" classes are constructable |
| 16:27 | <slightlyoff> | even if they don't return anything sane |
| 16:27 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: +1 to that |
| 16:28 | <jgraham> | darobin: https://github.com/w3c/html-testsuite/tree/master/old-tests/submission/Opera/loading_web_pages/browsing_the_web/unloading_documents/document_open is conveniently arranged by spec section already :) |
| 16:28 | <annevk> | the abstract ones I rather not as it would require changes all over DOM code to not break existing assumptions |
| 16:28 | <darobin> | jgraham: if you're going through the entire list at some point I'd appreciate that being dumped in email rather than IRC |
| 16:29 | <jgraham> | darobin: No, I was doing the easy cases |
| 16:29 | <jgraham> | I have absolutely no idea how the dnd tests should be arranged for example |
| 16:29 | <jgraham> | Or media tests |
| 16:31 | <darobin> | well, let me rephrase |
| 16:31 | <jgraham> | darobin: #custom-handlers for https://github.com/w3c/html-testsuite/tree/master/old-tests/submission/Opera/registerhandler/js |
| 16:31 | <darobin> | if you see a longerish list of ones that you know the answer to, at some point please switch to email :) |
| 16:31 | <darobin> | not necessarily *all* of them |
| 16:32 | <jgraham> | script_scheduling: each test covers about 3 different sections of the spec and cvarious other specs and some things that are unspecified :) |
| 16:33 | <jgraham> | https://github.com/w3c/html-testsuite/tree/master/old-tests/submission/Opera/timeelement #the-time-element |
| 16:34 | <annevk> | Hmm, DocumentType? |
| 16:34 | <annevk> | DocumentType is useless |
| 16:35 | <jgraham> | darobin: I guess the onerror ones are something like #runtime-script-errors but I'm not sure |
| 16:35 | <jgraham> | That's all the ones that are easy |
| 16:36 | <darobin> | jgraham: thanks! |
| 16:46 | <darobin> | jgraham: while you're around, could you prod people internally at Opera to get the remaining mappings? |
| 16:46 | <darobin> | e.g. prodding some internal list or whatnot |
| 16:46 | <darobin> | it would be most helpful |
| 16:46 | <darobin> | just the mappings like you've given me is enough |
| 16:48 | <annevk> | ProcessingInstruction? Erring on it being useless too |
| 16:49 | <dglazkov> | good morning, Whatwg! |
| 16:51 | <slightlyoff> | OH HAI dglazkov |
| 16:51 | <jgraham> | There is no actual evidence that's anything more than a bot :) |
| 17:04 | <darobin> | annevk: only PHP hackers use PIs; I reckon that's a good reason not to support them :) |
| 17:13 | <MikeSmith> | yeah I think it's not possible to break php any further than it has already broken itself |
| 17:19 | <annevk> | Next: Range |
| 17:28 | <darobin> | ooh, there are nice things to do with Range |
| 17:36 | <annevk> | Nobody replied to my request for argument versions so it's just a simple one for now |
| 17:37 | <jgraham> | argument versions? |
| 17:38 | <annevk> | E.g. new Range(node, offset, node2, offset2) |
| 17:38 | <annevk> | Or new Range(rangeInit), or ... |
| 17:43 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: sorry, didn't see the thread |
| 17:43 | <slightlyoff> | annevk: what do the editing libraries do now? |
| 17:44 | <annevk> | don't know, Range hasn't really been my terrain |
| 17:44 | <slightlyoff> | (also, would offset allow a "-" prefix to offset backwards from the end?) |
| 17:44 | <slightlyoff> | i.e., new Range(node, 10, node2, -5); |
| 17:45 | <annevk> | currently setEnd() does not allow such a thing |
| 17:45 | <slightlyoff> | ...also terribly awkward |
| 17:45 | <annevk> | all range offsets are unsigned |
| 17:46 | <annevk> | oh yeah, I'm sure we'd do most of this better today :) |
| 17:48 | <annevk> | Not saying btw that we could not make those kind of changes, but we should probably fix the larger problems with editing first before tackling API convenience |
| 17:50 | <annevk> | http://www.bullettrain.com/express.html looks kinda ugly. Does it exist, but then nice? |
| 17:56 | <Raymondo> | "It is a complete Game Changer." |
| 17:58 | <annevk> | I wish Apple would just sell them. Like a laptop without most of the other hardware :-) |
| 17:58 | <MikeSmith> | Raymondo: yeah, agreed about Windows 8 |
| 18:00 | <smaug____> | annevk: should range ctor take a dictionary |
| 18:00 | <smaug____> | so that one could initialize start/end points |
| 18:00 | <annevk> | smaug____: maybe, see also slightlyoff's comments above about supporting negative offsets |
| 18:01 | <annevk> | smaug____: if you have a concrete idea I can add it, spec-wise it's all rather trivial |
| 18:01 | <smaug____> | annevk: I don't see slightlyoff's comments in the bug |
| 18:01 | <smaug____> | nor in the mailing list |
| 18:02 | <smaug____> | negative offsets... hmm, odd idea |
| 18:02 | <smaug____> | but perhaps there is some use case |
| 18:11 | <annevk> | smaug____: I said above, as in this channel |
| 18:12 | <smaug____> | annevk: oops, I missed "above" :) |
| 18:17 | <smaug____> | annevk: so, if there is no good usecase for negative, let's not do that now |
| 18:18 | <annevk> | smaug____: well the use case is a more convenient API, no? |
| 18:18 | <annevk> | smaug____: if you want to count from the end |
| 18:19 | <smaug____> | at least we could start with some dictionary which { startContainer: foo, startOffset: 123, ...} |
| 18:19 | <annevk> | I wish we could have something shorter |
| 18:19 | <smaug____> | annevk: negative offset handling is separate feature |
| 18:19 | <annevk> | start : node, offset somehow |
| 18:20 | <smaug____> | annevk: why? I prefer consistency |
| 18:20 | <annevk> | smaug____: what you have there is way more typing than setStart(node, offset) |
| 18:27 | <JonathanNeal> | hiya |
| 18:40 | <TabAtkins> | Morning, WHATWG! Anybody try to say anything to me the last week? |
| 18:53 | <JonathanNeal> | TabAtkins: we discussed media queries for elements. |
| 18:54 | <JonathanNeal> | And I know at one point we pinged you. |
| 18:54 | <JonathanNeal> | necolas fired me up with a tweet, and I wrote up a little blog about it http://www.jonathantneal.com/blog/thoughts-on-media-queries-for-elements/ |
| 18:55 | <TabAtkins> | I've been at a mix of Tucson, Tahoe, and videogames. |
| 18:55 | <JonathanNeal> | That's a great mix. |
| 18:55 | <JonathanNeal> | Official business or vacation? |
| 19:27 | <TabAtkins> | Official business, official business vacation, weekend. |
| 19:29 | <JonathanNeal> | :) |
| 19:31 | <jgraham> | I hop you only played games beginning with "T" |
| 19:50 | <annevk> | jobcentreplus mailed this letter about my NINo and basically suggested to type this URL: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBeneifts/Taxes/BeginnersGuideToTax/NationalInsurance/IntroductiontoNationalInsurance/DG_190057 |
| 19:50 | <annevk> | It apparently redirects these days, so the paper is out of date with reality (doh), but the usability of typing such a thing leaves a lot to be desired. |
| 19:51 | <annevk> | Long, uppercase, lowercase, underscores, confusion between l and I... I guess that's why they made the new site. |
| 20:05 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: Holy shit. |
| 20:05 | <gsnedders> | annevk: How complex is it to get one? |
| 20:06 | <gsnedders> | (Advantage of being British: one appears through the door shortly after turning 16.) |
| 20:09 | <annevk> | gsnedders: surprisingly easy. I called last Monday as is required. Got an appoint for Tuesday morning. Walked 40 min Tuesday morning to get to the nearest jobcentreplus. Answered the questions and let them copy my passport, employment contract, and tenancy agreement, and then today I got mail even though they said it would take two to three weeks. |
| 20:09 | <annevk> | appointment* |
| 20:10 | <gsnedders> | annevk: You need an appointment!? |
| 20:10 | gsnedders | is honestly surprised it's that complicated |
| 20:11 | <gsnedders> | (And why the hell do they need employment contract and tenancy agreement? I guess the latter they take as proof of address, but the former?) |
| 20:11 | <annevk> | gsnedders: and wait a bit and talk to a person and such :-) |
| 20:13 | <gsnedders> | annevk: I'm just honestly surprised there's that much to it. I'd expect it to be one form + photocopy of ID document, and possibly proof of address. |
| 20:13 | <gsnedders> | I mean, it's not like you can do much with it. |
| 20:17 | <annevk> | All I know is my employer needs it and that it's the only interaction that's required for me with the UK government so from that perspective it's all relatively easy. |
| 20:18 | <gsnedders> | It's a number to identify you for tax purposes. That's all. |
| 20:26 | <jgraham> | Yup, should be much easier than moving to Sweden for example (and it sounds like it is, pretty much) |
| 20:27 | <Ms2ger> | People want to move to Sweden? :) |
| 20:29 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Really? I had a single form to fill out, albeit only for a samordingsnummer. |
| 20:30 | <gsnedders> | *samordningsnummer |
| 20:44 | <volkmar> | gsnedders: they require a proof of employement or a proof of willing to find a job |
| 20:44 | <volkmar> | I guess it's mostly to not waste time on creating files for ppl that will never use their number |
| 20:45 | <volkmar> | might be for other purpose though |
| 20:45 | <gsnedders> | volkmar: Yeah, that was my only guess as to why it could be. |
| 21:09 | <annevk> | dglazkov: btw, discussed this with sicking the other day |
| 21:09 | <annevk> | dglazkov: the idea of changing ShadowRoot to HTMLShadowElement |
| 21:10 | <jgraham> | OK, I am officially living in a bizzaro parallel universe. Apparently the Romainian government have denied *on facebook* that any rogue horsemeat masqurading as beef has come from their country. |
| 21:10 | <annevk> | dglazkov: it would just mimic <shadow> at that point |
| 21:10 | <annevk> | dglazkov: which you'd clone and add to hosts as appropriate |
| 21:10 | <annevk> | dglazkov: and when appended to the DOM it would simply render nothing |
| 21:11 | <annevk> | dglazkov: prolly better as discussion on public-webapps, dunno if sicking has the time to take it there |
| 21:12 | <annevk> | gsnedders: volkmar: isn't it also a number for benefits? I believe you can use it to claim some stuff if you can't find income or some such |
| 21:13 | jgraham | has never used a NI number for anything other than paying tax |
| 21:13 | <jgraham> | But if you get them from jobcentreplus, I guess, maybe? |
| 21:13 | <annevk> | https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance |
| 21:13 | <annevk> | if you make less you don't pay I suppose |
| 21:27 | <gsnedders> | annevk: Right |
| 21:28 | <gsnedders> | annevk: Practically most people just count NI contributions as tax. |
| 21:31 | <esprehn_> | wow, the gov.uk website uses html5 |
| 21:31 | <annevk> | new gov.uk site is generally awesome |
| 21:32 | <esprehn_> | yeah this is nicely done |
| 21:33 | <annevk> | information on immigration has been extremely easy to find |
| 21:42 | <jgraham> | I feel like I ought to know who did the gov.uk site |
| 21:42 | <jgraham> | But I don't think I actually do |
| 21:43 | <jgraham> | But it's pretty obvious that it wasn't some design-by-committee-and-people-that-don't-know-what-they're-doing job |
| 21:45 | <jgraham> | http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/team-alpha/ |
| 21:45 | <jgraham> | (turns out that I hadn'theard of them) |
| 22:39 | <JonathanNeal> | TabAtkins: what are you thoughts on element media queries, like the kind I blogged about? |
| 22:40 | <TabAtkins> | Same as I've explained many times before - dealing with the self-reference is way too hard, and restricting it such that it would be less hard would make the feature too weak. |
| 23:17 | <JonathanNeal> | TabAtkins: so you didn't like my error handling then? |
| 23:19 | <TabAtkins> | JonathanNeal: I haven't read your blog post yet. |