| 00:05 | <Hixie> | in my experience, if the weird interpretation of the spec leads to something that isn't OBVIOUSLY bad, then someone will attempt to argue it's the way to interpret the spec |
| 01:29 | <zewt> | is there a name for the discussion pattern that goes: "a doesn't seem useful, because we can do a1 in an easier way" "but you can do a2, too" "why would you want to do a2?" "why are you so fixated on a2, it's also useful for a1" |
| 01:29 | <zewt> | seems like a cousin of the bait-and-switch |
| 01:34 | <karlcow> | :D |
| 01:35 | <zewt> | D: |
| 01:38 | <karlcow> | another pattern is: 1. we have an issue, we would like to add this feature |
| 01:38 | <karlcow> | 2. No no don't touch the core |
| 01:38 | <karlcow> | 3. But we still need to solve our issue |
| 01:38 | <karlcow> | 4. Ah do for you own class of products, it's not our business |
| 01:38 | <karlcow> | 5. ok we are fixing the issue ourselves |
| 01:38 | <karlcow> | 6. Oh my god but you changed the core architecture |
| 02:27 | <MikeSmith> | is Encrypted Media Extensions support already enabled in Chrome? |
| 02:27 | <MikeSmith> | watching https://developers.google.com/live/shows/38132276-1/ |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | in that video John Luther seems to be saying it is |
| 02:28 | <MikeSmith> | Chrome video PM |
| 02:43 | MikeSmith | finds https://src.chromium.org/chrome/trunk/src/third_party/widevine/cdm/ |
| 02:43 | <MikeSmith> | "This directory contains build files for integrating the Widevine CDM into Chrome." |
| 05:12 | <Hixie> | any whatwg blog people around? |
| 05:34 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: dunno what you mean by blog people but I got blog perms of some kind |
| 06:33 | <SteveF> | Mikesmith: just arrived via google alert http://gigaom.com/2013/02/27/google-webm-video-rentals/ |
| 06:39 | <othermaciej> | SteveF: does that use EME? |
| 06:39 | <SteveF> | unsure, but he did talk about EME in video |
| 06:40 | <SteveF> | "Luther went on to explain that Google did a lot of work on the security layer that delivers the videos encrypted to an HTML5 player. “As far as I know, we are the first to ever do that,” he said." |
| 06:51 | <MikeSmith> | thanks SteveF |
| 06:51 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: yeah it does |
| 06:52 | <MikeSmith> | I assume with Widevine |
| 06:52 | <MikeSmith> | so EME is now not only implemented, it's deployed in a production service |
| 06:53 | <MikeSmith> | oh MSE too |
| 06:53 | <MikeSmith> | he mentions that too in the video |
| 06:54 | <MikeSmith> | in the context of using it for adaptive streaming |
| 06:54 | <MikeSmith> | he says "like DASH" |
| 07:22 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: any info on whether Chrome's CDM supports ISO Common Encryption, too? |
| 07:23 | <MikeSmith> | dunno but I think the code is in the chromium svn repo |
| 07:25 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/src/webkit/media/crypto/ppapi/ |
| 08:07 | <MikeSmith> | hmm there's a submodule under that in my working directory |
| 08:08 | <MikeSmith> | with an 18KB content_decryption_module.h header file in it |
| 09:38 | <hsivonen> | so did HTTP 1.1 bis address othermaciej's comments yet? |
| 10:51 | <MikeSmith> | so apparently the EME stuff is already enabled in current desktop Chrome |
| 10:51 | <MikeSmith> | 23+ |
| 10:52 | <MikeSmith> | http://downloads.webmproject.org/adaptive-encrypted-demo/adaptive/index.html |
| 10:52 | <MikeSmith> | is a demo |
| 10:52 | <MikeSmith> | the Key Exchange Info part there doesn't show anything |
| 10:52 | <MikeSmith> | but a bunch of stuff is logged to the console |
| 10:53 | <MikeSmith> | doNeedKey() .. adding key for the following session |
| 10:54 | <MikeSmith> | webkit-org.w3.clearkey |
| 10:54 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: they have implemented support for ISO Common Encryption |
| 10:54 | <MikeSmith> | https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=132351 |
| 10:56 | <MikeSmith> | and see the Encrypted Media Extensions section of http://www.chromium.org/developers/web-platform-status |
| 10:56 | <annevk> | morning |
| 10:57 | <MikeSmith> | hi annevk |
| 10:58 | <MikeSmith> | also http://wiki.webmproject.org/encryption/webm-encryption-rfc |
| 10:58 | <ronaldmansveld> | morning annevk |
| 10:58 | <annevk> | ronaldmansveld: I saw you had a question about CORS? |
| 10:59 | <ronaldmansveld> | yeps, indeed |
| 11:00 | <ronaldmansveld> | I don't have the resources i found open atm (not at home), so I have to do this from the top of my head, but shouldn't CORS and CSP be related? |
| 11:02 | <ronaldmansveld> | since I don't feel that the security should be handled completely by the server when doing cross-domain requests, but also by the original content |
| 11:02 | <ronaldmansveld> | after all, it's easy for a browser plugin to inject some JS, which will then contact a malicious server. that malicious server will always respond with Allowed-Origin: * |
| 11:03 | <ronaldmansveld> | (if you want to, i can make a more complete story out of this on email) |
| 11:04 | <annevk> | You can already transmit data to a malicious server without CORS |
| 11:04 | <annevk> | The only case where that is made somewhat easier is XMLHttpRequest (it used to never do a cross-origin request), but we cannot change that now. |
| 11:04 | <annevk> | ronaldmansveld: ^ |
| 11:05 | <ronaldmansveld> | but doesn't that mean that CORS will actually open up a security hole? (which then can be closed by implementing CSP) |
| 11:07 | <annevk> | ronaldmansveld: Only if your application allows arbitrary URLs to be passed to XMLHttpRequest, which would be a silly thing to do to begin with... |
| 11:08 | <annevk> | ronaldmansveld: And only if that's the only place the code would leak, and not say you could inject an image request somewhere... |
| 11:08 | <ronaldmansveld> | maybe my application doesn't, but a malicious browser-plugin might inject code that triggers a cross-domain XHR |
| 11:10 | <annevk> | ronaldmansveld: I don't know CSP specifics unfortunately, but I assume it can control outgoing requests, yes |
| 11:10 | <annevk> | ronaldmansveld: dude, if your software is malicious you are already lost |
| 11:10 | <ronaldmansveld> | and true, there are many other ways to leak, but it feels like CORS is incomplete without mentioning CSP to implement security in the application, instead of relying on the cross-domain server and checking the result |
| 11:10 | <ronaldmansveld> | CSP spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSP/ |
| 11:10 | <ronaldmansveld> | and yes, CSP controls outgoing requests |
| 11:11 | <annevk> | CORS is not about security, it's just about making cross-origin fetching possible |
| 11:12 | <annevk> | Hmm, I don't want to stonewall you. So apologies if it came off as that. |
| 11:12 | <ronaldmansveld> | no, that's OK, I just felt that the security aspect was missing in some way |
| 11:13 | <ronaldmansveld> | but now I understand that that wasn't the intention of CORS |
| 11:13 | <ronaldmansveld> | so CORS and CSP are in fact complimentary |
| 11:13 | <darobin> | indeed |
| 11:13 | <annevk> | XMLHttpRequest had a change in behavior, that might have been a bad choice in retrospect, but it's been deployed across browsers for many years now. CORS did incite that change in behavior, but CORS is mostly about making sharing cross-origin resources possible. |
| 11:13 | <annevk> | ronaldmansveld: yes they are |
| 11:14 | <ronaldmansveld> | in that case: wouldn't it be a good idea to at least mention CSP in the CORS-spec? |
| 11:15 | <darobin> | well, a lot of things are complementary |
| 11:15 | <darobin> | doesn't mean we should mention them all :) |
| 11:20 | <ronaldmansveld> | True, but since the CORS-spec has 4 parts on security (4, 6.3, 7.3, 8.4) it felt to me it was incomplete by not mentioning CSP. And indeed no need to mention them all, but I thought this would indeed make a good case |
| 11:23 | <annevk> | CORS concerns with respect to security are about protecting the contents of cross-origin resources that are not meant to be shared. |
| 11:24 | <annevk> | Those are very different concerns from protecting the data of the application that might initiate a CORS request. |
| 11:24 | <ronaldmansveld> | I see, then I might have had different expectations from the CORS-spec |
| 11:25 | <ronaldmansveld> | I'm gonna grab a quick lunch in the meantime, brb |
| 11:40 | <hsivonen> | annevk: thanks for the quick WONTFIX on making the set of encodings open-ended |
| 11:40 | <annevk> | hsivonen: Norbert mentions that to me every now and then, I tell him it's a bad idea, not sure why it now went through a bug |
| 11:55 | <hsivonen> | annevk: fwiw, my understanding is that the Indian pages in question rely on being decoded as windows-1252 |
| 11:55 | <hsivonen> | annevk: so the semantics of the characters are all wrong in browsers |
| 11:55 | <hsivonen> | annevk: but can't change that without breaking the font dependency |
| 11:56 | <hsivonen> | annevk: so adding encodings to a browser spec is unlikely to be a good idea |
| 11:56 | <hsivonen> | annevk: it's understandable why Googlebot might want to get seachable characters out of the mess, though |
| 11:57 | <hsivonen> | annevk: but OTOH, it's pretty uncool for Google to point users to pages of that level of bogosity |
| 11:59 | <hsivonen> | anyway, the right fix to avoid making Googlebot conforming would be "if you are a search engine bot, you may decode Indian legacy pages in a way that violates this spec" |
| 11:59 | <hsivonen> | not making it open-ended for browsers |
| 12:00 | <hsivonen> | (I had thought those legacy pages went away with Netscape 4.) |
| 12:01 | <annevk> | Reportedly there are some Firefox extensions that do the same thing as Googlebot. I guess you might get searchable results in such pages then? I haven't studied the details. |
| 12:04 | <annevk> | I wonder if I should go to WebApps... |
| 12:05 | <gsnedders> | hsivonen: Carakan (as in the script) has the same font-dependencies. |
| 12:06 | <gsnedders> | (Probably in part because it was only just added to Unicode in 5.2) |
| 12:06 | <annevk> | Oh that's easy. I can't attend because I'm not a member of the group. |
| 12:07 | <jgraham> | ? |
| 12:08 | <annevk> | jgraham: registration is mandatory and you can't use the registration form if you're not a member. |
| 12:09 | <hsivonen> | annevk: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/padma/ might be worth investigating |
| 12:11 | <annevk> | hsivonen: I rather not get into that unless we get more serious about doing something like that |
| 12:11 | <annevk> | (I suspect we won't ever.) |
| 12:11 | <hsivonen> | that's so sad considering that those languages have been in Unicode for a long time |
| 12:12 | <hsivonen> | "that" referring to what the extension does |
| 12:12 | <hsivonen> | not what you said |
| 12:12 | <annevk> | Yeah, I don't really understand what the problem is. I guess lack of OS support. |
| 12:13 | <gsnedders> | Legacy, as well, I expect. "This is how you do it". |
| 12:13 | <Ms2ger> | What this guy said |
| 12:13 | <hsivonen> | gsnedders: sounds right |
| 12:13 | <gsnedders> | "If you want to use the web, you set this font as the default" |
| 12:17 | <hsivonen> | Devanagari seems to have been in Unicode since 1.0 |
| 12:17 | <gsnedders> | Given it's a SBCS, is there any reason we cannot just define a new charset for it? |
| 12:17 | <hsivonen> | i.e. for two decades |
| 12:17 | <hsivonen> | gsnedders: there seems to be a bewildering number of them—not just “it” |
| 12:17 | <hsivonen> | For how long has Windows supported Devanagari? |
| 12:18 | <gsnedders> | hsivonen: How many are we talking about? |
| 12:18 | <gsnedders> | hsivonen: (And how long in all locales?) |
| 12:19 | <hsivonen> | gsnedders: around 60, it seems, but I didn't look carefully and might have miscounted or misunderstood |
| 12:19 | <gsnedders> | hsivonen: Just for the Indian subcontinent? |
| 12:20 | <hsivonen> | gsnedders: right |
| 12:20 | <hsivonen> | see http://padma.mozdev.org/ |
| 12:20 | <gsnedders> | Because there's certainly such things elsewhere too. |
| 12:22 | <jgraham> | annevk: I totally missed what you're not registering for |
| 12:22 | <jgraham> | Hence my "?" |
| 12:26 | <gsnedders> | hsivonen: Still tempted to say we should define them… |
| 12:27 | <hsivonen> | are the pages involved labeling their encoding in any sane way? (I'm guessing no.) |
| 12:27 | <gsnedders> | I'm similarly guessing no. |
| 12:28 | <annevk> | jgraham: I see |
| 12:30 | <gsnedders> | hsivonen: Random things on the Padma list seem to explicitly declare types, and work fine without fonts. |
| 12:32 | <gsnedders> | http://www.rajasthanpatrika.com/ seems to be text/html per HTTP, and has multiple meta elements. Uses UTF-8, ultimately, declared. |
| 12:32 | <gsnedders> | Changing charset after parsing has startd. |
| 12:32 | <gsnedders> | Most seem to be like that. |
| 12:33 | <gsnedders> | http://www.andhrabharati.com/ relies on fonts, on the other hand |
| 12:33 | <jgraham_> | annevk: Well at least one of us does :) |
| 12:34 | <gsnedders> | HTTP text/html, meta text/html; charset=x-user-defined |
| 12:34 | <annevk> | heh |
| 12:34 | <gsnedders> | Uses EOT to support IE in general. |
| 12:35 | <MikeSmith> | what's Hixie up to with that ⌛ character in the algorithms for srcset in the spec? |
| 12:35 | <MikeSmith> | what does it indicate? |
| 12:36 | <MikeSmith> | are there other algorithms in the spec that have that? |
| 12:36 | <gsnedders> | hsivonen: Problem is how to switch to right encoding, really |
| 12:37 | <MikeSmith> | my chromium/chrome don't actually display the hourglass glyph for it |
| 12:37 | <MikeSmith> | though Firefox does |
| 12:38 | <jgraham_> | MikeSmith: File a bug report and submit a testcase? :) |
| 12:40 | <MikeSmith> | well I don't care so much of it displaying, I'm just wondering what it's supposed to mean |
| 12:41 | <MikeSmith> | "This step takes a lot of time"? "There's a sleep here"? |
| 12:42 | <MikeSmith> | http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#typographic-conventions provides no clues |
| 12:43 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 12:43 | <MikeSmith> | nm |
| 12:43 | <MikeSmith> | found it |
| 12:44 | <MikeSmith> | "Steps in synchronous sections are marked with ⌛." |
| 12:54 | <Ms2ger> | Oh, wow, xchat found a character for that |
| 12:56 | <odinho> | WTF. The hourglass has colors here! :| |
| 13:06 | <hsivonen> | odinho: Emoji font outside Emoji range? |
| 13:11 | <MikeSmith> | has colors on OSX at least I guess |
| 13:11 | <MikeSmith> | maybe not emoji but repurposing some platform UI widget thing? |
| 13:25 | <odinho> | Yeah, I'm currently on OS X for a short while. |
| 13:30 | <MikeSmith> | http://homakov.blogspot.fr/2013/02/url-detection-with-hash-history-i-know.html |
| 13:38 | <annevk> | hsivonen: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Encrypted_Media_Extensions_Impact |
| 13:40 | <annevk> | hsivonen: Yeah, Apple has done that for a number of Emoji that were already present in Unicode |
| 13:52 | <annevk> | karlcow: can you test Location: /lo1, /loc2 as well? |
| 13:52 | <annevk> | karlcow: theoretically headers can be combined in that way |
| 13:53 | <jgraham> | odinho: s/hourglass/spinning beachball of death/ |
| 13:53 | <annevk> | karlcow: I doubt it actually works in practice that way, but that's how the HTTP guys have it modelled still |
| 13:54 | <jgraham> | Oh wait, I am confused |
| 13:54 | <odinho> | jgraham: You are, you are... |
| 13:54 | <jgraham> | Therefore I think? |
| 13:55 | <karlcow> | annevk: yup. I'll do that now |
| 14:04 | <karlcow> | annevk: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Feb/0093.html |
| 14:07 | <annevk> | karlcow: yeah, as expected |
| 14:07 | <annevk> | so easy to find bugs |
| 14:07 | <annevk> | thanks |
| 14:07 | <karlcow> | my pleasure |
| 14:15 | <karlcow> | ⌛ no color for me on XChat on MacOSX ☺ but I guess it is not using WebKit for rendering it |
| 14:16 | <karlcow> | ⌛⌛⌛⌛ hmm |
| 14:39 | <manu-db> | annevk, hsivonen: The PING (privacy WG) has invited me to come and discuss privacy implications of the EME spec with them today (12pm EST) - I was going to cover DNT and backdoor implications in CDMs, any other material that you think is worth covering? |
| 14:41 | <annevk> | manu-db: The notion of privacy and DRM at the same time seems kind of ironic |
| 14:42 | <manu-db> | annevk: Well yeah, there's that - I mean, there are the obvious "mathematical impossibility" arguments here... just wondering if there are specific browser concerns you wanted me to point out. |
| 14:43 | <manu-db> | It was going to be just me outlining the EME spec during the call, but the EME editors caught wind of it and instead offered to lead the discussion, bumping me to just comment on what they're saying. |
| 14:44 | <manu-db> | so, if there are browser manufacturer concerns (either official, or personal opinion), I thought I'd ask to see if anyone on here would want me to convey those concerns to the PING group. |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | manu-db: o_O The main problem I see is making this feasible in a way that works across browsers and platforms. But I'm not sure that has much baring on privacy. |
| 14:44 | <manu-db> | there's the concern that Mozilla wouldn't be able to do an open CDM implementation, there the DNT concerns, the backdoor concerns... anything else? |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | (The o_O was for the EME editor intervention thingie.) |
| 14:44 | manu-db | figured. :) |
| 14:46 | <manu-db> | annevk, hsivonen: Did you see this suggestion? http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2013/more-on-drm-in-html5/#comment-1314315 -- has that approach been gaining any traction w/ Mozilla/browser manufacturers? |
| 14:46 | <zewt> | well, this sounds a bit pointless :) |
| 14:47 | <annevk> | manu-db: I think the main concern is that there is some kind of closed system outside the browser's control. I.e. we got rid of plugins but we introduce them again for DRM meaning the web does achieve its full potential and whatnot (as it's not cross-platform). |
| 14:47 | <zewt> | i mean, i can't imagine anyone implementing these closed-web drm things to be influenced by what any WG says |
| 14:47 | <annevk> | manu-db: but you mentioned that |
| 14:48 | <manu-db> | zewt: Well yes... but somebody has to go in and balance the conversation... lots of folks don't understand the implications of the EME spec, so we have to do some grassroots education on the matter. If we can get PING commenting about privacy implications, that's less work that the rest of us have to do on that front. (that's the theory, anyway) |
| 14:48 | <zewt> | it pretty much kills any pretense of the w3 being about an open web, that they're allowing a spec like that under their name |
| 14:49 | <zewt> | manu-db: but anyone implementing it in a real production browser does understand it |
| 14:49 | <zewt> | and regular users don't care--and there aren't many other parties with any influence on the situation, i would think |
| 14:49 | <rcombs> | could element.scrollIntoView be given a second argument that enables animating the scroll? |
| 14:49 | <zewt> | not to say don't try, just call me skeptical :) |
| 14:50 | <zewt> | rcombs: android scroll* already does animate :( or it did at some point, maybe they fixed that |
| 14:51 | <manu-db> | zewt: I think regular users do care once it's explained to them. I'm skeptical as well, but we have to try our best to explain what's at stake here. We can have enough of an impact on the W3C process if there are enough people commenting on the broken-ness of some of the stuff in EME. |
| 14:52 | <zewt> | rcombs: animation is tricky, and there are a lot of half-designed, brittle animation things already (css transitions and animations, which have lots of weirdness), so I'd suggest not adding any more animation stuff without doing a more thorough design |
| 14:52 | <rcombs> | zewt: well, in that case, a more thorough design is in order |
| 14:53 | <rcombs> | zewt: because scrollIntoView is pretty jarring at the moment |
| 14:54 | <Ms2ger> | XHR1 is back, eh |
| 14:55 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: is it? |
| 14:57 | <annevk> | manu-db: FWIW, roc from Mozilla I think brought forward the constraints "the web" has at some point |
| 14:57 | <zewt> | tired of asking "what's the use case for this big, complex thing" and all i can get is "it seems convenient" |
| 14:57 | <rcombs> | manu-db + zewt: my $0.02: I think the web standards should leave out DRM and wait for web devs to be forced to drop it altogether when plugins stop being as widely installed |
| 14:57 | <Ms2ger> | That would certainly work for me... |
| 15:02 | <annevk> | manu-db: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0117.html and the email referenced therein are probably good to read |
| 15:02 | <annevk> | manu-db: I've not kept up to speed myself |
| 15:03 | manu-db | thanks annevk. (afk to chair RDFa WG call) |
| 15:03 | <odinho> | I like the XHR: The attorney edition name. |
| 15:03 | <rcombs> | DRM introduces o9k problems, it goes against open web principles, and it doesn't seem worth implementing |
| 15:04 | <zewt> | "worth implementing" is something that can only be decided by implementors |
| 15:04 | <odinho> | netflix and microsoft and google is pushing hard though. It's business business. |
| 15:05 | <Ms2ger> | odinho, maybe we should call webapps "WHATWG: The attorney edition" ; |
| 15:05 | <Ms2ger> | ) |
| 15:05 | <zewt> | Ms2ger: "feat. Microsoft" |
| 15:05 | <rcombs> | zewt: II: Electric Boogaloo |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | "excl annevk for copyright reasons." |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | "incl x, y, z to replace annevk." |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | (they do a much better impression of me anyway) |
| 15:27 | <SteveF_> | zewt: "it pretty much kills any pretense of the w3 being about an open web, that they're allowing a spec like that under their name" pretty much kills pretense of Google being about the open web as well then right |
| 15:27 | <Ms2ger> | Google isn't about the open web |
| 15:28 | <SteveF_> | Ms2ger: so who is? |
| 15:28 | <Ms2ger> | Mozilla, duh! |
| 15:28 | <gavinc> | Mozilla ;) |
| 15:29 | <SteveF_> | apart from Mozilla? |
| 15:29 | <darobin> | where does Mozilla's money come from? |
| 15:29 | <SteveF_> | closed web sources |
| 15:30 | <gavinc> | No see if you launder the money first then it's fine... or something |
| 15:30 | <SteveF_> | all seems a bit simplistic to claim w3c is not about open web |
| 15:31 | <darobin> | I'm too lazy to scroll back — are we talking about DRM? |
| 15:32 | <SteveF_> | so only browser vendor that is about open web is mozilla the rest are in it for the money and self interest |
| 15:33 | <Ms2ger> | Do you disagree? |
| 15:33 | <SteveF_> | no |
| 15:33 | <SteveF_> | but I am a simpleton |
| 15:35 | <SteveF_> | whatwg, w3c etc are all in same boat , the good ship Kapital! |
| 15:41 | <marcosc> | I hear there is good money to be made in this internets thing! where do I sign up? |
| 15:44 | <SteveF_> | profit's the noose of the open web |
| 15:46 | <annevk> | Afaict Google has many interests, not all of them good for the web |
| 15:58 | <SteveF_> | annevk: probably the same for any organization to a lesser or greater degree, somebody should write a book about it '50 shades of Open Web' |
| 16:28 | <Ms2ger> | https://twitter.com/sgalineau/status/306805978135924736 |
| 16:31 | <miketaylr> | sylvain loves opera |
| 16:32 | <marcosc> | if you are going to mention Opera on twitter, you are going to have a bad time :) |
| 16:33 | <jgraham> | Yeah, that miketaylr will be right in your face |
| 16:33 | <miketaylr> | but it will be fun to tease him about UX when he's working for [redacted] |
| 16:33 | <Ms2ger> | Adobe |
| 16:34 | <Ms2ger> | It's in the CSSWG conf call minutes |
| 16:34 | <miketaylr> | ok, un-redact that then |
| 16:34 | <miketaylr> | dact it? O_o |
| 16:34 | Ms2ger | duct-tapes MikeSmith |
| 16:35 | <jgraham> | Is that usually how you treat sleeping men? |
| 16:35 | Ms2ger | tears it off, attaches to miketaylr instead |
| 16:35 | <zewt> | :| |
| 16:35 | <miketaylr> | he should be awake after that |
| 16:40 | <darobin> | MikeSmith: can sleep quite soundly |
| 16:43 | <jgraham> | Probably Ms2ger drugged him before duct taping him |
| 16:44 | <MikeSmith> | I'm using the extra duct tape to patch the carburetor on my browser engine |
| 16:45 | <annevk> | The web could use some duct tape |
| 16:46 | <annevk> | Also, for the longest time I thought it was duck tape |
| 16:46 | <annevk> | And I didn't get it |
| 16:47 | <darobin> | hahaha |
| 16:47 | <darobin> | lovely Mondegreen |
| 16:48 | <jgraham> | But it *is* duck tape |
| 16:49 | <jgraham> | I think duct tape is the newer term |
| 16:49 | <Ms2ger> | Would you rather fight a tape-sized duck or a hundred duck-sized tapes? |
| 16:50 | <miketaylr> | "In 1942 Revolite, then a division of Johnson & Johnson, originally developed an adhesive tape made from a rubber-based adhesive applied to a durable duck cloth backing." huh |
| 16:50 | <miketaylr> | TIL duck isn't just some brand |
| 16:52 | marcosc | wants a leisure suit made out of duck cloth |
| 16:52 | <marcosc> | make that "durable" duck cloth... none of that cheap stuff! |
| 16:53 | <darobin> | wtf is duck cloth |
| 16:54 | <darobin> | btw if you're French you want to share the love: https://twitter.com/LesAutruches/status/307140744764858369 :) |
| 16:54 | darobin | prods SimonSapin --^ |
| 16:55 | <SimonSapin> | après les pigeons, les autruches ? |
| 16:55 | <darobin> | c'est mieux, lis le texte :) |
| 16:56 | <marcosc> | "Faced with the absurdity of the IHR, URSSAF et al: The Manifesto Ostriches" ? |
| 16:56 | <darobin> | hey, not so bad |
| 17:01 | <dglazkov> | good morning, Whatwg! |
| 17:01 | <dglazkov> | the scrollback looks dangerously nsfw |
| 17:02 | <marcosc> | dglazkov: you will love it. It involves a lot of duck tape, MikeSmith, and leisure suits |
| 17:03 | <dglazkov> | just another day in the Web standards community |
| 17:46 | <annevk> | marcosc: so the TAG thing is 60min from now? |
| 17:46 | annevk | just realized he hasn't set up W3C IRC |
| 17:46 | <marcosc> | aww. God. That... I guess . |
| 17:47 | <marcosc> | oh, CVS |
| 17:47 | <marcosc> | DONT FORGET THE CVS annevk! |
| 17:47 | <annevk> | I don't want to go there really |
| 17:47 | <marcosc> | I nearly lost it |
| 17:47 | <annevk> | I think the public key I gave the W3C once has long been obsoleted |
| 17:48 | <marcosc> | I hit reply, ... started typing... closed the window.... hit reply again... started typing... deleted the draft again. |
| 17:48 | <annevk> | Also, CVS |
| 17:48 | <marcosc> | yeah, same happened to me |
| 17:48 | <marcosc> | I'm not going through that mess again |
| 17:49 | <marcosc> | I think I once wasted 2 hours trying to get CVS working with the w3c server + 24 hour wait for them to install my key |
| 17:50 | <marcosc> | anyway, yeah... call in one hour |
| 17:50 | <annevk> | I have instructions for W3C CVS on my blog somewhere, but I really rather not |
| 17:51 | <marcosc> | lets get slightlyoff to say we are using GitHub |
| 18:10 | <annevk> | odinho: fwiw, it'd be interesting to know if IE fails for e.g. 203 or 299 |
| 18:11 | <annevk> | odinho: given that just allowing 200/204 is one of the paths forward |
| 18:18 | <manu-db> | annevk, zewt, rcombs, SteveF_: DRM in HTML5 (EME) discussion in Privacy Working Group - http://www.w3.org/2013/02/28-privacy-minutes.html#item01 (glad to see hsivonen on that call as well - good job on the network-access-knowability comments, btw) |
| 18:19 | <annevk> | "Less use ofd plugins is good, more use of HTML is good." So we'll give you some new plugins! |
| 18:19 | <annevk> | Flawless victory! |
| 18:20 | <annevk> | (I'm not helping, I know.) |
| 18:23 | <annevk> | It seems we did not move anywhere though. The story is still that the CDM is a black box. |
| 18:24 | <marcosc> | ridicule is the best form of medicine |
| 18:27 | <annevk> | "<adrianba> hsivonen, yes, i see your comments - i think this is the key thing we will need to address but i think mostly what we can do is call out considerations for CDM implementers" |
| 18:27 | <annevk> | That's the spec language equivalent of "Fuck you" |
| 18:51 | <TabAtkins> | scott_gonzalez: Spec is done. I'm doing editorial tweaks and inviting final review before we hit LC and then CR. WebKit already has an impl (hidden behind a flag, and bizarrely prefixed), and FF is working on one as well. |
| 18:52 | <TabAtkins> | scott_gonzalez: Also, if you need a CSS parser in JS, try mine: https://github.com/tabatkins/css-parser It matches the Syntax spec (well, now a slightly older revision of the spec, but I pick it up and sync the code every once in a while). |
| 19:26 | <scott_gonzalez> | TabAtkins: Thanks. I'll check out the css-parser :-) |
| 20:52 | <annevk> | What I really miss in Gmail is "edit the filters for this label" |
| 20:53 | <annevk> | Or am I overlooking that? |
| 20:53 | <zewt> | i always have to dig through the filters to find the one for a label |
| 20:59 | <annevk> | also, editing filters is confusing and basic stuff like "list:a list:b" does not work... |
| 21:00 | <Hixie> | woot, the spec and firefox are secure http://feross.org/fill-disk/ :-) |
| 21:01 | <zewt> | also as far as i know the only way to have one filter eg. "from:address", and a bunch of other filters like "from:address something", without the latter falling into the first, is to encapsulate every single filter into the first giving "from:addres -something -somethingelse" |
| 21:01 | <annevk> | Hixie: prolly not against entities that have loads of domains ;-) |
| 21:01 | <zewt> | which is terrible, since i want work email to go to one box, unless it's from our bug tracker or release notifications or whatever in which case i want it in a sublabel |
| 21:05 | <Hixie> | annevk: they cost money, so i'm not so worried about those |
| 21:05 | <Hixie> | annevk: a million subdomains costs the same as a hundred, but a million domains costs ten thousand times more than a hundred. |
| 21:05 | <annevk> | unless you get your domain on publicsuffix.org somehow |
| 21:06 | <annevk> | and there's stuff like dyndns on there iirc, not sure what their policies are |
| 21:06 | <annevk> | but yeah, it's a lot better than just checking the origin |
| 21:12 | <jgraham> | annevk: You could, you know, not use gmail? |
| 21:12 | <jgraham> | Or at least not use the web ui |
| 21:12 | <zewt> | if you change software every time you find something stupid in them, you won't have any software left to use |
| 21:13 | <annevk> | jgraham: I haven't found a good client for it |
| 21:13 | <jgraham> | Isn't any imap client a potential client? |
| 21:14 | <zewt> | in my experience, everything imap is terrible |
| 21:15 | <jgraham> | zewt: Yeah, but in this case moving from a frontend that you like to one that you don't because the backend changed, even though the frontends both work seems weird |
| 21:15 | <zewt> | parse error |
| 21:17 | <annevk> | jgraham: sure, but none of them quite match Gmail I've found. Though M2 was pretty good |
| 21:19 | <SimonSapin> | zewt: what’s wrong with imap? |
| 21:20 | <zewt> | been a while, but i just remember it being slow and clumsy |
| 21:36 | <odinho> | Hixie: Don't think that works as well in Opera. |
| 21:45 | <Simon______> | hi |
| 21:47 | <Simon______> | I was wondering would allow to cache the current page be possible ? Something like window.cache.save("a-new-etag"); |
| 21:50 | <Simon______> | In application cache we can ask the browser to get updates from the server, but is it difficult/bad to ask the browser to cache the current computed page ? |
| 21:58 | <Simon______> | I rephrase : why HTML5's applicationCache doesn't allow to cache the current (computed) page (with no request to the server) ? |
| 22:00 | <annevk> | Simon______: you can already cache a page via HTTP |
| 22:01 | <Simon______> | yep but after some AJAX calls & DOM updates the cache is obsolete |
| 22:02 | <Simon______> | now if the user goes offline, the cached version will be obsolete |
| 22:04 | <annevk> | Oh, so you want the DOM serialized to disk? That seems unlikely to happen as that would require a lot of difficult changes. |
| 22:04 | <Simon______> | Oh ok |
| 22:04 | <Simon______> | I guessed so |
| 22:04 | <annevk> | You could store the changes via Indexed DB and apply them at onload or some such... |
| 22:05 | <Simon______> | I was asking myself that question :) |
| 22:05 | <Simon______> | Thank you |
| 22:06 | <annevk> | FWIW, there are some plans to design a better application cache, if you check back in a month or so there should be some proposals out there. Though serializing the DOM to disk will still not be covered I'm afraid ;-) |
| 22:23 | <Simon______> | @annevk I have other worries about appCache, I hope the future updates will cover them |
| 22:24 | <Simon______> | For example appCache doesn't seem great for "mixed data & logic" sites |
| 22:27 | <Simon______> | Applying updates with the help of indexedDB is nice, but still the user see the old data for a fraction of second |
| 22:28 | <Simon______> | What would be great would be able to specify another page for the offline. |
| 22:29 | <Simon______> | So when online you get a page "logic + data", and when offline you get a page login only |
| 22:29 | <Simon______> | (and then you can load the data from indexedDB) |
| 22:30 | <Simon______> | err I meant 'when offline you get a page of "logic" only' |
| 23:30 | <JonathanNeal> | http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#attr-notation want want want want want |
| 23:31 | <JonathanNeal> | content: attr(src, url) |
| 23:56 | <Hixie> | do we prefer the spec to have obvious optimisations in its algorithms, or do we prefer to the spec to be extremely consistent to the point of being inefficient in its algorithms? |
| 23:59 | <Hixie> | e.g. do i prefer mode 1: if (A) { do X, then back up and go to mode 2 } else { back up then go to mode 2 }; mode 2: if (B) { ... } else { do Y } |
| 23:59 | <Hixie> | or do I prefer mode 1: if (A) { do X, do Y, go to mode 2 } else { back up then go to mode 2 }; mode 2: if (B) { ... } else { do Y } |