| 00:44 | <zewt> | ... does anybody else get bitten by copies from MDN containing literal nbsp characters, breaking the parsing of the example code you're trying to copy, heh |
| 08:17 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: http://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/4 |
| 08:18 | <Ms2ger> | I broke the system again? |
| 08:19 | <jgraham> | Hmm, that was working last night |
| 08:19 | <jgraham> | Oh dammit |
| 08:24 | <Ms2ger> | It doesn't sound terribly stable ;) |
| 08:25 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: Try again :) |
| 08:25 | <jgraham> | It wasn't really working last night at all. I just didn't notice because it thought I was already authenticated. |
| 08:25 | <Ms2ger> | Yay, comments :) |
| 08:36 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, what did you want to add to idlharness.js? |
| 08:36 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: Well it was more of a thought than a requirement (hence it's a note rather than an issue) |
| 08:37 | <Ms2ger> | Yeah, but what was the note about? :) |
| 08:38 | <jgraham> | Well I was wondering if the test for extra arguments beyond the longest overload set shouldn't have any effect (in particular that they shouldn't get toString or valueOf called) should be an idlharness.js test |
| 08:39 | <jgraham> | Wow that sentence is a grammar fail |
| 08:41 | <Ms2ger> | Possibly, yes |
| 08:41 | <jgraham> | Anyway, I don't really expect you to fix it now, but open a bug perhaps? |
| 08:42 | <Ms2ger> | Where? :) |
| 08:43 | Ms2ger | goes for the testharness.js component |
| 08:43 | <jgraham> | I think there is a component in the W3C bugzilla |
| 08:43 | <jgraham> | Yeah |
| 08:59 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: Review is accepted (you should add your email address to get more spam ;) |
| 08:59 | <Ms2ger> | "It's not just good, it's good enough"? |
| 09:00 | <jgraham> | I believe that is what the kids are calling a "meme" |
| 09:00 | <zcorpan> | i wonder if i can get cssom back into public domain |
| 09:01 | <Ms2ger> | I guess you could start from Anne's last commit |
| 09:01 | <Ms2ger> | Not sure if anything useful happened to the spec since |
| 09:01 | <zcorpan> | yes, that would be my plan. but glenn still wants to be an editor |
| 09:01 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, the "Merge Pull Request" button doesn't seem to work? :) |
| 09:01 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: No, it doesn't work even slightly :) |
| 09:02 | <jgraham> | github permissions model = too complicated for me to understand |
| 09:03 | <jgraham> | (if anyone reading knows what Oauth permissions you have to request to get that to work, and, prefereably, can give me an example of a request that will make it work, please let me know) |
| 09:03 | <jgraham> | *oAuth |
| 09:03 | <jgraham> | OAuth? |
| 09:03 | <Ms2ger> | OAUTH? |
| 09:03 | <jgraham> | COBOL? |
| 13:05 | <SteveF> | hixie: re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2013Feb/0172.html would be useful to get a response to this as current divergent definitions of <main> between W3C and WHATWG are not helpful |
| 13:10 | <SteveF> | hixie: if the current lack of rationale, uses cases or data is not going to change then a simple heads up would suffice, thanks in advance :-) |
| 13:14 | <jgraham> | SteveF: "Authors must not include the main element as a child of an article, aside, footer, header or nav element" - you presumably mean "descendant" there |
| 13:15 | <SteveF> | jgraham: yes thanks will fix |
| 13:21 | <SteveF> | jgraham: fixed https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/2d051ef356814ea0432b2d0d1f9d09a2836b33c9 |
| 13:22 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: You going to answer Art? |
| 13:22 | <jgraham> | SteveF: Thnks |
| 13:22 | <jgraham> | +a |
| 13:22 | <jgraham> | Not Web 2.0 anymore |
| 13:22 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: i don't even know which those files were |
| 13:23 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: i fixed bugs all over the place |
| 13:24 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: Presumably the hg history could tell you. I will look if you don't want |
| 13:25 | <zcorpan> | i'm in the middle of submitting the register tests :-P |
| 13:26 | <jgraham> | OK, I can do it, should only take a moment |
| 13:26 | <jgraham> | Although, hg, so who knows |
| 13:27 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: why does html-testsuite have an 'html' folder? |
| 13:27 | <Ms2ger> | Is binaryType-wrong-value.htm one of yours too? |
| 13:27 | <Ms2ger> | zcorpan, one per spec |
| 13:27 | <Ms2ger> | zcorpan, so html/microdata/canvas/... |
| 13:28 | <zcorpan> | -_- |
| 13:28 | <Ms2ger> | *shrug* |
| 13:28 | <Ms2ger> | We'll be adding folders for all the webapps specs soon enough too |
| 13:28 | <odinho> | Hence the talk about changing the name of html-testsuite to something more suitable. |
| 13:29 | <Ms2ger> | The issue is that darobin is lazy |
| 13:30 | <zcorpan> | now i need to check in which w3c spec register*handler is defined |
| 13:32 | <Ms2ger> | html/webappapis/system-state-and-capabilities/the-navigator-object |
| 13:33 | <zcorpan> | yep. thanks |
| 13:36 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: Email sent |
| 13:36 | <jgraham> | Are you on that list yet? |
| 13:36 | <zcorpan> | thanks. yes |
| 13:37 | <zcorpan> | though i hadn't read the emails there yet :-) |
| 13:43 | zcorpan | bbiab |
| 13:55 | <darobin> | yeah I'm one lazy sob |
| 13:55 | darobin | goes back to his nap |
| 13:58 | Ms2ger | kicks darobin awake |
| 13:59 | darobin | Zzzzzzz |
| 13:59 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: Poor guy is sobbing already |
| 14:45 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: ok made a pull request for registerhandler |
| 14:46 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: Excellent |
| 14:47 | <Ms2ger> | The users assigned to review the changes on the review branch are: |
| 14:47 | <Ms2ger> | Ms2ger |
| 14:47 | <Ms2ger> | James Graham |
| 14:47 | <Ms2ger> | Crap |
| 14:48 | <jgraham> | Heh |
| 14:48 | <jgraham> | Well there is probably some policy that I can't review it :) |
| 14:49 | jgraham | unassigns himself from all files |
| 14:49 | <jgraham> | Need to get darobin and MikeSmith to recreate their accounts |
| 14:49 | <jgraham> | And tobie |
| 14:53 | <odinho> | The easiest review (what mozilla did for cors) is to look at every test you fail, and scrutinize the test to see if it is wrong. Sometimes it indeed is :-) |
| 14:53 | <gsnedders> | This is what normally happens unofficially. |
| 14:55 | <Ms2ger> | If Gecko fails it, of course it's wrong ;) |
| 15:26 | <zcorpan> | does "http://foo bar" fail to resolve according to the url standard? |
| 15:26 | <zcorpan> | i tried to step through the spec but got lost |
| 15:35 | <tobie> | jgraham: we're getting rid of such policies. There are others ways of addressing people gaming the system than slowing everything down for everyone. |
| 15:37 | <jgraham> | tobie: I still don't want to review the tests :) |
| 15:39 | <tobie> | Uhm. |
| 15:39 | <jgraham> | Review is hard and boring and no one is being apid to so it, so 14:54 < odinho> The easiest review (what mozilla did for cors) is to look at every test you fail, and scrutinize the test to see if it is wrong. Sometimes it indeed is :-) |
| 15:39 | <jgraham> | 14:55 < gsnedders> This is what normally happens unofficially. |
| 15:39 | <jgraham> | *paid |
| 15:39 | <tobie> | yeah. Let's all enjoy false positives. |
| 15:39 | <jgraham> | Well |
| 15:39 | <gsnedders> | Only if everybody falsey passes it. |
| 15:40 | <jgraham> | To be honest I would consider "everybody is actually running the tests" to be such a vast improvment over what ewe have today that I would take a few bad tests as a penalty |
| 15:40 | <tobie> | oh absolutely. |
| 15:40 | <jgraham> | s/ewe/we/ |
| 15:40 | <tobie> | Me too. |
| 15:41 | <tobie> | I was genuinely embracing false positives. Not being snarky about it. |
| 15:41 | <tobie> | Well. |
| 15:41 | <tobie> | Only a bit. |
| 15:41 | <gsnedders> | I'd love a system run by the W3C that automatically ran tests on all currently available latest builds of browsers, and then you could flag up things where not everyone passes to look at. |
| 15:42 | <gsnedders> | But that'll require too much h/w to be practical, probably. |
| 15:42 | <tobie> | gsnedders: yes. something like that is being considered to help speedup reviewes. |
| 15:42 | <gsnedders> | Even just with one build of each browser per day. |
| 15:42 | <Ms2ger> | Maybe Microsoft can donate some servers :) |
| 15:42 | <gsnedders> | tobie: I'll start properly paying attention in May again. :P |
| 15:44 | <jgraham> | But let's estimate here. How fast can you review code? Well it depends I guess, but we could say something like 2-10 lines/ minute. So zcorpan just pushed something like 2-10 hours worth of review work. |
| 15:45 | <tobie> | gsnedders: just running the tests that have been touched by the commit should be relatively fast. |
| 15:45 | <jgraham> | Uh, lost a factor there somewhere |
| 15:45 | <Ms2ger> | More if you have to read the spec first ;) |
| 15:45 | <tobie> | also, the builds don't necessarily need to be running edge all the time. |
| 15:46 | <jgraham> | (3.5 - 18 hours) |
| 15:46 | <gsnedders> | tobie: Well, that assumes browsers don't regress. Which they do. Which could lead to ugly surprises when trying to get to PR. |
| 15:46 | <gsnedders> | (Or, rather, per-process, leave CR) |
| 15:46 | <jgraham> | Blah blah, trying to get to PR |
| 15:46 | <jgraham> | Not a goal. |
| 15:46 | <jgraham> | The only important goal is to get interop. |
| 15:46 | <Ms2ger> | ^ |
| 15:47 | <tobie> | I think there's a lot of agreement around that, |
| 15:47 | <tobie> | Also, the goal here is to help review the tests. |
| 15:47 | <Ms2ger> | Not at the W3C, there isn't |
| 15:47 | <jgraham> | The most important way to get that is to ensure that browsers themselves are running the tests as part of their ngihtly builds |
| 15:47 | <jgraham> | Or whatever other authomated regression testing they have |
| 15:48 | <jgraham> | That's the only surefire way to make them take regressions seriously |
| 15:48 | <Ms2ger> | Minions clicking through the tests |
| 15:48 | Ms2ger | waves at Microsoft |
| 15:48 | <tobie> | Ms2ger: W3C new testing effort is specifically targeted are looking being testing for rec track purposes. |
| 15:48 | <Ms2ger> | I have no idea what you just said |
| 15:49 | <tobie> | s/are/at/ |
| 15:49 | <tobie> | well, no wonder. |
| 15:49 | <Ms2ger> | at looking being testing for rec track purposes? |
| 15:49 | <tobie> | combination of auto-correct + me badly needing a break. |
| 15:49 | jgraham | still doesn't understand either |
| 15:49 | <tobie> | I love that sentence. |
| 15:50 | <tobie> | "W3C new testing effort is specifically targeted are looking being testing for rec track purposes." |
| 15:50 | <tobie> | Should become my tagline. |
| 15:50 | <Ms2ger> | You do need a break :) |
| 15:50 | <Ms2ger> | Do I need to call plh to approve that? ;) |
| 15:50 | <tobie> | Let me try this again: |
| 15:51 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: I thought you were timbl? You must be able to approve tobie's breaks |
| 15:51 | <tobie> | The plot thickens. |
| 15:51 | <hsivonen> | yay for the latest post on http://www.librevideo.org/blog/ being over two years old |
| 15:53 | <tobie> | W3C's new testing effort is specifically targeted to look beyond testing done strictly to move specs on the rec track. |
| 15:53 | <tobie> | still butchered english, but probably more understandable. |
| 15:54 | <tobie> | s/probably/hopefully/ |
| 15:54 | <tobie> | evidently still in dire need of a break. |
| 15:54 | <jgraham> | I like that sentence more |
| 15:54 | <tobie> | it is more understable. |
| 15:54 | <tobie> | argggg |
| 15:54 | <tobie> | OK, I quit. |
| 15:54 | <Ms2ger> | Bye :) |
| 15:54 | <jgraham> | Under stable: below the horses? |
| 16:05 | <dglazkov> | good morning, Whatwg! |
| 16:24 | <aklein> | hsivonen: ping? |
| 17:13 | <annevk> | "I would appreciate if you will define term `event`. After that we can discuss it further." o_O |
| 17:14 | <annevk> | Oh man, and sicking cites dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore |
| 17:42 | <annevk> | const DOMString product = "Gecko"; |
| 17:45 | <annevk> | Oh, ES6 will define ArrayBuffer natively |
| 18:00 | <zewt> | annevk: are you reading that IDB thread? heh |
| 18:01 | <zewt> | (i recall that guy apparently thinks idb's use of events is a "proposal" and an "antipattern") |
| 18:05 | <annevk> | ojan_away: so is a problem with quasis that they require parsing twice or is that not actually the case? |
| 18:06 | <zewt> | annoying to see ArrayBuffer being used more and more; it's such a crappy, inconsistent API |
| 20:14 | <jgraham> | annevk: The problem with quasis aiui is that they are basically posh string interpolation |
| 20:15 | <jgraham> | In particular abarth argues that the default of `Hello {person}` being unsafe isn't good enough |
| 20:29 | <jgraham> | Although now I see more mail on that thread, so maybe I am missing some point |
| 20:47 | <annevk> | jgraham: but if a quasi will always be just a string, even after having it applied, then you need to effectively parse the thing twice before you get what you want which seems silly |
| 20:53 | <jgraham> | annevk: Yeah. But I think sicking suggested that html`stuff` would return a DOM tree |
| 20:53 | <jgraham> | I am not exactly sure how that's supposed to work |
| 22:40 | <dglazkov> | Hixie: can you help me find where the in the spec the <script> elements don't run or fetch in documents without browsing contexts? |
| 22:40 | <dglazkov> | Hixie: need your expertise :) |
| 22:41 | <Hixie> | yeah one sec |
| 22:41 | Hixie | looks |
| 22:44 | <Hixie> | dglazkov: step 11 of the <script> element "prepare a script" algorithm |
| 22:51 | <dglazkov> | \o/ |
| 23:00 | <Hixie> | hmmm |
| 23:00 | <Hixie> | i just noticed that as specified, addTextTrack() is also WebVTT-specific |
| 23:00 | <Hixie> | that's interesting |
| 23:02 | <rillian> | isn't it? |
| 23:05 | Hixie | fixes |
| 23:11 | <Hixie> | there |
| 23:49 | <esprehn> | Hixie: can I get an account on http://wiki.whatwg.org/ ? |
| 23:51 | <Hixie> | sure |
| 23:51 | <Hixie> | e-mail? |
| 23:52 | <esprehn> | my handle @gmail.com is fine |
| 23:53 | <Hixie> | done |