| 09:13 | <mekeor> | is it fine to use the <details> and <summary> (together with <dl> and <dd>) like this: <http://www.webdevout.net/test?0o>;? (i assume this is the right/best channel to discuss html5, right?) |
| 09:15 | <mekeor> | (the example only works with chrome/chromium or safari, see <http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_details.asp>;.) |
| 09:25 | mekeor | is re-asking on #html5. |
| 15:19 | <jgraham> | GPHemsley: By "should" do you mean "I tested and this is what browsers do" or "I think this is what should happen given the specs, but didn't test"? |
| 15:20 | <GPHemsley> | jgraham: Where did I say "should"? |
| 15:20 | <GPHemsley> | Oh, to annevk? |
| 15:20 | <jgraham> | Yeah |
| 15:21 | <GPHemsley> | That's "should" as in, "If you follow what the spec says, this is what I expect to happen" |
| 15:21 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: I don't think you should have put that feature in without testing |
| 15:21 | <annevk> | GPHemsley: that's not how we normally do things and doesn't really help implementers, because now they still have to do all the legwork and then correct you on top of that |
| 15:23 | <jgraham> | Right, if you are defining an existing theng you have to match existing behaviour, especially where there is agreement on what the behaviour is. Which means that you always have to first work out what the existing behaviour is |
| 15:23 | <jgraham> | *thing |
| 15:24 | <GPHemsley> | AIUI, the agreed upon behavior was already determined |
| 15:43 | <annevk> | You still have to test as e.g. interpreting something labeled image/png as image/gif might not be seen as sniffing depending on who you ask. |
| 15:44 | <annevk> | Or in other words, if everything was perfectly clear as you suggest, there'd be no reason for us to have an open bug on implementing it with exactly those sort of questions. |