| 00:34 | <rektide> | amusingly Chrome appears to report rgb(r, g, b) programmatically but the debugger gives a bunch of #rrggbb results |
| 00:36 | <rektide> | i'm not at all confident on the heuristics of what's up but different stuff, same browser: check |
| 01:17 | <wowaname> | ohai |
| 02:36 | <MikeSmith> | what are "forgeable" and "unforgeable" in the context of JavaScript? |
| 02:36 | <MikeSmith> | or is that some WebIDL thing? |
| 03:17 | <Domenic_> | MikeSmith: from what i understsand it has something to do with configurable, but also something else? |
| 03:27 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic_: that sounds likely |
| 03:28 | <MikeSmith> | because somebody who was asking me about forgeable and unforgeable also mentioned configurable |
| 05:46 | <paul_irish> | Domenic_: your LXJS talk is fantastic. :D |
| 06:01 | <MikeSmith> | paul_irish: is it online? |
| 06:01 | <MikeSmith> | or I guess you probably mean you're there at the event |
| 06:01 | <paul_irish> | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hneN6aW-d9w "how to win friends and influence standards bodies" |
| 06:02 | <paul_irish> | the event was last week but the videos are already out. so good. |
| 06:03 | <MikeSmith> | great |
| 07:55 | <annevk> | zcorpan: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=850684 |
| 07:56 | <zcorpan> | rektide: if cssom's api makes you jump through hoops, send an email or file a bug describing what you're trying to do (i.e. your use case, don't describe a proposed solution, at least not at first) |
| 07:57 | <zcorpan> | annevk: thanks |
| 08:02 | <rektide> | zcorpan: alas it all makes sense now |
| 08:09 | <zcorpan> | rektide: ok, good :-) |
| 08:24 | <MikeSmith> | TIL about [Unforgeable] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#Unforgeable |
| 08:24 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic_: ↑ |
| 08:25 | <zcorpan> | heh, funny how my brain fills in words that my eyes apparently skip over while reading. i read "Let me try it blink before ..." as "Let me try to blink before ..." |
| 08:26 | <zcorpan> | of course it should have been "try it *in* blink", which my brain would probably fill in correctly |
| 08:27 | <MikeSmith> | so [Unforgeable] just maps to configurable=false? |
| 08:28 | <zcorpan> | not just, it also make the property on the instance instead of on the prototype |
| 08:28 | <MikeSmith> | ah |
| 08:28 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 08:37 | <zcorpan> | http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/2551 (looks like gecko doesn't follow the html spec there) |
| 08:38 | <annevk> | I don't understand http://blog.chromium.org/2013/10/chrome-31-beta-android-application.html given the exchange on blink-dev regarding requestAutocomplete() |
| 08:39 | <annevk> | Or does shipping and marketing a feature for Beta say nothing about final? |
| 08:44 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: afaik from chrome shipping is shipping |
| 08:45 | <MikeSmith> | there's no "let's try shipping this for beta only" |
| 08:45 | <zcorpan> | "You are FAILING HARD" LOL https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23436 |
| 08:46 | <MikeSmith> | at least as far as I can glean from intent-to-ship messages on blink-dev |
| 08:46 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/2551 looks same to me in gecko as in blink |
| 08:46 | <MikeSmith> | wondering what I should be seeing |
| 08:46 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: if that's true that'd be bad... |
| 08:46 | <annevk> | zcorpan: seems someone doesn't understand plugins |
| 08:48 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: you sure? do you have the latest? |
| 08:49 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: i get false,true in gecko and true,false in blink. spec agrees with blink |
| 08:59 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: stepped away from my PC. will look again when I get back |
| 09:36 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: what does v.nu do in <!DOCTYPE html><body></body><!--x--></html>x ? does it insert the comment to body, or drop it on the floor, or something else? |
| 09:38 | <zcorpan> | hmm, the spec requires non-streamable behavior for conforming markup too. (replace the x with a space) |
| 09:40 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: the x after the html end tag is conforming? |
| 09:40 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: no but a space is |
| 09:40 | <MikeSmith> | (btw still away from my PC) |
| 09:40 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: and it's inserted to body but the comment was inserted after body |
| 09:40 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 09:44 | <zcorpan> | maybe all comments are dropped? |
| 09:52 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: back at the sugar shack now |
| 09:53 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: you know (remember) about http://html5.validator.nu/parsetree/ ? |
| 09:53 | <MikeSmith> | http://html5.validator.nu/parsetree/?parser=html5&content=%3C%21DOCTYPE+html%3E%3Cbody%3E%3C%2Fbody%3E%3C%21--x--%3E%3C%2Fhtml%3Ex&submit=Print+Tree |
| 09:53 | <MikeSmith> | http://html5.validator.nu/parsetree/?parser=html5&content=%3C%21DOCTYPE+html%3E%3Cbody%3E%3C%2Fbody%3E%3C%21--x--%3E%3C%2Fhtml%3E+&submit=Print+Tree |
| 09:54 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: that doesn't seem to use the streaming mode |
| 09:54 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 09:54 | <MikeSmith> | hmm |
| 09:54 | <MikeSmith> | I thought it had to be |
| 09:54 | <MikeSmith> | but maybe not |
| 09:54 | MikeSmith | looks at the code |
| 09:55 | <zcorpan> | </head> <link> is fatal when validating but not in parsetree/ |
| 09:57 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 09:58 | <MikeSmith> | so says the code also |
| 09:58 | <MikeSmith> | https://bitbucket.org/validator/validator/src/ae0fad1a06291493117dcfe52f983710245f5441/src/nu/validator/servlet/ParseTreePrinter.java?at=default#cl-128 |
| 09:58 | <MikeSmith> | OK I can check it locally |
| 10:15 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: |
| 10:15 | <MikeSmith> | #document |
| 10:15 | <MikeSmith> | | <!DOCTYPE html> |
| 10:15 | <MikeSmith> | | <html> |
| 10:15 | <MikeSmith> | | <head> |
| 10:15 | <MikeSmith> | | <body> |
| 10:15 | <MikeSmith> | | <!-- x --> |
| 10:15 | <MikeSmith> | | " " |
| 10:15 | <MikeSmith> | I can push it to qa-dev for you try yourself |
| 10:24 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: OK http://qa-dev.w3.org:8888/parsetree/ has the parser running in non-streaming mode, I think |
| 10:26 | <MikeSmith> | http://qa-dev.w3.org:8888/parsetree/?parser=html5&content=%3C%21DOCTYPE+html%3E%3C%2Fhead%3E+%3Clink%3E&submit=Print+Tree |
| 10:50 | <cortexA9> | hello |
| 11:07 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: ok, so it just inserts the comment in the wrong place. |
| 11:07 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 11:07 | <MikeSmith> | wrong per the spec you mean? |
| 11:07 | <zcorpan> | yeah |
| 11:07 | <MikeSmith> | hmm |
| 11:08 | <MikeSmith> | that seems like a bug then |
| 11:09 | <MikeSmith> | also I don't understand why it would be doing anything different from what gecko is doing |
| 11:09 | <MikeSmith> | in non-streaming mode I mean |
| 11:11 | <MikeSmith> | ah sorry you're talking about streaming mode |
| 11:11 | <MikeSmith> | nm |
| 11:12 | <zcorpan> | right |
| 11:14 | <zcorpan> | ok sent a new email |
| 11:42 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: I'm hacking on the parser coce now |
| 11:52 | <jgraham> | miketaylr: TIL that I should talk to you about testsuites and jQuery :) |
| 12:59 | <jgraham> | "HTML5 is mostly a joke" - Ian Hickson |
| 12:59 | <jgraham> | </quote type=out-of-context> |
| 13:00 | <jgraham> | (http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2004-June/000422.html) |
| 13:11 | <MikeSmith> | when zcorpan gets back please tell him http://qa-dev.w3.org:8888/ is now running a hacked parser that attempts to include the changes he outlined in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Oct/0015.html -- except for the forster-parenting change which in the parser code it's not clear to me yet how to handel |
| 13:15 | <MikeSmith> | hmm whoops maybe not yet .. ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException |
| 13:16 | <jgraham> | VeryMuchTooLongExceptionNameException |
| 13:19 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 13:19 | <MikeSmith> | ah well |
| 13:19 | <MikeSmith> | I give up for now |
| 14:14 | <lrvick> | So, does whatwg have an official documented stance somewhere on DRM? |
| 14:44 | <zewt> | whatwg has stances? |
| 14:57 | <jgraham> | whatwg exists? |
| 14:58 | <annevk> | LIES |
| 14:58 | <barnabywalters> | actually I’ve been meaning to ask for a while — how is WHATWG pronounced? |
| 14:59 | <barnabywalters> | WHAT-wug? wuh-HAT-wug? |
| 15:00 | <zewt> | W:DWG |
| 15:05 | <darobin> | barnabywalters: most people say what-wee-gee — but there isn't really a standard on that |
| 15:05 | <zewt> | that's the worst thing i've heard today |
| 15:06 | <darobin> | that's only because you haven't heard it pronounced in French |
| 15:06 | <jgraham> | Coming from darobin it is like the soft kiss of a lover |
| 15:07 | barnabywalters | makes a WHATWG (wuh-HAT-wg) hat |
| 15:07 | <darobin> | jgraham: especially in French! |
| 15:22 | <annevk> | darobin is correct |
| 15:27 | <Domenic_> | I can't stop myself from saying "what-wug" |
| 15:28 | <Domenic_> | paul_irish: thanks :D |
| 17:05 | <miketaylr> | jgraham: ha, cool. let's chat mid next week, currently summitting (and being generally distracted) |
| 17:08 | <miketaylr> | (mozsummitting, not anything cool like a mountain) |
| 17:17 | <annevk> | miketaylr: which location? |
| 17:19 | <miketaylr> | annevk: Toronto |
| 17:19 | <miketaylr> | decided to take a break from crossing the Atlantic ocean for a while |
| 17:21 | <annevk> | fair |
| 17:22 | <miketaylr> | annevk: are you in brussels? |
| 17:22 | <annevk> | yeah |
| 17:22 | <miketaylr> | eat a waffle for me |
| 17:22 | <annevk> | hah, on it |
| 17:37 | <dglazkov> | HTML5 is not a joke |
| 17:37 | <dglazkov> | jokes have punchlines |
| 17:52 | <MikeSmith> | dglazkov: DRM it the punchline |
| 17:53 | <MikeSmith> | culmination of 8-9 years of work on trying to make the Web platform a contender that has feature parity with all the other feature-overladen platforms out thre |
| 17:53 | <MikeSmith> | mission accomplished |
| 17:58 | <umgrosscol> | How is it that the Encrypted Media Extensions are going to prevent browsers from downloading the video anyway? I don't understand how anyone thinks it's going to protect content. |
| 18:00 | <rtc> | each webpage should have only one h1 element? |
| 18:00 | <rtc> | if this is true why then html5 specification has examples where each section has own h1 element? |
| 18:30 | <barnabywalters> | anyone know if there’s a canonical test suite for the URL/URI standards? |
| 18:30 | <barnabywalters> | e.g. for parsing, resolving relative references |
| 19:23 | <Hixie_> | jgraham: hey, i had quote marks in my quote! you need at worst to say something like '"HTML5 is a joke" -- Ian Hickson (internal quote marks elided)' |
| 19:25 | <Hixie_> | lrvick: looking at @WHATWG's recent retweets of the EFF's tweet and Anne's tweets should give a pretty accurate answer: https://twitter.com/WHATWG |
| 19:40 | <lrvick> | Hixie_: Yeah, that about sums it up. Well... I will hang around this side of the fence then. |
| 19:41 | <lrvick> | W3C, I am dissipoint. |
| 19:42 | <Hixie_> | dissipoint? do you need to be put in a jar or something? :-) |
| 19:49 | <zcorpan> | umgrosscol: https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 |
| 19:57 | <umgrosscol> | zcorpan: I understand the leverage against hardware manufacturers... especially with import laws and devices being manufactured within jursidictions... but it seems to make less sense for software. |
| 19:59 | <umgrosscol> | In the best case scenario for the rights holders, it means they get to liscence modules that browsers have to use and the unliscenced browsers get marginalized. |
| 20:00 | <umgrosscol> | I just can't imagine that there is going to be module that doesn't get cracked in short order. |
| 20:00 | <zewt> | re-read the post :) preventing it from being cracked isn't the point |
| 20:00 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: i can't reach http://qa-dev.w3.org:8888 |
| 20:01 | <zewt> | giving companies something to sue people who use cracked encryption over is the point |
| 20:01 | <umgrosscol> | I understand trying to sue a manufacturer... they have a brick and mortar location. How do you sue source code? |
| 20:02 | <zewt> | by suing Mozilla, or Google, or Microsoft, or Apple |
| 20:02 | <zewt> | they have offices too |
| 20:02 | <umgrosscol> | They do, but that doesn't help if they didn't write the source. |
| 20:02 | <umgrosscol> | Or even you know who did, and it's released at Public Domain. |
| 20:02 | <zewt> | none of that matters |
| 20:03 | <zewt> | it prevents Google from having a feature in Chrome to bypass DRM |
| 20:03 | <zewt> | and similar effects on other parties |
| 20:03 | <umgrosscol> | So I end up using a Swedish browser... |
| 20:03 | <zewt> | they don't care about that, people bypassing DRM themselves are 0.000001% |
| 20:04 | <umgrosscol> | That's the bet it seems. |
| 20:04 | <zewt> | not a bet, it's reality |
| 20:04 | <umgrosscol> | If you can only go after a subset of manufacturers, and you can't prevent imports, then you're making an edge for the manufacturers that don't comply and just circumvent. |
| 20:04 | <zewt> | (people don't pirate movies by downloading decss and copying their friend's DVD, they do it by going to the internet and downloading from someone else who already did all that) |
| 20:05 | <umgrosscol> | If this plays out where you need liscenced plugins to view certain content, I imagine that there will be some nice browsers that offer unliscenced plugins to view the same content. |
| 20:06 | <umgrosscol> | If I had the option to buy a dvd player that didn't have regional control crap, I would. |
| 20:06 | <umgrosscol> | Such DVD players can't be imported, so I can't get one. |
| 20:07 | <umgrosscol> | However, I can easily import a browser from wherever. Locking down the manufacture of browser software seems like it's not going to go as planned. |
| 20:07 | <zewt> | ... 0.000001% |
| 20:07 | <umgrosscol> | At worst it ends up like Netscape vs IE. |
| 20:09 | <umgrosscol> | zewt: Currently a small percentage. If using the mainstream browsers becomes a hassle, wouldn't you expect that to push users towards some new open source thing without the hassles? |
| 20:09 | <zewt> | using it won't be a hassle |
| 20:09 | <zewt> | (which isn't an argument for it--I'm as against it as anybody) |
| 20:09 | <zewt> | nobody is actually for DRM, except for people being paid to be for DRM. heh |
| 20:10 | <umgrosscol> | zewt: I can't think of one DRM system that I've come across that isn't a hassle. |
| 20:10 | <zewt> | not to typical users |
| 20:11 | <zewt> | (other than in particular instances, like the introduction of HDCP) |
| 20:11 | <umgrosscol> | I imagine it's also going to be a nightmare for accessibility issues. |
| 20:12 | <zcorpan> | i wonder if the accessibility card can be used to regulate drm |
| 20:13 | <zewt> | any browser implementing DRM doesn't give a shit about things the web cares about, and I'd have to assume are being paid to do it, so there are probably no "cards" |
| 20:13 | <zewt> | (incompatible with open standards, security, all the rest) |
| 20:15 | <umgrosscol> | zcorpan: It usually makes website more difficult to develop well, and rarely gets to litigation. |
| 20:16 | <zcorpan> | i didn't mean a browser vendor would be pushing for regulation of drm for accessibility, probably more the people that need the accessibility stuff |
| 20:18 | <zcorpan> | i also don't think that e.g. chrome implementing DRM means that it doesn't give a shit about things the web cares about |
| 20:18 | <zewt> | it sure means that about some segment of people with influence; they're exactly at odds |
| 20:19 | <zcorpan> | yeah |
| 20:19 | <zewt> | (any guessing about the opinions of a browser vendor is really talking about some segment, of course, since the Borg doesn't make a browser, heh) |
| 20:19 | <zcorpan> | but it doesn't make chrome suddenly give a shit about e.g. security |
| 20:21 | <zewt> | it does mean they're putting other things above the goal of an open web |
| 20:23 | <umgrosscol> | zewt: I think that's probably going to end up as the biggest problem. |
| 20:23 | <umgrosscol> | zewt: Shifting focus away from interoperability. |
| 20:23 | <zewt> | not exactly what i mean |
| 20:24 | <zewt> | it would no longer be possible to implement a browser on a new platform (say, on set tops and consoles), unless the owners of the magic black boxes like you (and/or you pay them enough money) to port their black box to your thing |
| 20:28 | <umgrosscol> | So a black box free browser wouldn't be able to view most of the DRM video ? |
| 20:29 | <zewt> | i think that's the point :) |
| 20:31 | <zcorpan> | https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23255 so custom elements allow uppercase in xhtml? is that a good idea? |
| 20:37 | <jgraham> | Hixie_: Yeah, I unfairly edited your quote :) I was actually looking for the first use of the term "HTML5" |
| 20:37 | <jgraham> | (with or without space) |
| 20:38 | <jgraham> | It's pretty funny that people still use it to mean "the open web stack" |
| 20:38 | <jgraham> | Although maybe these days that's more like the 'open' web stack |
| 20:51 | <scheib> | What's the specification-ish way to say "user gesture required"? |
| 20:52 | <Hixie_> | jgraham: first use of HTML5 that i know of was while i was having lunch with howcome after i interviewed for working at opera, in 2003. He suggested we should do an "HTML5". I thought he was nuts. |
| 20:58 | <Ms2ger> | Hixie_, clearly, you were right |
| 20:58 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, gave up on the karaoke too? :) |
| 20:58 | <Hixie_> | clearly |
| 21:01 | <jsbell> | Shoulda called it "AJAX 2.0" instead |
| 21:04 | <zcorpan> | i recall sometime in 2004 i for some reason was reading the WF2 spec (don't remember how i got there). i was still new to web dev in general. then i tried some of the examples, realized that it wasn't implemented anywhere and concluded that i was wasting my time trying to learn something that didn't work, and closed the tab |
| 21:09 | <zcorpan> | around the same time, i was looking at the w3c home page looking at some list of names, and thinking for a moment what it would be like to be working with that stuff. then i snapped back to reality and thought that's not gonna happen |
| 21:09 | <Ms2ger> | Heh |
| 21:11 | <Hixie_> | hehe |
| 21:14 | <Hixie_> | mounir: ping https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11937 (bug is closed now, pending your feedback; please reopen if you have some) |
| 21:14 | <Hixie_> | annevk: ping https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20571 (same thing) |
| 21:17 | <Ms2ger> | Hixie_, this is for the *setter*, right? |
| 21:17 | <Hixie_> | which? |
| 21:18 | <Ms2ger> | https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20571 |
| 21:19 | <Hixie_> | beats me |
| 21:19 | <Hixie_> | i've no idea what the bug is about |
| 21:21 | <Ms2ger> | WebIDL says " If the operation used to declare the indexed property setter did not have an identifier, then the interface definition must be accompanied by a description of how to **set the value of an existing indexed property** for a given property index and value." |
| 21:21 | <Ms2ger> | I guess he took that to mean that the exact words "set the value of an existing indexed property" need to be in HTML |
| 21:23 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: I Funnily enough I did :) |
| 21:24 | <Hixie_> | Ms2ger: oh because i only mention "set the value of a new indexed property" not both? |
| 21:24 | <Hixie_> | hm |
| 21:24 | <Hixie_> | he didn't say that, but whether that's what the bug is about or not, it's probably a valid point in and of itself |
| 21:27 | <Hixie_> | Ms2ger: ok, see patch in bug... is that enough? |
| 21:28 | <Hixie_> | Ms2ger: anne mentioned other things too but i don't see how they apply |
| 21:41 | <Ms2ger> | Hixie_, I'll let annevk figure out if that's what he meant :) |
| 22:28 | <Hixie_> | lol, i hadn't seen the mess that the htmlwg spec's <blockquote> section has become until just now |
| 22:28 | <Hixie_> | they literally say you can't quote footers, you have to comment them out! |
| 22:28 | <Hixie_> | that's awesome |
| 22:31 | <Hixie_> | it's a self-parodying fork |
| 22:43 | <zewt> | is there somewhere I can mail a $100 bill to be able to turn off the horrible chrome address bar auto-typo mode |
| 22:43 | <zewt> | like really i've got a $100 bill and an envelope, where do I address it |
| 22:46 | <Hixie_> | Ian Hickson, c/o Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View CA 94043, USA |
| 23:25 | <smaug____> | MikeSmith: hmm, lots of 408 from w3c bugzilla |
| 23:37 | <ori-l> | hrm. anyone familiar with the resource timing API? i have all-but-fully-confirmed that an XHR may have readyState == 4 before its timing entry is created |
| 23:38 | <ori-l> | and i'm just sort of hoping that it's not really true. |