| 00:11 | <Domenic_> | is https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/templates/index.html worthwhile or has that all been rolled into WHATWG HTML? |
| 00:13 | <sweb> | W3c is dead with accept DRM |
| 00:14 | <annevk> | Domenic_: folded in |
| 06:27 | <crocket> | Does an iframe have its own javascript environment? |
| 06:27 | <crocket> | Or is its javascript environment integrated with the parent doc? |
| 08:08 | <SimonSapin> | annevk: what flaw? |
| 08:08 | <SimonSapin> | gsnedders: well WeasyPrint does not have JS at all, so doesn’t care about JS strings |
| 09:40 | <annevk> | Oh wow, Flash is already no longer being maintained for Linux: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=902630#c5 |
| 09:41 | <annevk> | Correction, the NPAPI version of Flash |
| 11:00 | <MikeSmith> | is the current Promises feature in the DOM spec based on Promises/A+ ? |
| 11:01 | <MikeSmith> | Domenic_: ↑ |
| 11:22 | <MikeSmith> | nm |
| 11:22 | <MikeSmith> | after taking time to actually read the current spec I see it's now just referencing https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/blob/master/README.md |
| 11:24 | <MikeSmith> | I guess I ought to try to keep up with es-discuss |
| 11:27 | <MikeSmith> | whah.. Promise.race |
| 11:41 | <MikeSmith> | so I wonder what exactly is being implemented now in blink |
| 11:41 | <MikeSmith> | what document they are implementing from |
| 12:59 | <annevk> | dglazkov: HTML Imports, scripts executing in the imported document, might find it weird what document refers to |
| 13:03 | <Ms2ger> | zcorpan: r? https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/34 |
| 13:10 | <jeena_> | I would like to write to the appropriate W3C mailing list about it but there seems to be a really huge amount of them so I'm confused to which one I should write. |
| 13:11 | <jeena_> | I wanted to write and suggest to send forms if the user presses Cmd+Enter/Ctrl+Enter in a form, this especially should work in a textarea. |
| 13:11 | <annevk> | jeena_: that's UI and we can't really dictate UI in specifications |
| 13:12 | <jeena_> | Just like Gmail does it, but for every form in every browser (like Enter in a <input> works now) |
| 13:12 | <annevk> | jeena_: you can file bugs on browsers though where that does not work |
| 13:12 | <jeena_> | ah hm ok, I see |
| 13:12 | <jeena_> | Ok thanks then I will do that instead. |
| 13:13 | <jeena_> | so the Enter within a <input> isn't something the W3C "dictated" but it just is a coincidence that it works in all browsers? |
| 13:13 | <jeena_> | (to send the form) |
| 13:14 | <annevk> | jeena_: yeah |
| 13:14 | <annevk> | jeena_: prolly followed from UI conventions in operating systems |
| 13:15 | <jeena_> | ok, thanks, then I understand. It is kind of obvious that not every browser will have a keyboard with a Ctrl key. |
| 14:17 | <MikeSmith> | I see from https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=295420 that blink implementation is tracking https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=295420 |
| 14:43 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: done (re review). |
| 14:44 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: btw any news on why http://qa-dev.w3.org:8888/ doesn't work (for me, at least)? |
| 14:44 | <MikeSmith> | review? which |
| 14:45 | <MikeSmith> | about http://qa-dev.w3.org:8888/ it doesn't work because the parser hacks I made cause it to crash with a index-out-of-bounds error |
| 14:46 | <MikeSmith> | and the reason for the index-out-of-bounds error is this: |
| 14:47 | <MikeSmith> | case AFTER_HEAD:$ |
| 14:47 | <MikeSmith> | ... |
| 14:47 | <MikeSmith> | case BODY: |
| 14:47 | <MikeSmith> | pop(); |
| 14:47 | <MikeSmith> | if (attributes.getLength() == 0) { |
| 14:47 | <MikeSmith> | appendToCurrentNodeAndPushBodyElement(); |
| 14:47 | <MikeSmith> | } else { |
| 14:47 | <MikeSmith> | appendToCurrentNodeAndPushBodyElement(attributes); |
| 14:47 | <MikeSmith> | } |
| 14:48 | <MikeSmith> | the change I made was to add that pop() |
| 14:48 | <MikeSmith> | but then it now gets to that appendToCurrentNodeAndPushBodyElement() call and that's what leads to the index-out-of-bounds exception |
| 14:52 | <MikeSmith> | so it seems I need to do more than just simply add the "Pop the current node (which will be the head element) off the stack of open elements." step |
| 14:55 | <MikeSmith> | because it's not finding what it needs when it tries to actually push that body element onto the stack |
| 14:55 | <annevk> | So if @@create is taken from the function object on which new was invoked, it seems new Node() could be made to throw. By checking after @@create if the proper bits are set, as peterv suggested. |
| 19:39 | <heycam> | annevk, noted |
| 19:59 | <wilhelm> | I'll be giving a talk to some web developers tomorrow on how the specification sausage factory actually works. (Or how it doesn't work.) Revisiting archives and minutes from 2004-2007 is rather amusing. |
| 20:00 | <Ms2ger> | Oh dear |
| 20:04 | <wilhelm> | Indeed. |
| 20:13 | <odinho> | annevk: What's status on Fetch btw? Esp. the new non-implemented/finished parts. How's the vendor interest there? |
| 20:13 | <odinho> | wilhelm: What web devs where? |
| 20:15 | <annevk> | odinho: such as? |
| 20:15 | <annevk> | odinho: dunno really, it's architecture, nobody really cares about getting that a 100% right |
| 20:16 | <odinho> | annevk: Well, I was thikning of the ZipArchive part. Because it's easiest to see. |
| 20:16 | <annevk> | odinho: might have something to do with yak shaving |
| 20:16 | <annevk> | odinho: ooh, that's kinda dodgy |
| 20:16 | <annevk> | odinho: given recent discussion I should maybe take that out again |
| 20:16 | <odinho> | Yeah, -- that looked a bit dodgy what with all the red. |
| 20:44 | <wilhelm> | odinho: Internal training at a local development agency I'm doing some business with. |
| 21:11 | <Domenic_> | MikeSmith: looks like you figured it out? |
| 21:44 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, r? https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/31 if you're tired of servo at some point :) |
| 21:50 | <jgraham> | I am generally just tired right now :) |
| 21:50 | <jgraham> | Will try to look in the morning |