| 05:06 | <tomreyn> | hi there, i'm just looking at http://notifications.spec.whatwg.org/ which is a "living standard". Does this mean it is finalized or that it's in progress work? |
| 05:06 | <Hixie_> | both. |
| 05:06 | <Hixie_> | that is, it means that it is a standard, but that we maintain it and add to it as needed, so that it remains accurate. |
| 05:07 | <Hixie_> | you can think of it as a spec to which errata are applied directly rather than hiding the errata in a separate file. |
| 05:07 | <tomreyn> | but that would increase the version number supposedly? |
| 05:07 | <Hixie_> | there's no version number. |
| 05:07 | <Hixie_> | well, there's a version number in the version repository i guess. |
| 05:07 | <tomreyn> | oh right |
| 05:07 | <Hixie_> | so like the current version number appears to be 6896a25a22cc7b84b70fd1854e33e0a5874376f9 |
| 05:07 | <Hixie_> | :-) |
| 05:07 | <tomreyn> | i guess that makes it harder to conform with standards |
| 05:07 | <Hixie_> | makes it easier, actually. |
| 05:08 | <Hixie_> | with a frozen standard, when you find the standard is wrong, you have a choice: conform to the standards and be useless, or break the standards and be useful but don't conform. |
| 05:08 | <Hixie_> | with a living standard, the standard changes when you find it's in error |
| 05:08 | <Hixie_> | so you conform, and you're useful. |
| 05:08 | <tomreyn> | i see |
| 05:09 | <tomreyn> | so was it in a draft stage before it became a living standard? |
| 05:09 | <tomreyn> | or did it start as a living standard right away |
| 05:09 | <Hixie_> | it was in draft stage, but it wasn't ever a whatwg spec back then |
| 05:10 | <tomreyn> | you mena like when it was implemented in webkt only |
| 05:10 | <Hixie_> | http://books.spec.whatwg.org/ is an example of a spec that's not actually a living standard quite yet but soon will be |
| 05:10 | <Hixie_> | hakon labeled it as "[soon to become a] living standard" |
| 05:10 | <Hixie_> | and the html spec is a living standard but it has some subparts that aren't quite ready, as documented either by the little boxes on the left or sometimes inline in the text |
| 05:11 | <tomreyn> | i see, well thanks for taking the time to explain. :) |
| 05:12 | <Hixie_> | np |
| 13:32 | <mdik> | ? |
| 14:16 | <matjas> | is it possible to intercept `innerHTML` calls? `innerHTML` doesn’t seem to be exposed on e.g. `Element.prototype`, or is it? |
| 14:39 | <gsnedders> | matjas: Per WebIDL it should be a getter/setter pair. Dunno if anyone impls that? |
| 14:39 | <gsnedders> | matjas: Maybe on HTMLElement.prototype? |
| 14:41 | <gsnedders> | matjas: In Firefox it's on Element.prototype, at least |
| 14:43 | <gsnedders> | matjas: Can't find it in Blink quickly |
| 15:09 | <zewt> | holy shit |
| 15:10 | <zewt> | gmail just logged me out while I was editing an email and didn't save changes |
| 15:20 | <Ms2ger> | matjas, yeah, at least in Gecko that should work |
| 16:21 | <niloy> | hey, is this a good place for a feature request related to `addEventListener`? |
| 16:47 | <annevk> | https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2013OctDec/0075.html is somewhat surprising to me |
| 16:55 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: the last paragraph doesn't really seem coherent but that doesn't seem surprising, considering the source |
| 16:56 | <annevk> | uhuh |
| 16:56 | <MikeSmith> | seems like it's saying one thing and then saying the opposite |
| 16:57 | <MikeSmith> | is that the part that you found surprising, or instead the part about plans to discuss the documents? |
| 17:05 | <annevk> | the affiliation part mostly |
| 17:07 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 18:03 | <Ms2ger> | https://github.com/ianvollick/animation-proxy/blob/master/Explainer.md |
| 19:55 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: not mentioned on www-style? ... |
| 19:56 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, mentioned what? |
| 19:56 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: layout kernel idea you pointed to |
| 19:57 | <Ms2ger> | Oh, someone mentioned it in #servo, and I thought people here might be interested too |
| 19:57 | <Ms2ger> | Or in the newsgroup, actually |
| 21:29 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, bah, I was confused by the fact that the multipage spec wasn't updated |
| 22:19 | <Domenic_> | oh no, the multipage spec lags the singlepage one? |
| 22:23 | <jgraham> | Only by accident |
| 22:24 | <jgraham> | pcwalton has a nice followup post to that article suggesting it is the wrong kind of approach |