| 03:38 | <Hixie_> | Domenic_: it should only lag by about 10 minutes once i commit the changes. |
| 03:38 | <Hixie_> | Domenic_: which i usually do straight away. |
| 03:38 | <Hixie_> | Domenic_: (though with bigger changes sometimes it takes longer) |
| 03:39 | <Hixie_> | Domenic_: but sometimes the script braks. |
| 03:39 | <Hixie_> | breaks. |
| 03:39 | <Hixie_> | in other news, http://books.spec.whatwg.org/ and http://figures.spec.whatwg.org/ |
| 05:01 | <tantek> | thanks Hixie. Added: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Standards/license#Example_Specifications |
| 05:53 | <Domenic_> | OWFa looks pretty nice. |
| 06:14 | <tantek> | Domenic_ OWFa is a decent non-org-specific RF patent declaration. |
| 09:45 | <matjas> | tantek: any reason http://javascript.spec.whatwg.org/ is missing from that list? |
| 11:01 | <tantek> | matjas - yes. That list is of examples of specs that are licensed with CC0+OWFa. |
| 11:02 | <tantek> | http://javascript.spec.whatwg.org/ has no license |
| 11:04 | <tantek> | If you can add license text to it like http://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/ has (copy the paragraph with <p class="copyright"> ) then we can add it to the list. |
| 11:04 | <matjas> | tantek: done |
| 11:08 | <tantek> | matjas: and done. |
| 11:10 | <matjas> | \o/ |
| 11:12 | <annevk> | teehee |
| 12:47 | GPHemsley | wonders if it might be time to add the User-Agent string to the HTML spec |
| 13:49 | <matjas> | Hixie_: would you mind disabling XSS protection on http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/? |
| 13:50 | <matjas> | Hixie_: i.e. add a `X-XSS-Protection: 0` HTTP header |
| 14:59 | <crocket> | hi |
| 14:59 | <crocket> | Is selenium the way to go for web UI testing? |
| 15:00 | <crocket> | There are GUI test frameworks that wrap around selenium, which probably means selenium is difficult. |
| 15:00 | <crocket> | Robot framework and guitar framework use selenium for web tests. |
| 15:04 | <jgraham> | I'm not sure that means selenium is difficult |
| 15:05 | <jgraham> | I would have designed it differently, but it seems to be the most widely used solution and is being standardised at W3C |
| 15:05 | <crocket> | jgraham, people complain that selenium is difficult. |
| 15:05 | <crocket> | Plus, I attended a conference today. |
| 15:06 | <crocket> | A speaker said guitar automated lots of tests that couldn't be automated with selenium. |
| 15:06 | <crocket> | guitar framework uses selenium. |
| 15:06 | <jgraham> | That sounds like there is missing information |
| 15:06 | <crocket> | jgraham, like? |
| 15:07 | <jgraham> | If guitar (which I have never heard of) was purely selenium based, it would by definition have the capabilities of selenium |
| 15:07 | <crocket> | jgraham, Actually, guitar uses selenium IDE. |
| 15:07 | <crocket> | It doesn't entirely depend on selenium. |
| 15:08 | <crocket> | http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/guitar/index.php?title=File:Overview.jpg |
| 15:08 | <crocket> | If guitar is so good as the speaker said, why is it unpopular? |
| 15:08 | <darobin> | if it's good, WTF is it doing on SourceForge? |
| 15:09 | <crocket> | The fact that it's written in bash and java sends me a bad signal. |
| 15:09 | <crocket> | bash? |
| 15:09 | <crocket> | seriously? |
| 15:10 | <darobin> | nothing wrong with bash |
| 15:10 | <crocket> | Probably bash scripts are just wrapper scripts around java classes. |
| 15:10 | <darobin> | but java, seriously? |
| 15:10 | <crocket> | darobin, java is ok. |
| 15:10 | <crocket> | It is just not as good as other JVM languages. |
| 15:10 | <Ms2ger> | Heh, java |
| 15:10 | <crocket> | Even PHP has good softwares. |
| 15:10 | <crocket> | It's possible to write good softwares in java. |
| 15:12 | <crocket> | The development on guitar is slow, too. |
| 15:13 | <crocket> | It's ok to have a project on sourceforge still. |
| 15:15 | <crocket> | Evidences indicate that selenium might be a better bet. |
| 15:40 | <astearns> | MikeSmith: thanks for the bugzilla connection - I'll see about re-enabling my spec script |
| 16:34 | <Ms2ger> | marcosc, servo implements DocumentFragment now, beat that ;) |
| 16:38 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: for the Encoding component in WHATWG, could you make Bugzilla email www-international for each new and each resolved bug? |
| 16:38 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: similar to what we do for DOM |
| 16:39 | <annevk> | MikeSmith: FWIW, I discussed this with Richard and Addison |
| 16:46 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: yup will do right now |
| 16:46 | <annevk> | thanks! |
| 16:54 | <jgraham> | odinho: Is there any point to the tests under /IndexedDB/submissions/Microsoft/ or are they entirely covered by the /Opera/ tests? |
| 16:57 | <odinho> | Ouch. That question. I have repeatedly looked through the update they did, to see if I could find any new tidbits there. But I have not ever finished, and I seem to forget what I learned every time I don't finish. |
| 16:57 | <annevk> | Hixie_: you might want to read http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2013OctDec/ |
| 16:58 | <odinho> | But it's about finding a potential very few assertions not covered in the Opera tests. |
| 16:59 | <marcosc> | Ms2ger: I still can't land my patch because of the whitespace issue :( |
| 16:59 | <jgraham> | odinho: Hmm |
| 17:00 | <jgraham> | It seems like no one has any time to work on IndexedDB tests these days. It's a problem :( |
| 17:00 | <marcosc> | Ms2ger: am I really the only person developing on a Mac? |
| 17:00 | <odinho> | jgraham: Yeah, -- but there's lots of tests there :P |
| 17:00 | <jgraham> | In the short term I just want to know if I can delete http://web-platform.test:8000/IndexedDB/submissions/Microsoft/idbfactory_open.htm |
| 17:00 | <Ms2ger> | marcosc, maybe the only one who allows git to mess with their newlines |
| 17:01 | jgraham | always felt that the whole "my VC changes my files" feature was misguided |
| 17:01 | <marcosc> | Ms2ger, it's very weird and a little sad :( |
| 17:02 | <odinho> | jgraham: Why that file in particular? |
| 17:02 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, that's why it is :) |
| 17:02 | <odinho> | I can check. |
| 17:02 | <Ms2ger> | odinho, I bet it times out |
| 17:02 | <odinho> | jgraham: Yes, I have that assertion. |
| 17:02 | <jgraham> | odinho: Does that file actually work for you? |
| 17:03 | <jgraham> | It just does nothing here |
| 17:03 | <odinho> | jgraham: I didn't test. I just checked if I had the assertion. https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/IndexedDB/submissions/Microsoft/idbfactory_open.htm |
| 17:03 | <odinho> | I have another test that tests the exact same. |
| 17:03 | <jgraham> | http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/IndexedDB/submissions/Microsoft/idbfactory_open.htm |
| 17:03 | <odinho> | jgraham: It passes here. |
| 17:04 | <odinho> | this is the same test: http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/IndexedDB/submissions/Opera/Microsoft-port/idbfactory_open.htm |
| 17:04 | <odinho> | Written in another way. |
| 17:04 | <jgraham> | Oh. I was sure that was failing on w3c-test.org for me |
| 17:05 | <jgraham> | Oooh |
| 17:05 | <jgraham> | I disabled output locally |
| 17:05 | <jgraham> | Hmm, so it passes for me |
| 17:05 | <jgraham> | When I run it by hand |
| 17:05 | <jgraham> | So, moving on… |
| 17:05 | <jgraham> | odinho: Thanks for your help |
| 17:22 | <annevk> | I guess this is kinda new http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7034 |
| 17:23 | <annevk> | IETF standardizing something that exists rather than getting all upset over the prefix and trying to create a new thing that doesn't have it |
| 17:23 | <Ms2ger> | Informational, of course |
| 17:29 | <annevk> | Well yeah, there's that... I think everyone basically ignores that distinction, unless it happens to be in their advantage not to ignore it. |
| 17:59 | <Hixie_> | annevk-cloud: nothing new there, looks like |
| 18:34 | <mvujovic> | annevk-cloud: ping |
| 18:42 | <smaug____> | annevk-cloud: ping |
| 18:51 | <smaug____> | annevk-cloud: nm |
| 19:25 | <zewt> | seriously, can anyone give any plausible explanation for chrome suddenly reverting to window-modal alerts, it's maddening and insane |
| 19:25 | <zewt> | they did do it (like every other browser since 2009) and i'm not just going crazy, right? |
| 19:28 | <odinho> | Hmm. Don't remember the reason, but there was one. |
| 19:29 | <odinho> | Of javascript needing to block the entire js execution, -- and chromium is using one process per many tabs now, so it would have to actually stop running of all the tabs. |
| 19:29 | <odinho> | that was in the same process. |
| 19:29 | <odinho> | So it was better to rather block the whole window, because that is easier for users to understand. |
| 19:46 | <zewt> | it's completely batshit insane; tab-modal alerts are one of the single biggest UX improvements in browsers since I've been using browsers |
| 19:49 | <zewt> | (meanwhile, Firefox does it in a single-process browser) |
| 19:56 | <Domenic_> | complaining about alerts feels like complaining about <marquee>... why are you still using it? |
| 19:57 | <miketaylr> | alert() is all over the web, sadly |
