| 00:00 | <astearns> | that's more agency than meritocracy, imo |
| 00:00 | <Hixie> | astearns: (though if you do see opinions get ignored, please do let me know privately, so i can make sure they are getting serious consideration) |
| 00:00 | <Hixie> | hmm, agency might be a better word, true |
| 00:02 | <Hixie> | (another value that i put in the "we don't have it" list is diversity, unfortunately) |
| 00:03 | <jgraham> | along what axis? |
| 00:04 | <Hixie> | almost any |
| 00:05 | <Hixie> | participant age, race, sex, socioeconomic background, etc. |
| 00:06 | <Hixie> | i haven't actually checked, but my impression is that both the w3c and the whatwg are mostly just white men. |
| 00:07 | <jgraham> | I guess it depends if you are comparing to society as a whole, or just the pool of people who have the right skills to be participating |
| 00:07 | <Hixie> | even if we just compare to the pool, we should have way more women |
| 00:08 | <jgraham> | That sounds quite plausible |
| 00:08 | <Hixie> | (and would, if we really had that was a core value) |
| 00:08 | <Hixie> | s/was a/as a/ |
| 00:11 | <jgraham> | It isn't immediately clear to me what I would do to encourage more women to participate at WHATWG that could be done within the constraints of the structure |
| 00:11 | <Hixie> | if it was a core value, we'd change our structure accordingly |
| 00:12 | <jgraham> | that's easy to say, but I still don't have a concrete idea of what you would actually change. The kind of structure I had in mind was things like "no budget" |
| 00:13 | <jgraham> | Which isn't easy to change |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | it's not easy to change while doing what we're doing, certainly |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | because we're all busy |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | but if i e.g. cared less about writing good specs, i could spend more time raising money instead of writing specs |
| 00:14 | <Hixie> | or could work with women's tech conferences |
| 00:14 | <Hixie> | there's stuff we could do |
| 00:14 | <Hixie> | it not being a core value doesn't mean we think it's not important |
| 00:14 | <Hixie> | we might even value diversity more in theory than the things i listed above |
| 00:15 | <jgraham> | Sure, so sending people to tech conferences to talk about how to get involved with standards work seems like an actual concrete thing |
| 00:15 | <Hixie> | but in practice, our actions say that we don't truly value it more than the things above |
| 00:15 | <Hixie> | (and maybe we should change that, i hadn't really gotten to that part of the thought :-) ) |
| 00:15 | <jgraham> | But even if that happened, it would be some individual or company doing it rather than WHATWG, really |
| 00:15 | <Hixie> | isn't everything? |
| 00:16 | <jgraham> | It depends? |
| 00:16 | <Hixie> | i mean, "the whatwg" isn't editing the URL spec, Anne is |
| 00:16 | <jgraham> | Yeah, I suppose that's fair |
| 00:17 | <jgraham> | I guess Anne might claim that our actions demonstrate that we don't care that much about involving developers of any background, given that WHATWG/browser people rarely go to tech conferences in general |
| 00:18 | <Hixie> | yeah, we really should do more on that front |
| 00:18 | <Hixie> | i'm just so swamped with bugs and feedback i can't handle more |
| 00:18 | <Hixie> | which is why i haven't done anything like that |
| 00:18 | <Hixie> | but it does mean the feedback i have is biased towards the groups that have found us |
| 00:20 | <Hixie> | afk |
| 00:20 | <jgraham> | I think there is merit in the idea that TPAC has jumped the shark and what we should do instead is have a mixed browser developer / web developer conference aimed at discussing requirements for the immediate future of the web platform |
| 00:20 | <jgraham> | But that seems kind of non-trivial to organise |
| 00:22 | jgraham | away from wakefulness |
| 03:28 | <jpwhiting> | MikeSmith: around? |
| 04:09 | <MikeSmith> | jpwhiting: here now |
| 04:09 | <MikeSmith> | for a short time |
| 04:10 | <jpwhiting> | MikeSmith: hey there, I've been tasked with adding some html elements to our validator schema for some new html5 features |
| 04:10 | <jpwhiting> | a couple of which are audotracklist and videotracklist |
| 04:10 | <jpwhiting> | from here: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-html5-20121217/embedded-content-0.html#audiotracklist-and-videotracklist-objects |
| 04:11 | <jpwhiting> | I've removed/commented out stuff from the schema previously, but haven't added new elements/attributes to existing ones before, is it pretty straightforward to add these say to syntax/relaxng/media.rnc or something? |
| 04:16 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 04:16 | <MikeSmith> | jpwhiting: just look at similar cases in the existing schema |
| 04:17 | <MikeSmith> | and look through the "hg log -p" output from previous changesets that added new elements |
| 05:41 | <Hixie> | jpwhiting: you really don't want to be using that old a document |
| 05:41 | <Hixie> | jpwhiting: http://whatwg.org/html is much more up to date |
| 05:41 | <Hixie> | jpwhiting: (also, audotracklist and videotracklist aren't elements) |
| 05:42 | <jpwhiting> | Hixie: yeah, I'm thinking these attributes aren't used in html5 tags and attributes anyway, but only in javascript functions |
| 05:42 | <jpwhiting> | yep |
| 05:42 | <Hixie> | jgraham: a joint one would involve convincing authors to go to our conference. i think we're better off going to existing conferences. |
| 08:59 | <jgraham> | Hixie: that depends what the goal is I think. If it's mainly an "outreach" thing then of course reusing an existing conference is rather easier. If the goal is to have all the browser people that currently only go to events like, say, TPAC or BlinkOn, as well as the kind of authors who could hold their own in a standards discussion, it isn't really clear that there is an existing conference that would work |
| 09:14 | <annevk-cloud> | We should make it happen |
| 09:17 | <darobin> | oh dear me, someone put anne in the cloud |
| 09:18 | <jgraham> | Yes, but just saying it works well for Captain Picard, but life is not yet like Star Trek. |
| 09:22 | darobin_ | really likes the idea of that browser/dev conference |
| 09:23 | <darobin_> | conferences, however, are hard to make happen |
| 09:23 | <MikeSmith> | co-locate it at CCC every year |
| 09:24 | <MikeSmith> | call it "WC3" |
| 09:24 | <darobin> | lol |
| 09:25 | <darobin> | at ParisWeb this year I ran a Web Standards Complaints Bureau session where developers got to, well, complain about web standards (and ask questions) |
| 09:26 | <darobin> | I thought it went really well, I'd encourage anyone here to do the same |
| 09:30 | <MikeSmith> | Alex used to do a pretty good job of that single-handedly |
| 09:30 | <MikeSmith> | the complaining, I mean |
| 09:31 | <MikeSmith> | either him or Fake Alex |
| 09:31 | <MikeSmith> | I can't tell them apart sometimes |
| 09:31 | <MikeSmith> | I think back then in had misinterpreted the purpose of the Web Standards Complaints Bureau |
| 09:32 | <MikeSmith> | he thought the purpose was to generate the complaints, not to receive them |
| 09:32 | <darobin> | heh |
| 09:32 | <MikeSmith> | anyway I miss that |
| 09:33 | <MikeSmith> | he complained more back then, but always articulately |
| 09:34 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: btw I pushed the validator and parser error-reported changes we landed yesterday |
| 09:35 | <MikeSmith> | pushed to http://validator.w3.org/nu/ |
| 09:35 | <MikeSmith> | *error-reporting |
| 09:35 | <MikeSmith> | for legacy doctypes |
| 09:36 | <MikeSmith> | so if/when you have time to check and you find something funky/regressed for doctype reporting, lemme know |
| 09:53 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: i wonder what it should do for e.g. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"> |
| 09:59 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: right now I think that will generate a warning saynging that the system id is not one prescribed by the XHTML1 spec |
| 09:59 | <zcorpan> | yeah |
| 10:00 | <MikeSmith> | which isn't very useful |
| 10:00 | <MikeSmith> | as we discussed yesterday |
| 10:00 | <zcorpan> | why isn't it useful? |
| 10:02 | <Ms2ger> | Because it refers to the XHTML1 spec? :) |
| 10:04 | <zcorpan> | the above doctype isn't one that has ever been allowed, it's not well-formed xml (not that that is checked, but anyway), it's not an "obsolete but permitted doctype"... so maybe it should give an error? |
| 10:16 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: yeah, I think so |
| 10:17 | <MikeSmith> | the handling for that is in the parser code, so I'll need to get another patch to Henri |
| 10:21 | <zcorpan> | <http://www.w3.org/mid/1383638007.2478.468.camel⊙sbc>; |
| 10:21 | <zcorpan> | select attributes? why not select entities? |
| 10:21 | <zcorpan> | hey, i want to select an entity declaration in the internal subset |
| 10:21 | <zcorpan> | or possibly external subset |
| 10:22 | <zcorpan> | or a comment in the declaration |
| 10:23 | <zcorpan> | yeah, that's it. a comment in an entity declaration in the external subset. syntax for that, anyone? |
| 10:27 | <Ms2ger> | @#!�DECL |
| 10:57 | <hsivonen> | suppose I'm not at Google and I want to find a couple of dozen most popular but encoding-unlabeled sites under a given TLD. What should I do? |
| 10:58 | <hsivonen> | e.g. get a list of sites under .az, remove sites that have encoding labels, sort by popularity, print the first 20 or so |
| 11:06 | <annevk> | zcorpan: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=850684 |
| 11:06 | <annevk> | zcorpan: do you still use @hotmail.com for Bugzilla? |
| 11:06 | <zcorpan> | annevk: no |
| 11:07 | <zcorpan> | gmail |
| 11:08 | <annevk> | seems both are cc'd |
| 11:16 | <zcorpan> | i guess i need to test ie |
| 11:21 | <zcorpan> | i don't see any difference between blink and gecko for the test case in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81290 which was stated as being the reason for the absolute positioned check |
| 11:26 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: "suppose" you're not at Google? :) |
| 11:27 | <jgraham> | It's not really clear who else has the popularity data, it's true |
| 11:29 | <jgraham> | You could start with the Alexa data and then manually go through all the .az sites looking for ones without encoding labels |
| 11:30 | <jgraham> | It isn't clear if there is enough data there to give you 20 sites or not |
| 11:32 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: my point about Google was that "Google can get this data" is not a sufficient answer if they don't |
| 11:33 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: does Alexa publish data beyond the global top sites? |
| 11:33 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: that is, do they have data that covers .az |
| 11:34 | <hsivonen> | which probably doesn't have its top sites among the global top sites |
| 11:34 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: they seem to have per-country data |
| 11:34 | <hsivonen> | hmm. I guess I could look at http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/AZ and pay attention only to the .az sites there |
| 11:35 | <jgraham> | Right, that was what I was thinking |
| 11:35 | <darobin> | that said, the top sites for .az are unsurprisingly similar to the global top sites :) |
| 11:36 | <wilhelm_> | And pretty similar to other CIS states. |
| 11:37 | <wilhelm_> | The .no listing seems somewhat accurate, albeit fuzzy. |
| 11:37 | <hsivonen> | It still amazes me that people agree to run whatever software it is that Alexa uses to collect these stats |
| 11:38 | <hsivonen> | what's in it for the users? |
| 11:39 | <wilhelm_> | A pretty toolbar! |
| 11:39 | Ms2ger | used it long ago |
| 11:40 | <wilhelm_> | I'm running a top25 .no site these days. The details Alexa has on it are fuzzy at best. (c: |
| 11:41 | <darobin> | well, they have to do a lot of extrapolation |
| 11:42 | <hsivonen> | the top sites are too clueful about using and declaring UTF-8. this makes no sense as manual research. scripts needed. |
| 11:43 | <annevk> | I'll just leave this here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Nov/0000.html |
| 11:44 | <hsivonen> | some day, we'll realize that the non-CJK parts of the world are so fed up with their fallback encodings that they just use and declare UTF-8 |
| 11:44 | <darobin> | hsivonen: maybe you could ping AZNIC for a list of existing .az sites |
| 11:50 | <hsivonen> | darobin: doesn't scale :-( |
| 11:50 | <darobin> | hsivonen: oh, for the whole world, sure |
| 11:51 | <darobin> | I thought you were looking into a specifically .az problem |
| 11:51 | <hsivonen> | darobin: well, .az is particularly non-obvious, but it wouldn't hurt to have real data about TLDs that seem obvious |
| 11:51 | <darobin> | that said, a tool to get a random sample from DNS would be nice |
| 12:02 | <annevk> | The idea would be to move away from locale-dependent encoding fallbacks and instead have TLD-dependent encoding fallbacks. |
| 12:20 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: i think foolip collected TLD-specific data for Encoding research, and maybe still has the script(s) |
| 12:22 | <zcorpan> | iirc it didn't use alexa top sites but used bing's search api or some such |
| 12:32 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: but if you only want a handful, webdevdata might be enough |
| 13:02 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: does webdevdata have good coverages of various TLDs? how is webdevdata gathered? |
| 13:02 | Ms2ger | read <chaals> I am as high as a kite |
| 13:07 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: it seems webdevdataset is too small. i find 1 az site without charset, but it has since updated to declare utf-8 |
| 13:07 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: 54 az sites don't specify it in Content-Type |
| 13:08 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: https://github.com/Webdevdata/fetcher/blob/master/README.md |
| 13:14 | <hsivonen> | http://domaintyper.com/top-websites/most-popular-websites-with-az-domain/page/1 claims to have domains sorted by popularity |
| 13:17 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: you could run webdevdata fetcher on that list |
| 13:18 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Alternatively maybe google with site:.az is good enough? |
| 13:19 | <zcorpan> | or modify the fetcher to do the relevant search while fetching if you don't want to store the raw data |
| 13:22 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: that seems like a reasonable way to get a list of sites, yeah. I expect Google to limit programmatic scaping of the list, though. |
| 13:23 | <zcorpan> | that's where bing's search api comes in |
| 13:24 | <zcorpan> | ask philipj@ :-) |
| 13:24 | <jgraham> | Right, bing might be a better choice if it allows you to download the data |
| 14:36 | <gsnedders> | annevk: I think the only way we're going to be able to do this well is with a lot of data, via CommonCrawl or whatever. |
| 14:43 | <hsivonen> | annevk: fun http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/gfx/thebes/gfxFontUtils.cpp#1135 |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | hsivonen: is that actually still relevant? |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | hsivonen: because that'd be sad |
| 14:45 | <hsivonen> | annevk: I don't know |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | hsivonen: :/ |
| 14:45 | <SteveF> | zcorpan: added back links to webdevdata |
| 14:46 | <zcorpan> | SteveF: thanks! |
| 15:06 | <annevk> | So maybe Shadow DOM is the reason why HTML and DOM have to merge? |
| 15:20 | <annevk> | Man, HSTS is long http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6797 ... |
| 16:37 | <SimonSapin> | hsivonen: does "mac" here mean pre-OS X ? |
| 16:55 | <Hixie> | jgraham: ah, yeah, good point. personally i assumed it was "just" an outreach thing, because I don't think we should be doing actual spec work in person. |
| 16:55 | <GPHemsley> | why are <ins> and <del> asymmetric in their allowance of palpable content? |
| 16:56 | <Hixie> | GPHemsley: doesn't make sense to delete nothing |
| 16:56 | <GPHemsley> | Hixie: Could you give an example? |
| 16:56 | GPHemsley | often works better with examples |
| 16:56 | <Hixie> | well, let me check the spec text first to make sure i'm not on crack |
| 16:58 | <GPHemsley> | heh |
| 16:58 | <GPHemsley> | that's always a good idea |
| 17:02 | <Hixie> | ah, it's the reverse of what i said, heh |
| 17:02 | <Hixie> | it's not that <del> doesn't allow palpable |
| 17:02 | <Hixie> | it's that <del> isn't palpable itself |
| 17:03 | <Hixie> | this is because <p><del>x</del></p> is the equivalent of <p></p>, not <p>x</p>, in terms of whether there's anything there |
| 17:03 | <Hixie> | if you delete everything from a paragraph, you should probably delete the paragraph, not the contents |
| 17:03 | <Hixie> | afk, meeting. |
| 17:10 | <GPHemsley> | ah, right; read it wrong |
| 17:10 | <GPHemsley> | thansk |
| 17:11 | <GPHemsley> | thanks, even |
| 17:16 | <jgraham> | Hixie: So I think there is merit in having F2F interaction (otherwise why have conferences at all; one could simply read the same information on a web page). Of course I wouldn't expect it to work like CSS or TC39 where actual decisons are made in person. But it would be an oppertunity for people with simiilar interests to get around a whiteboard and hash out ideas (this already happens of course, but tends to be confined to people in the same organ |
| 17:17 | <Domenic_> | I think a big benefit would be just humanizing the spec process, not even necessarily in getting any concrete work or ideas generated. |
| 17:17 | <jgraham> | Presumably one would make it barcamp style and have lots of parallel sessions so that the number of people at each was conducive to actual interaction rather than the kind of thing that happens at TPAC where you spend most of the time passing the microphone around a room of 50+ people, 45 of whom have nothing to say |
| 17:18 | <jgraham> | And of course some sessions could be "board games" or similar |
| 17:18 | <jgraham> | ("visit the zoo" was annevk's suggestion) |
| 17:18 | <jgraham> | (kind of hard to get people to attend if that's *all* you do though) |
| 17:18 | <annevk> | I stole that idea from Hixie, mind |
| 17:19 | <annevk> | Pretty sure it was a CC0 idea :p |
| 17:19 | <jgraham> | (even orgs that value that kind of teambuilding activity might be loathe to send people to something that is p |
| 17:19 | <jgraham> | ure teambuilding with people from competitors) |
| 17:20 | <annevk> | We'll have to find out |
| 17:20 | <Ms2ger> | Well, you don't tell your manager about the board game sessions ;) |
| 17:21 | <annevk> | Best part of MozSummit was hanging in the lounge discussing some ES6 stuff |
| 17:21 | <Domenic_> | Yeah hallway track ++ |
| 17:21 | <jgraham> | It seems like an easier sell all round if there is explict technical content, rather than just people chatting |
| 17:22 | <Domenic_> | (also true) |
| 17:22 | <jgraham> | annevk: Sure, but the format was explicitly desinged to make that possible |
| 17:22 | <darobin_> | "humanising the spec process", what next? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_a_human_face ? |
| 17:22 | <annevk> | jgraham: my pitch is 1 day technical and 1 day social |
| 17:22 | <Domenic_> | I think there'd need to be some introduction though before all this socializing. E.g. most people don't even know the names of spec people or what they are interested in talking about. |
| 17:22 | <Ms2ger> | darobin_, hmm, I like spring |
| 17:23 | <Domenic_> | annevk: JSConf US this year was 1 day technical, 1 day structured activities, 1 day technical. |
| 17:23 | <darobin_> | Domenic_: well, the TestTWF format isn't so bad for that |
| 17:23 | <Ms2ger> | darobin_, dunno about Prague, though |
| 17:23 | <darobin_> | there's a very short set of intro sessions to make sure everyone knows the basics |
| 17:23 | <darobin_> | then it's all hacking |
| 17:23 | <jgraham> | annevk: I think I prefer the 1:1:1 approach Domenic_ described |
| 17:24 | <annevk> | Seems fine, host it at Google or Microsoft in the Bay Area... |
| 17:25 | <Ms2ger> | As long as you don't want peterv to attend ;) |
| 17:25 | <annevk> | Fly some people in, have some fun, get an idea of what needs to be done to improve things after |
| 17:25 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: :/ |
| 17:26 | <jgraham> | (Mozilla SFO isn't big enough? I only ask because if you are serious about this it might be one way to make things easier) |
| 17:26 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: At least he didn't say "China" |
| 17:26 | <Ms2ger> | Aaaaah |
| 17:27 | <annevk> | jgraham: dunno, if we get 200 people and want to do break outs that's not going to work |
| 17:27 | <annevk> | (basing the number on EdgeConf) |
| 17:27 | <jgraham> | Right, it depends if you want 50 people or 200 people |
| 17:28 | <jgraham> | (50 isn't that many, but it could be worthwhile to do something smaller to begin with and scale up if the idea basically works) |
| 17:29 | <Ms2ger> | Do it in the London office, break out to the Google office |
| 17:29 | <jgraham> | "your breakout session is one tube ride away" |
| 17:29 | <annevk> | With 50 it seems hard to get the right people in without excluding people |
| 17:31 | <jgraham> | Could be true |
| 17:34 | jgraham | fails to find anything about the capacity of Mozilla SFO |
| 17:37 | <annevk> | Btw, as for GitHub, whatwg/streams seems to suggest we get better feedback via GH than public-webapps got, at least for streams |
| 17:39 | <jgraham> | It does seem to be getting attention, which is good. It's not clear to me whose attention it is getting |
| 17:39 | <jgraham> | e.g. are any browser developers involved? |
| 17:41 | <annevk> | jgraham: they mostly seem to give feedback when implementing, no? |
| 17:41 | <jgraham> | annevk: To a certain extent, I guess |
| 17:42 | <jgraham> | People like Sicking often give feedback before then though |
| 17:43 | <annevk> | He's still implementing XBL I guess :p |
| 17:43 | <jgraham> | And always will be? |
| 17:58 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, hmm, I thought we preferred .asis if possible |
| 17:58 | Ms2ger | doesn't care much either way |
| 18:02 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: I guess asis is actually more complicated since you need to pay close attention to every byte |
| 18:02 | <jgraham> | I'm not sure that we have enough experience to make a general rule yet though |
| 18:02 | <Ms2ger> | Let's keep it, then |
| 18:02 | <jgraham> | OK |
| 18:13 | <GPHemsley> | Hixie: The "sorted" attribute is not in the attributes list |
| 18:14 | <annevk> | Yeah, .asis is nasty. |
| 18:15 | <Ms2ger> | How did we end up discussing Google's domains on public-webapps? |
| 18:18 | <Domenic_> | ^ yes that |
| 18:19 | <jorendorff> | Domenic_: hi. new Promise(function (resolve, reject) {...}) is the new hotness, right? no resolver object for months now, looks like? |
| 18:20 | <Hixie> | GPHemsley: thanks, i'll file a bug |
| 18:21 | <dglazkov> | good morning, Whatwg! |
| 18:21 | <Domenic_> | jorendorff: yup! |
| 18:22 | <Hixie> | jgraham: certainly i'm all for discussions around ideas, etc. i'm just worried that we not give people the impression that discussing something means it's going in the specs |
| 18:23 | <jgraham> | Hixie: That seems like an unreasonable expectation to have for pretty much anyone who has been in a technical discussion, ever, but it could be explicitly spelled out if you think there is the chance of confusion |
| 18:24 | <Domenic_> | Hixie: I have found that managing that expectation is best done by saying "here are the things I am interested in spending time on, if you have an esoteric use case you need to find another champion or champion it yourself." |
| 18:24 | <Hixie> | i just don't want a repetition of <picture> |
| 18:25 | <jgraham> | Yeah, I guess that is a failure mode that we should avoid in the future |
| 18:26 | <jgraham> | But it does seem like you can deal with that by making it clear to everyone what the actual decison making process is |
| 18:26 | <jgraham> | and if you get the right audience many people will know anyway |
| 18:27 | <Domenic_> | I feel like if people read the WHATWG FAQ everything would be better. It's really good. |
| 18:27 | <Domenic_> | E.g. emphasizing how important it is to get vendors on board. |
| 18:48 | <annevk> | http://blogs.adobe.com/standards/2013/10/24/forking-standards-and-document-licensing/ |
| 18:48 | <annevk> | "Of course this wouldn’t legally prevent individuals and groups from making forks, but hopefully would discourage harmful misuse, while still encouraging innovation." |
| 18:49 | <annevk> | Maybe we should include a helpful notice to advice against copying our work. "W3C please do not copy-and-paste from this specification. The generated confusion over the next decade (or so) is way worse than any potential upside." |
| 18:51 | <Jasper> | I don't even know what the W3C do anymore. |
| 18:57 | <GPHemsley> | Hixie: Why does the tbody section come before the thead section? |
| 18:57 | <Hixie> | cos b comes before h? |
| 18:57 | <Hixie> | (just guessing) |
| 19:04 | <Domenic_> | wow this w3c streams API is getting uglier by the minute. i am feeling very un-threatened. |
| 19:05 | <annevk> | at least you are actually competing :p |
| 19:52 | <jamesr__> | Domenic_: un-threatened by chaals/et al or by Takeshi? |
| 19:53 | <jamesr__> | i'm trying to read the technical threads and ignore the non-technical ones, but it's tricky |
| 20:11 | <Domenic_> | jamesr__: the latter. not sure what to make of the former. |
| 21:25 | <Domenic_> | SimonSapin: nice :D |
| 22:11 | <SimonSapin> | Domenic_: sorry, I lost context |
| 22:18 | <Domenic_> | SimonSapin: the railroad diagrams link |
| 22:20 | <SimonSapin> | ah, yes |
| 22:21 | <SimonSapin> | thank TabAtkins for that :) |
| 22:21 | <Domenic_> | well, fair point :). TabAtkins: thanks for the railroad diagrams thingy; it's going to make whatwg/streams awesome. |
| 22:22 | <TabAtkins> | Domenic_: No problem! I aim to please. Feel free to file bugs or requests on the Bikeshed repo. |
| 22:22 | <TabAtkins> | Or wait, you're maybe using it standalone. Well, whatever. |
| 22:22 | <TabAtkins> | If you want to use railroad diagrams inline in your spec, feel free to switch to using Bikeshed for your processing needs. ^_^ |
| 22:23 | <SimonSapin> | haha |
| 22:23 | <Domenic_> | markdown for now, we'll see what happens later. |
| 22:24 | <TabAtkins> | Hey, Bikeshed lets you do Markdown paragraphs, at least. |
| 22:24 | <TabAtkins> | Plus: autolinking! You don't realize how much you need it until you start using it. |
| 22:24 | <TabAtkins> | Even just writing documentation in Markdown makes me miss having things autolinked. :/ |
| 23:11 | <jorendorff> | Domenic_: is CastToPromise(%Promise%, x) observably different from Promise.resolve(x), apart from object identity? |
| 23:17 | <Domenic_> | jorendorff: nope, except I guess potential memory usage. |
| 23:17 | <jorendorff> | great. |
| 23:17 | <Domenic_> | jorendorff: also of course people can override Promise.resolve, yadda yadda. |
| 23:18 | <jorendorff> | sure, yep yep |
| 23:20 | <jorendorff> | i should just use your testable-implementation.js and call Promise.cast already |
| 23:21 | <Domenic_> | jorendorff: yeah, although I haven't tested it in SpiderMonkey, pull requests welcome if I rely on some V8-ism. |
| 23:21 | <jorendorff> | i'll try it out |
| 23:22 | <Domenic_> | if we wanted to get really serious we should be creating a shared version of this: https://github.com/domenic/promises-unwrapping/blob/master/testable-implementation.js#L448-L496 |
| 23:30 | <jorendorff> | Domenic_: IsConstructor is implementable in JS, with direct proxies, but it's not pretty |
| 23:31 | <jorendorff> | david bruant showed me a disgusting trick |
| 23:31 | <jorendorff> | but i guess SpiderMonkey's direct proxies have a bug that make it equivalent to typeof x === "function", so no point |