| 00:00 | <jwalden> | certainly this is a somewhat different axis of disagreement |
| 00:46 | <athenes19> | "Members of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) are getting ready to launch the HTML 5.1 specification and have already started work on the upcoming HTML 5.2 version since mid-August." |
| 00:46 | <athenes19> | What happened to "HTML now has no version number"? |
| 00:46 | <athenes19> | I guess that lasted until they decided to make a 5.1. |
| 00:46 | <athenes19> | Wasn't it supposed to be a "living standard"? |
| 00:47 | <athenes19> | I've still no idea how much of HTML 5 I understand. Maybe there are features in it that I would find useful, such as a native way to "uncheck/check all checkboxes with this class". |
| 00:47 | <athenes19> | There is a distinct lack of good summaries. |
| 00:50 | <KiChjang> | i don't think it matters much though, i believe browsers are following WHATWG's HTML spec instead? |
| 00:51 | <tantek> | KiChjang: yes, browser developers are largely following WHATWG HTML, except maybe Microsoft Edge. |
| 00:52 | <KiChjang> | athenes19, W3C still publishes versioned HTML specs for reasons |
| 00:52 | <athenes19> | Is the WHATWG one better? Does it have version numbers? |
| 00:52 | <tantek> | athenes19: W3C is continuing with "versioned" HTML 5.x "snapshots" which are following a different criteria/path in terms of stability / modularization |
| 00:52 | <KiChjang> | WHATWG's HTML spec is a living document |
| 00:52 | <athenes19> | Seems like W3C is the sane one for once... in that particular aspect. |
| 00:53 | <athenes19> | But otherwise, I have nothing but contempt for W3C. |
| 00:53 | <tantek> | athenes19: no version numbers fo the WHATWG one, it tends be more up to date (bug fixes etc.) and have more prospective features that are in progress. |
| 00:53 | <athenes19> | Or W3 or WC whatever they call themselves this week. |
| 00:53 | <tantek> | athenes19: W3C has a different way of working with HTML 5.x than WHATWG has with HTML |
| 00:54 | <tantek> | athenes19: sorry to hear about the "nothing but contempt" - I mean, it's likely not worth your energy to feel such contempt. |
| 00:54 | <tantek> | OTOH if there's a specific bad behavior you know of from W3C (spec, working group etc.) please feel free to let me know (citations helpful) and I'll see what I can do about it. |
| 00:55 | <athenes19> | The main thing I like about "HTML 5" (I hate how this is such a "volatile" standard) is how it enabled a lot of simplification of insanely verbose code from 4.01. |
| 00:55 | <athenes19> | Such as <script> instead of <script type="text/javascript"> (I can't even remember if that was the right one). |
| 00:56 | <athenes19> | It was pretty idiotic of them to force the "type" attribute. |
| 00:56 | <athenes19> | When 99.99% of all <script> tags used JavaScript. |
| 00:56 | <athenes19> | Especially as JavaScript wasn't even called JavaScript in all browsers, yet you had to type "javascript" explicitly. |
| 08:19 | <smaug> | yikes, this input event stuff in editing work is odd |
| 09:07 | <TabAtkins> | Okay, so I need to make an attribute that's an array. Can I do that with sequence<>? |
| 09:07 | <TabAtkins> | It's a dead array. |
| 09:26 | gsnedders | hober you have food? :'( |
| 09:49 | <nox> | TabAtkins: Isn't FrozenArray for that? |
| 09:50 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, got told that's the case. Annoying because the whole object is dead, so the immutability doesn't do anything *useful*, but I guess it communicates useful intent. |
| 09:50 | <TabAtkins> | Made everything readonly too, to be consistent. |
| 09:51 | <nox> | TabAtkins: What's a dead object? |
| 09:51 | <TabAtkins> | I just mean an object with no communication channels back to anything in the engine. |
| 09:51 | <TabAtkins> | In this case, it's exposing the CSS Syntax parsing methods - you feed in a string, you get tokens back out. Tweaking the token objects won't do anything. |
| 10:17 | <annevk> | smaug: so yeah, I'm not really convinced yet |
| 10:17 | <smaug> | annevk: I like the new element |
| 10:17 | <smaug> | comparing to the current contentEditable mess |
| 10:18 | <smaug> | it is sanest way forward, I think |
| 10:18 | <annevk> | smaug: that does make sense, but nobody seems to have a decade of exp |
| 10:18 | <annevk> | smaug: I guess'll see when the processing model arrives |
| 10:19 | <smaug> | right |
| 10:19 | <smaug> | for now it is just the old stuff + some sugar on top of it |
| 13:30 | <Ms2ger> | OH: it would be crap because it's always crap |
| 16:32 | <MikeSmith> | do any UAs support path[vector-effect="non-scaling-stroke"] |
| 16:33 | <MikeSmith> | from SVG Tiny 1.2 https://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/painting.html#VectorEffectProperty |
| 16:34 | <TabAtkins> | MikeSmith: None of the browsers yet afaik |
| 16:34 | <MikeSmith> | ok thanks |
| 16:37 | <gsnedders> | Does anything actually care about SVG 1.2? |
| 16:38 | <TabAtkins> | No, but individual features have back-migrated to SVG2. |
| 16:49 | <jyasskin> | 1.2->2 is a "back" migration? |
| 16:50 | <MikeSmith> | yeah in that SVG2 is the shipping branch from SVG1.1 |
| 16:51 | <MikeSmith> | whereas 1.2 was a detour kind of |
| 16:51 | <MikeSmith> | I guess |
| 16:51 | <MikeSmith> | sort of it is migrating back to reality from fantasy |
| 17:05 | <jyasskin> | Am I right to interpret https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/interaction.html#triggered-by-user-activation as including microtasks? |
| 18:16 | <MikeSmith> | jyasskin: yeah since microtasks are tasks |
| 18:16 | <jyasskin> | Thx |
| 19:22 | <KiChjang> | is it just my impression, or is it true that W3C is a monolithic/authoritative organization who thinks it can decide how the web should look like? |
| 19:37 | <jyasskin> | I think that's just your impression. Lots of people with different perspectives work with the W3C. |
| 19:45 | <caitp> | the W3C is marginally better at compromise than the house/senate, and not quite as good at pay to play legislation |
| 19:51 | <KiChjang> | thing is, i'm seeing it pushing for XHTML and it didn't happen |
| 19:51 | <KiChjang> | and also a really bloated SVG spec |
| 19:52 | <KiChjang> | (it had networking code, would you imagine) |
| 20:09 | <jyasskin> | KiChjang: This is what happens when you let theoreticians and users have a say, in addition to people implementing browsers. You get some impractical compromises. If anything, you're complaining that the W3C isn't monolithic *enough*. ;) |
| 20:14 | <caitp> | "users" not so much being grandma and grandpa, but businesses trying to impact how they can present their content |