02:38
<zewt>
don't suppose there's anyone building firefox with the bogus extension signing thing removed? otherwise i'm probably just going to stop updating firefox, heh
02:40
<zewt>
(mozilla doesn't get to be a gatekeeper for add-ons, nobody should be tolerating that)
02:59
<nox>
Ah ah.
07:53
<zcorpan>
hmm, IE 10/11 had just rp { display:none }. IE 8..9 and Edge 13 have ruby rp { display:none }
07:54
<zcorpan>
did they decide to be compatible with Firefox for IE 8, and then decide to be compatible with Chrome in Edge 13?
07:57
<zcorpan>
MikeSmith: do you have an idea about the usefulness of "not mappable to XML 1.0" warnings? i suppose they are useful for some people but not at all for the majority, but would be good to have some kind of data
09:56
<MikeSmith>
zcorpan: as far as real XML usage, data we have consistently shows that at most 0.1% of HTML documents are served with an XML MIME type
09:57
<MikeSmith>
see the “XML input” line at https://validator.w3.org/nu/stats.html
09:58
<MikeSmith>
and there is Opera MAMA data that indicates the same 0.1%
09:58
<MikeSmith>
lemme find it
09:58
<zcorpan>
MikeSmith: ok. but that stat doesn't say so much about whether XML warnings in text/html are useful, right?
09:59
<zcorpan>
MikeSmith: such warnings would be useful if one tries to parse the HTML and serialize as XML for something other than serving the page to the browser
10:00
<MikeSmith>
well I don’t know how we could get figures for that
10:01
<zcorpan>
or, for some cases, try to generate an equivalent DOM using DOM core APIs (which often but not always reject things that are not allowed in XML)
10:01
<MikeSmith>
yeah I don’t think we want to encourage people to try to do stuff like that anyway
10:02
<MikeSmith>
if they do they are likely to run into more problems than the subset of what we warn about, I htink
10:02
<MikeSmith>
so I think we should drop those "not mappable to XML 1.0" warnings
10:03
<MikeSmith>
I think they are just noise to the vast majority of users
10:03
<zcorpan>
ok. yeah, i think so too. for element and attribute names we give an error anyway for names that can't be used in XML
10:03
<MikeSmith>
yeah
10:04
<zcorpan>
and anyone trying to serialize text/html as XML will be better off doing infoset coersion than trying to warn the Internet into behaving
10:04
<MikeSmith>
I think that 0.1% figure does probably also roughly align with the data for number of users who want to do that other XMLish stuff
10:05
<MikeSmith>
as maybe does the “Doctype with「SYSTEM "about:legacy-compat"」found” figure at https://validator.w3.org/nu/stats.html
10:05
<MikeSmith>
which is 0.06%
10:05
<zcorpan>
Yeah
10:06
<MikeSmith>
OK so dropping the warnings is an htmlparser change
10:06
<MikeSmith>
I’m happy to make them directly but also happy to merge them if you make a PR
10:07
<MikeSmith>
btw for htmlparser changes make sure to use the validator-nu branch as the base
10:07
<MikeSmith>
for https://github.com/validator/htmlparser I mean
10:07
<MikeSmith>
I think that is what should automatically happen now
10:08
<MikeSmith>
because I recently switched it so that validator-nu branch is the default for that github repo
10:21
<zcorpan>
hmm htmlparser is a submodule. i don't know what to do. :-D
10:43
<MikeSmith>
cd htmlparser && git checkout validator-nu && git pull
11:41
<zcorpan>
MikeSmith: should the warning still be there for ALTER_INFOSET?
11:45
<zcorpan>
i suppose the warning can be useful there
12:08
<MikeSmith>
zcorpan: yeah agreed
12:12
<zcorpan>
MikeSmith: https://github.com/validator/htmlparser/pull/3
12:13
<zcorpan>
MikeSmith: Trailing whitespace got trimmed. I've built and tested manually and run tests
12:13
<zcorpan>
but not written new automated tests
12:48
<ondras>
hm, this is a specced behavior? https://jsfiddle.net/2xy87m6z/
12:48
<ondras>
(not getting checked even if explicitely requested)
23:29
<botie>
rniwa, at 2016-11-23 23:00 UTC, Domenic said: for a repro file for https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2058