| 03:57 | <Domenic> | Has anyone upgraded to Safari 11 yet? Is that out for macOS or just iOS? |
| 03:57 | <Domenic> | Want to know if dynamic import() got shipped |
| 05:06 | <annevk> | Domenic: test? I have the iOS version |
| 05:12 | <Domenic> | annevk: let's try https://ripple-hacksaw.glitch.me/ although without a working impl in Chrome I'm not sure I coded it right |
| 05:16 | <annevk> | Domenic: green |
| 05:16 | <Domenic> | \o/ |
| 05:25 | <gsnedders> | Domenic: presume it isn't shipping on macOS till High Sierra next week |
| 05:25 | <Domenic> | Ah OK, thanks |
| 05:36 | <belarm> | So - who's running the fork of w3c? |
| 05:37 | <belarm> | Now that the master branch has outlived its usefulness, I figure someone's started w3c-ng by now, right? |
| 05:42 | <belarm> | I don't get it. The Web was designed for research. How is enabling companies to cut the legs out from under researchers in the spirit of that? |
| 06:04 | <gsnedders> | belarm: you can argue the W3C got forked by the WHATWG because of the focus on XHTML 2 and RDF, and you can argue that's moving away from researchers |
| 06:05 | <gsnedders> | More seriously, everything is shades of grey. |
| 07:40 | <annevk> | Domenic: also green in the latest Safari TP on macOS |
| 07:41 | <annevk> | gsnedders: Domenic: looks like Safari 11 for macOS was released today/yesterday as well |
| 07:42 | <annevk> | gsnedders: Domenic: downloading now |
| 07:43 | <annevk> | Might take a while since Xcode is taking priority |
| 07:47 | <annevk> | yhirano__: maybe close all the issues in https://github.com/yutakahirano/fetch-with-streams/issues? It seems they're all better raised against whatwg/fetch at this point, if they're still relevant |
| 08:03 | <Domenic> | Does anything in the spec use the HTMLElement reflection from https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#reflecting-content-attributes-in-idl-attributes ? |
| 08:05 | <annevk> | Domenic: I suspect something in form, maybe label or some such |
| 08:06 | <annevk> | hmm no |
| 08:06 | <gsnedders> | annevk: oh, I couldn't see any evidence before at least here, but staged rollouts, etc |
| 08:07 | <annevk> | Domenic: gsnedders: also green on macOS Safari 11 |
| 08:11 | <annevk> | Domenic: I can't find anything that uses reflect in that matter |
| 08:11 | <annevk> | Domenic: next step would be to run blame to figure out why it was introduced |
| 08:24 | <annevk> | Domenic: found https://github.com/whatwg/html/commit/ce5b422f2d8db7abb8e00b90adcc2681eb43ce28 but not what it's used for... |
| 08:30 | <annevk> | Domenic: per https://github.com/whatwg/html/commit/78009c8e5cb697ec51043cfae8396f7bccdfdce3 looks like it was for contextMenu |
| 08:31 | <annevk> | Domenic: now I've done all this research I'll go ahead and remove it |
| 08:34 | <annevk> | Ugh, the inability to ask for a review on whatwg/html is rather frustrating |
| 08:36 | <annevk> | JakeA: could you prepare a commit message for https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/523? |
| 08:36 | <annevk> | JakeA: I'm going to land it and any remaining feedback we'll do as follow-ups |
| 08:42 | <JakeA> | annevk: oh wow, big day! Yeah will write a commit message now |
| 09:18 | <yhirano__> | annevk: thanks, will do |
| 12:20 | <belarm> | I'd actually frame it differently than moving away from research - CERN won't care about DRM. The *rest* of the web, on the other hand... |
| 12:22 | <belarm> | So far as I can tell, protecting the profitability of a handful of corporations has taken precedence over an open, accessible, and useful Web. Which kind of makes them useless as an organization. |
| 12:22 | <belarm> | *W3C, that is. |
| 12:24 | <belarm> | If we're just going to let megacorps decide the rules, why even have committees? Just turn the reigns over to the biggest company advising, and let them decide what the Web will be. |
| 12:36 | <nox> | Not sure what's your final point. |
| 12:37 | <belarm> | That the W3C is no longer relevant and should be replaced. |
| 12:38 | <nox> | That's been true for years. |
| 12:38 | <nox> | For HTML, specifically. |
| 12:38 | <nox> | CSSWG is fine, and other stuff at the W3C is fine too. |
| 12:39 | <belarm> | For now. How long before the same companies who pushed for DRM in HTML 5 start exerting their will elsewhere? For that matter, I posit that what it's done to HTML is bad enough - HTML is kinda important. |
| 12:41 | <nox> | What? |
| 12:42 | <nox> | You seem to think that the W3C is a monolithic thing, |
| 12:42 | <nox> | but people working on MSE, or on CSS animations, or on other specs managed by the W3C have very little to do with the EME mess. |
| 12:43 | <belarm> | Then those groups can function under different leadership. I was half sincere in my question - is there any competing standards body? |
| 12:43 | <belarm> | You're correct in that I don't know ... anything, really about the administration. I just know the tech, and that they've made a decision that leaves me with no confidence in them. |
| 12:43 | <nox> | There is the WHATWG. |
| 12:44 | <nox> | And I don't really see the point to try to move standards that have no issues to some other body. |
| 12:47 | <belarm> | At the risk of sounding hysterical, I think the EME decision demonstrates that corporate and patent interests are more important to the leadership of W3C (or at least those responsible for that decision, which I believe includes Berners-Lee) than ensuring the openness of the Web. |
| 12:47 | <belarm> | To me, that makes them suspect in the extreme. |
| 12:50 | <belarm> | </rant>, sorry. |
| 12:51 | <jgraham> | The W3C was irrelevant in the DRM thing. It was going to happen either way. It's sad that they didn't try to leverage their position to get some DMCA protection for people working on EME, but the fact is that DRM in the browser was already ubiquitos via flash and Google and Microsoft decided that they would ship it directly in the browser irrespective of standardisation. |
| 12:52 | <belarm> | The fact that people are doing it does not mean it has to be a standard. |
| 12:52 | <jgraham> | Whether it's formally a standard is irrelevant |
| 12:52 | <jgraham> | It doesn't change any outcome that anti-DRM people care about |
| 12:53 | <belarm> | Blessing the practice means companies can assume that capability - that's the whole point. It also frees them to use legal measures against technological problems that they cannot solve (like the fact that DRM doesn't work) |
| 12:53 | <jgraham> | Nope |
| 12:53 | <belarm> | I beg to differ, as an anti-DRM person. |
| 12:53 | <jgraham> | The fact of it shipping means that companies will assume it |
| 12:53 | <jgraham> | Indeed it is mostly shipping because the companies who wanted it to be there demanded it be there |
| 12:54 | <nox> | belarm: Content providers will use DRM one way or the other. |
| 12:54 | <jgraham> | I'm not aware of anything to suggest that the fact of it being a standard changes the legal position wither |
| 12:54 | <jgraham> | *either |
| 12:54 | <nox> | I don't have a problem with EME either, I have a problem with TBL arguing against protections for security researchers breaking their stuff. |
| 12:54 | <jgraham> | Yeah, it was unfortunate that the W3C didn't make a credible effort on that |
| 12:55 | <jgraham> | But blaming W3C for the fact of DRM on the web is missing the point in a way that seems very unhelpful to everyone |
| 12:55 | <belarm> | The way they did it, no, jgraham. But had they accepted one of the EFF's compromises that would have compelled member companies to swear off suing people for legitimate circumventions of DRM, that would have stopped them from doing it. Instead, they got everything they wanted. |
| 12:55 | <nox> | Amen. |
| 12:55 | <belarm> | "Unfortunate" |
| 12:55 | <belarm> | I'd say "damning" |
| 12:56 | <nox> | belarm: "Unfortunate" as in "I have absolutely no leverage on this topic and I don't want to feel miserable". |
| 12:56 | <belarm> | I never said they were responsible for DRM. I said their decision was wrong and makes them untrustworthy. |
| 12:56 | <jgraham> | Yes, they should have done that. It's disappointing they didn't. But a better measure there would be to change local laws |
| 12:56 | <nox> | belarm: I was just interpreting jgraham's choice of words. :) |
| 12:56 | <belarm> | ...in over 200 countries, jgraham? |
| 12:56 | <nox> | belarm: Yes. |
| 12:56 | <nox> | Law > * |
| 12:57 | <belarm> | ... |
| 12:57 | <belarm> | No. |
| 12:57 | <nox> | Yes. |
| 12:57 | <nox> | jgraham didn't say it was easily doable, or doable at all. |
| 12:57 | <belarm> | The net is a remarkably good at circumventing laws when they are bad. See the history of the Net. |
| 12:57 | <nox> | He was just stating it would be a better measure. |
| 12:57 | <nox> | s/when they are bad// |
| 12:57 | <belarm> | Fair point. |
| 12:57 | <jgraham> | belarm: I don't know if there are 200 countries with DMCA-like anti-circumvention clauses |
| 12:58 | <belarm> | There are 200 nation states who can decide to implement such laws at any time. |
| 12:58 | <jgraham> | But presumably if there are it's because someone managed to get them passed |
| 12:58 | <jgraham> | So it obviously isn't impossible |
| 12:58 | <belarm> | Then, there's a consortium that the companies actually want to be in, who could have MADE them play by fair rules. And didn't. |
| 12:58 | <belarm> | jgraham, multi-billion dollar companies with armies of lobbyists got those laws passed. |
| 12:59 | <belarm> | Grassroots campaigns won't overturn them - we've been trying that here for 16 years with the DMCA |
| 12:59 | <jgraham> | So, not impossible, but hard when those with money want it some other way? |
| 12:59 | <jgraham> | Welcome to capitalism I guess |
| 12:59 | <jgraham> | In any case any W3C covenant would only have covered EME |
| 12:59 | <belarm> | Essentially impossible. Yes, that is an outcome of capitalism. The W3C is not (supposed to be) a capitalist group. |
| 13:00 | <belarm> | "only" |
| 13:00 | <belarm> | Sorry, I know this isn't ya'lls fault. I appreciate the discussion. |
| 13:00 | <jgraham> | I don't even know what a capitalist group is. I also don't know what happened. Maybe the media companies just said "if you require that we will leave the W3C and standardise at ECMA" |
| 13:01 | <jgraham> | The point is that W3C's only card here was its brand name |
| 13:01 | <belarm> | A capitalist group would be one concerned with making money. The W3C is a non-profit organization. |
| 13:02 | <belarm> | Right. And if it won't use its brand name to defend open standards, then what good is it? |
| 13:02 | <jgraham> | belarm: So, hypothetical alternate scenario. W3C refused to standardise this. Exactly the same work happened at ISO, except now you have to pay to get the standard (is that still a thing?). Who benefits? |
| 13:03 | <annevk> | jgraham: W3C could have kept some credibility |
| 13:04 | <jgraham> | AFAICT the only practial difference in that situation is that you aren't complaining about the W3C. Which might be good for them; maybe this work was so toxic that it will kill them. But ppractically it makes no difference. |
| 13:04 | <jgraham> | You get the same DRM with the same DMCA |
| 13:06 | <annevk> | I would have liked to see that tested more |
| 13:06 | <annevk> | The way things went down timbl was happy to just let it happen |
| 13:07 | <annevk> | Didn't much try to get concessions |
| 13:07 | <jgraham> | Fair enough. But also the way it went down enough browsers shipped this before it was any kind of standard that I'm pretty sure that it would have happened in any case. |
| 13:07 | <annevk> | Didn't try to require sandboxing and get that defined in some manner |
| 13:08 | <annevk> | Yeah, I don't think anyone is disputing that |
| 13:08 | <annevk> | Though probably someone is |
| 13:10 | jgraham | goes back to worrying about Facebook and Google as tools of societal manipulation |
| 13:18 | <nox> | Anyone knows which task source is supposed to be used when queuing a task to run https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/media.html#dedicated-media-source-failure-steps? |
| 13:21 | belarm | sets his laptop on fire |
| 13:22 | <belarm> | jgraham, ISO standards, having a cost of entry, are harder for small companies to implement. That would, I expect, inspire at least some of them to come up with a workaround - or simply refuse to implement it. |
| 13:22 | <belarm> | The work isn't toxic. The decision is. |
| 13:23 | <nox> | Not sure how the cost of entry helps in that direction. |
| 13:23 | <belarm> | jgraham, why can't I worry about both? They're FB and Google are trying to pull the same crap elsewhere. |
| 13:24 | <belarm> | Well, I can't prove my case, as this is a hypothetical. |
| 13:24 | <belarm> | But small projects (which is where most big projects start) would have a harder time implementing an ISO standard than a W3C one. ISO also doesn't have protection of the web as part of it's charter, so... |
| 13:27 | <belarm> | Oh, the votes are secret, too. How nice. |
| 13:31 | <Domenic> | nox: seems like a spec bug. I guess DOM manipulation task source probably, but please file. |
| 13:32 | <nox> | Domenic: I squinted hard, |
| 13:32 | <nox> | Domenic: and the spec actually says that the media element event task source should be used for this task. |
| 13:32 | <Domenic> | Oh, erm, OK. (I didn't know that task source existed...) |
| 13:33 | <nox> | Domenic: I wonder if the spec should always locally specify task source though. |
| 13:33 | <Domenic> | That seems nicer |
| 13:33 | <nox> | Domenic: It's painful to have to check in which section we are, and go find some previous paragraph that states which task source should be used. |
| 13:33 | <Domenic> | Oh wow each media element has its own task source that's fun |
| 13:33 | <nox> | Domenic: LALALA I HEARD NOTHING |
| 14:24 | <annevk> | jgraham: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/7420 any idea what's going on? |
| 14:39 | <jgraham> | annevk: No. That seems to have happened a couple of times. We are currently rewriting all the import stuff, but it's a little troubling. |
| 14:40 | <annevk> | jgraham: if you could comment there whether you object to merging or not that'd be a good |
| 14:40 | <annevk> | jgraham: and also whether you want me to do some kind of follow-up to get this looked into |
| 14:42 | <jgraham> | annevk: No need to do a followup |
| 16:00 | <jgraham> | annevk: So that patch appeared in the list to be upstreamed, but didn't make it. I think I did something wrong during the process. |
| 16:00 | <jgraham> | This is why we are trying to remove me from the process as much as possible :) |