| 00:34 | wfpkhc | wanders on in |
| 00:34 | <wfpkhc> | Hello |
| 00:35 | <wfpkhc> | anyone around? |
| 00:36 | wfpkhc | frowns and sits quietly on the side wall while he waits for someone to join in on the conversation* |
| 00:37 | wfpkhc | sits with his back to the wall and looks about the room and plays with some dice while waits patiently* |
| 00:39 | wfpkhc | ponders about getting a crayon and drawning on the wall but decides its best against that course of action* |
| 00:39 | <astearns> | wfpkhc: if you have a question, ask it. this isn't a conversational channel, and you're likely to be kicked if you're spamming emotes |
| 00:40 | wfpkhc | waves hello to astearns - |
| 00:40 | <wfpkhc> | yes i have a question |
| 00:40 | <wfpkhc> | what do you know about standards sir? |
| 00:40 | <wfpkhc> | html5 standards - more specifically |
| 00:41 | <wfpkhc> | i try to follow html standards as much as possible and have done a good job up until now - but while migrating from html4 to html5 - i seem to keep coming up with this warning with the validator - |
| 00:41 | <wfpkhc> | Warning: The type attribute is unnecessary for JavaScript resources. |
| 00:42 | <wfpkhc> | have they removed that in html5? |
| 00:43 | <astearns> | wfpkhc: I don't know the answer, but that's a specific-enough question that someone who does know the answer might respond. |
| 00:43 | <wfpkhc> | ok sir, thank you |
| 00:44 | <wfpkhc> | welcome back ckrn_ |
| 00:45 | <wfpkhc> | i hate it when the damn hamster dies on the power wheel and you lose connection |
| 00:45 | <wfpkhc> | oh come on that was funny :) |
| 00:46 | <wfpkhc> | i have to go i might come back later |
| 00:46 | <wfpkhc> | thank you all |
| 01:19 | <devsnek> | if I were to expose a bunch of non spec globals in my runtime what would be the best way to do that |
| 01:19 | <devsnek> | chrome has all it's weird stuff on a "chome" property so im assuming that's a good way? |
| 13:07 | <smaug____> | frivoal: that spatial navigation spec is indeed rather long. Will take quite a few hours to review |
| 13:08 | <smaug____> | one thing I noticed that the draft seems to think focusin fires differently than it actually fires |
| 13:08 | <smaug____> | see https://github.com/w3c/uievents/issues/88 |
| 13:08 | <frivoal> | smaug____: We've tried to organize the reading order of the spec in a way to minimize the pain. If we have done a poor job at that, that is also useful feedback |
| 13:09 | <smaug____> | frivoal: just something I noticed in Example 8 |
| 13:09 | <smaug____> | focusin/out handling is totally bogus in browsers |
| 13:10 | <smaug____> | since webkit/blink decided to implement broken behavior |
| 13:10 | <frivoal> | Ok. We should fix that, but this is thankfully only incidental. The rest of the spec does not depend on that behavior, it was just given for context |
| 13:11 | <frivoal> | Still, if it's wrong (and I trust you that it is), we should fix it |
| 13:12 | <smaug____> | frivoal: question, the example mention keydown |
| 13:12 | <smaug____> | what about keyup? |
| 13:12 | <smaug____> | or is the idea that there can be several keydown in case of repeated events or something? |
| 13:13 | <frivoal> | This is really the problem with example that try to illustrate the general idea without getting into the details too much. For people who know the details, they raise more questions than they answer :) |
| 13:14 | <frivoal> | In our case, we spec that it is up to the browser to decide what triggers spat nav. We expect that key down on arrow keys (or shift+arrow keys) will be rather typical, but that's a UI decision, up to the UA. |
| 13:15 | <frivoal> | So the example is meant to illustrate (possibly with insufficient details) what a typical implementation would do, but there is some flexibility about that |
| 13:15 | <smaug____> | but the idea is that repeated key (long press) will cause several navigations. |
| 13:15 | <smaug____> | I assume so |
| 13:15 | <frivoal> | It is one possible behavior, and I assume it would be typical. But not required by the spec. |