Foo

2009-01-01 [16:08:00.0000] XHTML seems to have had a pretty significant detrimental effect on people's understanding of HTML syntax [16:09:00.0000] It used to be all nice and easy - you wrote and you wrote
and you just had to remember the handful of elements in the latter set [16:30:00.0000] HAPPY NEW YEAR! [16:30:01.0000] takkaria: I can verify it is 2009 in Scotland :) [16:37:00.0000] /me looks from side to side of his monitor [16:38:00.0000] On one side, takkaria wishing happy new year; on the other, takkaria wishing no-one a happy new year. [16:38:01.0000] /me can't cope with this contradiction and his to make it known publicly ;p [16:58:00.0000] Hooray for popup EULAs, that are shown only once to each user (using the Windows registry to remember if it's been shown), on a program that I want to run as the SYSTEM user via a Windows service, which is user you cannot log in as while using an interactive terminal [16:58:01.0000] and therefore it's impossible to accept the EULA [16:59:00.0000] just modify the registry [17:00:00.0000] That's what I'll do once I work out where the SYSTEM user's registry entries are [17:01:00.0000] It must be one of the S-1-50-{...} things, but I have no idea which :-/ [17:01:01.0000] s/0// [17:03:00.0000] Ah, right, it's S-1-5-18 [17:03:01.0000] How obvious [17:03:02.0000] Duh. [17:11:00.0000] Also: the inability to copy-and-paste passwords into the Windows login prompt via rdesktop is annoying, because I didn't discover that until after I'd set a rather long password :-( [00:38:00.0000] Hixie, regarding changing all instances of DOMObject to any, HTMLCanvasElement::getContext seems like one that should still be an object [00:38:01.0000] i don't see how that could ever usefully return a non-object value [00:39:00.0000] also, i'd suggest just using Object rather than DOMObject... there doesn't seem to be any advantage to using a typedef named DOMObject [00:41:00.0000] well it's also not ever going to return a Node... [00:42:00.0000] so limiting it to just Objects seems a bit arbitrary almost [00:44:00.0000] some language bindings may have to handle "any" values differently from Object [00:45:00.0000] for ES it's no problem, obviously [00:45:01.0000] /me shrugs [00:45:02.0000] it's not that important [00:45:03.0000] what's the deal with "attribute DOMString accept-charset;" ? [00:46:00.0000] on HTMLFormElement [00:46:01.0000] typo; please send mail :-) [00:46:02.0000] mention the getContext() thing too, i'll change it back [00:46:03.0000] k [00:47:00.0000] btw, if i send mail to public-html, is it guaranteed to end up in your issues page? [00:47:01.0000] since i sent a mail a month ago or so, and it didn't appear in that list or get replied to [00:48:00.0000] uri? [00:49:00.0000] is lists.w3.org down again? [00:49:01.0000] apparently :/ [00:49:02.0000] http://markmail.org/message/4mtol7izork2354k [00:50:00.0000] oh i saw that one [00:50:01.0000] oh, k [00:50:02.0000] couldn't find it in the list [00:50:03.0000] it's in the WF2 folder [00:51:00.0000] ah, thanks [00:51:01.0000] be good if you could search that list, given they're not all expanded to do a ctrl+f on [00:53:00.0000] Philip` has a static version of it [00:53:01.0000] that google can search [00:59:00.0000] Steven Gilborn [00:59:01.0000] er [00:59:02.0000] wrong channel [01:10:00.0000] Hixie, what's the [XXX] on the ModalWindow interface for? [01:33:00.0000] the no interface thingy, i expect [01:34:00.0000] ok. just checking that it's not some other missing web idl feature. [01:41:00.0000] i have like 100 idl-related e-mails to deal with [01:41:01.0000] so the idl blocks are way out of date [01:47:00.0000] righto [05:45:00.0000] Man. [05:45:01.0000] Weather forecasts keep changing. [09:27:00.0000] Hixie: http://www.w3.org/People/EM/contact#me is not an NS URI :-) [09:28:00.0000] Hixie: the example is saying that Eric Miller is cat Hedral [09:28:01.0000] /me wonders how the Semantic Web deals if someone asserts that someone else is a cat [09:29:00.0000] They go about their business, with the added knowledge that someone is a cat [09:31:00.0000] You look in your FOAF social network to decide whether you should trust the person making the assertion [09:32:00.0000] Trust? Why would anyone make a non-true assertion? [09:33:00.0000] how does one distinguish between assertions about a person and assertions about a fragment in the person's file? [09:33:01.0000] s/file/resource representation/ [09:33:02.0000] Shouldn't you chaps just accept the fact that Eric Miller is a cat? [09:33:03.0000] s/person's/person's FOAF/ [09:33:04.0000] webben: That's what I'm saying [09:38:00.0000] Anyone here from around Edinburgh? [09:38:01.0000] Or, more relevantly, in Edinburgh on Saturday? [10:27:00.0000] /me recommends the channels #swig to hsivonen [10:28:00.0000] asserting that a thing is another thing is not an issue. It all depends on the context. And yes lies are already part of human languages mechanisms for ages. And that is fine. [10:29:00.0000] and useful in some circumstances. [10:30:00.0000] karlcow: the example in the spec should probably not use a URI claimed by a W3C staff member, though. [10:42:00.0000] /me gets confused for moments, and wonders why the Simplified Wrapper and Interface Generator's IRC channel would be relevant [14:10:00.0000] http://www.zeldman.com/2009/01/01/an-event-apart-redesigned/ [14:11:00.0000] "Eric chose HTML 5 because it permits any element to be an HREF" [14:12:00.0000] Did I miss that? [14:12:01.0000] perhaps I should redesign my site. The style sheet dates from the Netscape 4 days [14:17:00.0000] sure wish people would tell me when we made decisions like that [14:17:01.0000] :-P [14:18:00.0000] Maybe you did it in your sleep [14:19:00.0000] i went to sleep because comcast went out [14:19:01.0000] and woke up when my ping -a started beeping [14:19:02.0000] so seems unlikely! [14:35:00.0000] Perhaps he meant "it permits any element to be in an A HREF", which sounds more plausible? [14:48:00.0000] "And we're expecting regular authors to usethis stuff? Sheesh." :-) [14:49:00.0000] I think the real issue is Hixie isn't as good as most regular authors. [14:49:01.0000] seeing gsnedders talk makes me feel old [14:50:00.0000] jcranmer: Why? :\ [14:50:01.0000] gsnedders: you're younger than I [14:50:02.0000] jcranmer: And that's all it takes!? [14:50:03.0000] I don't expect to see people younger than I doing serious work on specs [14:50:04.0000] not when I'm only a freshman in college... [14:51:00.0000] :P [15:07:00.0000] http://www.aneventapart.com/contact/ - a sadly missed opportunity for [15:28:00.0000] jcranmer: Well, Aaron Swartz beat me 2009-01-02 [16:55:00.0000] is the lack of an applicationCache attribute on the Window interface deliberate? [17:25:00.0000] heycam: have i still not added that? crap. mail me? please? :-) [17:29:00.0000] mailed :) [17:33:00.0000] thanks [20:46:00.0000] Hixie, :%s/an master entry/a master entry/g [20:47:00.0000] s/most be alone on the line/must be alone on the line/ -- in the sample manifest file [02:14:00.0000] Hixie: In the "Internal Algorithm for Scanning and Assigning Header Cells", should "If there is no cell in the opaque headers list ... let blocked be True" read "If there are one or more cells in the opaque headers list ... let blocked be True" [02:14:01.0000] since it seems like the opaque headers list is a list of headers that can prevent the current header from applying [02:14:02.0000] But I might be misreading something [02:24:00.0000] jgraham: i'm like asleep right now but mail me if you want me to look into it (or if you are implementing it and one is obviously the right answer, let me know) [02:32:00.0000] Replies from Cambridge sent out today. [02:36:00.0000] Hixie: I am implementing it but not right at the moment (I guess I will do some work on it this evening). And you shouldn't let me stop you from sleeping :) [02:36:01.0000] gsnedders: By post? [02:36:02.0000] jgraham: Of course. [02:37:00.0000] jgraham: And if it's an offer, and not just being dumped into the pool, the UCAS website should be updated sometime [02:37:01.0000] Today? [02:37:02.0000] Otherwise I guess Monday is the most likely [02:37:03.0000] The UCAS website? Whenever they feel like updating it, seemingly. [02:37:04.0000] /me is reading an Analyst report about the Semantic Web Industry [02:38:00.0000] I've had the website updated after letters arriving before. [02:38:01.0000] /me notes that UCAS are still better thean the Cambridge Board of Graduate Studies [02:39:00.0000] heh [02:39:01.0000] UCAS _are_ open today, at least. [02:39:02.0000] UCAS should have a pushed-based mechanism rather than requiring you to poll the web site [02:39:03.0000] They sent me a letter after I had been doing my PhD for a year telling me who my supervisor was [02:39:04.0000] Philip`: Like email? [02:39:05.0000] In particular, they should send MSN Messenger IMs, because that would work for most of their audience [02:39:06.0000] Philip`: They say in all the literature that they will email you. [02:39:07.0000] Philip`: I realized that it was opt-in yesterday. [02:39:08.0000] jgraham: Email is for old people [02:40:00.0000] and geeks. [02:40:01.0000] Sorry, s/geeks/clever people/ [02:40:02.0000] Philip`: IRC? You get to see everyone else's offers too... [02:41:00.0000] s/get/would get/ [02:41:01.0000] I suppose text messages would be a more practical option, because then it'd work even when people weren't at a computer [02:43:00.0000] cmbrdg syz u sux [03:07:00.0000] jgraham: oh i'm not _actually_ asleep, just _like_ asleep [03:07:01.0000] brain not converting symbols into meaning fast enough to read specs [03:09:00.0000] Is there anything in any draft of CSS that defines block rotations by 90 degrees in a way that *does* affect how other boxes flow? [03:10:00.0000] 1154,243,1397,159,Wed Dec 31 20:06:31 2008,478 [03:10:01.0000] Hixie: you went below 1400, congrats! [03:10:02.0000] :-) [03:10:03.0000] or i mean, well done :) [03:15:00.0000] Hixie: It seems to me that preventing SVG [15:14:01.0000] er [15:14:02.0000] HTMLImageElement [15:14:03.0000] i see [15:15:00.0000] anonymous name-getter, i should say, not "anonymous named getter" which is an oxymoron [15:16:00.0000] :) [15:16:01.0000] i'll make a note of it [15:16:02.0000] k [15:18:00.0000] /me wonders if there's a bot here that will tell me a link to this point in the irc logs [15:18:01.0000] nope [15:19:00.0000] does "The name of the corresponding named property is N and will have the DontEnum attribute." mean that you can't do "for (i in foo) { }" to get the names out? [15:19:01.0000] correct. do you need to have things returned by [[Get]] that will return false when doing (prop in object) but will be enumerated? [15:20:00.0000] since that'd be a violation of ecma-262, i think [15:20:01.0000] i think we might need that for document.all [15:20:02.0000] hmm [15:20:03.0000] but i haven't looked at that yet [15:21:00.0000] i was wondering more about 'window' [15:21:01.0000] where the subframes get exposed to enumeration iirc [15:21:02.0000] oh actually no it wouldn't necessarily be a violation, you can just define [[HasProperty]] appropriately [15:21:03.0000] not that web idl allows you to override [[HasProperty]] at all at the moment [15:22:00.0000] hm, no, i'm wrong [15:22:01.0000] about window enumeration [15:22:02.0000] i'm sure i've seen properties exposed before [15:22:03.0000] where would that be [15:24:00.0000] can't find anywhere [15:24:01.0000] oh well [15:24:02.0000] I thought document.all required hacks in ECMAScript parsers [15:24:03.0000] d.all is messed up [15:24:04.0000] i don't know what we'll do for it [15:25:00.0000] but I don't know the exact details since nobody wrote them down afaik [15:25:01.0000] i wonder if the JS committee would deal with it for us [15:26:00.0000] I've been trying to get them to deal with [07:04:00.0000] there are still a loot of management type people who insist on xhtml no matter what [07:04:01.0000] zcorpan: Yes, based on the incontrovertible evidence of a few dozen pages [07:04:02.0000] But: [07:04:03.0000] Number of pages with doctypes containing the string "xhtml" a year ago: 23231 [07:05:00.0000] Number of pages with doctypes containing the string "xhtml" a few days ago: 32078 [07:05:01.0000] do you have the number of pages with no doctype at all? [07:08:00.0000] raspberry-lemon: Number of pages containing the substring " A year ago: 65085 / 124986 (52%) [07:08:02.0000] Some days ago: 73385 / 127208 (58%) [07:08:03.0000] Interesting. [07:08:04.0000] though it's really dangerous to compare these numbers [07:09:00.0000] because the samples are not equally biased [07:09:01.0000] Brian will do a recrawl with MAMA soon. Will be interesting to see what has changed. [07:09:02.0000] (They're both random samples from dmoz.org, but dmoz.org itself changes a lot, e.g. some sites add tens of thousands of their own pages which can distort the results) [07:10:00.0000] (so I should probably stop trying to compare the numbers, because the results will just be meaningless and misleading) [07:11:00.0000] ((That's "tens of thousands of their own pages" added to the 4.5 million in dmoz.org, so it's only hundreds in my samples)) [07:13:00.0000] for the very first example document, in the introductory tutorial, should I begin with the most basic Foo

..., or should I include the , and ? [07:13:01.0000] Yeah, cnn.com alone accounts for 5% of the pages on dmoz. [07:14:00.0000] hmm. Perhaps I should do the latter so that it helps readers understand the structure more easily [07:14:01.0000] wilhelm: It doesn't now, and didn't a year ago [07:14:02.0000] wilhelm: but it did at some point a bit earlier than a year ago [07:14:03.0000] Lachy: don't omit tags, that's a confusing feature you should go into after all else (if at all) [07:14:04.0000] Lachy: Everybody writes and and , so it's just unnecessarily confusing to try to tell them that it's unnecessary [07:15:00.0000] Our data dump is a bit old. (c: [07:15:01.0000] at least judging from comments on sitepoint forums [07:15:02.0000] tag omission is prolly best learned from the spec itself :) [07:16:00.0000] zcorpan, the guide will cover tag omission [07:16:01.0000] annevk: if you're serializing yes but not if you're writing markup - the rules for tag omission are not very understandable [07:17:00.0000] it will cover everything. The issue is just how and in what order things will be covered [07:17:01.0000] It particularly gets confusing if you tell people they can omit the tags, but if they want to use lang then they have to add some back in, and if they want a class then they have to too, etc [07:17:02.0000] and it only saves five lines of copied-and-pasted code, so it doesn't seem worthwhile [07:18:00.0000] Philip`: having to not omit tags on which you want to use attributes seems not so confusing - it's more the rules when they can be omitted [07:18:01.0000] (when having no attributes) [07:19:00.0000] zcorpan, indeed, it will ensure that a small elite can still show of at parties with validating pages that omit various tags of which the elements are required [07:19:01.0000] zcorpan: It's the idea that you can omit tags and they implicitly exist even though you can't see them in your code, and that adding the tags into your code won't change the page at all (but will let you add attributes), that seems confusing [07:20:00.0000] zcorpan: since normally if you don't write something, it doesn't exist [07:20:01.0000] Philip`: true [07:20:02.0000] [07:20:03.0000] No one writes , ever but it is always there [07:20:04.0000] Which is even more confusing [07:20:05.0000] The difference is that you can survive perfectly happily for many years without ever knowing a is there [07:20:06.0000] annevk: if the tag omission feature is only intended for a small elite (us?) i'd rather see the feature dropped [07:21:00.0000] where you'll need to know about and etc as soon as you add lang or class or style [07:21:01.0000] mu [07:21:02.0000] s/where/whereas/ [07:21:03.0000] Philip`: Unless you ever write a script or certian CSS selectors that manipulate a table [07:22:00.0000] e.g. table#foo > td doesn't seem so implausible [07:22:01.0000] jgraham: Nobody uses child selectors [07:22:02.0000] And anyway that'd never match anything because you forgot the tr :-) [07:23:00.0000] Philip`: Presumably now IE supports child selectors, people will be more inclined to use them [07:23:01.0000] and if you're writing a script, you'll use the table.rows property [07:24:00.0000] jgraham: why would you want to write table > td rather than table td ? [07:24:01.0000] Philip`: You would? Learning element-specific interfaces always seems like a lot of effort when you can always use a generic interface to do the same thing [07:25:00.0000] zcorpan: Realistically, because that's how you were thinking about it. Theoretically because it is faster [07:25:01.0000] Or because you have nested tables [07:25:02.0000] jgraham: Two thirds of pages with CSS don't even use descendant selectors [07:25:03.0000] table > td is certainly faster, it doesn't match anything normally :) [07:25:04.0000] jgraham: so they're unlikely to flock to even more complex selectors [07:25:05.0000] annevk: :-p [07:26:00.0000] Philip`: Where did you get that data from? [07:26:01.0000] jgraham: http://triin.net/2006/06/12/CSS#figure-30 [07:26:02.0000] jgraham: "table td" is less to type and looks nicer, but i take your point about nested tables [07:27:00.0000] /me wonders what he was wondering when he first typed "/me wonders" [07:28:00.0000] Just put a class on all your s and then you don't have to worry about this selector mess at all [07:28:01.0000] Oh, I know, it was whether the CSS usage will have changed in the past 2 years or whether IE6 is still too influential [07:28:02.0000] (And I would assume very few people used nested tables that aren't CSSless layout tables) [07:29:00.0000] It'd be interesting to see how many of the non-trivial selectors are used for browser-targetting hacks rather than for anything sensible [07:30:00.0000] i guess the most common child selector is html>body [07:31:00.0000] Anyway, the point is that a markup guide should mention tag inference because a) it is not really that hard to understand b) authors often unwittingly use it, specifically in the case of [07:32:00.0000] I don't disagree that it should be mentioned :-) [07:32:01.0000] and c) if it is not mentioned it will confuse people who have never heard of in HTML 4 and think it is a new concept in HTML 5 [07:32:02.0000] I just think it makes sense to promote (via the early text and the examples) a style which is closest to what people do today, e.g. always have html/head/body and never have tbody [07:33:00.0000] because that seems to work alright today [07:33:01.0000] i think it's ok to be mentioned and even spell out the rules in a more understandable way than the spec (but possibly with less precision), but i wouldn't *start* with it [07:34:00.0000] zcorpan: That sounds sensible indeed. [07:35:00.0000] Yikes [07:35:01.0000] can anyone suggest a simple way to describe the meaning or purpose of a DOCTYPE, without going into details about standards mode? [07:35:02.0000] Lots of people use X-UA-Compatible [07:35:03.0000] 237 pages [07:37:00.0000] Lachy: "The line tells the web browser that this is a modern web page, and stops it from emulating the bugs that are needed for compatibility with some old web pages" or something like that? [07:37:01.0000] (That's 237 pages with the X-UA-Compatible HTTP header) [07:38:00.0000] Lachy: Do you have a minimal test-case? [07:38:01.0000] gsnedders, I will make one [07:39:00.0000] Common values: [07:39:01.0000] 120 IE=7 [07:39:02.0000] 114 IE=EmulateIE7 [07:39:03.0000] 2 IE=EmulateIE8 [07:39:04.0000] 1 X-UA-Compatible [07:39:05.0000] Lachy: The algorithm used for headers is almost certainly correct per spec, and it is HTML 5 that is wrong. If the parsing is b0rked, that's somebody else's problem [07:40:00.0000] gsnedders: Oi [07:40:01.0000] jgraham: :) [07:41:00.0000] yeah, it could be the parsing. I will certainly blame jgraham for the bug [07:41:01.0000] 644 pages use , though over half of those are IMDB and Myspace [07:41:02.0000] :/ [07:43:00.0000] http://www.hindustantimes.com/ - oh dear [07:44:00.0000] http://www.it-production.com/ [07:45:00.0000] gsnedders, maybe it's not a bug after all. I'm having difficulty reproducing it. I may have simply miscounted the number of section element start and end tags [07:46:00.0000] if it happens again, I'll investigate more thoroughly [07:50:00.0000] http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/#getting-started-with-html-5 [07:50:01.0000] 413 pages send X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff [07:50:02.0000] but only 59 if you exclude blogspot.com [07:51:00.0000] this is the first document that the tutorial will teach http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/examples/example01.html [07:51:01.0000] Lachy: The meta charset is scary [07:51:02.0000] Also, tabs are ugly [07:52:00.0000] I know, but I'm not going to omit the charset declaration from any document. Authors need to learn to always include it [07:52:01.0000] well, any HTML document. Not XHTML documents. [07:52:02.0000] not sure what I'll do about polyglot documents though [07:56:00.0000] /me wonders why he has a weird black pixel in his PDF document, and then realises it's because he accidentally used \dot instead of \bullet [07:56:01.0000] "This line is used to indicate that the document is an HTML 5 document" hmm [07:59:00.0000] Lachy: That line (that zcorpan quoted) fails to give any justification to why authors should bother with typing that or why it's "good practice" [07:59:01.0000] and so a sensibly lazy author might decide to not bother with it [07:59:02.0000] I think it's important to say that if they don't have that line, their browser will be even weirder and buggier than it usually is [08:00:00.0000] so they're harming themselves if they don't use it [08:00:01.0000] Lachy: The sentence two before that is wrong when applied to XHTML (which is fine if you are using HTML to mean text/html but it doesn't look like yiou are) [08:00:02.0000] Oh, and if they don't have the doctype then they won't be able to use any new HTML5 features in IE8 [08:01:00.0000] jgraham, what makes you think I'm not using HTML to refer only to HTML? [08:02:00.0000] zcorpan, that's an incomplete sentence. I need to say something about validators [08:02:01.0000] or perhaps find some other way to say what the doctype is for [08:02:02.0000] not sure you need to say anything about validators [08:02:03.0000] I really wanted to avoid the standards vs. quirks mode issue in this section [08:03:00.0000] Lachy: since standards vs. quirks is the reason we have a doctype at all, it seems not mentioning it when explaining what it's for is going to be misleading [08:03:01.0000] Lachy: The fact that you use it to mean "HTML the abstract language" and "HTML the text/html serialisation of the abstract lanuage" [08:03:02.0000] You wouldn't need to explain the specific issues or the reason why it exists, but I think you need to state that it causes problems if you don't have it [08:04:00.0000] s/the reason/the historical reason/ [08:12:00.0000] "The purpose of the DOCTYPE is to ensure that web browsers interpret the document using standards mode, rather than the mode intended for handling legacy content." [08:12:01.0000] is that ok? [08:13:00.0000] Lachy: "What's standards mode?" [08:14:00.0000] see, this is why I didn't want to go into that yet! [08:16:00.0000] It seems easier to phrase it as a negative, i.e. saying that it makes the browser not implement old bugs [08:16:01.0000] /me agrees with Philip` [08:16:02.0000] /me also agrees that it ought to be mentioned tehre [08:16:03.0000] *there [08:17:00.0000] "For historical reasons, the purpose of the DOCTYPE is to ensure that web browsers do not interpret the document in a way intended for handling legacy content that exists on the web." [08:18:00.0000] The DOCTYPE is a holdover from the early days of the web. Using this doctype will ensure that web browsers do not try to replicate weird behaviour in older browsers that some content came to rely on [08:18:01.0000] Are you going to ignore that IE8 won't support new features at all, if you don't use the doctype? [08:19:00.0000] (so it's not just to prevent weird behaviour; it's to allow modern behaviour) [08:19:01.0000] The DOCTYPE is required so that browsers do not treat the document as they treat legacy, non-standards compliant, content. [08:19:02.0000] gsnedders: That's just wrong [08:19:03.0000] What's legacy content?:P [08:19:04.0000] gsnedders: because they'll treat perfectly standards-compliant HTML 3.2 content that way too [08:19:05.0000] Philip`: How so? [08:19:06.0000] Philip`: True. [08:20:00.0000] wilhelm: deployed content [08:20:01.0000] Philip`: And 4.01 Transitional [08:20:02.0000] wilhelm: True. [08:25:00.0000] zcorpan: _I_ know what it means, but I don't think that part of our tribal language equally well understood elsewhere. jgraham's wording is better, I think. [08:25:01.0000] +is [08:29:00.0000] "The DOCTYPE is a remnant from the early days of the web. For historical reasons, it is needed to ensure that web browsers interpret the document correctly, rather than using a special compatibility mode designed to replicate the behaviour of older browsers, which is intended for handling legacy content." [08:30:00.0000] I'm still not sure what to replace "legacy content" with [08:30:01.0000] I used "legacy HTML content" [08:31:00.0000] I'm sure the meaning of legacy is well understood, and so that should be clear enough [08:32:00.0000] /me would drop the entire "which is intended" subclause. [08:32:01.0000] why? [08:32:02.0000] Keep your sentences as short as possible. [08:32:03.0000] ok [08:32:04.0000] and at first glance I find it confusing what "which" applies to. [10:05:00.0000] Trying to see where http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090129#l-588 came from: It looks like someone copied-and-pasted the "IE=8;FF=3;OtherUA=4" from http://www.alistapart.com/articles/beyonddoctype, then manually changed the 8 to a 7, leaving the rest unaltered, and then it spread around a handful of forum postings and web sites [10:07:00.0000] How can people be so unaware of what they're doing? Do they really think it's sane to have a version string that says any UA other than IE and Firefox should render as if it was version 4? [10:08:00.0000] Lachy: If you have invalid / bad practise examples in your authoring guide, please including some mouse event scripts that make it impossible for anyone to copy-and-paste from those examples [10:08:01.0000] s/including/include/ [10:21:00.0000] /me wonders how much point there in applying to Opera — accommodation may well be horribly complex to arrange :\ [10:23:00.0000] For an internship? [10:23:01.0000] Yeah [10:23:02.0000] (complex because I'm under the age of majority in most of Europe) [10:26:00.0000] Opera has some apartments available for people staying for shorter periods of time. I'm not sure what the plans are for accomodation for summer interns, but it can't hurt to ask. (c: [10:27:00.0000] wilhelm: There may well still be the issue of age, meh. [10:35:00.0000] wilhelm: thanks for mentioning the internship thing, I have an interview next friday :) [11:16:00.0000] takkaria: Cool. Who's doing the interview? [11:36:00.0000] wilhelm: looks like Bibbi Svärd [11:41:00.0000] Ah. At the Swedish office. [11:43:00.0000] /me wonders what to write as a covering letter [11:45:00.0000] why you're interested in working there, highlighting relevant experience from your CV, explaining why you do or don't fit the requirements laid out in the description, roughly [11:46:00.0000] You should put some clipart on it too [11:46:01.0000] /me blatantly sucks at applying :) [11:48:00.0000] takkaria: Fun: I don't really have irrelevant experience on my CV :) [11:49:00.0000] well, you highlight the most relevant bits [11:49:01.0000] if it's all most relevant, choose some of it to highlight and highlight that [11:51:00.0000] You could make up some fake irrelevant experience, and then highlight the rest [11:51:01.0000] and because it's irrelevant nobody will ask you about it and so they'll never notice it's fake [11:53:00.0000] ideally, it should be at a small business whose boss was shot and whose premises were burnt down whilst thieves made off with the employment records for identity fraud purposes [13:17:00.0000] what's the new access control spec called again? [13:17:01.0000] CSRE? [13:21:00.0000] CORS? [13:25:00.0000] Philip`: thanks [13:36:00.0000] So first there are lots of complaints that specifying error handling endorses errors [13:37:00.0000] Even though the nonconforming attributes and stuff are hidden so Roy Fielding can't find them [13:40:00.0000] former: social effects with regards to browsers in face of authoring, latter: specifications on what has changed or not in a language. [13:40:01.0000] Conflating two different issues. tsss tsss ;) [13:41:00.0000] If people can't find the nonconfirming stuff in the spec, they can't be confused to believe it's conforming [13:43:00.0000] Dashiva: the question is not here. [13:53:00.0000] Dashiva: He found enough of the nonconforming stuff (in the description of error handling for that attribute) to think it was a conforming part of the language, and there isn't anything that states it's non-conforming [14:08:00.0000] I like how, so far, that everyone who's whinging about the name attribute being omitted is silently ignoring the arguments that it was XHTML 1.1 that dropped it first. [14:10:00.0000] Lachy: most of the web silently ignores XHTML 1.1, so they're just following suit ;-) [14:23:00.0000] Hixie, re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0586.html ... [14:24:00.0000] with the audience defined as "... individuals wishing to establish the correctness of documents with respect to the requirements it describes.", including DOM APIs doesn't seem necessary [14:25:00.0000] to me, that audience section suggests that it's of more use to HTML conformance checkers, for which the DOM APIs have no relevance. [14:25:01.0000] unless they're going to try and check the conformance of a script too, which is impossible [14:26:00.0000] what the Web really needs is aesthetic conformance requirements [14:30:00.0000] roc: I'd like to browse the web through such a filter sometimes...oh, wait, that's what adblock is for [14:32:00.0000] roc, that's easy. Just add myspace.com/* to your adblock and youll block a significant portion of asthetically displeasing pages [14:39:00.0000] Lachy: There's a firefox extension for myspace [14:39:01.0000] that does what? [14:40:00.0000] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6067 [14:41:00.0000] LOL [14:41:01.0000] I gotta install that one [14:41:02.0000] oh, it doesn't work with FF3 [14:42:00.0000] oh noes [14:43:00.0000] If you block MySpace then you'll block a third of the RDFa namespaces I've seen on the web [14:43:01.0000] which would be a terrible thing [14:43:02.0000] cool, I can kill 2 birds with one stone [15:05:00.0000] for some reason, I'm not receiving any emails from Robert Burns that he's sending to the list. i'm only receiving Boris' replies. Is anyone else having the same problem? [15:06:00.0000] Lachy: Have you set up a filter to delete his mails? [15:06:01.0000] It looks like they're showing up in the archive, so I don't understand what's going on. They're not in my junk folder either, although I suppose that's where they belong anyway [15:06:02.0000] no, I don't delete any mails except spam, and he doesn't quite qualify as spam [15:09:00.0000] LOL :-D "you simply jump into the conversation with unrelated comments." - says the guy who jumps into a thread about dropping with ambiguous complaints about something else. [15:09:01.0000] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0592.html [15:13:00.0000] Lachy: you left off the first part, which is why the apis would be useful [15:13:01.0000] > This specification is intended for producers of documents [15:13:02.0000] > intended to conform to the requirements it describes [15:13:03.0000] I know. I think the first part needs to be dropped [15:13:04.0000] or revised [15:14:00.0000] well i'm trying to avoid arguing about what i think the audience statement should be, and just review the draft based on what it is [15:14:01.0000] what it _should_ be is imho mostly up to the editor [15:15:00.0000] ok. I'll argue about the audience statement with Mike then, since it seems easier than getting him to drop the Relax NG schemas and regexs from the draft [15:33:00.0000] /me tries to work out what to do about the script execution model around page navigation [15:35:00.0000] othermaciej: there's really no way i can get you to trade the massive complexity of multiple personality Window objects for the performance hit of cross-document script calls checking that the target code is still active? [15:36:00.0000] Hixie: well - given that we have the split window solution already implemented, and that it was quite a bit of work to validate its security properties, I don't find the complexity reduction to be much incentive [15:37:00.0000] Hixie: because we'll have to do a similar amount of work probably to make sure the new model works [15:37:01.0000] so, given that it's also certain to be a significant performance hit, I'm not super enthusiastic about it [15:37:02.0000] othermaciej: Microsoft have teh opposite argument, so that one is pretty much a non-issue for me [15:38:00.0000] Hixie: sure, I'm telling you why "massive complexity" does not count as a cost for the split Window solution [15:38:01.0000] (including the performance aspect, since i'm pretty sure multiple-window stuff has a perf hit elsewhere, e.g. page load) [15:38:02.0000] sure [15:38:03.0000] also my understanding is that IE does something similar to split window, but I could be wrong [15:38:04.0000] no, split window is not a hit to page load time [15:38:05.0000] not as far as i can tell [15:38:06.0000] believe me we are very thorough about measuring these things [15:38:07.0000] they just turn off scripts [15:38:08.0000] in fact it enabled us to implement some additional optimizations [15:39:00.0000] so is there any way i can get you to describe exactly what you do, in terms of the EcmaScript spec? [15:39:01.0000] IE has orders of magnitude slower JS than anyone else, so I think their input on the importance of the perf hit is not credible [15:39:02.0000] I can try to describe it [15:40:00.0000] (re perf - that's not a politically tenable position for me to hold, unfortunately) [15:40:01.0000] for the lifetime of any given frame, including a top-level frame, there is an "outer" Window object [15:40:02.0000] for any given Document, there is an "inner" Window object [15:41:00.0000] do either of these map to the global object? [15:41:01.0000] there is a one-to-one correspondence between browsing contexts and outer Window, and between Documents and inner window [15:41:02.0000] the inner window acts as the global object [15:41:03.0000] for purposes of the scope chain and in general providing the global scope [15:41:04.0000] getting back to my narrative... [15:41:05.0000] the outer window delegates all property and method access to the inner window [15:41:06.0000] /me lets you explain it before asking further questions :-) [15:42:00.0000] on navigation, the outer window's associated inner window is replaced with the one for the new current document [15:42:01.0000] in the scope chain, you have the inner window [15:42:02.0000] when you access "this" in global scope, or access the global "window" property, or in any other way reify a reference to the global object, you get the outer window [15:42:03.0000] thus, any mechanism you use to get an actual object reference gives you a persistent one [15:43:00.0000] but function scopes see their original defining global object in their scope chain [15:43:01.0000] the inner window is the "true" global object, and the outer window is a persistent handle to whatever is the current global object for a given browsing context [15:44:00.0000] the way this prevents exploits is that a function defined in a frame when the frame had a different document, but somehow persisted, sees the old global variables, not the new global variables [15:44:01.0000] unless it stored a reference to the outer window, but in that case, a security check applies [15:44:02.0000] the kind of exploit this is trying to prevent is: [15:44:03.0000] evil.com has a top-level document with a subframe, also on evil.com [15:45:00.0000] the inner frame defines a function, and passes it to the outer frame [15:45:01.0000] the attacker navigates the subframe to victim.com [15:45:02.0000] in a naiive implementation of persistent global objects, the saved function has access to the global variables and document of victim.com [15:46:00.0000] but split window prevents that, because the saved function sees the old global variables [15:46:01.0000] I will also note, this kind of design makes it much easier to implement a back-forward cache [15:46:02.0000] it greatly simplified our page cache implementation [15:46:03.0000] (the spec prevents it by refusing to run the function) [15:46:04.0000] so as far as i can tell, what you describe violates the EcmaScript spec [15:46:05.0000] right - refusing to run the function is not a practical option, because it would require a security check at every JS-to-JS call boundary [15:47:00.0000] specifically section 10.2.1, which says the scope chain and |this| are the same object. [15:47:01.0000] are you in the ecmascript meeting by any chance? [15:47:02.0000] the one happening today? no [15:47:03.0000] but I can raise this issue with the ECMAScript group [15:47:04.0000] k [15:47:05.0000] that would be good [15:47:06.0000] I'm not sure if the 'this' behavior is essential for compatibility [15:47:07.0000] since apparently i'm going to make HTML5 violate the spec [15:47:08.0000] I know the fact that 'window' returns the outer reference is [15:48:00.0000] which window is the one with the Math object on it? outer or inner? [15:48:01.0000] and do any calls to outer just forward to the current inner? [15:49:00.0000] inner is the one that really has a Math property - the outer forwards to the inner, so as far as anyone can observe, it also has a Math property pointing to the same object [15:49:01.0000] does the outer object's prototype change dynamically? or does it just appear to have teh inner's prototype? [15:49:02.0000] now you found something that I actually need to look up :-) [15:49:03.0000] heh [15:49:04.0000] or better yet ask weinig [15:49:05.0000] weinig: ayt? [15:49:06.0000] yes [15:50:00.0000] rubys: i'm in the cafe btw [15:50:01.0000] weinig: how does the prototype of the outer window work, with respect to split window? [15:50:02.0000] othermaciej: it should not be visible to the user [15:50:03.0000] weinig: does it change on navigation or is it just totally separate from the inner prototype? [15:50:04.0000] weinig: ok [15:50:05.0000] othermaciej: it should always reflect the prototype of the current inner window [15:51:00.0000] so if you get the __proto__ property on the outer window, you get the current inner window's prototype? [15:51:01.0000] weinig: so a = window.__proto__; navigate(); a !== window.__proto__ ? [15:52:00.0000] i guess i can spec this [15:52:01.0000] i've only rewritten this part of the spec about a dozen times so far [15:52:02.0000] :-) [15:52:03.0000] Hixie: that should be the case [15:52:04.0000] k [15:54:00.0000] this is going to make the object returned by window look mighty hoopy in idl [15:55:00.0000] ok i'll do this later. time to find the js guys. [15:55:01.0000] bbl 2009-01-30 [17:15:00.0000] It seems odd that no-one has responded on WSG to the question Steve asked about the language spec [17:24:00.0000] what question was that? [17:29:00.0000] Hixie: FWIW, AFAIK Gecko's scheme is exactly the same as what Maciej described [17:31:00.0000] morning roc [17:31:01.0000] incorrect [17:31:02.0000] or afternoon [17:31:03.0000] :D [17:37:00.0000] othermaciej, http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg⊙wo/msg38186.html [17:38:00.0000] and http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg⊙wo/msg38188.html [22:55:00.0000] hmm, Whitehouse.gov [07:59:00.0000] It also has with a long list os misspellings of Barack Obama [08:03:00.0000] including Barack Osama? [08:07:00.0000] Sadly, no [08:16:00.0000] It also has in a content-free Word document pasted into the middle [08:17:00.0000] /me just realized that tip #1 in http://blog.whatwg.org/styling-ie-noscript applies to firefox 2 as well [08:41:00.0000] How will Roy find his name attribute if we split out everything about conforming documents to a new text? [08:42:00.0000] Dashiva: He seems to think it should be conforming [08:43:00.0000] Replace it with some other attribute or element that's obsoleted yet supported then [08:44:00.0000] On a different but related note, the discussion about whether h:tml should discuss the conformance properties of URIs seems like exactly the sort of hole that is likely to open up if we split tightly intertwingled things into seperate specs [08:46:00.0000] Dashiva: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/index/elements.html D O [08:46:01.0000] Dashiva: Presumably Roy believes that all the things he wants to know about should be conforming and everything else should be swept away under the rug [08:46:02.0000] /me has to go [09:21:00.0000] Philip`, you have to do something about your namesake [09:33:00.0000] If he's suggesting that because the WHATWG is a source of feedback that may result in creation of new drafts/sections and the feedback may not be seen by all the members of the WG and the editors might not say the feedback came from there, therefore it must be shut down ... [09:33:01.0000] he should probably also suggest that the W3C Team be shut down for the same reasons [09:33:02.0000] as well as the rest of the web [09:33:03.0000] and also all forms of non-computer communication [09:34:00.0000] A better suggestion is to not shut down any of those things, but just to make sure editors notify the group about where feedback came from if it wasn't directly from the group and resulted in new drafts/sections [09:37:00.0000] sigh. I guess replying would be pointless if he doesn't see that my point wasn't about venue but about the inspectability of feedback [09:41:00.0000] hsivonen: You did say "... feedback the whole group isn't seeing", and feedback anywhere other than public-html is going to not be seen by the whole WG; did you mean something more like "... feedback the whole group isn't able to see (even if they expend a bit of effort and visit some other web sites and mailing lists)"? [09:43:00.0000] Philip`: good point [09:50:00.0000] /me suggests that very few people in "the group" see all the feedback on public-html either due to the volume [09:50:01.0000] Or simply due to the fact that many of the subscribed people aren't that interested [10:04:00.0000] hsivonen, I wouldn't have bothered replying. The other Philip has been complaining about the existence of the WHATWG for a while and it seems quite typical of him to bring it up on seemingly unrelated topics [10:08:00.0000] besides, the way I interpreted your message was that even if the proposal was based on a WHATWG suggestion, or even any other public forum, it would still be nice to disclose that to the HTMLWG when submitting the proposal [11:24:00.0000] wow apache actually finally removed the content type [11:25:00.0000] Now we just need to wait infinitely long until all deployed servers are upgraded [11:32:00.0000] Hixie, do you mean it no longer sends a Content-Type header for unknown files? [11:32:01.0000] as of which version? [11:33:00.0000] And how many linux distros will override it? :) [11:34:00.0000] sicking, re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0661.html - the decision process isn't as bad as Rob's trolling makes it sound. [11:36:00.0000] sicking, it's just that people who often fail to make persuasive arguments tend misdirect their anger towards Hixie, rather than actually listening and doing something to strengthen their position [12:07:00.0000] the header of this page is longer than many of my actual pages http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/58958/notices/712181/recent=10;category=corp-insolvency-general;subcategory=moratorium-force [12:17:00.0000] I decided to try out Habari as a replacement for WordPress, but it doesn't look like it's going to meet my needs [12:17:01.0000] I think my options are back down to writing a custom made CMS [12:21:00.0000] Hixie: It doesn't seem an entirely fair comparison, since your pages don't attempt to provide the same data [12:21:01.0000] Lachy: What "needs"? [12:22:00.0000] better control over the URL structure [12:22:01.0000] ah [12:22:02.0000] Yeah, it really doesn't have that [12:22:03.0000] if there are plugins for that, then that would be good [12:22:04.0000] /me sez ask in #habari [12:24:00.0000] In terms of use cases for RDFa, has anyone pointed at something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping and said RDFa makes it much easier for consumers (in the cases where producers are cooperating by marking up the data appropriately)? [12:24:01.0000] gsnedders, how much do you know about habari? [12:24:02.0000] Lachy: A fair bit [12:24:03.0000] Lachy: Still, #habari is a better chance than here :) [12:24:04.0000] on freenode? [12:24:05.0000] Lachy: yeah [12:25:00.0000] I just don't want to start asking n00b questions in a developer channel [12:25:01.0000] Lachy: It is the support channel too [12:25:02.0000] ah, ok [12:34:00.0000] Hixie: do you have a second to give me your take on https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23651 [12:40:00.0000] weinig: what do you want me to comment on? [12:42:00.0000] Hixie: sorry, is a single retry a failure? [12:42:01.0000] weinig: if it's loaded from cache, on the reference hardware, then yes [12:42:02.0000] Hixie: ok [12:43:00.0000] test 69 really shouldn't ever need to skip though, if it's loading from cache [12:50:00.0000] Hixie: it is not clear to me why it is expected that relative speed of loading those 7 documents should be faster than running the javascript to get to test 69 [13:05:00.0000] weinig: they should load in zero time :-) [13:07:00.0000] Hixie: caching is not magical [13:07:01.0000] Hixie: it still might have to hit the disk [14:06:00.0000] weinig: javascript isn't magical either :-) [14:06:01.0000] weinig: is the js really running faster than the disk can? [14:07:00.0000] Hixie: it seems in some cases that may be happening [14:08:00.0000] Hixie: but it looks like another issue was the reporter was doing a cached load in such a way that forced the resource to revalidated and reload [14:08:01.0000] Hixie: if you don't use the reload button to do the cached load, the problem never happens [14:09:00.0000] Hixie: though in general, I am not sure why cache behavior should even be a factor in acid3 [14:31:00.0000] hm, mnot seems to be missing the point on the Origin header [14:32:00.0000] I'm pretty sure adam has said "referer can not be used to protect against CSRF attacks, and here's why" about five times now [14:51:00.0000] wtf? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0668.html - Does it not seem a little hypocritical to be complaining so vehemently about a very minor semantic issue with , and then suggest a workaround blatenly using the element for a semantically dubious purpose? [14:52:00.0000] ... for the sole purpose of attaining HTML4 validity? [14:52:01.0000] I can't quite figure out what's more important to these people. Semantic purity or strict adherence to a validator [15:34:00.0000] Sometimes I think what's more important to them is to hold some or any contrary position, whatever it may be... [15:35:00.0000] i encourage y'all to not imply there is a "them" or "these people" 2009-01-31 [16:06:00.0000] "This collection of indepedent individuals not acting with any common agenda" [16:07:00.0000] wow, I can't believe I just read a message from Rob in which he agreed with Hixie quite a few times, and actually made some reasonable arguments where he didn't in some cases. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0675.html [16:13:00.0000] Dashiva: my problem is not the wording, it's the implication that there is any specific collection of people who have common characteristics of being uncooperative [16:14:00.0000] which i don't think is true, and which i particular don't think is productive [16:22:00.0000] it seems to be common for people to forget about the HTML4 diff document we already have [16:22:01.0000] I wonder why? [16:23:00.0000] tbh I have trouble keeping track of the different documents and mailing lists and I pay fairly good attention [16:23:01.0000] Lachy: Probably because it's not normative and therefore nobody even remembers it exists [16:24:00.0000] yeah, possibly. Anyway, I just mentioned it on the list to remind people [17:59:00.0000] Hey, I started redesiging the element summary boxes for use in the authoring guide. http://lachy.id.au/temp/template.html [17:59:01.0000] let me know what you think, and any suggestions for improvement [18:00:00.0000] note that the relevant items will be links once included in the main document and the spec gen does it for me [18:02:00.0000] I'm going to bed now, leave feedback if you've got it [18:19:00.0000] for some reason that page brings to mind a few years ago when Hixie was trying to make the mozilla mycroft search plugins page look nice [23:30:00.0000] /me tries to work out what type of object Window.window should return in the idl [00:59:00.0000] heycam: yt? [15:44:00.0000] I updated the element summary template. http://lachy.id.au/temp/template.html