[09:07:02] <jaubourg> hi there
[09:07:07] <jaubourg> topics ?
[09:07:46] <rwaldron> I'm updating the doc
[09:08:17] <jaubourg> k
[09:08:52] <jaubourg> (did I mention you rock Rick?)
[09:10:08] <rwaldron> I try
[09:10:10] <rwaldron> thanks
[09:10:12] <rwaldron> hahaha
[09:10:16] <rwaldron> Ok, who's here?
[09:10:22] <mikesherov> Jerry Seinfeld agenda! What's the deal with attr(foo)? WHATS THE DEAL WITH THAT?
[09:10:24] * jaubourg raises his hand
[09:10:34] <mikesherov> here
[09:10:43] <ajpiano> ding
[09:10:45] <rwaldron> Hey mikesherov
[09:10:49] <rwaldron> hey ajpiano
[09:10:53] <jaubourg> woah, april 9 beta
[09:10:54] <mikesherov> sup
[09:11:09] <jaubourg> I'll so been in domnican republic at that time :/
[09:11:11] <rwaldron> Ok, I updated the doc with Dave's notes from the ML
[09:11:12] * timmywil hi
[09:11:18] <rwaldron> hi timmywil!
[09:11:36] <rwaldron> please open and turn to page 0
[09:11:39] <timmywil> rwaldron: :)
[09:11:40] <rwaldron> ...index
[09:11:42] <rwaldron> :D
[09:12:03] <rwaldron> one sec, I'm updating the triage link
[09:12:08] <timmywil> what's this about attr?
[09:12:21] <jaubourg> timmywil: you broke the interweb!!!!1111
[09:12:24] <rwaldron> looks like I dont have to
[09:12:28] <timmywil> eeeeeek
[09:12:32] <rwaldron> ok, 1.7.2
[09:12:39] <jaubourg> it rocks
[09:12:41] <jaubourg> next?
[09:12:44] <rwaldron> you rock
[09:12:57] <rwaldron> this is the issue
[09:12:58] <rwaldron> http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/11516
[09:12:58] <timmywil> dave said he couldn't reproduce. where the ticket at
[09:13:00] <mikesherov> yeah, I mean, 1.7.2 is good, but only until we get more reports of attr being busted
[09:13:05] <rwaldron> timmywil see above
[09:13:14] <jaubourg> mike: shush you
[09:13:17] <jaubourg> :P
[09:13:23] <timmywil> oh input value?
[09:13:28] <rwaldron> I suspect the ticket was filed by the same person
[09:13:32] <rwaldron> anonymous
[09:13:45] <mikesherov> yes, it was anonymous
[09:13:45] <timmywil> I don't see a test case
[09:13:51] <rwaldron> there isnt
[09:14:06] <mikesherov> http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/11518
[09:14:13] <mikesherov> we have an email addy at least
[09:14:17] <jaubourg> don't make me start on missing test cases
[09:14:19] <mikesherov> ziabzu@…
[09:14:23] <rwaldron> I've set to pending
[09:14:35] <rwaldron> jaubourg yeah I think you laid down the law
[09:14:41] <rwaldron> i tried being halpful on that one
[09:14:47] <mikesherov> Ooh, you boilerplated him!
[09:14:50] <rwaldron> maybe wasn;t a good idea to do so
[09:15:17] <rwaldron> timmywil dont sweat that ticke
[09:15:18] <rwaldron> ticket
[09:15:28] <timmywil> and mixed with autocomplete?
[09:15:32] <rwaldron> I have a feeling the entire test suite would be crippled if it was legit
[09:15:41] <rwaldron> amitrite?
[09:15:43] <jaubourg> most probably
[09:15:47] <mikesherov> tests are awesome
[09:15:54] <jaubourg> could be some document type issue
[09:15:54] <mikesherov> except for the ones they don't cover
[09:15:59] <jaubourg> could be anything really
[09:16:08] <mikesherov> I think it might be quirks mode
[09:16:20] <rwaldron> mikesherov attr is used a whole lot
[09:16:26] <mikesherov> I'm JK
[09:16:33] <jaubourg> mike: indeed... biggest thing being xhtml... didn't we talk about testing for it or did we give up btw?
[09:16:35] <rwaldron> duh
[09:16:37] <timmywil> we currently have a hook for value that returns the property. If the value property is set to an object, it will return an object. The same is not true for id, so that wouldn't make sense.
[09:16:43] <rwaldron> well, i mean.. it's kind of true
[09:17:00] <rwaldron> timmywil let's wait it out
[09:17:08] <mikesherov> guy is probably setting the property to an object
[09:17:20] <rwaldron> I'm willing to bet OP comes back with "i cant reproduce"
[09:17:24] <rwaldron> case closed
[09:17:28] <mikesherov> sure
[09:17:39] <timmywil> kk
[09:17:43] <rwaldron> ok, nextttt
[09:17:49] <rwaldron> let's bikeshed this git thing
[09:17:55] <mikesherov> BLUE!
[09:18:00] <rwaldron> mikesherov +1
[09:18:07] <rwaldron> but it has to be "sky blue"
[09:18:39] <mikesherov> hmmm, I like royal blue the best, but in all seriousness, someone pick the answer that requires the least work
[09:18:49] <mikesherov> and I'll blindly follow
[09:18:58] <rwaldron> jaubourg can you close this
[09:18:59] <rwaldron> https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/716/files
[09:18:59] <socialhapy> ★ Pull request on jquery by BigBlueHat (32m, 26s ago): added Shiv check so show/hide work with Modernizr
[09:19:04] <rwaldron> or timmywil
[09:19:09] <rwaldron> I'm gonna fucking scream
[09:19:40] <mikesherov> No, but jquery should anticipate other libraries existing.... it should also anticipate Object.prototype meddling
[09:19:50] <mikesherov> :-P
[09:20:16] <rwaldron> no kidding
[09:20:20] <rwaldron> god
[09:20:24] <rwaldron> jQuery sucks sooooo much
[09:20:29] <jaubourg> Rick: how come you stll don't have commit rights?
[09:20:36] <rwaldron> why doesnt guess what I'm thinking and just do that
[09:20:41] <rwaldron> jaubourg the hell if I know
[09:20:44] <timmywil> wait, what doesn't he like? It should go to block if the stylesheet says block
[09:20:47] <jaubourg> the hell if I know too
[09:21:04] <jaubourg> do we have someone in the room with enough priviledges to give rick's some?
[09:21:31] <jaubourg> I mean, everytime I see you comment, I'm like "why the f can't he close this?"
[09:21:35] <mikesherov> no, see, what happens is the defaultDisplay creates a sandboxed iframe without modernizr
[09:21:45] <timmywil> ah, it's shiv'd with js
[09:21:47] <timmywil> ?
[09:22:08] <ajpiano> jaubourg: i think john and dave are the only ones who can do it
[09:22:21] <mikesherov> defaultDisplay has no clue about modernizr... it relies on creating that element in an iframe and returning the style if it can, and block if it cant
[09:22:34] <jaubourg> ajpiano: k, thanks
[09:22:40] <jaubourg> and hi \o/
[09:23:21] <rwaldron> jaubourg I'm flattered that you'd think of me :)
[09:23:25] <timmywil> ok, I've stopped confusing myself
[09:23:26] <mikesherov> but it's a bunch of nonsense, isn't "issues with other libs" on our permanent wontfix list?
[09:23:43] <rwaldron> mikesherov you're right but it's such a corner case to begin with
[09:24:16] <rwaldron> mikesherov yes, exactly
[09:24:22] <jaubourg> rwaldron: are you kidding? I don't even know why I got commit priviledges when you didn't
[09:24:25] <mikesherov> right, it has to be something that is already display none for some reason, or disconnected node, or some shit that trigggers defaultDisplay
[09:24:43] <rwaldron> mikesherov you got it sir
[09:24:45] <mikesherov> NEXT
[09:24:50] <jaubourg> I'm looking at this pull request and I'm wondering if it's not deeper than what it seems?
[09:24:57] <rwaldron> so basically, you have to be doing something dumb to begin with
[09:25:08] <jaubourg> like, won't we get weird behaviour for html5 elements in old IEs?
[09:25:17] <rwaldron> jaubourg this is like, my area of expertise *barf*
[09:25:17] <mikesherov> YES
[09:25:24] <mikesherov> we will
[09:25:33] <mikesherov> and so, fuck you!
[09:25:34] <jaubourg> yeah, thought so
[09:25:46] <rwaldron> hm.
[09:25:51] <jaubourg> mike?
[09:25:52] <rwaldron> we could shim the iframe
[09:25:56] <mikesherov> NO
[09:25:59] <rwaldron> it only gets created once
[09:26:07] <timmywil> what if I want my articles to be inline
[09:26:12] <rwaldron> ugh, yeah mikesherov thank you for stopping me
[09:26:15] <timmywil> FU modernizr. next
[09:26:18] <timmywil> jk
[09:26:27] <mikesherov> Then don't call show on them
[09:26:39] <jaubourg> I dunno
[09:26:43] <mikesherov> like honestly, you have a billion ways to do this
[09:26:58] <jaubourg> the whole getting HTML5 elements working on non HTML5 browser business always baffled me
[09:26:58] <mikesherov> just call hide before show, or show before hide
[09:27:09] <mikesherov> there are a dozen workarounds
[09:27:20] <rwaldron> this patch is wrong
[09:27:21] <jaubourg> mikesherov: we should somehow document those then
[09:27:22] <rwaldron> "canvas,video"?
[09:27:35] <rwaldron> when would you ever use these in oldIE?
[09:27:38] <rwaldron> ...hint...
[09:27:40] <rwaldron> never.
[09:27:40] <mikesherov> that
[09:27:45] <mikesherov> that's the whole point
[09:27:50] <rwaldron> audio?
[09:27:52] <rwaldron> nope
[09:27:52] <mikesherov> HTML5shiv is just that
[09:27:53] <mikesherov> a shiv
[09:28:04] <mikesherov> in that it's like being stabbed in the face
[09:28:11] <rwaldron> agreed.
[09:28:22] <rwaldron> like that time someone tried to shim web workers
[09:28:24] <timmywil> there are html5 elements that get used in IE with display: block. His problem is a problem, but I don't think it's worth the code to fix it.
[09:28:31] <rwaldron> that gave me lots to laugh at for weeks
[09:28:36] <mikesherov> no, but's it's deeper
[09:28:40] <mikesherov> its a big edge case
[09:28:44] <jaubourg> yep
[09:28:50] <mikesherov> he has default style of none on article
[09:29:09] <rwaldron> right
[09:29:14] <mikesherov> that's what causes jQuery to say, oh shit, I gotta make a whole iframe to cover some bullshit
[09:29:17] <rwaldron> if he used a class - non issue
[09:29:33] <rwaldron> because then the iframe crap never happens
[09:29:43] <mikesherov> exactly
[09:29:51] <mikesherov> people are going to do it, we should document it, but we shouldn't fix it
[09:29:51] <rwaldron> jQuery can make a node, get the display and move on
[09:30:05] <jaubourg> +1 documenting
[09:30:09] <rwaldron> this is a clear case of "you're doing it wrong"
[09:30:14] <rwaldron> but yeah, let's document
[09:30:22] <mikesherov> or browser vendors can finally listen to us and give us a way to directly query the default styles they use
[09:30:24] <rwaldron> and end the behaviour once and for all
[09:30:32] <timmywil> I can see how this does not make sense to the user. all he had to do was #somearticle { display: none; }. so documenting makes sense
[09:30:38] <rwaldron>  mikesherov, I'll see you in 2025
[09:30:38] <jaubourg> it's a clear case of "you're doing it wrong... given how things are implemented" so to document
[09:30:40] <rwaldron> ;)
[09:30:46] <mikesherov> timmywil: false
[09:30:55] <mikesherov> he needs to make All articles display:none
[09:30:56] <timmywil> mikesherov: false what
[09:30:59] <rwaldron> jaubourg yes
[09:31:09] <mikesherov> not just a specific element
[09:31:10] <timmywil> oh sure
[09:31:11] <rwaldron> are you trying to be kind to make up for your brutal PR comment?
[09:31:12] <rwaldron> :D
[09:31:17] <rwaldron> errr no
[09:31:17] <timmywil> w/e
[09:31:21] <mikesherov> sure
[09:31:22] <rwaldron> i mean ticket comment
[09:31:25] <mikesherov> anyway, we all agree
[09:31:29] <rwaldron> yes
[09:31:34] <rwaldron> nice work everyone
[09:31:35] <mikesherov> document, and move on
[09:31:40] <jaubourg> rwaldron? Who? me?
[09:31:42] <rwaldron> ok, back to  1.8
[09:31:51] <rwaldron> jaubourg yes, was just teasing
[09:31:55] <jaubourg> oh
[09:32:09] <rwaldron> In favor of 1.8 feature branch: vote now
[09:32:13] <mikesherov> +1
[09:32:23] <rwaldron> +1
[09:32:30] <jaubourg> well, the ticket was like "<us> test case? <him> it's easy to reproduce <us> test case? <him> it's easy to reproduce"
[09:32:32] <jaubourg> had to stop
[09:32:37] <jaubourg> +1
[09:32:55] <mikesherov> I gotta run gents, it's been real.
[09:33:02] <rwaldron> mikesherov thanks for input!
[09:33:06] <rwaldron> later
[09:33:09] <mikesherov> thanks for leadering!
[09:33:12] <jaubourg> cya mike
[09:33:18] <rwaldron> ok, 1.8 on master: vote now
[09:33:30] <jaubourg> -1
[09:33:31] <timmywil> ehhh, that might take more time
[09:33:38] <rwaldron> +1 (proxy for jzaefferer)
[09:33:57] <jaubourg> +1 (proxy for rworth)
[09:34:13] <timmywil> I think rworth said -1
[09:34:17] <jaubourg> did he?
[09:34:30] <jaubourg> he stated he expected 1.8pre to be master no?
[09:34:44] <timmywil> sure, if there is no 1.7.3pre. did we decide that?
[09:34:53] <timmywil> are we having a 1.7.3?
[09:34:55] <jaubourg> that's the thing I'm tacky about
[09:35:01] <ajpiano> i think we'd be imprudent to not leave open the possibility of a 1.7.3
[09:35:03] <rwaldron> ruh-roh
[09:35:09] <rwaldron> ajpiano ftw
[09:35:13] <ajpiano> we don't know what shit could hit the fan
[09:35:19] <rwaldron> and again
[09:35:20] <jaubourg> and I also like to be able to develop a feature in a branch without getting bothered with too early integration problems
[09:35:26] <timmywil> then I don't see the harm in keeping 1.8 off of master for now
[09:35:37] <jaubourg> +1000
[09:35:44] <rwaldron> we can always merge, amirite?
[09:35:48] <jaubourg> yep
[09:36:02] <rwaldron> timmywil is that +1 for feature?
[09:36:05] <rwaldron> ajpiano same q
[09:36:16] <timmywil> yea
[09:36:31] <ajpiano> i'm in favour of the jzaefferer approach
[09:36:49] <jaubourg> it contradicts your previous statement, doesn't it?
[09:36:53] <rwaldron> it does
[09:37:06] <timmywil> ajpiano: yea, not sure what you're for then
[09:37:12] <rwaldron> the jets
[09:37:17] <timmywil> except that
[09:37:35] <ajpiano> the jqueryui approach leaves open the possibility for 1.7.3, does it not?
[09:37:45] <jaubourg> yes and no
[09:37:51] <jaubourg> 1.7.3 would have to be done in a branch
[09:38:00] <jaubourg> (the 1.7 branch)
[09:38:08] <timmywil> definitely not for that
[09:38:19] <jaubourg> does not compute for me either
[09:38:22] <rworth> so, let's get a complete picture of what UI does, in case it helps
[09:38:28] <rwaldron> oh hai!
[09:38:40] <rworth> once a branch seems stable, like 1.7, we create a 17-stable branch
[09:38:47] <rworth> and call master 1.8
[09:38:57] <rworth> then we always commit everything to master
[09:39:18] <rworth> and if something merges clean (and isn't risky/outside of scope) for 1.7, we merge from master to 17-stable
[09:39:42] <timmywil> yes, this is what I assumed
[09:39:43] <rwaldron> ok
[09:39:51] <rwaldron> I'm for the github approach
[09:39:57] <rwaldron> master is the stable
[09:40:01] <rwaldron> features on a branch
[09:40:09] <rwaldron> merge when proven stable
[09:40:11] <timmywil> agreed
[09:40:12] <rworth> once in a blue moon we have to do an isolated change in 17-stable, whether it didn't merge clean from master or whether it is specific to only that code branch
[09:40:14] <jaubourg> I'm all for 1.x branches but right before we go for a 1.x+1 if you see what I mean
[09:40:15] <rwaldron> tag for release
[09:40:48] <jaubourg> I'm more like rick myself
[09:41:03] <rworth> so, we tag 1.7.x releases from 17-stable, and we tag 1.8 preview releases (right up through alpha and beta and rc) from master
[09:41:13] <jaubourg> question is to know who will code features for 1.8 and know their opinions, these are the ones who matter
[09:41:19] * jaubourg pokes gnarf
[09:41:37] <timmywil> I'll be doing most of my work on the sizzle repo before it goes to jQuery
[09:41:41] <rwaldron> thanks jaubourg, I pinged gnarf earlier, hopefully he shows
[09:41:48] <rworth> we also have feature branches, to keep master clean - only contained what is confirmed to be in the next major release already
[09:42:05] <rwaldron> rworth thats essentially what we want to do
[09:42:09] <jaubourg> and hi richard btw
[09:42:11] <rwaldron> keep master clean
[09:42:13] <jaubourg> ;)
[09:42:16] <rworth> hey :)
[09:42:17] <rwaldron> work in a branch
[09:42:29] <rwaldron> land when ready
[09:42:46] <timmywil> alright then, sounds like core team has a consensus
[09:42:48] <jaubourg> we just don't branch 1.7 yet in case we did something terribly wrong
[09:43:03] <jaubourg> seems like it
[09:43:33] <jaubourg> k, I gotta fly too
[09:44:04] <jaubourg> cya all around guys
[09:44:31] <rwaldron> later
[09:45:24] <rwaldron> ok, i think that's all
[09:45:26] <rwaldron> thanks everyone
[09:45:34] <rwaldron> ajpiano can you close the gates?
[21:20:33] -verne.freenode.net- [freenode-info] if you're at a conference and other people are having trouble connecting, please mention it to staff: http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#gettinghelp