[09:05:16] <scott_gonzalez> jzaefferer arschmitz fnagel gnarf kborchers mikesherov rxaviers tj_vantoll
[09:05:29] <rxaviers> hello
[09:05:31] <tj_vantoll> yo
[09:05:37] <fnagel> hey
[09:06:17] <kborchers> hi
[09:06:20] <arschmitz> hi
[09:06:55] <scott_gonzalez> I pared down the agenda to just the items that we're actually discussing.
[09:07:25] <scott_gonzalez> rxaviers: Any update on AMD?
[09:08:14] <rxaviers> tj_vantoll has reviewed the AMD branch and fixed some issues on tests.
[09:08:23] <rxaviers> I have fixed a rebase issue
[09:08:31] <rxaviers> Is anyone else going to review it?
[09:08:49] <scott_gonzalez> Yeah, I can review it this week.
[09:08:54] <rxaviers> coo
[09:08:57] <rxaviers> cool
[09:09:17] <rxaviers> but, that's all
[09:10:13] <scott_gonzalez> ok
[09:10:23] <scott_gonzalez> arschmitz: Any update for button?
[09:10:47] <arschmitz> just pushed a new branch
[09:10:51] <arschmitz> using spans
[09:11:14] <arschmitz> simplifies the css dramaticly
[09:11:33] <arschmitz> and plays much nicer with the current ui theme
[09:11:54] <scott_gonzalez> https://github.com/jquery/jquery-ui/tree/button-icon-span
[09:12:14] <arschmitz> that would be it
[09:12:42] <jzaefferer> what were you using before?
[09:13:03] <scott_gonzalez> :before/after psuedo classes.
[09:13:03] <arschmitz> :before and :after pseudo elements
[09:13:14] <scott_gonzalez> Yeah, what he said :-P
[09:14:25] <arschmitz> have not got to updating checkbox radio yet so its just the button stuff in that branch
[09:14:55] <arschmitz> but this should simplify that quite a bit too based on our previous discussions
[09:15:12] <scott_gonzalez> Ok, let us know when that's updated and we'll do a larger review.
[09:15:27] <scott_gonzalez> jzaefferer also raised a question about buttonset's future.
[09:15:35] <scott_gonzalez> I think we'll end up with controlgroup, right?
[09:15:40] <arschmitz> yes
[09:17:24] <scott_gonzalez> rxaviers: Can you give an update on date handling in Globalize?
[09:17:32] <scott_gonzalez> And the mess that is timezone handling.
[09:18:20] <rxaviers> Oh well, sure. By the way, I have (finally) summarized our state on its regard on http://git.io/jvDT3A
[09:18:41] <rxaviers> Basically, we have issues on format, and we have issues on parse.
[09:19:53] <rxaviers> Formatting CLDR timezone patterns Z, O, x, X have mostly been implemented just fine so far, although z, v, V is problematic.
[09:20:22] <rxaviers> In the comment I show where the problem using native JavaScript Date object.
[09:20:56] <rxaviers> is
[09:22:00] <rxaviers> If we have a third-party library to handle all this, like we have discussed on IRC the other day, formatting z, v, and V will be straightforward.
[09:23:45] <scott_gonzalez> The deduction of timezone by inspecting multiple dates is crazy :-)
[09:24:01] <rxaviers> It is
[09:24:47] <rxaviers> Parsing is also restricted by native date object, and I think we should have different goals whether we rely on native Date, or the extended timezone-supported date. (better explained in the github comment)
[09:25:33] <rxaviers> s/is problematic/are problematic/
[09:25:54] <scott_gonzalez> Are you thinking we could support native and enhanced at the same time?
[09:26:07] <scott_gonzalez> And for native, it just won't work for certain timezone settings?
[09:27:43] <rxaviers> Yes, I think that would be the best approach
[09:28:03] <scott_gonzalez> That sounds good to me.
[09:28:24] <rxaviers> Native support will be simpler and a subset of the enhanced approach. So, perhaps we can offer a progressive enhancement (like an addon plugin)
[09:28:28] <scott_gonzalez> Do you think moment.js would be interested in implementing that?
[09:28:49] <scott_gonzalez> Implementing the enhanced date object I mean.
[09:29:07] <scott_gonzalez> Or do you think it's something that we should be as a standalone lib?
[09:29:17] <rxaviers> Probably. It will be certainly interesting having iskren on top of that and hear what he thinks
[09:29:31] <scott_gonzalez> Ok, why don't you reach out to him and see what he says.
[09:29:39] <rxaviers> Sure, I will.
[09:29:39] <rxaviers> My opinion is that someone else should implement that
[09:29:55] <rxaviers> globalize and this third-party should agree on the API to use
[09:30:09] <rxaviers> What do you think?
[09:30:22] <scott_gonzalez> Sounds good.
[09:30:30] <rxaviers> ;)
[09:30:46] <scott_gonzalez> Did the ES6 stuff provide any useful info?
[09:32:46] <rxaviers> Nope, all I have found was related to I18n support to format stuff. But, Date seemed still the same.
[09:32:58] <rxaviers> Or I have not found the correct place in the specs
[09:33:05] <rxaviers> (that's a possibility)
[09:33:48] <scott_gonzalez> ah, ok
[09:34:07] <scott_gonzalez> It's very possible that it was just new i18n APIs and no changes to Date.
[09:35:06] <rxaviers> If so, my comment makes sense.
[09:35:38] <scott_gonzalez> Ok, so let's see what iskren says.
[09:35:48] <scott_gonzalez> That's it for CLDR updates, right?
[09:35:49] <rxaviers> If we have any updates on Date, my comment may not make sense. Or could be improved.
[09:35:58] <rxaviers> correct
[09:36:14] <rxaviers> s/could be/could have been/
[09:36:18] <scott_gonzalez> Support for touch-action in interactions landed right after our meeting last week :-)
[09:36:46] <scott_gonzalez> So we should have better support for Windows 8 now.
[09:37:59] <kborchers> fyi, i've started digging back into interactions and making them work with our pointer event stuff ... finally
[09:38:07] <kborchers> just started wrapping my head back around it last night
[09:38:34] <scott_gonzalez> :-)
[09:39:35] <kborchers> scott_gonzalez: what would you consider the latest interaction stuff ... i'm going to start over on the interaction-polymer branch. probably just kill it and start a new one
[09:39:52] <kborchers> is it the interactions branch?
[09:39:57] <scott_gonzalez> Whatever's in the interactions branch.
[09:40:22] <kborchers> ok, in order to bring that up to speed with master, what would you recommend. a rebase seemed messy
[09:40:39] <scott_gonzalez> Just a merge.
[09:40:48] <kborchers> ok sounds good
[09:41:03] <scott_gonzalez> But you're going to need to do lots of manual merging.
[09:41:20] <kborchers> hmmm, ok
[09:41:20] <scott_gonzalez> You might want to talk to mikesherov mikesherov_ about it.
[09:41:30] <mikesherov_> yeah
[09:41:49] <mikesherov_> scott_gonzalez: Dave Stein and I are wrapping up a giant internal project soon
[09:41:50] <kborchers> in a rebase the only conflict was in draggable but it makes crazy history
[09:42:00] <mikesherov_> and then when I come up for air, I can help kborchers with that
[09:42:13] <scott_gonzalez> ok
[09:42:18] <mikesherov_> kborchers: we can squash draggable anywya
[09:42:28] <mikesherov_> Dave Stein made like 80 zillion commits
[09:43:15] <scott_gonzalez> A squash is fine by me.
[09:43:46] <kborchers> can the message be "Draggable: WTF Dave Stein ;)"
[09:45:50] <scott_gonzalez> Anyone have anything else?
[09:47:34] <fnagel> Any news on the IE7 setOuterWidth issue?
[09:47:44] <scott_gonzalez> fnagel: I'll look into that today.
[09:47:58] <fnagel> Ok, just want to remind
[09:48:04] <scott_gonzalez> Thanks.
[09:48:13] <scott_gonzalez> It's now at the top of my list.
[09:48:34] <scott_gonzalez> Ok, see everyone back in -dev.