[09:02:34] <DaveMethvin> i see m_gol timmywil rwaldron ... anyone else?
[09:02:44] <DaveMethvin> should be a short meeting anyway
[09:03:06] <timmywil> hi
[09:03:39] <DaveMethvin> hey timmywil
[09:04:31] <m_gol> present
[09:04:37] <DaveMethvin> so timmywil how do you think we should take care of the "sizzle out of sync" thing?
[09:04:48] <m_gol> DaveMethvin: I have ZNC so I'm available even if I'm not ;)
[09:04:51] <DaveMethvin> just add something to the release script?
[09:05:01] <DaveMethvin> yeah me too
[09:05:06] <DaveMethvin> hey markelog
[09:05:12] <markelog> hey-hey
[09:05:47] <timmywil> yea, not the release repo, but a check in jQuery's release script
[09:05:47] <DaveMethvin> so are you back in moscow now markelog? you went to the conf right?
[09:06:07] <DaveMethvin> timmywil that makes sense after you described the scenarios
[09:06:29] <markelog> yeah, that's right, i was so nervious )
[09:06:32] <m_gol> yup
[09:06:42] <DaveMethvin> i bet you did great markelog
[09:06:49] <DaveMethvin> just a few open tix now http://bugs.jquery.com/query?status=%21closed&status=%21pending&group=milestone&report=3&order=priority
[09:06:55] <m_gol> I'd love to have a question like "Sizzle version is outdated. Do you want to proceed?"
[09:06:57] <markelog> thank you Dave!
[09:07:10] <markelog> finally i'm free from all that stuff
[09:07:15] <DaveMethvin> m_gol: yeah that would be good
[09:07:26] <DaveMethvin> just some sort of speed bump so you could go back and check
[09:07:47] <markelog> today will do another iteration on karma for sizzle and merge it
[09:07:54] <m_gol> preferably near the beginning of the script ;)
[09:07:57] <DaveMethvin> yay!
[09:08:00] <m_gol> markelog: \o/
[09:08:36] <DaveMethvin> so i heard back from microsoft on http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/14894
[09:08:53] <DaveMethvin> sounds like they aren't going to fix most of these
[09:08:58] <DaveMethvin> so we're back to patching
[09:08:59] <DaveMethvin> :(
[09:09:29] <DaveMethvin> timmywil: thoughts on http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/14772 ?
[09:09:46] <m_gol> why?
[09:10:17] <DaveMethvin> why aren't they patching them?
[09:10:31] <DaveMethvin> anything that was in IE10 is pretty much dead to them
[09:10:58] <DaveMethvin> this week there's a refresh of IE11 and even if it's fixed there it wouldn't be fixed in IE10
[09:11:24] <DaveMethvin> plus the damned corps that won't update to the "new IE11" for several months
[09:11:27] <m_gol> but http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/14894 is a problem only in IE11, not IE10, right?
[09:11:30] <m_gol> lol
[09:11:45] <m_gol> well, if they're not applying security patches... they have a problem anwyay
[09:12:10] <DaveMethvin> i think what the ie guys want to do is figure out how to force browser updates so they can be evergreen
[09:12:16] <timmywil> DaveMethvin: I'm not sure.
[09:12:19] <DaveMethvin> but their customers are fighting them every step of the way
[09:13:25] <DaveMethvin> i noticed this thread on the forums too, timmywil or gibson042 you guys might want to put together a response: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/matchers-and-pseudos
[09:13:27] <timmywil> after a little testing it seems, webkitMatchesSelector is returning false
[09:14:56] <DaveMethvin> those seem like qSA bugs that should be reported to each browser
[09:16:04] <timmywil> Actually, IIRC, the spec says it's up to the implementor to decide the order of evaluation when it comes to events and marking focus.
[09:16:14] <timmywil> so we may not be able to do anything about it.
[09:16:49] <timmywil> that said, I think this works everywhere http://jsfiddle.net/timmywil/YzagR/33/
[09:17:36] <DaveMethvin> timmywil: can you add a comment in that ticket?
[09:18:54] <timmywil> sure, I should probably find a spec link
[09:19:27] <DaveMethvin> sure, sound all authoritativey
[09:19:39] <m_gol> ;)
[09:20:29] <timmywil> DaveMethvin: which focus event do we actually bind to? focus or focusin?
[09:20:53] <DaveMethvin> timmywil: for what case?
[09:21:13] <timmywil> in the fiddle
[09:21:40] <timmywil> I guess we only use focusin for delegation?
[09:21:43] <DaveMethvin> focus
[09:21:49] <DaveMethvin> yeah
[09:22:15] <DaveMethvin> if you bind focus but delegated then we change it to focusin
[09:22:15] <timmywil> http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Events/#events-focusevent-event-order  This says focusin fires before the switch, but focus should fire after.
[09:22:33] <DaveMethvin> for this case it would be focus that got bound
[09:24:29] <DaveMethvin> just checking to be sure
[09:25:34] <DaveMethvin> yep, focus
[09:26:49] <DaveMethvin> i don't have much else this week
[09:27:00] <DaveMethvin> anybody have anything?
[09:27:33] <DaveMethvin> well GOOD!
[09:27:52] <m_gol> I haven't had time to deal with Android 2.3 issues
[09:27:59] <m_gol> those cross-domain ones
[09:28:04] <DaveMethvin> neither have i m_gol
[09:28:15] <DaveMethvin> since they're just test issues i don't think they'll block a release
[09:28:16] <m_gol> but the fix for isDefaultPrevented bubbling is in the beta
[09:28:25] <m_gol> well, 2.3 has more than test issues
[09:28:28] <m_gol> I guess
[09:28:35] <m_gol> especially in manipulation
[09:28:41] <m_gol> I think these are the only errors we have now
[09:28:48] <DaveMethvin> most of the falis were the xml cross-doc tho
[09:28:49] <m_gol> "real" errors
[09:29:00] <m_gol> the rest is this cross-doc madness
[09:29:07] <m_gol> anyway
[09:29:25] <m_gol> we'll need to talk sometime about what to do with Android 2.3 in 1.13/2.3
[09:29:54] <DaveMethvin> i wish we could nuke it
[09:30:01] <m_gol> there might not be a huge point in removing support for Safari 5.1 without removing for Android 2.3
[09:30:09] <m_gol> they share a lot of issues requiring huge workarounds
[09:30:38] <m_gol> iOS 5.1 is funnier; passes locally on master & fails 66 offset tests in TestSwarm
[09:30:45] <m_gol> IE8 comes to mind ;)
[09:31:01] <m_gol> but we've never officially supported iOS 5.1 so it doesn't matter a lot
[09:31:07] <DaveMethvin> maybe 6 months down the road android 2.3 will be down to very little, but i doubt it
[09:31:11] <m_gol> we should add mobile browsers to the browser-support page
[09:31:40] <m_gol> iOS6+ & Android 4.0+ we could add even now, they're all passing after recent String#trim fix
[09:31:48] <m_gol> with 2.3 it's more complicated
[09:31:57] <m_gol> we can't put it in the table when it's not passing the tests
[09:32:26] <m_gol> I got an update from the BrowserStack team, they're working on having real Android devices for testing instead of those emulated ones
[09:32:28] <DaveMethvin> i guess we should put iOS6 and Android 4.0+ in there since they pass and are common
[09:32:37] <m_gol> maybe we'll be able to move them to the main job some time!
[09:32:43] <m_gol> yes, I think we should
[09:32:59] <DaveMethvin> m_gol you want to edit the support page then?
[09:33:02] <m_gol> yup
[09:33:06] <DaveMethvin> ok thanks
[09:33:11] <m_gol> BrowserStack plans to work on Windows Phone later
[09:33:24] <m_gol> would be great to test on that, too
[09:33:34] <m_gol> (next: WWA, please ;))
[09:34:00] <DaveMethvin> yes, i asked the microsoft folks for some solution on that
[09:34:04] <DaveMethvin> getting tired of regressions
[09:34:46] <m_gol> I wonder how many libraries break there
[09:34:54] <DaveMethvin> many
[09:34:54] <m_gol> with all those restrictive policies & no way to unit test
[09:35:06] <m_gol> & probably most people not caring
[09:35:10] <DaveMethvin> and feature testing makes it even more likely to break
[09:35:22] <m_gol> yeah, that's the funny part ;)
[09:35:29] <DaveMethvin> if we just checked userAgent we'd be fine!
[09:35:33] <m_gol> haha
[09:35:37] <DaveMethvin> broken, but find
[09:35:39] <DaveMethvin> fine*
[09:36:03] <m_gol> they should make accessing userAgent unsafe
[09:36:04] <m_gol> :P
[09:36:15] <DaveMethvin> alrighty then, lets say we're done and move over to #jquery-dev
[09:36:20] <m_gol> k
[09:36:21] <DaveMethvin> thanks guys!