Change of name, video bandwidth, Change Proposals, and XSS
I think my summary last week worked out so here is the next. We changed the names of one of the standards we are working on and per Parkinson’s Law of Triviality this generated enormous amounts of feedback. Everything from “Love it!” to “Terrible.” Try to keep in mind that:
- Developers want features from browsers, not the next version of some standard.
<!doctype html>are used today.
- Browsers implement features, not whole standards. And when they implement a feature they want to implement whatever is latest. (They are not going to implement a specific release of a standard when a later draft version contains known fixes to make e.g.
- Validators (these days) want to support roughly what the union of browsers implement so authors get the most useful feedback.
On the mailing list a long thread started on implementations using a lot of bandwidth in their implementations of video. The basic problem is that when the user pauses the video the implementation continuous to retrieve data. This is a tricky problem as this is very helpful to the user — when not paying for bandwidth — but not necessarily for the application developer who is always paying for bandwidth.
Jeremy Orlow forwarded an email from the Chromium project about streaming
Blob objects. A use case would be sending continuous data from the server and feeding it into an
audio element as well as storing that data locally.
Quite a few more items were discussed:
- Tab Atkins replied to the questions on Microdata.
- Anton Kovalyov with Disqus asked what kind of statistics people would like to see of a large amount of HTML data he is accumulating.
- Alexey Proskuryakov pointed out that
window.print()needs some more work as WebKit had to change their implementation to match other browsers. Ola Kleiven confirmed Opera has a related issue.
- Philip Jägenstedt (implements video in Opera) commented on Google’s feedback from last week.
- Henri Sivonen launched Get WebM! — an initiative to get WebM-enabled browsers to the masses.
- Charles Pritchard continued lobbying for adding descent measurement to
At the W3C
As you might know various W3C Working Groups work together with the WHATWG on specifications. That lots of people are part of both organizations makes this quite easy. The W3C still uses a snapshot model and as a result the HTML WG is working towards Last Call. A deadline was set and since end last year all new issues will automatically become Last Call comments. Older issues are being settled with Change Proposals. A Change Proposal Status overview is available and quite a few were created just last week:
- In No
Content-TypePhilip Jägenstedt argues browsers should start sniffing for video just like they do for images. Julian Reschke has a more conservative proposal.
- No Poster Alt written by Philip Jägenstedt and David Singer (Apple’s standards guru).
<video muted>is yet another Change Proposal by Philip Jägenstedt where he suggests a different syntax for muting media.
There are no boundaries to what can be considered an issue unfortunately and therefore sometimes petty editorial matters end up taking a lot of time. E.g. what links the Status section can contain and what exactly can be said in the Acknowledgments section. It makes people rant, but to no avail so far.
Any changes made as a result of an accepted Change Proposal are also reflected in the WHATWG standard by the way as the source document for the specifications is identical.
email@example.com Adam Barth has a proposal for XSS mitigation in browsers. Basically trying to find a simple measure that could help authors fight cross-site scripting vulnerabilities.