/irc-logs / w3c / #webapps / 2015-09-29 / end

Options:

# Session Start: Tue Sep 29 00:00:01 2015
# Session Ident: #webapps
# [00:16] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [00:20] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [00:20] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [00:31] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [00:41] * Quits: rniwa (~textual@public.cloak) ("Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com")
# [00:43] * Joins: rniwa (~textual@public.cloak)
# [01:02] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [01:03] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [01:03] * Joins: estellevw (~estellevw@public.cloak)
# [01:08] * Joins: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak)
# [01:11] * Joins: dveditz (~sid522@public.cloak)
# [01:21] <fantasai> rniwa, esprehn, dglazkov: You maybe wanted to send the minutes to the webapps list? http://www.w3.org/2015/09/18-webapps-minutes.html
# [01:21] <rniwa> fantasai: sure.
# [01:21] <rniwa> fantasai: to be fair, meeting link was posted so people should have access to it
# [01:22] <fantasai> only because I updated the wiki page to link to the minutes... but it wasn't there when that message was sent out, so it's probably not clear that people should have checked it again to get the minutes
# [01:24] <rniwa> fantasai: okay, done.
# [01:24] <rniwa> fantasai: now I think we should have a joint meeting between WebApps and CSS WG for shadow DOM styling
# [01:24] <fantasai> rniwa: So I'm trying to follow up on the action items, but it's not clear exactly what you all wanted me to do
# [01:25] <fantasai> rniwa: There was an action to add ::slotted
# [01:25] <rniwa> fantasai: yeah, things are very confusing because Tab wasn't there
# [01:25] <rniwa> fantasai: I think we just need to rename ::content to ::slotted
# [01:25] <fantasai> rniwa: Okay, I can do that.
# [01:25] <fantasai> rniwa: What was WebApps' position on the shadow-piercing combinator?
# [01:25] <fantasai> rniwa: Is it being kept or removed?
# [01:26] <rniwa> fantasai: removed
# [01:26] <rniwa> fantasai: I think we (Apple) also want to remove ::host-context although Google guys wanted to confirm with developers
# [01:28] <fantasai> rniwa: Okay
# [01:29] <fantasai> rniwa: If you want to remove :host-context(), then I would also remove the functional form of :host()
# [01:29] <fantasai> rniwa: no?
# [01:29] <fantasai> rniwa: Or should that be kept
# [01:29] * fantasai not deleting either for now anyway
# [01:30] <rniwa> fantasai: I think :host(~) is okay because it only matches against the host element
# [01:30] <rniwa> fantasai: the problem with :host-context(~) is that it looks up the tree above the element
# [01:30] <rniwa> fantasai: :host([disabled]), for example, is useful in responding to attributes present on the host element
# [01:30] <rniwa> fantasai: whereas no builtin elements behave differently based on the context in which that element appears
# [01:31] <rniwa> (except some weird input element edge case that esprehn pointed out but that's just a WebKit/Blink quirk that we shouldn't be introducing in the platform anyway)
# [01:31] <fantasai> rniwa: the example you just gave
# [01:31] <fantasai> rniwa: :host-context([disabled])
# [01:32] <fantasai> rniwa: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/forms.html#the-fieldset-element
# [01:33] <rniwa> fantasai: the problem with :host-context is that it's too powerful
# [01:33] <rniwa> fantasai: not that it doesn't cover use cases :host covers
# [01:33] <rniwa> fantasai: and I can tell you that we (webkit) are not implementing it
# [01:33] <fantasai> rniwa: Yes, but your use case itself is problematic
# [01:33] <rniwa> whether it'll be in spec or not
# [01:33] <fantasai> rniwa: You will not select all disabled controls that way
# [01:33] <rniwa> fantasai: we don't wanna select all disabled controls at all
# [01:34] <fantasai> rniwa: You want to select host elements that are disabled
# [01:34] <rniwa> fantasai: the point is that :host([disabled]) will be in the shadow dom and will only apply to the host of that element
# [01:34] <fantasai> rniwa: In your example :host([disabled])
# [01:34] <fantasai> rniwa: That will not match disabled host elements
# [01:34] <fantasai> rniwa: Because they can be disabled by an ancestor fieldset or form being disabled
# [01:34] <rniwa> fantasai: if "disabled" was on an ancestor element, yes, but we don't care for that
# [01:35] <fantasai> rniwa: Why not? It seems likely you're just writing bad code at this point because it'll only sometimes match the semantics of the document.
# [01:35] <rniwa> fantasai: ancestor enabling an element is an input element quirk
# [01:35] <fantasai> rniwa: You're creating a distinction between <fieldset><input disabled></fieldset> and <fieldset disabled><input></fieldset> that shouldn't exist.
# [01:35] <rniwa> fantasai: so if you're doing that, you might as well as just use :host(:disabled) instead
# [01:35] <fantasai> rniwa: It's not a quirk, it's by design, and it totally makes sense.
# [01:35] <fantasai> sure
# [01:35] <fantasai> that works
# [01:36] <esprehn> fantasai: we want the shadow piercing combinators in the static profile
# [01:36] <rniwa> esprehn: we don't.
# [01:36] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [01:36] <rniwa> (we don't have to agree though)
# [01:36] <esprehn> rniwa: Without it developers just querySelectorAll("*") then iterate looking at the .shadowRoot property, and traverse the entire page slowly calling querySelectorAll recursively
# [01:37] <rniwa> it's sufficient to know that there is no consenus to ahve that feature
# [01:37] <rniwa> esprehn: well, our position is that developers shouldn't be walking into shadow tree in their code except extra-ordinary situations
# [01:37] <rniwa> esprehn: that's the whole reason we argued for closed mode by default
# [01:37] <rniwa> esprehn: so none of your arguments like that will convince us
# [01:38] <esprehn> sigh
# [01:38] <rniwa> esprehn: but again, we don't have to agree
# [01:38] <rniwa> esprehn: we'll just keep disagreeing on this point
# [01:38] <rniwa> esprehn: we just need to find the common ground to both of us can agree
# [01:38] <rniwa> so that we can move forward
# [01:38] <esprehn> Sure, developers will do the fast thing in Chrome, and the slow thing in Safari
# [01:38] <esprehn> that's fine with us :)
# [01:38] <fantasai> okay, I pushed the change for ::slotted.
# [01:38] <rniwa> esprehn: can you plesae stop making those comments on us?
# [01:39] <rniwa> esprehn: I find it very offensive
# [01:39] <fantasai> rniwa: anything else?
# [01:39] <fantasai> rniwa: will you be at TPAC?
# [01:39] <rniwa> fantasai: definitely
# [01:39] <esprehn> rniwa: can you explain why :host-context is "too powerful" ?
# [01:40] <rniwa> fantasai: i'm booking my flgihts, etc... this week
# [01:40] <fantasai> cool
# [01:40] <rniwa> fantasai: I think there is also https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/331
# [01:40] <rniwa> fantasai: it seems like we might want to change the semantics of ::slotted slightly by being more restrictive
# [01:42] <rniwa> fantasai: also, the current consnsus is to generate CSS boxes on "slot" element (old "content" element)
# [01:42] <esprehn> huh?
# [01:42] <esprehn> no it's not
# [01:42] <rniwa> fantasai: but instead define the default style rule of "display: contents" on slot element
# [01:42] <rniwa> esprehn: see https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/308#issuecomment-143655347
# [01:43] <rniwa> fantasai: we might need another telecon with Tab before TPAC so that we can prepare ourselves
# [01:43] <esprehn> I'll follow up on that
# [01:44] <esprehn> I think we're in agreement on not doing :host-context in v1
# [01:44] <rniwa> fantasai: ^
# [01:47] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [01:50] <rniwa> sicking: hi sicking!
# [01:53] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [01:56] * Quits: marcosc (~marcosc@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [01:57] * Joins: marcosc (~marcosc@public.cloak)
# [01:57] * Quits: marcosc (~marcosc@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [01:58] * Joins: marcosc (~marcosc@public.cloak)
# [02:03] * terri is now known as terri_offline
# [02:04] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [02:05] * Quits: jsbell (~jsbell@public.cloak) ("There's no place like home...")
# [02:08] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [02:10] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [02:12] <sicking> rniwa: hey!
# [02:12] <sicking> rniwa: what's up?
# [02:13] <rniwa> sicking: just saying hi
# [02:13] <sicking> rniwa: ah :)
# [02:13] <rniwa> sicking: but, I just finished adding the basic support for shadow DOM API in WebKit
# [02:13] <rniwa> (new slot-based one)
# [02:13] <sicking> cool! that's awesome!
# [02:13] <rniwa> sicking: you might wanna try it out and see if you like it
# [02:15] <sicking> rniwa: not been much involved in shadow DOM lately, but I'm quite excited to see it shipping. It's important to the web. Hoping it'll enable people to make toolkits that the web so badly need
# [02:16] <rniwa> sicking: yeah, we've also narrowed the scope of the API quite a bit so hopefully we can expand on it in the future iteration
# [02:16] <sicking> cool
# [02:16] <rniwa> sicking: but I think the basic ability to scope-style is still there
# [02:16] <sicking> oh, definitely hope so...
# [02:16] <rniwa> so hopefully it's giving us something useful still
# [02:20] <fantasai> rniwa, esprehn: What about ::shadow?
# [02:21] <rniwa> fantasai: We're removing that
# [02:21] <rniwa> fantasai: because there is no shadow element anymore
# [02:22] * rniwa likes this answer
# [02:22] * rniwa wants to remove all the features
# [02:23] <MikeSmith> hi rniwa
# [02:23] <rniwa> MikeSmith: hi MikeSmith!
# [02:24] <MikeSmith> very cool to see your Shadow DOM implementation landing
# [02:24] <MikeSmith> also looking forward to testing your Service Worker implementation soon! 😀
# [02:26] <rniwa> MikeSmith: well, I never said we're gonna implement it though
# [02:26] <rniwa> MikeSmith: still just reviewing the spec at the moment
# [02:30] <MikeSmith> rniwa: yeah I knowーwas just trying to sneak in some subliminal message there
# [02:30] <MikeSmith> power of suggestion
# [02:32] <MikeSmith> hypnotize you.. "I .. must .. implement.. Service Worker ..now"
# [02:33] <fantasai> Okay, so I think I've read through most of the shadow dom stuff and...
# [02:33] <fantasai> why is there no declarative way of attaching shadow trees?
# [02:34] <fantasai> Or is there and I missed it?
# [02:34] <fantasai> I mean, I'm sure it's all very cool to create trees in JavaScript, and append together bits of CSS code and basically build a tree snippet out of strings
# [02:35] <fantasai> but it seems pretty awkward to me
# [02:36] <fantasai> I'd rather have a file that was like "here are all of my shadow trees" and "here is a bunch of selectors to apply said shadow trees to the relevant elements in my document"
# [02:37] <fantasai> Are we going to be all like "Well, someone will invent a library for that, and then everybody will import it into every web page ever, and that's our solution to that"?
# [02:42] <rniwa> fantasai: we have custom elements
# [02:43] <rniwa> fantasai: and custom elements don't really function without scripts
# [02:43] <rniwa> fantasai: but you have a point though
# [02:43] <rniwa> fantasai: XBL has the ability like that but as far as we know, binding a shadow tree via CSS selector leads to various issues
# [02:44] <fantasai> rniwa: You mean, via CSS property.
# [02:44] <fantasai> rniwa: Don't do it in CSS then
# [02:44] <fantasai> rniwa: You can use selectors outside of CSS
# [02:44] <rniwa> fantasai: I think you can do something like this:
# [02:45] <rniwa> querySelectorAll(~).toArray().forEach(function (e) { e.attachShadow({mode: 'closed'}).appendChild(template.content.cloneNode(true)) })
# [02:46] <rniwa> fantasai: i wanted e.attachShadow({mode: 'closed', template: template})
# [02:46] <rniwa> but that's really just a syntax sugar
# [02:46] <fantasai> I want something that's as simple as
# [02:46] <fantasai> <shadow id="foo">... shadow stuff ..</shadow>
# [02:47] <fantasai> <shadow id="bar"> ... shadow sutff ...</shadow>
# [02:47] <fantasai> etc.
# [02:47] <fantasai> one or more
# [02:47] <fantasai> as desired
# [02:47] <fantasai> and then
# [02:47] <fantasai> <selector> = <url>
# [02:47] <fantasai> <selector2> = <url2>
# [02:47] <rniwa> ?? what does that mean?
# [02:47] <fantasai> and then link it to the document
# [02:48] <fantasai> and it just maps them all up for you
# [02:48] <rniwa> fantasai: custom elements more or less does that
# [02:48] <rniwa> fantasai: custom element is the mechanism by which each element is associated with its definition based on its name
# [02:49] <fantasai> what if I don't want a custom element, what if I just want to template things like in the example at the bottom of the Shadow DOM spec?
# [02:49] <fantasai> It just seems a bit silly that Bob mocks up his shadow tree in HTML and CSS
# [02:49] <fantasai> and then as to slice it up into a bunch of JavaScript funcitons
# [02:49] <rniwa> then have to write scripts to attach them?
# [02:50] <fantasai> yeah
# [02:50] <rniwa> yeah, I agree
# [02:50] <rniwa> so the plan is to address this in v2
# [02:50] <fantasai> custom elements are the same, right?
# [02:50] <fantasai> you have to use JS to bind everything
# [02:50] <rniwa> we couldn't reach any agreement on declarative syntax/mechanism
# [02:50] <rniwa> fantasai: well, the original web components had a declarative syntax
# [02:51] <rniwa> fantasai: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-components-intro-20130606/
# [02:51] <rniwa> fantasai: that's where we want to head to eventually
# [02:51] <rniwa> but we stumbled upon too many obstacles :(
# [02:52] <rniwa> fantasai: I completely agree that the current API sucks
# [02:52] <rniwa> fantasai: but not having any API is even worse
# [02:52] <rniwa> so we're just adding JS capability in v1
# [02:54] * Quits: smaug (~chatzilla@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [02:55] * Joins: smaug (~chatzilla@public.cloak)
# [03:07] * Quits: smaug (~chatzilla@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [03:20] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [03:21] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [03:21] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [03:21] <esprehn> rniwa: ::shadow is not about <shadow> but about traversing one level down
# [03:25] * Joins: hgl_ (~hgl@public.cloak)
# [03:31] * Quits: hgl (~hgl@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [03:32] * Joins: yoichio (~yoichio@public.cloak)
# [04:17] * Quits: ArtB (~ArtB@public.cloak) ("Leaving.")
# [04:21] * Quits: shepazu (schepers@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [04:30] * Quits: estellevw (~estellevw@public.cloak) ("Snuggling with the puppies")
# [04:35] * Joins: estellevw (~estellevw@public.cloak)
# [05:01] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [05:15] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [05:29] * heycam|away is now known as heycam
# [05:31] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [05:33] <rniwa> esprehn: well, we should remove it anyways since it's piercing through shadow boundary
# [05:34] <rniwa> esprehn: because in the world without multiple generations of shadow DOMs, there isn't really a distinction between "::shadow div" and "div".
# [05:37] * Quits: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [06:04] * heycam is now known as heycam|away
# [06:06] <hayato> rniwa: '::shadow' is unrelated to shadow elements. See https://drafts.csswg.org/css-scoping/#shadow-pseudoelement
# [06:07] <rniwa> hayato: they're introduced to deal with multiple generations of shadow roots though. what's the use case that can't be addressed without ::shadow?
# [06:08] <hayato> No
# [06:08] <rniwa> now that we don't have multiple generations of shadow doms
# [06:08] <hayato> Multiple generations of shadow roots are unrelated.
# [06:08] <rniwa> hayato: so what are use cases?
# [06:08] <hayato> Walk down one-level shadow tree.
# [06:09] <rniwa> hayato: that seems like shadow piercing to me, which we've been objecting to all along.
# [06:09] <hayato> '/deep/' is zero or more of '::shadow'
# [06:09] <hayato> Like * in regular expression.
# [06:10] <hayato> `/deep/' == '::shadow' * , roughly. :)
# [06:11] <rniwa> hayato: sure, and we don't like that.
# [06:11] <hayato> I'm not saying we should have '::shadow'. Just correcting. :)
# [06:11] <rniwa> hayato: I don't really care what the semantics of ::shadow was as long as it's been removed
# [06:11] <hayato> SGTM
# [06:20] <rniwa> hayato: on somewhat related note, I'm mostly done implementing the new API
# [06:20] <rniwa> hayato: by tomorrow night or so, you should be able to download a nightly build of webkit at http://nightly.webkit.org
# [06:20] <rniwa> hayato: which has the new API available
# [06:21] <rniwa> (:host and ::slotted aren't supported yet though)
# [06:21] <rniwa> hayato: so you (and polymer guys) should be able to play with it
# [06:21] <rniwa> hayato: I've also written a bunch of tests in http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/shadow-dom/ if you're interested
# [06:22] <rniwa> hayato: in particular, http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/shadow-dom/event-with-related-target.html might be of your interest since it has a bunch of re-targeting examples
# [06:23] <rniwa> hayato: we should make sure we're on the same page with regards with event path since I know mozilla had a bunch of concerns in that area before
# [06:38] * Joins: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak)
# [06:40] <kochi1> rniwa: do you have any plan to contribute tests to web-platform-tests?
# [06:40] <hayato> rniwa: Great news. I'll take a look at it. Do webkit guys have a motivation to contribute W3C tests? https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/shadow-dom
# [06:40] <rniwa> hayato, kochi1: we're definitely interested in contributing back
# [06:41] <kochi1> great!
# [06:41] <rniwa> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/2169
# [06:41] <rniwa> I've been waiting for someone to review it LOL
# [06:42] <rniwa> I've written so many more tests after this
# [06:42] <kochi1> ok, will take a look
# [06:42] <rniwa> so I need a new PR to submit them but most of tests in http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/fast/shadow-dom/ should be good to go
# [06:42] <rniwa> I used testharness.js to write them
# [06:42] <rniwa> although tests prefixed with css-scoping-* should go into css-wg test suite
# [06:44] <kochi1> I think we should use testharness.js more in Blink's layout tests as well
# [06:45] * Quits: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [06:52] <rniwa> kochi1: testharness.js is soooo verbose though :(
# [06:53] <rniwa> you have to write so much more to write the same test case as js-test-pre.js
# [06:54] <kochi1> yeah, we just don't want to write the same test twice.
# [06:56] <kochi1> we already use Internals a lot so it's hard to contribute to WPT as is
# [07:00] * Quits: rniwa (~textual@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [07:02] * Joins: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak)
# [07:09] <hayato> fantasai: Issue for Declarative Shadow DOM is https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/71
# [07:10] * Quits: kochi (~kochi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [07:10] * Quits: kochi1 (~kochi@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [07:20] * Joins: kochi (~kochi@public.cloak)
# [07:22] * Joins: kochi1 (~kochi@public.cloak)
# [07:35] * Quits: estellevw (~estellevw@public.cloak) ("Snuggling with the puppies")
# [07:35] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [07:53] * Joins: marcosc_ (~marcosc@public.cloak)
# [07:53] * Quits: marcosc (~marcosc@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [09:56] * Joins: smaug (~chatzilla@public.cloak)
# [10:03] * Joins: rniwa (~textual@public.cloak)
# [10:04] * Quits: rniwa (~textual@public.cloak) ("Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com")
# [10:22] * Quits: smaug (~chatzilla@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [10:38] * Joins: dom (dom@public.cloak)
# [11:09] * Joins: wilsonpage (~wilsonpage@public.cloak)
# [11:10] * Quits: dom (dom@public.cloak) ("")
# [11:23] * Joins: wilsonpa_ (~wilsonpage@public.cloak)
# [11:26] * Quits: wilsonpage (~wilsonpage@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [11:33] * Joins: wilsonpage (~wilsonpage@public.cloak)
# [11:34] * Quits: wilsonpage (~wilsonpage@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [11:35] * Joins: wilsonpage (~wilsonpage@public.cloak)
# [11:36] * Quits: wilsonpa_ (~wilsonpage@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [11:50] * Joins: ArtB (~ArtB@public.cloak)
# [12:07] * Quits: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [13:07] * Joins: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak)
# [13:15] * Quits: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [13:24] * wilsonpage is now known as wilsonpage-away
# [13:52] * wilsonpage-away is now known as wilsonpage
# [14:00] * Joins: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak)
# [16:12] * Joins: shepazu (schepers@public.cloak)
# [16:36] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [16:42] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [16:50] * Joins: smaug (~chatzilla@public.cloak)
# [16:55] * Joins: wilsonpa_ (~wilsonpage@public.cloak)
# [16:56] * Quits: wilsonpage (~wilsonpage@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [17:29] * Quits: marcosc_ (~marcosc@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [17:30] * Quits: wilsonpa_ (~wilsonpage@public.cloak) ("My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…")
# [17:30] * Joins: marcosc (~marcosc@public.cloak)
# [17:33] * Joins: wilsonpage (~wilsonpage@public.cloak)
# [17:34] * Quits: Florian (~Florian@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [17:59] * Joins: tantek (~tantek@public.cloak)
# [18:00] * wilsonpage is now known as wilsonpage-away
# [18:01] * Quits: wilsonpage-away (~wilsonpage@public.cloak) ("My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…")
# [18:06] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [18:08] * Joins: wilsonpage (~wilsonpage@public.cloak)
# [18:16] * Quits: wilsonpage (~wilsonpage@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [18:16] * Joins: wilsonpage (~wilsonpage@public.cloak)
# [19:03] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [19:05] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [19:22] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [19:38] * Quits: wilsonpage (~wilsonpage@public.cloak) ("My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…")
# [19:43] * Joins: estellevw (~estellevw@public.cloak)
# [19:55] * Quits: estellevw (~estellevw@public.cloak) ("Snuggling with the puppies")
# [20:22] * Joins: jsbell (~jsbell@public.cloak)
# [20:25] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [20:39] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [20:51] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [21:38] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [21:41] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [22:01] * terri_offline is now known as terri
# [22:22] * Joins: rniwa (~textual@public.cloak)
# [22:44] * Joins: marcosc_ (~marcosc@public.cloak)
# [22:44] * Quits: marcosc (~marcosc@public.cloak) (Client closed connection)
# [23:01] * Quits: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak) (sicking)
# [23:01] * Joins: sicking (~sicking@public.cloak)
# [23:07] * Quits: smaug (~chatzilla@public.cloak) (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
# [23:38] * Quits: tantek (~tantek@public.cloak) (tantek)
# Session Close: Wed Sep 30 00:00:01 2015

Think these logs are useful? Then please donate to show your gratitude (and keep them up, of course). Thanks! — Krijn