/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2007-03-21 / end

Options:

# Session Start: Wed Mar 21 10:17:40 2007
# Session Ident: #html-wg
# [21 10:17] * Logging #html-wg to 'http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20070321'
# [21 10:17] * Joins: marcos (chatzilla@131.181.148.226)
# [21 10:23] <marcos> bkode, I think server-side events are beyong the scope of this channel
# [21 10:24] * Joins: anne (annevk@81.68.67.12)
# [21 10:25] <icaaq> marcos: i agree
# [21 10:26] <marcos> :)
# [21 10:30] <anne> servers-side events are part of HTML5, fwiw
# [21 10:31] <anne> (and implemented in Opera)
# [21 10:33] <marcos> I was just going to say that that one was best left for anne:)
# [21 10:33] <marcos> I have not yet looked at what Opera is doing about that...
# [21 10:35] <anne> <event-source src> and related things
# [21 10:36] <marcos> yeah, looks pretty cool. Kinda like flash's xml sockets
# [21 10:37] <marcos> icaaq, maybe we make part of the scope :)
# [21 10:39] <icaaq> marcos: :)
# [21 10:39] * anne doesn't think HTML5 has much of a scope
# [21 10:39] <anne> did you guys read the charter?
# [21 10:39] <marcos> I'm still in shock about the vision document
# [21 10:40] <Lachy> what vision document?
# [21 10:40] <marcos> oh man, you are gonna love it!!!!
# [21 10:40] <marcos> ...searching for it....
# [21 10:40] <marcos> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/vision.html
# [21 10:40] <Lachy> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/vision.html ?
# [21 10:41] <Lachy> ok
# [21 10:41] <marcos> that's the one :)
# [21 10:41] * Lachy reads...
# [21 10:41] <Lachy> anne, I started reviewing XHR tonight
# [21 10:41] * icaaq to, again. more carefully
# [21 10:41] * marcos was surprised RDFa was not mentioned :D
# [21 10:42] <Lachy> just a few editoral mistakes in it so far, but it's really good (I'm about 1/2 way through)
# [21 10:42] * marcos intends to do that too, anne.
# [21 10:42] * marcos has only gone through quickly. but it's great work.
# [21 10:43] <Lachy> Hixie was right, it does read like one of his specs :-)
# [21 10:43] <anne> I tried to align it a bit more
# [21 10:43] <marcos> the HXR doc?
# [21 10:43] <anne> marcos, please review http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
# [21 10:44] <anne> and not the version on TR/
# [21 10:44] <anne> that vision document is just there to please IBM and other XForms loving companies I think
# [21 10:45] <marcos> anne, ok and ok
# [21 10:46] <Lachy> oh man, I'm in the second paragraph, and "for the mobile market..." has already made me laugh, cause mobile browsers are just tag soup at best
# [21 10:46] <anne> -Opera
# [21 10:47] <Lachy> Opera and WebKit are the exceptions
# [21 10:47] <marcos> hehe, that one made me laugh too
# [21 10:47] <marcos> but opera does tagsoup too, right anne?
# [21 10:47] <Lachy> yeah, it does both
# [21 10:48] <hsivonen> character decoding is the dirty secret of browser XML support even when the XML support is otherwise non-bogus
# [21 10:48] * anne ponders about the teleconference
# [21 10:48] <anne> marcos, yes, but at worst
# [21 10:48] <anne> although actually, tag soup parsing isn't that bad
# [21 10:48] <anne> it just needs to be standardized
# [21 10:48] <hsivonen> in retrospect, browsers should have supported only UTF-8 and UTF-16 on the XML side
# [21 10:49] <Lachy> hsivonen, why?
# [21 10:49] <anne> to slow down adoption of XML even more?
# [21 10:49] <anne> not a bad idea, really
# [21 10:49] <hsivonen> Lachy: to get rid of a huge legacy back door
# [21 10:49] <Lachy> although, I agree it would have been ideal, reality tells me it wouldn't work
# [21 10:50] <hsivonen> anne: getting UTF-8 right is a lot easier than getting the other XML stuff right on the producer side
# [21 10:50] <Lachy> just as we're now getting requests for lenient XML parsers, we'd also get requests for legacy encodings
# [21 10:50] <hsivonen> anne: most producer objections to UTF-8 are bogus
# [21 10:51] * anne will do his bachelor project on writing a lenient XML parser + spec
# [21 10:51] <marcos> anne, from the xhr spec, what is the scope of 'this' in the following example:
# [21 10:51] <marcos> var a = {funky: function(response){ alert(this)}}
# [21 10:51] <marcos> var client = new XMLHttpRequest();
# [21 10:51] <marcos> ...
# [21 10:51] <marcos> client.onreadystatechange = a.funky;
# [21 10:52] <anne> this points to the object
# [21 10:52] <anne> as with all event listeners?
# [21 10:52] <anne> (this doesn't work in some browsers today, btw)
# [21 10:52] <marcos> that is what I am wondering
# [21 10:52] <marcos> because I've had problems with that
# [21 10:53] <marcos> in the Yahoo! widget engine, for example, this is [XMLHttRequest]
# [21 10:53] <marcos> and I think I got something different in Dashboard
# [21 10:53] <marcos> webkit
# [21 10:54] <anne> you can get different results for every single feature I think
# [21 10:54] <marcos> I don't recall the xhr spec being clear on this...
# [21 10:54] <anne> one of the reasons we try to standardize it in one way
# [21 10:54] <marcos> Having another look
# [21 10:54] <anne> it's implicitly clear by making XHR an EventTarget
# [21 10:54] <anne> and having onreadystatechange take an EventListener
# [21 10:54] * Joins: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86)
# [21 10:55] <marcos> so my above example would not work
# [21 10:55] <anne> depends on what yo umean with work and it would in Opera
# [21 10:55] <anne> and might work in nightly builds of Firefox
# [21 10:56] <anne> might work in nightly builds of WebKit, dunno
# [21 10:57] * Quits: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86) (Connection reset by peer)
# [21 10:57] * Joins: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86)
# [21 10:57] * marcos thinks we should prolly be having this discussion in #webapi, sorry
# [21 11:26] * Joins: chaals (chaals@70.21.184.118)
# [21 11:28] <chaals> rrsagent, pointer
# [21 11:28] <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2007/03/21-html-wg-irc#T10-31-05
# [21 11:29] * chaals just gained a day
# [21 11:29] <anne> that's nice
# [21 11:30] <anne> although in amounts of time you prolly lost one
# [21 11:58] * Joins: jmb (jmb@81.179.74.126)
# [21 12:06] <bkode> i'd like to ask a general question . what would it take to add an tag or an attribute to an existing tag to be accepted by the w3c ? has it been made clear that it is saturated -or is there scope for more ?
# [21 12:06] <anne> dunno
# [21 12:07] <anne> we're already extending HTML
# [21 12:07] <anne> it would make sense if the W3C simply followed what's already been done
# [21 12:07] <anne> (to me, anyway)
# [21 12:08] <chaals> This is something the working group will sort out for themselves. But I would suggest it would take more or less interoperable implementation in several browsers
# [21 12:09] <anne> well, to exit CR sure...
# [21 12:09] <bkode> alright... the reason for that is that ... because it seems to me that more and more scripting functionality is being bundled into a tag. foe eg: the event-source . im sure as much the w3c wud like to accept it ...confinig to a sinle way is at best debatable ..right ?
# [21 12:10] <anne> <event-source> is just a convenient shorthand for an API, actually
# [21 12:10] <bkode> how close are we to closing in on an implementaion ?
# [21 12:11] <anne> it's implemented already
# [21 12:11] <chaals> We have one at Opera.
# [21 12:11] <bkode> so what if we found different ways of implementing it .
# [21 12:11] <chaals> then we would have two different implementations.
# [21 12:11] <chaals> If they are not interoperable, this would be a good argument to think harder...
# [21 12:12] <anne> bkode, what do you mean? Implementation details are not relevant
# [21 12:12] <bkode> alright. thanks for enlightening me on that... taking anoterh example... we all know of the onclick
# [21 12:12] <anne> interoperable is quite a heavy term imo, almost nothing is interoperable at this point
# [21 12:12] <anne> but most of it is usable
# [21 12:13] <bkode> if you are faimiliar with idempotent events... ie .. basically to prevent duplication .
# [21 12:13] <bkode> what would ur thoughts be on introducing an onclickwhen or <event>when attribute
# [21 12:14] <bkode> rather than having the complexity in managing idempotent events on the server side
# [21 12:15] <bkode> eg . a bank gateway...where duplicate clicks complexity could very well be made easier with a click that only accepts for say 'a time perio of 5 seconds'
# [21 12:16] <bkode> i have a javascript implementaion of this ... just to show how it would be otherwise..and how an <event-when> could easen things.
# [21 12:16] <anne> do you have some more elaborate documentation?
# [21 12:16] <bkode> http://bhaskervk.com/libraries/reusableJS/examples/idempotentEvent.html
# [21 12:16] <anne> anyway, ideas are best posted on some wiki or the whatwg mailing list
# [21 12:18] <bkode> thank you .
# [12:43] <Lachy> bkode, when suggesting ideas, it's best to present some clear use cases to be solved, rather than proposing a solution.
# [12:43] <Lachy> it may turn out that existing features can already satisfy those use cases without introducing any more, or a better solution can be found
# [13:09] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154)
# [13:30] * Quits: icaaq (icaaaq@85.228.53.245) (Ping timeout)
# [13:30] * Joins: icaaq_ (icaaaq@85.228.53.245)
# [13:41] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
# [13:43] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
# [13:50] * Quits: henrik (henrik@158.39.30.58) (Quit: henrik)
# [14:06] * Joins: marcos_ (chatzilla@203.206.31.102)
# [14:19] * Joins: Charl (charlvn@196.21.192.15)
# [14:19] <krijnh> :)
# [14:51] * Joins: glazman (daniel@80.118.184.70)
# [14:51] <glazman> hi there
# [14:52] * glazman is now known as glazou
# [14:52] <anne> allo
# [14:54] <chaals> salut glazou
# [14:54] * Joins: schnitz (Miranda@85.181.61.46)
# [14:54] <schnitz> hi
# [14:54] * Parts: icaaq_ (icaaaq@85.228.53.245)
# [14:57] <glazou> chaals: thanks for the forward to Art
# [14:58] <chaals> no worries.
# [14:58] <chaals> (anne is your contact at Opera for the WAF group, BTW)
# [14:58] * chaals is just a clueless manager
# [14:58] <glazou> rotfl
# [15:01] * anne doesn't think that's funny
# [15:01] <anne> :p
# [15:03] * @DanC is booting up a bit slowly today...
# [15:03] * chaals woudln't either, if he didn't get to laugh at the poor guy who has to work for such a clueless manager :P
# [15:04] <@DanC> usually reading lets me get to sleep, but last night it kept me up late
# [15:13] * chaals ditto :(
# [15:13] * chaals waves to danC
# [15:14] <chaals> But mostly I am just lurking here a bit, since i have a day job already and we have a real live rep in the working group as well as zillions of people subscribed...
# [15:14] <glazou> 169
# [15:14] * chaals meant zillions of operatives, but I think the real number is about 8
# [15:18] <anne> yup
# [15:18] <@DanC> any volunteers to collate http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/ftf07/results by member org? i.e. do we have interest in a May ftf from Apple, Opera, Volantis, etc?
# [15:19] * @DanC will ask the fols with SQL-level access to the database
# [15:19] <anne> opera and volantis said yes
# [15:19] <anne> apple hasn't checked yet afaik but I believe Maciej intends to fill it in
# [15:20] <anne> although actually, volantis didn't say yes for May
# [15:21] <@DanC> I'm a little paralyzed by the prospect of 2 international trips in May. I'm already behind on Banff travel details.
# [15:21] <anne> Dave Raggett is busy or something
# [15:21] <chaals> yeah, the wbs isn't very forthcoming about where people are from.
# [15:21] <anne> well, in theory all have equal say...
# [15:22] <@DanC> hmm... what theory is that? I think it's worth giving priority to people that have a lot of influence in the way HTML is produced and consumed
# [15:23] <@DanC> aha... dom points me to http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/ftf07/results?view=compact , which has affiliations
# [15:25] <anne> voting theory: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Votes
# [15:25] <anne> i suppose
# [15:25] <@DanC> voting is for when consensus breaks down. if we can't get consensus on a 1st ftf meeting, I won't bother.
# [15:26] <@DanC> consensus meaning: a critical mass in favor, and no objections
# [15:27] <@DanC> for "critical mass", I'm looking for the "3 browsers" from the charter, plus at least a handful of authoring tools, content developers, etc.
# [15:27] <@DanC> hmm... I wonder about a WBS form with boxes for content developer, software library developer, etc.
# [15:28] <anne> otoh, F2F meetings can just be planned... iirc no real descisions can be made there anyway, right?
# [15:28] * anne checks the charter
# [15:28] <@DanC> a WBS form can either be started or finished at a ftf meeting, but not both
# [15:29] <@DanC> I expect to give everybody a week to think about any formal decision; so that means proposals can be generated by ftf meetings, or proposals launched before ftf meetings can be finished, but not both ends.
# [15:29] <anne> what's a formal descision?
# [15:30] <@DanC> umm... a decision that follows some articulated form, I guess...
# [15:31] <@DanC> ... i.e. a decision of the WG, which would not be open for further discussion unless new information came to light
# [15:31] <anne> say x proposes a feature and y implements it in the spec
# [15:31] <anne> does formal descision take place?
# [15:31] <anne> a formal*
# [15:31] <@DanC> no
# [15:32] <@DanC> y could undo that part of the spec the next day
# [15:32] <anne> right
# [15:32] * Joins: gorme (gorm@213.236.208.22)
# [15:32] <@DanC> but then x might complain, and z weighs in, and perhaps consensus seems elusive; the chair then adds it to an issues list...
# [15:33] <@DanC> then, when a critical mass in some direction seems evident, the chair puts the question, collects positions for a week, and announces whether the question carried. if so, y is bound by the result.
# [15:33] <@DanC> as are x, z, and everybody else in the WG.
# [15:34] <anne> k
# [15:36] <@DanC> the 1st technical question is what spec(s) to start with. I have seen HTML5 advocated, but only buried in threads. I haven't lifted it to its own thread, because until Microsoft joins the WG, I can't compell them to give their considered opinion on the matter.
# [15:37] <anne> that and who'll be the editor is prolly what needs to be decided first, yes
# [15:37] <schnitz> right
# [15:38] <anne> and maybe do the form part separately or so, it's not entirely clear from the charter how that should work
# [15:38] <schnitz> agreed, that needs to be figured out
# [15:38] <@DanC> well, if the WG adopts the current HTML5 draft, Hixie is clearly part of the package; he has offered, and noone else has his knowledge of the text. I wouldn't formally decide who's the editor until we released a WD.
# [15:39] <@DanC> some people have suggested that the only choices are HTML5 and "start from scratch". I can imagine adopting parts of HTML5 but not others. e.g. there are more and less stable parts of it, yes?
# [15:39] * @DanC has a telcon in 8 minutes...
# [15:39] <anne> most of it is intertwined
# [15:39] <anne> and needs to be
# [15:39] <schnitz> DanC, thats an interesting possibility, I had been thinking in that direction too
# [15:39] <anne> i suppose you can split some APIs, but it's not really feasible
# [15:39] <schnitz> also, some folks said that there are part of XHTML2 that seem interesting aswell
# [15:40] <schnitz> s/part/parts
# [15:40] <@DanC> oh? I guess I missed that. who advocated parts of XHTML2?
# [15:41] <anne> (btw, why is backwards compatibility not in the charter? is it implied?)
# [15:41] <schnitz> ok, wait, let me dig it up in the archives, brb
# [15:41] <@DanC> searching for "compatibility", I find "A serialized form of such a language using a defined, non-XML syntax compatible with the 'classic HTML' parsers of existing Web browsers."
# [15:42] * Joins: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
# [15:42] <anne> yeah, syntax compatible...
# [15:43] <anne> oh well, if it's not compatible it won't get passed CR
# [15:43] <@DanC> if "compatibility" isn't sufficiently explicit in the charter, I'd welcome a brainstorming goal thread about it. I have a draft in progress on doing that for the 10% market threshold.
# [15:43] <anne> not much of an issue
# [15:43] <anne> oh cool
# [15:44] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
# [15:44] <schnitz> e.g. "Similarly, there are several things in XHTML2 that are not in HTML5
# [15:44] <@DanC> I don't expect to wait for CR for stuff like compatibility, testing, etc.
# [15:44] <schnitz> but which I think are architecturally more sound and should be in there."
# [15:44] <schnitz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0085.html
# [15:45] <anne> he doesn't really elaborate much
# [15:45] <@DanC> does 0085 give any examples of such things? I don't see any.
# [15:45] <anne> or was that the <h> / < section> debate?
# [15:45] <@DanC> I'm starting to think of the HTML WG as the QA department of the WHATWG.
# [15:46] <schnitz> well, without getting in too much detail, there might be the option of taking parts of HTML5 and XHTML2, and when discussion starts, some folks might provide more details... its a possibility, thats all, as DanC said
# [15:46] <anne> some people see it as the getting rid of patents department...
# [15:46] <@DanC> i.e. WHATWG brainstorms and designs, and then the HTML WG plays "defense", makes tests, worries a little about laywers, etc.
# [15:47] <anne> schnitz, only parts that are backwards compatible could be taken and afaik that has already happened
# [15:47] <@DanC> well, it's not a sufficiently clear possibility to act on, at this point. That's why I asked people to flesh out the details of any goal/issue/proposal to the point of attaching an example/test document.
# [15:48] <schnitz> DanC, thats right, and I thought that was a good start, lets see if people are holding back on issues just because we're not in shape yet
# [15:48] * anne could e-mail cc lots of e-mails but isn't sure that's the way to go
# [15:49] <anne> s/emails/tests/
# [15:49] <anne> bah
# [15:49] <@DanC> we're holding back on *group decisions*; anybody who is holding back on their own goals or issues is not doing what I'd like.
# [15:49] <schnitz> DanC, ah ok, but for example the stuff around XForms Transitional is very much in this regard, and I thought it should be held back
# [15:50] <@DanC> somebody sent some pointers to tests; was that you, anne? responding to that is on my todo list.
# [15:50] <anne> i e-mailed pointers to testsuites for Web Forms 2 and <canvas>
# [15:50] <anne> and HTML parsing
# [15:50] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
# [15:50] <anne> and I think James added some tests for encoding sniffing in text/html which he recently added to html5lib
# [15:51] <@DanC> what should be held back is talk about what "we" should do. but anybody who wants XForms Transitional should be saying "I want XForms transitional; the attached document shows something cool you can do with it."
# [15:51] <schnitz> DanC, aha, good, that was a misunderstanding, thank you
# [15:52] <Lachy> well, I don't want XForms Transitional. It does nothing that WF2 can't handle, and WF2 is already much more well defined
# [15:52] <Lachy> ... and implemented in one UA
# [15:52] <schnitz> Lachy, thats fine, we can debate this in the public-html list
# [15:52] <anne> (and has a testsuite + several scripted implementations)
# [15:52] <anne> (fwiw)
# [15:53] <@DanC> I thought the WYSIWYM editors thread was great... I hope to explore some of the criticisms of WF2 w.r.t. authoring.
# [15:54] <@DanC> on the other hand, forms authoring is not MacWrite
# [15:55] * @DanC should really call time out for 3 days and actually learn XForms enough to be able to effectively chair discussions about this stuff
# [15:55] <@DanC> but right now, I'm off to a GRDDL WG telcon...
# [15:55] <schnitz> DanC, there are some really good tutorials out there :-)
# [15:55] <schnitz> right, me too...
# [15:56] <schnitz> laters...
# [15:57] * Parts: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
# [15:59] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@63.245.208.169)
# [16:12] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
# [16:12] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Client exited)
# [16:13] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
# [16:18] <anne> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ logs too
# [16:18] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
# [16:18] <krijnh> Yeah, it does
# [16:18] <krijnh> Don't know why
# [16:19] <anne> wfm
# [16:20] <krijnh> wfm?
# [16:20] <hasather> krijnh: means works for me
# [16:21] <krijnh> Ow, I thought wait for me :)
# [16:22] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
# [16:44] * Quits: gorme (gorm@213.236.208.22) (Ping timeout)
# [16:59] * Quits: anne (annevk@81.68.67.12) (Ping timeout)
# [17:28] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Quit: gavin)
# [17:29] <NicolasLG> Bye everybody !
# [17:30] * Quits: NicolasLG (me@86.220.190.51) (Quit: NicolasLG)
# [17:34] <chaals> danc?
# [17:35] <chaals> do you have systems foo to sort out an invited exeprt's password problems (Gregory Rosmaita) for joining ths group?
# [17:35] <chaals> or should I go to sysreq?
# [17:36] * chaals goes there anyway...
# [17:36] <chaals> hmmm. lunchtime.
# [17:36] * glazou is tired and should sleep again at night
# [17:37] * chaals plans to sleep tonight (unlike last night :(
# [17:39] * @DanC finishes GRDDL WG telcon, tunes in...
# [17:40] <@DanC> I have authorization do do some parts of the IE process and not others. My mode of working for the most part is to let karl do it until gets stuck.
# [17:40] <chaals> oki
# [17:40] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@71.198.189.81)
# [17:41] <@DanC> I think I have about a dozen people who wrote to me only and not to karl; I should get back to them sometime.
# [17:41] <@DanC> but considering that now >100 people have learned to jump thru the hoops, I figure people can teach each other at this point.
# [17:42] <chaals> This one is to do with an old account that is not configured according to the current magic, apparently
# [17:42] <@DanC> let's see...
# [17:43] * @DanC makes it as far as http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/invitedExpert?login=grosmai ...
# [17:43] <@DanC> "Gregory Rosmaita is an invited expert with Member access." which means w3m is in the critical path. :-/
# [17:44] <@DanC> I forget whether that means karl has to ask w3m, or mauro notices automatically somehow or what.
# [17:45] <chaals> oki. Gregory and I can chase Karl/Mauro
# [17:45] * @DanC waves to dbaron
# [17:47] <@DanC> my brainstorming excercise didn't go quite as I'd hoped... it didn't result in each of mozilla, apple, etc. stating their goals. I wonder if a telcon is the best icebreaker of that sort
# [17:47] <@DanC> or we could do email introductions
# [17:47] <@DanC> or a WBS survey deely
# [17:48] * Joins: anne (annevk@86.90.70.28)
# [17:49] <glazou> chaals: mail sent to Netvibes CEO
# [17:49] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
# [17:51] <anne> DanC, I think the main problem is that it's not clear whether or not the WG has started
# [17:52] <@DanC> indeed, some parts have started, some have not. People keep asking for group decisions. I don't want to do that until Microsoft joins. But I'd like people to separate group decisions from their own goals/issues/requirements.
# [17:53] <anne> perhaps you should send a new e-mail stating that?
# [17:53] <@DanC> I think we can make a ftf decision, now that we've heard from Chris.
# [17:53] * glazou was about to write the same as anne
# [17:54] <@DanC> well, I've said it in 4 or 5 different mail messages. will saying it LOUDER help? ;-)
# [17:54] <chaals> glazou, tusen takk
# [17:54] <glazou> chaals: var s� god
# [17:55] * glazou sees at least one swede here
# [17:55] <hasather> glazou: hi :)
# [17:55] <glazou> tjena
# [17:55] * chaals waves to schnitz
# [17:56] <schnitz> hey chaaaals :-)
# [17:56] * chaals back in a minute or 5
# [17:57] * Joins: icaaq_ (icaaaq@85.228.53.245)
# [17:57] <schnitz> 'k
# [17:58] <@DanC> I'm not sure I can make the point about group decisions vs people's own goals in email. I think synchronous contact makes it clear in a way that no mail message can. the catch-22 is that calling a teleconference is a group decision. Maybe today I can un-paralyze myself on that one.
# [17:58] * Hixie looks in and waves
# [17:59] <glazou> hi Hixie
# [17:59] * @DanC tries to remember how well Hixie and dbaron know each other
# [17:59] <Hixie> DanC: test case development is certainly one thing that the whatwg has done very little of (we have a few hundred tests for a few specific things like parsing, but that's all)
# [17:59] <Hixie> DanC: so i agree that if we want to avoid overlap, testcase development would be a great thing to work on
# [18:00] <Hixie> DanC: it's also one of the most effective ways to guide what the spec says :-)
# [18:00] <@DanC> yeah
# [18:01] <@DanC> it seems that for every person willing to craft a test case, 100 people are willing to wax philosophical about the merits of this tag or that. I suppose that's just life.
# [18:01] <anne> heh
# [18:01] * Joins: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.180.242)
# [18:01] <anne> it's easier to write an e-mail than to actually do something
# [18:01] <@DanC> maybe if I started making it clear that the W3C HTML WG is mostly about making a test suite, we'd stop getting a dozen people joining a day
# [18:02] <anne> much like chatting is an effective way to keep yourself from real work
# [18:02] <@DanC> sometimes chatting is real work
# [18:03] <glazou> anne: you can't imagine how many decisions in W3C WGs were taken in the corridor during informal chats with a coffee mug in hand
# [18:03] <@DanC> so... experimenting with some pointed questions... chaals, dbaron, what do you think about taking on HTML5 wholesale as the baseline?
# [18:04] <kingryan> tantek and I make important decisions re:microformats while walking to get coffee :D
# [18:04] * glazou thinks it's the only choice, DanC...
# [18:04] <@DanC> glazou, IIRC, your mail messages say "HTML5 is worth a review; pls give me a copy that will hold still for a bit"
# [18:04] <glazou> my suggestion was to use html5 as the ground layer for HTML WG work
# [18:05] <glazou> to do so, we need the head of svn
# [18:05] <glazou> and be able to review it before it changes too much
# [18:05] <chaals> My reservations: There are a bunch of new elements that as far as I know are not implemented anywhere. That seems like a tricky thing to take on sight-unseen.
# [18:05] * schnitz agrees with chaals
# [18:05] * Joins: bfults (bfults@66.162.32.234)
# [18:05] <chaals> But there is a bunch of good stuff there in terms of cleaning up HTML.
# [18:06] <glazou> I am not saying HTML WG has to agree on the whole html5 spec
# [18:06] <@DanC> yes, chaals, I haven't read the whole thing, but I could do without, say, the <m> thingy. The question is whether it's an acceptable burden on those who want it out to ask them to argue their case with the editor.
# [18:06] <glazou> I am just saying we should probably not reinvent the wheel
# [18:06] <Hixie> well the whatwg hasn't agreed on the whole whatwg spec yet either
# [18:06] <Hixie> so... :-)
# [18:06] * Joins: Dave (dsr@128.30.52.30)
# [18:06] <chaals> My suggestion would be to work through HTML 401 and HTML5 side by side, to get a base...
# [18:06] <glazou> side question, what's the status of the current discussion ? informal chat ?
# [18:06] <chaals> (but if you want to know what Opera thinks you should email and get an answer from Lars Erik ... :)
# [18:07] <chaals> [I believe it is informal chat]
# [18:07] <@DanC> the whatwg has agreed that the HTML5 spec will stay like it is unless/until somebody convinces hixie to change it. that's more than the W3C HTML WG has agreed, though it's not out of reach.
# [18:07] <anne> fwiw: there's a list of difference with HTML4 on the WHATWG wiki
# [18:07] <anne> (apart of course from obvious differences such as that HTML4 defines almost nothing and HTML5 does)
# [18:07] <@DanC> ooh... pointer to list of diffs?
# [18:07] * anne looks for a pointer
# [18:08] <anne> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/HTML_vs._XHTML#Differences_Between_HTML_4.01_and_HTML_5
# [18:08] <Hixie> DanC: in a way, yeah. there's several 1000 outstanding comments for me to deal with that i'm going through now. the comment-responding speed is slowly ramping up.
# [18:08] * glazou has to go on daddy duty for the evening/night ; bye people
# [18:08] <Hixie> later glazou
# [18:08] * Quits: glazou (daniel@80.118.184.70) (Quit: daddy duty)
# [18:09] <anne> Hixie, the only problem is the 500 new e-mails every month (onlist)
# [18:09] <schnitz> thats a problem in itself, yes
# [18:09] <Hixie> once i start dealing with them i can go faster than that :-)
# [18:09] <schnitz> that was part of the stability issue we had on the list
# [18:09] <Hixie> for xbl2 i was replying to 50 messages a day
# [18:10] <anne> yeah prolly
# [18:10] <Hixie> so long as the rate of new messages is less than 50 a day, it's a solvable problem.
# [18:10] <chaals> Well, all you need to do is reply to another 100/night and you're set, right? ;)
# [18:10] <schnitz> having such a running target is a problem...
# [18:10] <schnitz> I am not saying development should stop
# [18:10] <Hixie> (50 a day comes out to about 10,000 a year, which is well within our current receive rate)
# [18:10] <schnitz> just thats its about establishing trust
# [18:10] <chaals> The content model of map changed - it is just area, right?
# [18:11] <schnitz> and thats hard to establish when everything is liquid
# [18:11] <kingryan> if people want to review a particular version of the spec, they can refer to the relevant SVN revision
# [18:11] <schnitz> stability, trust & standard belong together
# [18:12] <anne> chaals, is now
# [18:12] * Joins: icaaq (icaaaq@85.228.53.245)
# [18:12] <anne> chaals, yes
# [18:12] * Quits: icaaq_ (icaaaq@85.228.53.245) (Ping timeout)
# [18:12] <schnitz> I think its hard to avoid a fork between html-wg and whatwg
# [18:13] <schnitz> not because of evil action, but dynamics
# [18:13] <Hixie> well, if html-wg doesn't take on the whatwg work wholesale, i'll be making sure whatwg stays in sync with whatever htmlwg does anyway
# [18:13] <anne> i think Hixie already mentioned that the WHATWG spec would be a superset of the HTML work (unless they are in fact the same)
# [18:13] <anne> so that shouldn't be a problem
# [18:13] <Hixie> (though yeah, i expect the whatwg spec will always be more detailed if they're not identical)
# [18:13] <schnitz> lets see, I'm not so optimistic
# [18:14] <Hixie> what do you see happening that would stop that?
# [18:14] <schnitz> well, in some places the HTML WG may decide to alter semantics
# [18:14] <schnitz> like not taking parts of HTML 5
# [18:14] <schnitz> in that case the whatwg would have to retro-fit
# [18:14] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.139.123.225)
# [18:14] <anne> then WHATWG HTML5 would still be a superset...
# [18:15] <Hixie> well then the whatwg spec would be a superset of html
# [18:15] <@DanC> to be frank, so far, I don't see anybody other than Hixie doing any actual spec writing. Until that changes, the options are few.
# [18:15] <Hixie> heh
# [18:15] <schnitz> DanC, sure
# [18:15] <Hixie> there's that too :-)
# [18:15] <anne> I suppose another exception clause might be that browser vendors are no longer interested in the HTMLWG for one reason or another
# [18:15] <Hixie> well yeah
# [18:16] <Hixie> i mean this is all assuming that we continue to care about the htmlwg, but i don't see why we would not
# [18:16] <@DanC> and I'm not inclined to hand out writing assignments to anybody who volunteers. volunteers should be willing to write something without being asked, and take the risk that nobody will ever read it.
# [18:16] <schnitz> hixie, interesting question is, in case the HTML WG decides to significantly change a portion of HTML5, will the WHATWG be willing to accept that? Or stay in its original, current version?
# [18:16] <chaals> depends on the change, no?
# [18:16] <schnitz> chaals, sure
# [18:16] <@DanC> yes, surely it depends on the change
# [18:16] <anne> well, the HTMLWG largely consists of WHATWG people...
# [18:16] <Hixie> schnitz: i will keep both in sync, whether that means arguing the change in the html wg, or just accepting the change in the whatwg.
# [18:16] <chaals> As a general question it seems a bit unanswerable...
# [18:17] <schnitz> chaals, right, and thats why I am saying it may be that a fork can happen between whatwg and html-wg
# [18:17] <anne> :s
# [18:17] <bfults> doesn't seem like something worth worrying about until it happens
# [18:17] <bfults> (and if)
# [18:18] <schnitz> sure, I won't expand...
# [18:19] <@DanC> hmm... dbaron didn't bite on the HTML5 question, so perhaps I'll try a different topic: IE doesn't always parse to a tree. sometimes it makes a lattice, I gather. But the HTML5 spec always gives a tree. does anybody have a test case to illustrate this issue?
# [18:19] <Hixie> yeah, see my blog :-)
# [18:19] <gsnedders> I haven't really heard anybody mention anything apart from the patent policy when it comes to fork WA1.0
# [18:19] <Hixie> let's see if i can get a link
# [18:19] <dbaron> sorry, I don't really have time to respond until after lunch
# [18:19] * Joins: robert (rbrodrec@66.151.50.244)
# [18:20] <Hixie> danc: http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1137740632&count=1
# [18:20] <Hixie> danc: no wait
# [18:20] <Hixie> danc: http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1037910467&count=1
# [18:20] <@DanC> no problem, dbaron ; here's hoping we both find some spare attention at the same time.
# [18:20] <gavin> heh, I like how the current random flickr picture is of a volleyball team...
# [18:21] * Quits: Charl (charlvn@196.21.192.15) (Quit: Charl)
# [18:22] <Hixie> DanC: actually both of those have a testcase. see also http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1138169545&count=1 http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1155195074&count=1 http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1158969783&count=1
# [18:22] <@DanC> thanks, Hixie; I just rea-read 1037910467 ... so is HTML5 incompatible with IE6 in this respect?
# [18:22] <@DanC> and opera, for that matter?
# [18:23] <anne> yes
# [18:24] <hsivonen> DanC: the HTML5 parsing algorithm is as compatible as it gets while keeping the output as a tree that does not have private annotations
# [18:24] <@DanC> I'm trying to remember... has anybody from opera said "let's start with HTML5" in so many words in public-html? or are any operators interested to offer a position now?
# [18:24] <hsivonen> (IE not keeping it as a tree in all cases and Opera having private annotations apparently)
# [18:25] <hsivonen> DanC: Howcome said that up front
# [18:25] <anne> DanC, howcome I think
# [18:25] <Dave> what do you mean by "operators" Dan?
# [18:25] <@DanC> so opera is happy to either accept the HTML5 parsing design or argue for something different, I gather.
# [18:26] <bfults> Operators? people of Opera?
# [18:26] <@DanC> chaals earlier used "operators" to mean "people of Opera", I think
# [18:26] <Dave> ta
# [18:26] <anne> yeah, if we disagree with something we'll just raise that on some list
# [18:26] <anne> at least, that's what we normally do
# [18:27] <@DanC> I think Chris Wilson has taken a pretty strong position in the other direction.
# [18:28] <@DanC> maybe he'd be happy to use HTML5 as the starting draft, provided certain things like that parsing example go on the issues list.
# [18:28] <hsivonen> DanC: in the comments section of his blog, Wilson said MS won't change HTML 4 parsing but they'd be open to implement a de jure algorithm for HTML5 (presumably by sniffing the doctype)
# [18:28] <gsnedders> hsivonen: I thought he said they wouldn't change HTML4 parsing in any backwards incompatible way
# [18:28] * chaals usually says "Operatives" ...
# [18:29] <gsnedders> so if it were 100% backwards compatible, they could use it
# [18:29] <@DanC> well, hsivonen, my impression is that Wilson said MS won't change how any existing documents are parsed, but if we make some new never-before-used signal (a la a new DOCTYPE), MS could implement new rules for that. but the HTML5 spec is *specifically* targetted at existing content, yes?
# [18:29] <anne> making it 100% backwards compatible would lead to changes to the DOM and other things we'd rather not do I think
# [18:29] <anne> (such as figuring out how CSS applies to a non-tree)
# [18:29] <chaals> danc, I would have to ask Lars Erik to answer that question, and he has kids so is an early-in-the-day type.
# [18:29] <hsivonen> gsnedders: well, 100% compat means having a non-tree in some cases, which would be architecturally bad for the other browsers
# [18:30] <gsnedders> anne: I'm aware. But It's a subtle and important difference between what was said and what Chris said
# [18:30] <@DanC> ok, noted, chaals
# [18:30] <anne> hsivonen, and for the rest of the specs
# [18:30] <hsivonen> DanC: my understanding is that the HTML5 algorithm is designed to work with existing content. but that's no reason for MS not to implement it for new content.
# [18:31] <@DanC> well, it's pretty boring if the W3C comes out with a new HTML spec that is still inconsistent with IE on some large portion of the web.
# [18:31] <Hixie> yeah, that's why we went to such lengths in the whatwg to avoid that
# [18:31] <@DanC> I should finish my post(s) on my goal(s) for the HTML spec.
# [18:32] <hsivonen> DanC: do you really want to be compatible in a way that potentially causes tree algorithms not to terminate?
# [18:32] <hsivonen> (that wouldn't be nice for Firefox extension writers etc.)
# [18:32] <Hixie> it wouldn't be nice for CSS and the DOM, either
# [18:32] <Hixie> i mean we'd basically have to rearchitect all of the core W3C browser technologies
# [18:32] <@DanC> well, I don't want to... but I want to learn more about whether authors depend on that behaviour of IE and why before we make a decision.
# [18:33] <Hixie> if they did, then all other browsers would be broken
# [18:33] <hsivonen> to the extent Firefox, Safari and Opera function as Web browsers, it has been proven by demonstration that treeness is sufficiently compatible
# [18:33] <anne> -Opera
# [18:34] <Hixie> opera has a tree
# [18:34] <hsivonen> anne: you guys do have a tree, right?
# [18:34] <anne> well, sort of
# [18:34] <Hixie> it's just a tree with annotations to make the css model different
# [18:34] <anne> the DOM represents a tree, yes
# [18:35] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.40.185)
# [18:35] <jmb> is there any record of the differences between the whatwg algorithm and what IE does? that'd give some kind of focus on whether those differences are important
# [18:35] <@DanC> hm... so the question is whether MS would agree to a new HTML spec that says IE6 is doing it wrong. I suppose they agreed to HTML4.
# [18:36] <anne> jmb, there are some blogposts...
# [18:36] <anne> DanC, IE6 would be doing lots of things wrong, not just parsing
# [18:36] <hsivonen> jmb: what IE does is not thoroughly publicly documented.
# [18:36] <gsnedders> but what doe agreeing to HTML4 actually mean?
# [18:36] <gsnedders> *does
# [18:36] <Hixie> IE6 is already doing things wrong today...
# [18:36] <anne> same for all other current browser releases btw
# [18:36] <Hixie> compared to all other w3c specs, i mean
# [18:37] <Hixie> much like every other browser
# [18:37] <@DanC> umm... as far as I can tell, IE6 is doing it right by definition for most web users.
# [18:37] <Hixie> jmb: look at the blog posts i posted earlier
# [18:37] <jmb> hsivonen: of course. any such resource would have to be best-effort
# [18:37] <@DanC> and for people building bank web sites, etc.
# [18:37] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.99.134)