/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2007-03-30 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Fri Mar 30 00:00:00 2007
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:01] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Ping timeout)
  4. # [00:03] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  5. # [00:06] * Quits: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.187.33) (Connection reset by peer)
  6. # [00:07] * Joins: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.187.33)
  7. # [00:17] * Quits: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174) (Client exited)
  8. # [00:21] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  9. # [00:32] * Joins: cying (cying@75.41.112.100)
  10. # [00:36] <Hixie> can someone explain what SPAM-LOW means?
  11. # [00:37] <cying> Hixie: i'll bet it's a spam filter adding something to the subject header
  12. # [00:37] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  13. # [00:38] <hsivonen> Hixie: my guess is that Schinkel got offended when it was pointed out to him that he both complained about mail volume and originated not-so-useful mail
  14. # [00:38] <Hixie> cying: looks intentional to me
  15. # [00:38] <Hixie> hsivonen: but what does it mean?
  16. # [00:38] <cying> Hixie: oh, i guess i see it all over google mail list archives
  17. # [00:38] <Hixie> oh
  18. # [00:38] <Hixie> maybe it isn't then
  19. # [00:39] <cying> Hixie: unless mike likes to talk on all of those mailing lists
  20. # [00:39] <hsivonen> Hixie: I though he was pre-labeling his stuff as spam as a demonstration
  21. # [00:40] <h3h> Hixie: I emailed Mike about that
  22. # [00:40] <hsivonen> cying: I may be wrong, but those labels appeared immediately after Schinkel was contacted off-list about the mail volume
  23. # [00:40] <h3h> I'm guessing it's his own spam software
  24. # [00:40] <h3h> it's annoying.
  25. # [00:40] <hsivonen> oh. ok.
  26. # [00:40] <hsivonen> I was wrong then
  27. # [00:41] <Hixie> strange people
  28. # [00:41] <h3h> I think it's a simple oversight on his part
  29. # [00:41] <Hixie> :-)
  30. # [00:41] <h3h> though very glaring in Gmail because it destroys the threading
  31. # [00:41] <h3h> Gmail needs to use jwz threading
  32. # [00:41] <cying> is a canvas tag or other vector graphics feature in the charter for HTML5?
  33. # [00:41] <hasather> seems quite common: http://www.google.com/search?q=spam-low
  34. # [00:41] <cying> or rather the HTML WG version of HTML5?
  35. # [00:41] <Philip> There are systems like http://www.dotnetted.co.uk/support/dotnetted/spam_virus_filtering.asp that apparently add SPAM-LOW to the subject line to indicate spamminess (I guess so mail clients can filter it easily), and presumably he doesn't remove that when responding
  36. # [00:42] <h3h> terrible :\
  37. # [00:42] <hsivonen> wow
  38. # [00:42] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  39. # [00:42] <h3h> i swear, 90% of developers wouldn't know good software if it hit them square in the face
  40. # [00:43] <h3h> maybe that's a conservative estimate
  41. # [00:44] <hsivonen> It didn't occur to me that filters would tamper with the subject instead of putting filterable flags in a custom header
  42. # [00:45] <h3h> never underestimate the power of idiots writing software?
  43. # [00:50] <cying> so no vector graphics in HTMLWG?
  44. # [00:50] <cying> does that all go into SVG?
  45. # [00:50] <Philip> cying: I think the charter isn't the place for mentioning specific features like that - but I don't see why canvas wouldn't be included, seeing as it's already specified and implemented widely
  46. # [00:50] <Hixie> cying: it is as yet undecided
  47. # [00:51] * Quits: heycam (cam@203.214.111.54) (Ping timeout)
  48. # [00:51] <cying> Philip: Hixie: ah... i guess i'm wondering if we will rev canvas to suit the 2010 timeframe for this spec...
  49. # [00:52] <Hixie> how do you mean?
  50. # [00:52] <hsivonen> cying: what do mean? No <canvas>? No SVG namespace special casing with the parsing algorithm?
  51. # [00:52] <Hixie> the timeframe in the charter is a joke
  52. # [00:52] <Hixie> i wouldn't worry about it too much
  53. # [00:52] <Hixie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2006Nov/0001.html has a more realistic timetable
  54. # [00:52] <cying> Hixie: i guess i mean, how forward looking should HTMLWG be w.r.t. canvas? i'd hate for this iteration of canvas to be it for the next 5 years
  55. # [00:53] * Joins: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30)
  56. # [00:53] <cying> Hixie: holy crap, that's far out in the future
  57. # [00:54] <Hixie> cying: <canvas> is available today. over time we may add more features, that might be in html6. I expect that eventually HTML5 and HTML6 will be developed in paralell.
  58. # [00:54] <Hixie> 2022 is not that far out in the future. consider that html4 came out 9 years ago and still hasn't reached the last step of that timetable (it's stuck in the CR step)
  59. # [00:54] <cying> Hixie: is HTML6 in WHATWG or in HTMLWG?
  60. # [00:54] <Hixie> (though formally the w3c has ignored that)
  61. # [00:55] <Hixie> cying: it's a hypothetical spec, doesn't exist yet. i'm just saying that whoever does work on html6 will probably work on it in parallel with html5
  62. # [00:55] <cying> ah
  63. # [00:55] <Hixie> near the end of the cycle they are bound to overlap
  64. # [00:56] <hsivonen> Hixie: IIRC, at one point tantek was extracting testable assertions from HTML 4.01. did that do anywhere? did the WG drop the ball?
  65. # [00:56] <Hixie> hsivonen: you're asking if the xhtml wg dropped the ball on something? do i really need to answer that question?
  66. # [00:56] <hsivonen> no :-/
  67. # [00:57] <hsivonen> but tantek *was* extracting testable assertions, right?
  68. # [00:57] <Hixie> yeah
  69. # [00:58] * Quits: h3h (bfults@66.162.32.234) (Quit: |)
  70. # [00:58] <Philip> cying: The canvas implementations are already being extended before any standardisation, e.g. with 3D in Firefox/Opera, so I'd expect it's unlikely that we'll be stuck with unchanging implementations for five years
  71. # [00:59] <cying> Philip: ah
  72. # [01:00] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Ping timeout)
  73. # [01:05] <cying> Philip: i wonder where the best place to influence implementations would be then...
  74. # [01:05] <cying> since after reading Canvas, there might be a few things i'd change to help improve it
  75. # [01:07] <Philip> The WHATWG mailing list seems to be the place for that kind of discussion at the moment
  76. # [01:07] <cying> ah ha!
  77. # [01:07] <cying> (fires up mailing list manager)
  78. # [01:12] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  79. # [01:13] <mjs> hsivonen: sort of
  80. # [01:13] <mjs> hsivonen: if you look at the html4 test suite, it includes a methodology document that explains what procedure he supposedly used
  81. # [01:14] <mjs> hsivonen: but if you look at the testable assertions cited for test cases, some of them are not recognizable as such even with his extended semantics
  82. # [01:16] <mjs> hsivonen: for instance some test cases cite sentences that appear to be conformance requirements for content, or that use the word "may"
  83. # [01:18] * Joins: Lachy_ (chatzilla@58.105.240.232)
  84. # [01:23] <Hixie> if you want to read the html4 spec with an eye to making a test suite or an interoperable implementation, you'll need so much salt that it'll have a distint affect on the worldwide salt prices.
  85. # [01:25] * DanC is away: family time
  86. # [01:25] * Quits: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.187.33) (Quit: kingryan)
  87. # [01:26] <mjs> I get no end of amusement that the definition of "conforming user agent" at http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/conform.html contradicts itself
  88. # [01:26] <cying> i sense some frustration
  89. # [01:26] <Hixie> cying: nah, more amusement now. these problems are mostly solved in html5.
  90. # [01:27] <cying> Hixie: indeed (sadly looks at the SVG spec)
  91. # [01:27] <cying> Hixie: maybe WHATWG can start a SVG2 spec?
  92. # [01:28] <mjs> SVG5 is further down the agenda
  93. # [01:28] <cying> mjs: really?
  94. # [01:29] <mjs> cying: well, there's no real plan for it, but if the SVG WG doesn't fix it, someone else will have to
  95. # [01:30] * cying rolls up his sleeves.
  96. # [01:32] <Lachy_> cying, there's also some talk of XML5, HTTP5 and everything else that's currently broken
  97. # [01:32] <cying> interesting!
  98. # [01:32] <Lachy_> We're moving from Web 2.0 to 5.0!
  99. # [01:32] <cying> very nice
  100. # [01:35] <Lachy_> mjs: what is it exactly that's contradictory in that? Is it just the statment about arbitrary limits that contradicts the capacities in the SGML Decl?
  101. # [01:41] <Hixie> Lachy_: it says:
  102. # [01:41] <Hixie> Lachy_: "A conforming user agent for HTML 4 is one that observes the mandatory conditions ("must") set forth in this specification, including the following points: A user agent should..."
  103. # [01:42] <Hixie> should means you don't have to do it if you have good reason not to. but it says if you don't do it you're not conforming.
  104. # [01:42] <mjs> Lachy_: it says a user againt must follow all mandatory conditions including... and then lists two that by the keywords are non-mandatory
  105. # [01:42] <mjs> there's also a "recommend" in their three bullet points
  106. # [01:43] <Hixie> yeah
  107. # [01:43] <mjs> so I don't know how you would ever decide if those are valid testable assertions
  108. # [01:44] <Hixie> i do
  109. # [01:44] <Hixie> you'd check the html5 spec :-D
  110. # [01:44] * Parts: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  111. # [01:54] * Quits: tylerr (tylerr@66.195.32.2) (Quit: Leaving)
  112. # [02:01] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30)
  113. # [02:10] * Joins: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84)
  114. # [02:18] <karl> 243 group participants,
  115. # [02:20] <Dashiva> Strength in numbers
  116. # [02:21] <karl> Dashiva: more likely temperatures :p
  117. # [02:21] <Dashiva> Do we invited experts still make up 90% of the group?
  118. # [02:22] <karl> * 243 group participants,
  119. # [02:22] <karl> * 243 in good standing,
  120. # [02:22] <karl> * 40 participants from 13 organizations
  121. # [02:22] <karl> * 203 Invited Experts
  122. # [02:22] * Joins: Grauw (ask@202.71.92.74)
  123. # [02:22] <karl> 84%
  124. # [02:31] * Joins: DougJ (djones4@74.76.23.86)
  125. # [02:37] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254) (Quit: Leaving)
  126. # [02:44] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  127. # [02:47] <karl> DougJ: http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/ W3C Glossary
  128. # [02:49] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  129. # [02:52] <Grauw> I'm really starting to use the labeling function in Thunderbird for the first time, to mark posts that I want to reference for later, when the actual discussion will be taking place ^_^
  130. # [02:54] <karl> :)
  131. # [02:55] <DougJ> karl: yes, I have been there. Am also reviewing again HTML 4.01 and WHATWG Web App 1.0 docs for definitions. Am rethinking need, but believe statement of general definitions of certain terms and creating HTML WG specific definitions will help focus some discussions. Just my looking at definitions has shown me that even different dictionaries from the same publisher can have differing definitions for the same word.
  132. # [02:55] <DougJ> Probably won't decide for a couple of days.
  133. # [02:56] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.97.200) (Quit: mjs)
  134. # [02:56] <karl> DougJ: the best in this case is to collect definitions from the glossary and from hixie's spec and then draft a document and send it to public-html@w3.org for comments
  135. # [02:57] <karl> You can even do let's say 5 words a day and in one week you will have a glossary of 25 words.
  136. # [02:57] <karl> Small tasks every day, less than 30 minutes. 5 minutes by word.
  137. # [02:58] <karl> writing including
  138. # [02:58] <karl> including writing I meant
  139. # [03:00] <DougJ> Good idea. Been doing what I have in blocks and dribbles anyway. Plan to include problem and solution statements as well.
  140. # [03:14] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.242) (Ping timeout)
  141. # [03:21] * Quits: Philip (excors@80.177.163.133) (Quit: Philip)
  142. # [04:20] * Joins: glazou (daniel@212.180.54.82)
  143. # [04:20] <glazou> hi
  144. # [04:23] <karl> hi daniel
  145. # [04:23] <karl> glazou: you got mail ;)
  146. # [04:28] <glazou> just answered
  147. # [04:29] <glazou> and hi:)
  148. # [04:29] <Grauw> oh, how wonderful is that latest message on the list :)
  149. # [04:29] <glazou> karl: what's the cheapest online retailer for digital camera stuff in japan ?
  150. # [04:29] <Grauw> *cough* *cough*
  151. # [04:29] <glazou> Grauw: isn't it ?-)
  152. # [04:30] <Grauw> :)
  153. # [04:30] <glazou> I don't know who is this John Bachir but I think he could leave the group...
  154. # [04:31] <Grauw> yeah
  155. # [04:32] <MikeSmith> glazou - the online electronics retailers here in japan are all in a competitive steel-cage death match to undercut each others' business in every way they can, so their base prices are mostly the same
  156. # [04:32] <MikeSmith> Yodobashi, BicCamera
  157. # [04:32] <glazou> ok so what's the best ?
  158. # [04:32] <glazou> biccamera, I was there
  159. # [04:32] <glazou> what a mess :-)
  160. # [04:32] <glazou> but I did appreciate the miniskirts of the waitresses
  161. # [04:33] <MikeSmith> the best is whichever one, when you go into the shop and haggle with them, gives you the most free stuff when you buy somehing :)
  162. # [04:33] <MikeSmith> ? I must have missed the miniskirted waitressess at biccamera
  163. # [04:33] * MikeSmith makes mental note
  164. # [04:34] <karl> the latest message should just be ignored, IMHO. it
  165. # [04:34] <karl> Yoddobashi, or biccamera
  166. # [04:34] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
  167. # [04:34] <karl> or glazou you can try to convince me to bring something ;) if I come in France in May ;)
  168. # [04:35] <mjs> hello
  169. # [04:38] * Lachy_ replied to John Bachir's e-mail
  170. # [04:38] <mjs> good reply
  171. # [04:38] <Lachy_> thanks
  172. # [04:41] * Parts: DougJ (djones4@74.76.23.86)
  173. # [04:42] <glazou> Grauw, Lachy, I am about to answer too
  174. # [04:42] <glazou> karl: UUUUUUUH :-)
  175. # [04:44] <glazou> Lachy_: sent
  176. # [04:46] <glazou> browsing biccamera.com is deliciously disorienting :-)
  177. # [04:50] <marcos_> OMG! John should keep email like that to himself.
  178. # [04:51] <glazou> yes
  179. # [04:51] * marcos_ really wanted to use lots of swear words then....
  180. # [04:51] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  181. # [04:52] <glazou> marcos_: I used swear words when I read his prose, then cooled down and replied calmly :-)
  182. # [04:52] <glazou> karl: biccamera.com is not much cheaper than french prices on a 30D body for instance ; not worth the pain
  183. # [04:53] <karl> ok :)
  184. # [04:53] <marcos_> hehe, yeah. I won't even bother replying to that... I think "borderline bigotry" captures it nicely.
  185. # [04:53] <glazou> karl: ~945EUR at bic, 999 here
  186. # [04:56] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  187. # [04:57] * Joins: chaals (chaals@84.48.121.237)
  188. # [04:57] <karl> hmm indeed
  189. # [04:59] <glazou> tjena chaals
  190. # [05:00] * glazou still needs to find a really good yakitorin paris
  191. # [05:00] <glazou> s/yakitori/yakitori in
  192. # [05:06] <glazou> karl: http://www.w3.org/2007/05/06-AC-agenda.html is unreachable for me
  193. # [05:06] <glazou> no credentials
  194. # [05:06] * glazou wonders if he is the only ac-rep in this case :-)
  195. # [05:07] <MikeSmith> glazou - I noticed many many yakitori places in Montparnasse, near where the theatres are
  196. # [05:07] <karl> glazou: indeed.
  197. # [05:07] <karl> the URI has been published in a member area?
  198. # [05:07] <MikeSmith> I don't know if they are good because I didn't try them. I found a really great Lebanese place those
  199. # [05:07] <glazou> MikeSmith: unfortunately, there are a lot of "japanese" restaurants in paris in fact held by chinese people ; food is not that good there
  200. # [05:08] <glazou> karl: sent by steve bratt to AC Members list
  201. # [05:08] <karl> ;)
  202. # [05:08] <karl> then I will switch the ACL
  203. # [05:08] <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2007JanMar/0076.html
  204. # [05:10] <karl> glazou: done
  205. # [05:10] * Quits: st (st@62.234.155.214) (Quit: st)
  206. # [05:10] <karl> merci pour la notification ;)
  207. # [05:12] <glazou> np
  208. # [05:13] * glazou is glad he can now read the doc :-)
  209. # [05:15] * glazou starts wondering if he should not be sleeping atm
  210. # [05:19] * Quits: glazou (daniel@212.180.54.82) (Quit: zzzZZZzzz)
  211. # [05:35] * Joins: h3h_ (bfults@70.95.237.98)
  212. # [05:40] * Quits: marcos_ (chatzilla@131.181.148.226) (Ping timeout)
  213. # [06:00] * Joins: jjb (jjb@66.234.47.245)
  214. # [06:01] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.48.129)
  215. # [06:05] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Client exited)
  216. # [06:20] <heycam> "we have many beautiful eggs inside the incubator, but the chickens outside are all running around with their heads cut off"
  217. # [06:20] <heycam> i like the imagery :)
  218. # [06:26] * Quits: chaals (chaals@84.48.121.237) (Ping timeout)
  219. # [06:30] <Lachy_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Mar/0006.html -- I didn't realise that message was public yesterday, I thought it was only in the member archives: "No one is going to put the namespace on quirks HTML surely?"
  220. # [06:58] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  221. # [07:03] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  222. # [07:27] * Joins: tylerr (tylerr@24.16.148.66)
  223. # [07:27] <tylerr> Hello all!
  224. # [07:43] * Quits: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Leaving)
  225. # [07:43] <Lachy_> Hi tylerr
  226. # [07:44] <tylerr> Hey Lachy_.
  227. # [07:46] <tylerr> Winding down for the evening. I have about three meetings tomorrow with my company about my involvement with the WG. Looks like they're very interested in supporting me.
  228. # [07:46] <tylerr> So a small victory in my world. :-)
  229. # [07:47] <Lachy_> nice
  230. # [07:48] <Lachy_> in what ways will they be supporting you?
  231. # [07:48] <tylerr> I'm guessing giving me more forecasted time to work with the WG, potential travel, suggestion/input sessions, etc.
  232. # [07:49] <tylerr> Right now I have "any free time" to work on it, but now I'm looking to get ~4 hours a week of dedicated involvement.
  233. # [07:55] <Zeros> nice
  234. # [07:55] <tylerr> Ah hey Zeros. How's your day been?
  235. # [07:55] <Zeros> And three meetings?
  236. # [07:56] <Zeros> they better provide lunch
  237. # [07:56] <tylerr> Oh they are. :-)
  238. # [07:57] <Zeros> tylerr, pretty good actually. Department interviewed another graphic design intern today.
  239. # [07:57] <Zeros> I think that puts the total at 8 so far; no one stellar unfortunately
  240. # [07:57] <tylerr> I have no clue what my availability will now look like though, apparently our divisions head of technology said, "Come to him for your accessibility and standards needs." There goes all my slacker time. ;-)
  241. # [07:57] <tylerr> Wow, 8 interviews?
  242. # [07:59] <tylerr> We're interviewing web dev's right now for our team and we had a couple we wanted to take on but they were too "new" and we wouldn't have enough time to ramp them up until July.
  243. # [07:59] <tylerr> "new" meaning they had the skill, just not the experience. :-( I hate having to turn away talent.
  244. # [07:59] <tylerr> Luckily I wasn't involved in the interviews.
  245. # [08:00] <Zeros> I don't usually sit in on them since I'm the development lead for our team, not directly related to graphics.
  246. # [08:00] <tylerr> Ah yeah, it's always good to get a sense of personality though, would you be working with them in any fashion?
  247. # [08:01] <Zeros> Probably for branding purposes and on site at conferences. We're the Graphics & Conferences team
  248. # [08:01] <tylerr> Ahh yeah I remember you mentioning that.
  249. # [08:02] <tylerr> Are these college interns or recent grads?
  250. # [08:02] <Zeros> Mix of both, I think the one today was a recent grad.
  251. # [08:03] <tylerr> It's always an issue of, "Do you take the eager student willing to do anything, or the recent grad needing that critical stepping stone into the professional world?"
  252. # [08:04] <Zeros> The big killer so far is people being shy. Its a real interview killer if you don't talk and ask questions.
  253. # [08:05] <tylerr> So true! If the interview doesn't flow like a conversation, I instantly feel distant from the person to a certain degree.
  254. # [08:08] <Zeros> yeah
  255. # [08:10] <krijnh> Mornin'
  256. # [08:10] <tylerr> Hi krijnh.
  257. # [08:11] <krijnh> Anything interesting happened here?
  258. # [08:11] <tylerr> Just Zeros and myself chatting about hiring.
  259. # [08:11] <krijnh> Yeah, I read it :)
  260. # [08:11] <tylerr> Yep, that quiet in here tonight. :-) How are you doing?
  261. # [08:12] <krijnh> Pretty good, downloading mails so I can read them in the bus
  262. # [08:12] <tylerr> Ah great! All the WG chatter?
  263. # [08:12] <krijnh> Only 55 today
  264. # [08:12] <krijnh> Yeah
  265. # [08:13] <tylerr> I need to spend a good while reading up on all these technologies that are flying around the mailing list.
  266. # [08:13] * Quits: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84) (Quit: bye)
  267. # [08:13] <krijnh> You'll get those 4 hours extra ;)
  268. # [08:14] <tylerr> I'm *very* new to the engineering of HTML so research and self-education is my key goal right now.
  269. # [08:14] <tylerr> Thanks! I hope so!
  270. # [08:14] <krijnh> Brb
  271. # [08:15] <tylerr> Sure thing. :-)
  272. # [08:23] * Quits: h3h_ (bfults@70.95.237.98) (Quit: h3h_)
  273. # [08:37] * Joins: cying_ (cying@75.18.219.234)
  274. # [08:37] * Quits: cying (cying@75.41.112.100) (Ping timeout)
  275. # [08:37] * Parts: cying_ (cying@75.18.219.234)
  276. # [08:41] <Lachy_> karl: you misread my e-mail
  277. # [08:41] <karl> :)
  278. # [08:41] <karl> explain
  279. # [08:42] <Lachy_> initially, when feeds starting getting popular and autodiscovery was developed...
  280. # [08:42] <Lachy_> it was necessary to link to the feed using <a href> in the body, but to also provide <link rel=alternate href=x> in the head for autodiscovery
  281. # [08:42] <karl> nope
  282. # [08:43] <karl> It was not necessary
  283. # [08:43] <karl> :)
  284. # [08:43] <karl> So I do not misread it
  285. # [08:43] <karl> it was always a choice
  286. # [08:43] <Lachy_> for compatibility with UAs that didn't support autodiscovery, the <a> provided a fallback
  287. # [08:43] <karl> choice of the author
  288. # [08:43] <karl> :)
  289. # [08:44] <karl> exactly like when you decide to serve a content as application/xhtml+xml
  290. # [08:44] <Lachy_> how so?
  291. # [08:45] <tylerr> Graceful degredation and such.
  292. # [08:45] <karl> what you express has never been a a requirement of the language :)
  293. # [08:46] <Lachy_> while you can technically omit the link from the body, I don't think it's a good idea
  294. # [08:46] <karl> it is exactly like saying, YOU MUST have a menu to navigate through the section of your site.
  295. # [08:46] <karl> Lachy: I always did and we always do.
  296. # [08:46] <Lachy_> I never said it was a requirement of the language, though perhaps I could have been clearer about it being a requirement for compatibility and usability
  297. # [08:46] <karl> and it's why I want to have the *choice*
  298. # [08:47] <Lachy_> of course, you still have the choice. I just think <a> is the better choice
  299. # [08:47] <karl> When we are discussing HTML requirements design principles. I want flexibility
  300. # [08:47] <karl> not constraints in one way in another
  301. # [08:47] <karl> being able to express in body ! cool
  302. # [08:47] <karl> being able to express in head ! cool
  303. # [08:47] <karl> :)
  304. # [08:47] <karl> that's my point
  305. # [08:48] <Lachy_> fine
  306. # [08:48] <karl> flexibility for the authors ;)
  307. # [08:49] <karl> It's like tags in content is for me a very bad choice for content design.
  308. # [08:49] <karl> Usually I put a display: none if I put them in the body.
  309. # [08:49] <Lachy_> what do you mean?
  310. # [08:49] <tylerr> Tags in content?
  311. # [08:49] <Lachy_> like rel=tag?
  312. # [08:49] <tylerr> Do you mean things like Microformats?
  313. # [08:50] <karl> rel= tag
  314. # [08:50] <karl> Pros: local ! that's cool
  315. # [08:50] <karl> Cons: Visible ! that's bad
  316. # [08:50] <Lachy_> They absolutely belong in the body
  317. # [08:50] <Lachy_> and they absolutely must be visible. that was a consious design decisions
  318. # [08:51] <karl> I don't make visible by choice
  319. # [08:51] <karl> display: none
  320. # [08:51] <Lachy_> that prevents a user from following them to see more info tagged the same
  321. # [08:51] <karl> I don't put link to them as well ;)
  322. # [08:52] <karl> you put link to where ?
  323. # [08:52] <Lachy_> what the?
  324. # [08:52] <Lachy_> I don't understand your sentence
  325. # [08:52] <karl> I do not put links on keywords.
  326. # [08:52] <tylerr> That would hamper the whole autodiscovery technology wouldn't it? (I'm none too familiar with all this so do be gentle on me, hah!)
  327. # [08:53] <Lachy_> rel=tag is designed to be used on links. Where else do you use it?
  328. # [08:53] <karl> I usually do <span class="keyword">fleur, campagne</span>
  329. # [08:53] <karl> but no link on them
  330. # [08:53] <Lachy_> then what's the point of the keywords?
  331. # [08:53] <karl> categorizing my content to create indexes
  332. # [08:54] <karl> I was about to say
  333. # [08:54] <Lachy_> That technique can be considered spam by search engines
  334. # [08:54] <Lachy_> creating indexes with your own custom tools?
  335. # [08:54] <karl> yes
  336. # [08:54] <karl> choices
  337. # [08:54] * Quits: cwahlers (Miranda@201.27.182.230) (Ping timeout)
  338. # [08:55] <tylerr> Isn't that what these site map tools are for?
  339. # [08:55] <karl> tylerr: what do you mean?
  340. # [08:55] <tylerr> Or are you looking to build personal indexes of your content?
  341. # [08:55] <karl> tylerr: yes the second suggestion
  342. # [08:55] <Lachy_> but creating your own method to tag content loses all the benefits that a widely deployed and interoperable solution like rel=tag offers
  343. # [08:56] <karl> Lachy: rel=tag. where do you link to?
  344. # [08:56] <tylerr> Sites like Technorati and others depend on the rel=tag to help build out their results and the like correct?
  345. # [08:57] <Lachy_> on my blog, rel=tag gets added to the category links at the end of each post
  346. # [08:57] <Lachy_> those link to the category pages on my own site
  347. # [08:57] <Lachy_> I'm too lazy to bother with technorati
  348. # [08:58] <karl> Lachy: in fact, I think you did the right choice
  349. # [08:58] <Lachy_> and rel=tag is only inlcuded because WordPress adds them by default
  350. # [08:58] <karl> to not link to technorati
  351. # [08:58] <Lachy_> it wasn't really a choice, more of a motivation issue
  352. # [08:58] * tylerr chuckles.
  353. # [08:58] <karl> Lachy: exactly rel="tag" is something practical for the author, or the CMS
  354. # [08:58] <karl> to build indexes
  355. # [08:59] <karl> the link to a specifically search web services is somehow not good in my way of thinking.
  356. # [08:59] <karl> but a possibility
  357. # [09:00] <karl> :) s/services/service/
  358. # [09:00] <Lachy_> well, the method does create a barrier to entry for competitors to compete with technorati, since there are so many that use technorati's tag space
  359. # [09:00] <karl> plus the fact, that this company can disappear etc.
  360. # [09:01] <karl> and then the content becomes very difficult to update in the case of static content.
  361. # [09:01] <karl> creating legacy linking
  362. # [09:01] <karl> the same decision motivates me to not do links to amazon for example for books
  363. # [09:02] <karl> I give the isbn and I wish that browsers gives the choice when they see urn:isbn to go to the bookshop of your choice, not the one of the author.
  364. # [09:02] <karl> it could be a preference in browser
  365. # [09:03] <karl> when you see rel="tag", please propose technorati links
  366. # [09:03] <karl> when you see cite="urn:isbn:..." please propose amazon
  367. # [09:03] <tylerr> Well, the idea is that it isn't a Technorati-based tag, it's a MicroFormat.
  368. # [09:04] <karl> tylerr: yes. it's why I like the decision of Lachy to link to its own indexes
  369. # [09:04] <Ashe> since uFs will be in FF3, it probably will be a choice in the browser
  370. # [09:04] <karl> I think it is a better choice on long term
  371. # [09:05] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  372. # [09:07] <Lachy_> urn:isbn could and should be implemented as a browser extension as a proof of concept, then get people to start using the ISBN URIs, and then browsers will implement natively
  373. # [09:07] <karl> yep
  374. # [09:07] <Ashe> hm
  375. # [09:07] <Lachy_> Google AutoLink recognises plain text ISBNs in content and links those
  376. # [09:08] <karl> at least I'm (was) using it in my content
  377. # [09:08] <Ashe> yes its easy for isbns
  378. # [09:08] <Ashe> since they have checksums
  379. # [09:08] <karl> was because I stopped blogging ;)
  380. # [09:08] <Ashe> so you can validate whether it's really a isbn/issn or not
  381. # [09:10] <karl> <blockquote class="citation" cite="urn:isbn:2-13-045669-3">
  382. # [09:10] <karl> <p>Et les mots vont devant, toujours devant, attirant, entraînant, encou
  383. # [09:10] <karl> rageant—clamant à la fois l'espérance et l'orgueil. La rêverie parlée des
  384. # [09:10] <karl> ....
  385. # [09:10] <karl> I was doing this kind of things
  386. # [09:11] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  387. # [09:13] * Joins: Robert (Robert@62.166.57.32)
  388. # [09:14] <hsivonen> I think non-dereferencable URIs confuse things
  389. # [09:14] <hsivonen> If I click a link, the book won't appear on my desk
  390. # [09:14] <hsivonen> broken link
  391. # [09:15] <karl> hsivonen: note that it was the cite attribute.
  392. # [09:15] <karl> and note also
  393. # [09:16] <karl> that when you click a link to amazon, the book doesn't apper on your desk either ;)
  394. # [09:16] <karl> What I want
  395. # [09:16] <karl> is a proxy
  396. # [09:16] <karl> as a browser user I want to have the choice of the store
  397. # [09:17] <karl> even more in an international context.
  398. # [09:17] <karl> I want to be able to send the reference to my local store
  399. # [09:17] <karl> and not amazon us with delivery costs
  400. # [09:20] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  401. # [09:22] * Joins: heycam (cam@203.214.111.54)
  402. # [09:24] <karl> ok time to go back home. 1h30 of train :)
  403. # [09:24] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Where dwelt Ymir, or wherein did he find sustenance?)
  404. # [09:29] * Quits: Lachy_ (chatzilla@58.105.240.232) (Quit: Chatzilla 0.9.77 [Firefox 2.0.0.3/2007030919])
  405. # [09:39] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.48.129) (Quit: Leaving)
  406. # [09:51] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
  407. # [10:18] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154)
  408. # [10:38] * Quits: heycam (cam@203.214.111.54) (Quit: bye)
  409. # [10:40] * Joins: glazou (daniel@80.118.184.70)
  410. # [10:40] <glazou> bonjour
  411. # [10:45] <edas> bonjour
  412. # [10:48] <tylerr> Hello.
  413. # [10:55] * Quits: Robert (Robert@62.166.57.32) (Quit: Leaving)
  414. # [11:09] * Joins: anne (annevk@131.211.112.143)
  415. # [11:09] <anne> morning
  416. # [11:11] <glazou> hi anne
  417. # [11:12] <hsivonen> bonjour
  418. # [11:13] <anne> so I haven't checked by inbox in detail but are those 150 messages all from public-html?
  419. # [11:13] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  420. # [11:13] <anne> my @opera.com inbox, that is
  421. # [11:14] <hsivonen> anne: I think there have been less messages than that
  422. # [11:15] <anne> k
  423. # [11:18] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  424. # [11:28] * anne wonders how "BTW, I followed WHATWG and had intended to bring up several issues, especially with WebForms, but was unable to find the time. I'm hoping this WG will allow me to address those issues." makes sense
  425. # [11:30] <beowulf> perhaps this group will organise his life better
  426. # [11:31] * anne deleted lots of e-mail and catched up
  427. # [11:33] * Joins: anne2 (annevk@131.211.112.143)
  428. # [11:33] * anne2 deleted lots of e-mail and catched up
  429. # [11:34] * Quits: anne (annevk@131.211.112.143) (Ping timeout)
  430. # [11:38] * anne2 is now known as anne
  431. # [11:38] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  432. # [11:39] * Quits: anne (annevk@131.211.112.143) (Quit: anne)
  433. # [11:39] * Joins: anne2 (annevk@131.211.112.143)
  434. # [11:39] <anne2> Seems that Microsoft is in the XHTML2 WG: http://www.w3.org/mid/60DA5824FF215047A47F7232D9F1627C678FA1073C@NA-EXMSG-C105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
  435. # [11:39] * anne2 is now known as anne
  436. # [11:45] <hsivonen> anne: whoa! is the XHTML2 WG finally losing its faith in doctypes?
  437. # [11:46] <hsivonen> OTOH: "I understand the arguments about XML Schema, and I don't care."
  438. # [11:48] * Quits: anne (annevk@131.211.112.143) (Ping timeout)
  439. # [11:56] * Quits: tylerr (tylerr@24.16.148.66) (Quit: Leaving)
  440. # [11:58] * Joins: anne (annevk@131.211.112.133)
  441. # [11:58] <anne> hsivonen, I think they still believe in DOCTYPEs
  442. # [11:58] <anne> hsivonen, in fact, they think DOCTYPEs are the only means to *distinguish* between the various versions of XHTML 1.x
  443. # [11:58] <Lachy> yeah, they still believe in DOCTYPEs. Apparently, they're the only way to for browsers to know what type of document their reading
  444. # [11:58] <anne> hsivonen, they're clearly lost
  445. # [12:00] <Lachy> I just can't get over the fact that Stephen clearly did absolutely no research before making a claim that no pages on the web using quriks mode also use the xmlns
  446. # [12:00] <anne> They're just out of touch with reality
  447. # [12:01] <anne> The only thing they seem to have been doing over the past few years is dreaming about frameworks and having telcons and F2Fs to specify them and implement them in experimental products that don't deal with the web.
  448. # [12:01] <anne> You know, leading the web to its full potential
  449. # [12:07] <hsivonen> I wonder if the would be different wrt. XHTML today if important sites like O'Reilly hadn't jumped the gun with XHTML before Netscape 6 shipped...
  450. # [12:07] <hsivonen> s/the would/the Web would/
  451. # [12:08] <Lachy> I wonder if it would be different if there was no Appendix C that people could use to justify breaking the rules with.
  452. # [12:09] <anne> People don't need specs to justify breaking rules.
  453. # [12:09] <anne> They just do it.
  454. # [12:10] <beowulf> we break the rules because we can, because it's easier and nothing punishes us for doing so
  455. # [12:10] <Lachy> I know that, but the fact that it's so widely used as a way to promote xhtml-as-tag-soup
  456. # [12:10] <Lachy> without the promotion, do you think it would be nearly as bad?
  457. # [12:12] <anne> XHTML was a good excuse to let people learn new stuff (CSS)
  458. # [12:12] <hsivonen> well, I think it does make a difference if the W3C advertises that you can use XHTML 1.0 today (back in way back when) or markp writes about Atom 0.3 on xml.com as if Atom was done (no offense to markp intended, just observing)
  459. # [12:12] <anne> It was the wrong excuse, but it certainly worked pretty well
  460. # [12:12] <anne> If we had HTML5 instead I suppose it might have worked as well.
  461. # [12:13] <Lachy> I don't see how or why XHTML could be used as an excuse to promote CSS. I chose to learn CSS on its own merits, not because it somehow went with XHTML
  462. # [12:14] <anne> What goes for you isn't necessarily true for the rest of the world
  463. # [12:14] <Lachy> I realise that
  464. # [12:14] <anne> Just see the arguments lots of people are using for using XHTML
  465. # [12:14] <hsivonen> Lachy: the zeldman posse was very good at marketing CSS and XHTML as a package. too bad that there was some collateral damage
  466. # [12:15] <anne> anyway, no power supply here, got to move
  467. # [12:18] * Quits: anne (annevk@131.211.112.133) (Ping timeout)
  468. # [12:18] * Joins: anne (annevk@131.211.112.133)
  469. # [12:37] <anne> XForms should btw be completely public soon as well: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xforms/latest
  470. # [12:37] <anne> Same for XHTML2
  471. # [12:37] <hsivonen> nice
  472. # [12:39] <anne> There's some deadline in April at which point the member only lists will no longer function.
  473. # [12:53] <Lachy> I wonder if it would be worth subscribing to public-xhtml2
  474. # [12:54] <anne> You can't
  475. # [12:54] <Lachy> I'd have to join the XHTML2 WG :-)
  476. # [12:54] <anne> You'd have to join the WG and I'm not sure it's as trivial as joining the HTML WG
  477. # [12:57] <Lachy> possibly. though the RSS feed would keep me entertained anyway
  478. # [12:58] <glazou> Lachy: you're drunk or what ?-)
  479. # [12:59] * glazou imagines steven facing ten demands from whatwg people to join the xhtml2 wg :-)
  480. # [12:59] * glazou laughs
  481. # [13:00] <anne> hehe
  482. # [13:00] <Lachy> glazou, I just think it'd be funny to debate some things with them sometimes
  483. # [13:00] <glazou> last time we did, steven tried to kill the style attribute...
  484. # [13:01] <glazou> so I don't really think it'd be funny
  485. # [13:01] <glazou> I mean spending a few hours in a nest of trolls is certainly not my dream activity
  486. # [13:01] <anne> Hixie killed it except on <font>
  487. # [13:01] <glazou> that's a big mistake
  488. # [13:02] <glazou> a VERY big one
  489. # [13:02] <glazou> and the price to pay will be very expensive
  490. # [13:02] <glazou> html5 has no more style attribute ?
  491. # [13:02] <anne> it has <font style>
  492. # [13:02] <glazou> only on font ?
  493. # [13:02] <anne> yes
  494. # [13:02] <glazou> OMG
  495. # [13:03] <Lachy> wow, killing the style attribute must be one of the only sensible things he's wanted to do
  496. # [13:03] <glazou> anne: I bet browser vendors will let the style attibute live forever
  497. # [13:03] <anne> sure
  498. # [13:03] <anne> browsers must support it
  499. # [13:03] <glazou> so Hixie's choice is counterproductive
  500. # [13:03] <anne> but authors must not use it
  501. # [13:04] <glazou> _never_, hear me well, _never_ say what authors should or should not do
  502. # [13:04] <Lachy> there are no legitimate reasons for authors to use it (outside of test cases)
  503. # [13:04] <anne> browsers will likely "support" <acronym> forever
  504. # [13:04] <glazou> authors will ALWAYS think of weird use cases you never thought of
  505. # [13:04] <glazou> so let authors define what's usable or not
  506. # [13:04] <anne> when they do we'll change the spec
  507. # [13:04] <Lachy> and the solution to none of them will be the style attribute
  508. # [13:04] <glazou> anne: exactly my point, counterproductive and silly
  509. # [13:04] <anne> note that <style> can be used as <style scoped> now which should solve most of the use cases
  510. # [13:05] <glazou> the style attr is here to stay anyway
  511. # [13:05] <glazou> anne: nope
  512. # [13:05] <glazou> anne: because the web is full of style attributes and people are used to it
  513. # [13:05] <glazou> killing it kills backwards compat
  514. # [13:05] <anne> the web is full of syntax errors too
  515. # [13:05] <anne> killing it in conformance doesn't kill backcompat perse
  516. # [13:05] <glazou> do you notice them when you browse the web ?
  517. # [13:06] <glazou> syntax errors in the web are our burden
  518. # [13:06] <anne> there's a difference between conformance and UA requirements
  519. # [13:06] <glazou> we'll live forever with them
  520. # [13:06] <anne> the style attribute is our burden as well
  521. # [13:06] <glazou> it's a useful one for wysiwyg copy/paste
  522. # [13:06] <glazou> and debug
  523. # [13:06] <glazou> anyway, I have to run, bye people
  524. # [13:06] * Quits: glazou (daniel@80.118.184.70) (Quit: meeting)
  525. # [13:07] <Lachy> copy and paste in wysiwig that uses the style attribute is broken by design
  526. # [13:08] <anne> copy and paste is bbd
  527. # [13:08] <anne> see some article hsivonen wrote
  528. # [13:11] <Lachy> anne, where do I find those articles? I can't see them on hsivonen.iki.fi
  529. # [13:12] <anne> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/kesakoodi/clipboard/
  530. # [13:12] <Lachy> thanks
  531. # [13:14] <hsivonen> I think Hixie's current definition of <font> is doing mindshare damage and style='' should be allowed on every element in HTML5
  532. # [13:16] <hsivonen> for the record, everything I wrote in that article about new interoperable Cocoa clipboard code for Gecko never made it to Gecko, because the module owner blocked it
  533. # [13:16] <Lachy> hsivonen, do you think font should be dropped completely or just redefined?
  534. # [13:17] <hsivonen> Lachy: I'm leaning towards allowing color for emphasis
  535. # [13:17] * hsivonen hides
  536. # [13:17] <Lachy> what? We have <em> for that
  537. # [13:18] <anne> It's an interesting idea at least.
  538. # [13:18] <hsivonen> Lachy: here's a real-world page my mom wrote: http://www.helsinki.fi/~rkosken/kirjallisuus/hc.html
  539. # [13:18] <hsivonen> I should probably dissect the markup of that page and blog about it
  540. # [13:19] <hsivonen> as a case study of what semantic stuff worked and what didn't after the HTML-literate son explained stuff and wrote a template and a style sheet to go with it
  541. # [13:20] <Lachy> did she hand code or use an editor?
  542. # [13:20] <hsivonen> Lachy: for additional effect, check out the usage of <i> vs. <em> and try to come up with the explanation
  543. # [13:20] <hsivonen> Lachy: Dreamweaver
  544. # [13:20] * Joins: sbuluf (zcswq@200.49.140.127)
  545. # [13:20] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  546. # [13:22] * Joins: st (st@62.234.155.214)
  547. # [13:22] <Lachy> she seems to have used them interchangebly
  548. # [13:22] <hsivonen> Lachy: why do you think that happened?
  549. # [13:23] <Lachy> because they look the same
  550. # [13:23] <anne> Hmm, lets hope <dfn> will not mean emphasis
  551. # [13:23] <hsivonen> yes and they were also made with the same UI gesture
  552. # [13:23] <anne> or <var>
  553. # [13:23] <hsivonen> the parts with <i> were written in Dreamweaver 4
  554. # [13:24] <hsivonen> the parts with <em> are updates made with Dreamweaver MX, which has more semantic defaults
  555. # [13:24] <Lachy> right, but <i> shouldn't even have a UI. dreamweaver is broken in that respect
  556. # [13:24] <anne> heh
  557. # [13:24] <anne> "more semantic"
  558. # [13:25] <Lachy> that's because UI designers seem to fail to understand that using <i> on the UI and inserting <em> is not ok
  559. # [13:25] <hsivonen> Lachy: your UI argument is like the 2002 me speaking. I got over it.
  560. # [13:25] <ROBOd> hello guys! i've been reading the backlog and this discussion is interesting. removing the style attribute seems to contradict the idea Hixie has in other cases: if everybody uses something, lets put it in the spec (remember the discussion about w3c events model versus IE events model).
  561. # [13:26] <Lachy> I just don't get why they insist on putting <b> and <i> on the UI for HTML editors. They're the first things I'd take out
  562. # [13:26] <ROBOd> why does he want to remove style?
  563. # [13:26] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  564. # [13:26] <anne> it's presentational
  565. # [13:26] <anne> should be pretty obvious
  566. # [13:27] <hsivonen> Lachy: because normal users want italic and bold but don't care to specify *why* they want it in a particular instance
  567. # [13:27] <hsivonen> Lachy: my mom just hits command-i in Word. in Dreamweaver, she does the same
  568. # [13:27] <ROBOd> personally, i believe style has good use cases
  569. # [13:27] <Lachy> like what?
  570. # [13:28] <ROBOd> it is generally bad to be used (and most pages use it wrong), but sometimes it's useful to override the general styling with a style attribute
  571. # [13:29] <Lachy> ok, but what's the actual use case?
  572. # [13:29] <ROBOd> hmm... it sounds contradicting ... why is font allowed then?
  573. # [13:29] <Lachy> because Hixie insisted on it
  574. # [13:30] <anne> <font> is allowed for WYSIWYG editors
  575. # [13:30] <ROBOd> it's *very* presentational, so to speak
  576. # [13:30] <hsivonen> Lachy: well, with the CSS1 definition of display: block; and floats, you'd need it for <figure>-like wrappers for images
  577. # [13:30] <ROBOd> Lachy: because Hixie insisted can be used for anything
  578. # [13:30] <anne> it's in its own special section atm
  579. # [13:30] <ROBOd> (the argument, that is)
  580. # [13:31] <Lachy> I just think <font> should be dropped completely
  581. # [13:32] <ROBOd> Lachy: as a real use case, given a WYSIWYG editor, you want to align to center, justify or otherwise change some CSS property for your image or text. you want this for a *single* pagraph in the entire site
  582. # [13:32] <beowulf> i don't think many would complain if it was, there's oodles of examples of <font> less documents
  583. # [13:32] <ROBOd> is it justified to add a class/ID for that? and go on to modify the site.css ?
  584. # [13:33] <hsivonen> I think Hixie's current definition for font is far worse than the HTML 4 definition.
  585. # [13:33] <anne> ROBOd, you can have <style scoped>
  586. # [13:33] <ROBOd> and the argument of using <font style> doesn't hold for me... because that's pretty bad (one can use today <p style>)
  587. # [13:33] <ROBOd> anne: gotta read on that ... didn't loook at it yet
  588. # [13:33] <hsivonen> I hope <font> either goes away or is changed into strict inline before I get supporting it in the conformance checker
  589. # [13:33] <Lachy> <style scoped> isn't much better when just used as a direct substittute for style=""
  590. # [13:34] * hsivonen intends to do video first and refactor <header> and <footer>
  591. # [13:34] <ROBOd> hsivonen: i'd say <font> tag should be completely removed
  592. # [13:35] <Lachy> I'd favour style="" on any element over <font>, given the choice
  593. # [13:35] <ROBOd> me too
  594. # [13:35] <beowulf> aol
  595. # [13:35] <ROBOd> :)
  596. # [13:35] <Lachy> aol?
  597. # [13:35] <beowulf> sorry, me too
  598. # [13:38] <sbuluf> i wonder if wysiyg/m editing is a goal for this wg. and if so, how do you isualize the interface and method for editing
  599. # [13:47] <ROBOd> according to the charter (from Deliverables): "Editing APIs and user-driven WYSIWYG editing features."
  600. # [13:48] <ROBOd> the WG must address the issues related to HTML5-based WYSIWYG editors
  601. # [13:48] <Lachy> sbuluf, it's a bit complex to describe in detail here, but the basic way in which I think it should work is to be built around meaning of content and the components the user wants to put into the page
  602. # [13:48] <hsivonen> glazou might have a thing or two to say about editing. :-)
  603. # [13:49] <Lachy> glazou's idea of an editor is Nvu, and that's one of the worst I've ever attempted to use when it comes to the UI
  604. # [13:49] <sbuluf> "Editing APIs and user-driven WYSIWYG editing features." <--i assume this means llowing editing both programtically and via some UI
  605. # [13:50] <Lachy> I think that's referring to contentEditable
  606. # [13:50] <sbuluf> lachy, agreed, is a bit complex for here, but just some rought guidelines
  607. # [13:51] <sbuluf> lachy, meaning...for example, <em>, <strong>? section, header foooter, nav?
  608. # [13:51] <Lachy> e.g. There should be controls designed around structuring documents, like headings, sections, lists, paragraphs, and semantic inline content
  609. # [13:51] <sbuluf> right
  610. # [13:51] <sbuluf> what about css?
  611. # [13:51] <Lachy> I'm getting to that..
  612. # [13:52] <ROBOd> funny, even the charter uses the style attribute :)
  613. # [13:52] <Lachy> just trying to think of a way to describe it
  614. # [13:53] <Lachy> the charter also uses XHTML as text/html. It's not really a great example of what we're aiming for :-)
  615. # [13:54] <Lachy> there should also be tools for creating common structurees, like menus, forms, tables, etc.
  616. # [13:55] <sbuluf> visual ones, right?
  617. # [13:55] <Lachy> and good template features for common page structures/layouts
  618. # [13:55] <sbuluf> a sort of form with fields and editable values sort of thing?
  619. # [13:55] <ROBOd> the way i see this, i believe that UAs should provide by default their own WYSIWYG editor
  620. # [13:56] <Lachy> ROBOd, that's what NN4 did, and Mozilla suite still does. It's nott such a great idea.
  621. # [13:56] <sbuluf> why not?
  622. # [13:56] <ROBOd> allowing for more innovation (UAs could then compete for making better and better editors)
  623. # [13:57] <ROBOd> hmm... but this is like asking for all developers to write their own <input type=email> (something new in WF2)
  624. # [13:57] <Lachy> because editors and browsers have different purposes. Not everyone who browses the web wants an editor, and having one just adds unnecessary features to a perfectly good browser
  625. # [13:57] <Lachy> ROBOd, what?
  626. # [13:58] <sbuluf> lachy, otoh, adding edting promotes read/write end-user's, not just passive read only
  627. # [13:59] <ROBOd> Lachy: Web Forms 2 adds a few new input types, for example email. conforming UAs (e.g. Opera) provide autocomplete features and validation for such fields
  628. # [14:00] <beowulf> I *heart* web forms 2
  629. # [14:00] <Lachy> sbuluf, finally, presentation of all that semantic stuff should be handled by defining it in the template. i.e. such that modifying the presentation of one h2 in a section affects all h2s. Of course, there would need to be a way to group and classify different uses of the elements
  630. # [14:01] <Lachy> ROBOd, I'm aware of that, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the discussion of editors
  631. # [14:01] <sbuluf> lachy, which brings us back to the editing UI and it's css aspect
  632. # [14:02] <ROBOd> Lachy: it's relevant to the fact that wf2 introduced input types and other features that are widely used, and developers currently make their own implementations, their own form validators, their own <input type=email>s and whatever
  633. # [14:02] <ROBOd> Lachy: not providing a default (or at least optional) UI for WYSIWYG editors ... forces all developers to write their own buggy WYSIWYG editors
  634. # [14:03] * Joins: erik (erik@131.155.100.197)
  635. # [14:03] <Lachy> ROBOd, are you talking about wysiwyg editors created using contentEditable?
  636. # [14:04] <ROBOd> Lachy: no, "full-blown editors" (à la HTMLArea)
  637. # [14:04] <ROBOd> which currently use designMode and an iframe (after hiding the <textarea>)
  638. # [14:05] <Lachy> sbuluf, have you ever seen or used the poorly named "Styles and Formatting" task pane in MS Word? When used with care, that allows users to define the style for different semantic structures in the document.
  639. # [14:05] <Lachy> it's not perfect, but it was certainly a step in the right direction
  640. # [14:06] <Lachy> though, now MS Office 2007 has stepped backwards again
  641. # [14:06] <sbuluf> lachy, i did not see it, but when asking about css aspect of editing, i was thinking on something like that, i believe.
  642. # [14:07] <sbuluf> namely, to add styles, one would mostly pickpreviously defined whole styles from a combo box, or something like that
  643. # [14:07] <Lachy> Open Office has something similar, but its UI is nowhere near as polished
  644. # [14:07] <sbuluf> so tere would be two basic steps: 1) predefine styles 2) apply them just by selecting them from a list
  645. # [14:07] <Lachy> yes, that's the idea. Though, there are better ways than using a combo box
  646. # [14:07] * Quits: anne (annevk@131.211.112.133) (Ping timeout)
  647. # [14:07] <Lachy> sbuluf, yes!
  648. # [14:07] <sbuluf> if there is a better way, no probs, great
  649. # [14:08] <ROBOd> and who should provide the UI for such functionality?
  650. # [14:08] <sbuluf> the "predefine styles" step, could be some interface like, say, topstyle, perhaps?
  651. # [14:08] <Lachy> the vendor that produced the editor?!
  652. # [14:09] <Lachy> I don't know how topstyle works
  653. # [14:09] <sbuluf> you pick styles from a list with all of them, but at least you see a preview
  654. # [14:10] <Lachy> ok
  655. # [14:10] <sbuluf> if there are better ideas for defining styles, even more visually than that, i'm all for them...but i can not think of any, i think
  656. # [14:11] <sbuluf> one question: the apllying-predefined-styles idea...would mean using just classes? or also assigning classes to element selectors?
  657. # [14:11] <Lachy> ideally, you wouldn't actually be picking based on presentation, which is what you seem to be hinting. But, e.g., when you select Heading2, it's automatically styled according to the context it's in
  658. # [14:11] * Joins: anne (annevk@131.211.112.133)
  659. # [14:11] <Lachy> e.g. an h2 in the main content might be styled differently from that in a sidebar
  660. # [14:12] <sbuluf> mm, automatically styled, assuming you provide default values, i suppose
  661. # [14:12] <Lachy> obviously, such styles could be customised
  662. # [14:12] <Lachy> but once they're defined, they just get used
  663. # [14:13] <Lachy> there may even be some nice templates provided by the editor as a starting point, so that users don't have to do everything themselves
  664. # [14:14] <sbuluf> if customization is allowed, then UI for doing it is necessary, however
  665. # [14:14] <Lachy> the UI for defining the style of a particular structure would be separated from that used to markup content in the document
  666. # [14:15] <sbuluf> right, and structure-depedent, perhaps
  667. # [14:15] <Lachy> it might be provided in a separte dialog, or perhaps even work like the context sensitive ribbon in Office 2007.
  668. # [14:16] <sbuluf> (haven't seen the ribbon, but +1 for separate dialog)
  669. # [14:16] * Quits: erik (erik@131.155.100.197) (Quit: Bye bye)
  670. # [14:16] <Lachy> the ribbon is just like a special toolbar that changes content depending on what you're doing
  671. # [14:17] <sbuluf> right
  672. # [14:17] <Lachy> it's just implemented poorly in office 2007 because it focuses solely on presentaiton, rather than semantics and strucutre.
  673. # [14:17] <sbuluf> right, i understand
  674. # [14:18] <ROBOd> Lachy: that's probably because users tend to focus on presentation
  675. # [14:19] <ROBOd> users don't think of semantics "hey, i have to tell it this is a heading", they just say "hey, i want *this* heading to be green"
  676. # [14:19] <sbuluf> they can learn
  677. # [14:19] <sbuluf> may i mention another related aspect of things that pisses me very much? it has to do with copying and pasting html *with* styles and all
  678. # [14:19] <Lachy> ROBOd, I suspect that's because they're only presented with tools for thinking and working like that
  679. # [14:20] <sbuluf> today, afaik..it simply can not be done
  680. # [14:20] <Lachy> sbuluf, glazou was in here earlier advocating such nonsense
  681. # [14:20] <sbuluf> such a basic feature...so intuitive... " i see this, i want to keep it, or copy it"...and it can not be done, if one includes styles
  682. # [14:21] <Lachy> Editors should allow the user to retain semantics only and for content to inherit the styles of the destination document
  683. # [14:21] <ROBOd> Lachy: providing them with the right tools is a good step in the right direction, indeed. however for current users, an application which limits/forces users to think the *new* way, won't gain traction
  684. # [14:21] <sbuluf> lachy, why do you oppose it?
  685. # [14:21] <Lachy> ROBOd, it really depends on the target audience of the tool
  686. # [14:22] <sbuluf> <Lachy> Editors should allow the user to retain semantics only and for content to inherit the styles of the destination document <--agreed if you poaste to say a blog. but what if you just want to keep a given snippet you see in some page?
  687. # [14:22] <sbuluf> what if the target document is blank, or if does not have styles for particular ones used in the original?
  688. # [14:23] <Lachy> if the user wants the presentation too, that's fine. The editor can provide that feature too, but I want an editor that doesn't by default
  689. # [14:23] <sbuluf> lachy, fine, but...can even be done today, at all?
  690. # [14:23] <Lachy> sbuluf, then those parts will be unstyled
  691. # [14:23] <sbuluf> have you noticed there isn't even one such tool, afaik?
  692. # [14:23] <Lachy> sbuluf, what?
  693. # [14:23] <ROBOd> Lachy: simple users. can't really focus on a specific target among them: they most likely think similarly. look at the blog writers (the average ones), or look at secretaries using MS Word: they do not know what semantics is
  694. # [14:24] <Lachy> look at people like me who write web pages for a living, but are forced to hand code everything because WYSIWYG editors screw everything up
  695. # [14:24] <Lachy> I would love a decent editor that could speed up my job without getting in the way of it
  696. # [14:25] <sbuluf> exactly, is number one missing feature in the whole web
  697. # [14:25] <sbuluf> it is hand coding, btw, what intriduces so much screwed code into the system
  698. # [14:25] <Lachy> sbuluf, what the?
  699. # [14:26] <Lachy> sbuluf, please try to express yourself more clearly. I do not understand what you are saying
  700. # [14:26] <ROBOd> Lachy: yes, for such users, such tools would be very welcome (i would love one like that)
  701. # [14:27] <sbuluf> ilachy, before, i meant: i dont know even one tool today that allows you to copy and paste an html snippet, *with* styles and all
  702. # [14:27] <sbuluf> do you know of any such thing? and if not...can it even be done, as html spec stand today?
  703. # [14:27] <Lachy> there are plenty of tools that will retain styles. Dreamweaver, MS Word, Nvu, Frontpage, and virtually all other wysiwyg editors
  704. # [14:28] <Lachy> it's the tools that allow you to strip those styles easily that are limited
  705. # [14:28] <Lachy> MS Word 2003 allows it, but you have to select "Keep text only" every time you paste
  706. # [14:28] <sbuluf> mm, do they keep the relevant rules only (that are needed to reproduce a snippet only), and not the whole thing?
  707. # [14:29] <Lachy> Nvu does it by inserting style attributes
  708. # [14:29] <sbuluf> and is the rules themselves, or computed values, instead?
  709. # [14:29] <ROBOd> hmm... given a real, semantically based editor... copy/paste would no longer retain the style between documents
  710. # [14:29] <Lachy> ROBOd, that's correct
  711. # [14:29] <ROBOd> because the style in the destination document should be applied
  712. # [14:29] <Lachy> and that's exactly what glazou would argue against
  713. # [14:30] <ROBOd> to maintain the style... that would mean using <style scoped> (haven't yet read the spec about this, but... i believe that's the use case)
  714. # [14:30] <ROBOd> is <style scoped> good for such cases?
  715. # [14:30] <sbuluf> never heard of it
  716. # [14:30] <Lachy> another use case is also HTML e-mails in web based mail
  717. # [14:30] <Lachy> sadly, HTML e-mails aren't going anywhere :-(
  718. # [14:31] <sbuluf> wait, wait a bit, please...
  719. # [14:31] <Lachy> ok
  720. # [14:31] <sbuluf> procedure: go to any page. select just a snippet, say a paragraph and a list
  721. # [14:32] <sbuluf> now copy and paste just that to a blank html document, to keep a copy
  722. # [14:33] <Lachy> why?
  723. # [14:33] <sbuluf> is there any tool available that would identify, copy and keep just the reveant rules that apply to said snippet *only*, without keeping the whole css thing?
  724. # [14:33] <sbuluf> not all css, just those rules that apply
  725. # [14:33] <sbuluf> and not computed values, but css rules
  726. # [14:34] <Lachy> as I said, Nvu does it with style attributes. Not sure about other editors, since I rarely want to keep the styles anyway
  727. # [14:34] <sbuluf> unless i'm very mistaken, i have seen just about none that does such thing
  728. # [14:34] <sbuluf> perhaps nvu is the only one
  729. # [14:35] <sbuluf> how germaine is that nvu method, in such case?
  730. # [14:35] <Lachy> what does germaine mean?
  731. # [14:36] <sbuluf> means getting not all rules, but only the needed ones, means not getting computed values, but rules, and means getting them in some decent, reusable way
  732. # [14:36] <Dashiva> Probably germane
  733. # [14:36] <Lachy> really? It's not an english word, AFAIK
  734. # [14:37] <Dashiva> closely or significantly related; relevant; pertinent
  735. # [14:37] <sbuluf> (i.e, if one wants to paste the snippet later in some other document, the rules get added to that doc css file in some half decent way
  736. # [14:37] <Lachy> right, germane is a word
  737. # [14:37] <Lachy> sbuluf, why would you want to do that though?
  738. # [14:37] <Lachy> It is much more useful if the styles are not retained
  739. # [14:38] <sbuluf> i think that is one option, but there is also the other one, the freedom to keep them
  740. # [14:38] <Lachy> yes, but that doesn't answer the question of *why?*
  741. # [14:39] <sbuluf> i can agree with you thet if you were to paste the snippet in your own blog, for instance, you'd want your own blog styles to override the original ones where possible
  742. # [14:39] <sbuluf> but you might want, for instance, reproduce , in a tidy little square, what you see in another page
  743. # [14:40] <sbuluf> exactly the same, styles and all
  744. # [14:40] <sbuluf> on top of that, you might just want to keep a snippet, as simple as that, with some half decent style already applied to it, and not just bare
  745. # [14:40] <Lachy> but that approach is likely to fail to work accurately anyway due to inheritence of styles from the desintion document anyway
  746. # [14:40] * Quits: anne (annevk@131.211.112.133) (Ping timeout)
  747. # [14:41] <sbuluf> so you can read it locally, offline, and comfortably, without having to style it, notr see it just raw
  748. # [14:41] <Lachy> ok. That's a fairly limited use case, the more common one (at least in my experience) is to strip the styles
  749. # [14:41] <sbuluf> but if you just want to keep a local copy of the snippet in your hard drive...what destination document would exist?
  750. # [14:42] <sbuluf> lachy, the case can be fairly direct: keep a copy of a snippet for offline reading, researching, etc
  751. # [14:43] <Lachy> that doesn't really explain why styles need to be retained. But one could always use Save Page As.. from the browser's file menu and choose web page complete
  752. # [14:43] <sbuluf> but that would keep the whole page, not just, say a given one paragraph wuote
  753. # [14:43] <sbuluf> quote
  754. # [14:44] <Lachy> we seem to be going around in circles
  755. # [14:44] <sbuluf> or just one ordered list, or a table
  756. # [14:45] <Lachy> you haven't really answred my question, just repeated what you said earlier
  757. # [14:45] <sbuluf> you might want to keepo the original styles...simply because you liked them. or because when storing such snippet, there might be spcial styles not covered by your own predefined ones
  758. # [14:46] <sbuluf> is it too wierd to simply want to keep a snippet exactly as one saw it?
  759. # [14:48] <Lachy> it depends what's really more important: the content or the presentation
  760. # [14:48] <sbuluf> why does one have to choose?
  761. # [14:48] <sbuluf> can't one keep both?
  762. # [14:49] <Lachy> that's not what I said or meant
  763. # [14:49] <sbuluf> sorry, then. care to rephrase?
  764. # [14:52] <Lachy> not sure how, I said exaly what I meant, but you seemed to misinterpret it
  765. # [14:53] <sbuluf> Lachy> it depends what's really more important: the content or the presentation <--you mean this?
  766. # [14:53] <Lachy> yes
  767. # [14:53] <sbuluf> mm, i can say what i see. it seems to imply you can choose one or other, but not both...am i wrong?
  768. # [14:54] <Lachy> it's a one or the other selection
  769. # [14:54] <sbuluf> why is one forced to determine which is more important?
  770. # [14:55] <Lachy> it's whether you were interested in the content because of what it said or because of the way it looks.
  771. # [14:56] <sbuluf> " i see A, i want to keep A, exactly as i saw it" <--why the conflict?
  772. # [14:56] <sbuluf> (where A is snippet, not a full page)
  773. # [14:57] <Lachy> I really don't know how I can explain it to you in a way you would understand
  774. # [14:58] <Lachy> perhaps I'm just too tired to think properly
  775. # [14:58] <sbuluf> no probs, if so, lachy
  776. # [14:58] <sbuluf> we can keep some other time
  777. # [15:01] <sbuluf> i think glazou should be here for this, as well
  778. # [15:04] <Lachy> I don't, I've had the argument about retaining styles with him before, it's not particularly fun
  779. # [15:04] <sbuluf> was he pro or con?
  780. # [15:05] <Lachy> he's the creator of Nvu, which as I said, retains the styles
  781. # [15:05] <sbuluf> i need to check how he does it
  782. # [15:06] <ROBOd> i agree with both cases
  783. # [15:06] <ROBOd> 1. some users ("experts") will always want to *not* keep the styles
  784. # [15:07] <ROBOd> 2. the majority of users (average ones) expect *and* want styles retained
  785. # [15:08] <ROBOd> because the majority rules, tools provide, by default, the functionality of keeping the styles
  786. # [15:08] <Lachy> ROBOd, are you basing that statement on any real evidence?
  787. # [15:08] <ROBOd> Word (and other tools) provide the functionality of not keeping the styles
  788. # [15:08] <ROBOd> Lachy: i haven't done any research, neither did you (IIANM), in regards to what users expect
  789. # [15:09] <sbuluf> users never even had the chance to decide
  790. # [15:09] <Lachy> I meant #2. I know there are users that fit into #1, because I'm one of them
  791. # [15:09] <ROBOd> sbuluf: correct, thus now they expect things based on previous experience
  792. # [15:09] <ROBOd> (i also fit into #1)
  793. # [15:10] <sbuluf> "1 should always be there, at least as option, that's clear, everyone agrees
  794. # [15:10] <sbuluf> #1
  795. # [15:10] <ROBOd> Lachy: logically, because we know how the web works, how documents are, what semantics is, we want #1
  796. # [15:10] <ROBOd> Lachy: but try to think like you don't know anything
  797. # [15:10] <Lachy> that's not the only reason I want #1
  798. # [15:11] <ROBOd> it suddenly becomes logcal to keep the styles
  799. # [15:11] <Lachy> no it doesn't, except in rare cases
  800. # [15:11] * Joins: heycam (cam@203.214.79.176)
  801. # [15:11] <ROBOd> it always does
  802. # [15:11] <Lachy> what?
  803. # [15:11] <ROBOd> for the majority of users, it always does make sense to keep the styles
  804. # [15:11] <Lachy> It makes sense to match destination formatting for aesthetic reasons, not just semantic reasons
  805. # [15:12] <Lachy> ROBOd, I strongly disagree
  806. # [15:12] <ROBOd> can we agree on one thing? that users don't think in terms of semantics
  807. # [15:12] <Lachy> yes
  808. # [15:12] <ROBOd> ok
  809. # [15:12] <ROBOd> next
  810. # [15:12] <sbuluf> what about the case of simply saving a snippet locally? there is no target css there, is it?
  811. # [15:12] <Lachy> I'm not arguing in terms of semantics
  812. # [15:12] <sbuluf> when i save a full page, it sdaves styles...why not the same with just anippet?
  813. # [15:13] <sbuluf> *a snippet
  814. # [15:13] <ROBOd> Lachy: can we also agree that users SEE their document snippet (not the code behind), that the users associate a heading with a certain font/style/color?
  815. # [15:13] <Lachy> yes
  816. # [15:14] <ROBOd> Lachy: can we agree that users copy an image from a document to another and want their image to look the same in both documents? even if, say, the two documents don't share the same color pallete
  817. # [15:14] <ROBOd> Lachy: users will also want and expect that they copy the text from a document to another document retaining the same visual info
  818. # [15:14] <ROBOd> (the same styles)
  819. # [15:14] <Lachy> ROBOd, I'm arguing from personal experience of using tools that constantly keep styles attached, and everytime having to say keep text only because it only screws up the formatting of other things
  820. # [15:15] <ROBOd> Lachy: agreed, completely agreed
  821. # [15:15] <Lachy> in particular, MS Word
  822. # [15:15] <ROBOd> but we are not talking about experts like us
  823. # [15:15] <ROBOd> they never, ever know what formatting is
  824. # [15:15] <Lachy> average users know what formatting is
  825. # [15:16] <ROBOd> have you seen users to press Enter (to add a new line) when they reach the right margin of the page?
  826. # [15:16] <ROBOd> *...users who press..
  827. # [15:16] <sbuluf> l(achy, to drop styles information is always doable, and just about trivial. you can set that as the default behaviour, no probs.)
  828. # [15:16] <ROBOd> some of them don't let the editor do the text wrapping
  829. # [15:17] <Lachy> sbuluf, I wish that could be set as the default behavour in Word. I've looked and there is no way to do that
  830. # [15:17] <ROBOd> have you seen users who do not like automatic numbering (and bullets)? they want to manually write the numbers
  831. # [15:17] <sbuluf> lachy, word is crap...what can we do?
  832. # [15:17] <Lachy> Open Office is worse, what can we do?
  833. # [15:17] <sbuluf> same, what can we do?
  834. # [15:18] <ROBOd> Word 2007 UI is much better than OpenOffice Writer.... IMHO
  835. # [15:18] <ROBOd> even if it's oriented towards presentation
  836. # [15:18] <Lachy> Word 2007 is a step backwards, IMHO
  837. # [15:18] <sbuluf> we could write to them, etc, they might refuse.
  838. # [15:19] <Lachy> sbuluf, they would refuse, because the developers are fools
  839. # [15:19] <Lachy> not complete fools, though
  840. # [15:19] <sbuluf> most likely, yes
  841. # [15:20] <ROBOd> I believe Microsoft did a great job with their new Office: they had the courage to do some very important changes. for me, the changes seem to be for the better. (i'm leaving all the incompatibility issues aside, on purpose)
  842. # [15:20] <ROBOd> OpenOffice Writer just copies previous Word versions. I'd wish OpenOffice would come up with new ideas
  843. # [15:20] <sbuluf> i never use wqord processors, myself, so i'm off the question
  844. # [15:20] <ROBOd> sbuluf: i rarely use them....
  845. # [15:21] <ROBOd> and i try to stay away from them
  846. # [15:22] <sbuluf> two sentences...
  847. # [15:22] <sbuluf> if a see a fragment of text i want, i coy, i paste, and it looks the same. the html analog case is not true
  848. # [15:22] <sbuluf> second...
  849. # [15:22] <sbuluf> if i save a full web page, it saves with styles. if i save just a fragment...it does not.
  850. # [15:23] <sbuluf> i think both would seem logical expectable behavoiurs for a newbie, and they both fail
  851. # [15:24] <sbuluf> very reasonable tipical use case? to save a anippet locally, for later offline reading.
  852. # [15:24] * Joins: anne (annevk@81.68.67.12)
  853. # [15:26] * Quits: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30) (Ping timeout)
  854. # [15:26] <sbuluf> if one pastes to a blog, then there *is* some blog styles already, and for aestethic reasons, one might want to conform to those
  855. # [15:26] <sbuluf> but if one saves locally...there are no previous styles
  856. # [15:27] <Lachy> sbuluf, you have said all of that before, there is no need to repeat youself
  857. # [15:27] <sbuluf> lachy, yes, i was just doing a compact version
  858. # [15:27] <anne> you're still busy?
  859. # [15:29] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  860. # [15:30] * anne wonders if he killed the conversation
  861. # [15:30] <sbuluf> anne, no, we just sort of rounded it up, i think
  862. # [15:34] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  863. # [15:39] <ROBOd> bbl, eating
  864. # [15:39] <sbuluf> later
  865. # [15:42] * Quits: gorme (gorm@213.236.208.22) (Ping timeout)
  866. # [15:46] <sbuluf> bbl as well
  867. # [15:46] * Quits: sbuluf (zcswq@200.49.140.127) (Quit: sbuluf)
  868. # [15:46] * Joins: sew (bvn@200.49.140.127)
  869. # [15:46] * Quits: sew (bvn@200.49.140.127) (Quit: sew)
  870. # [15:47] * anne replies with a link to public-html@w3.org
  871. # [15:47] <anne> euh, http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html
  872. # [15:48] * heycam was just about to mention the list cross-posted problem when using Reply-To munging lists
  873. # [15:50] <anne> that may actually be good... :)
  874. # [15:52] <heycam> a divisive person might suggest the whatwg list be set up to automatically add a Reply-To: public-html@w3.org header ;)
  875. # [16:18] <Lachy> oh no, I can't believe this list has now started up the whole reply-to debate!
  876. # [16:18] <anne> i hope i stopped it
  877. # [16:19] <Lachy> it's like we're doomed to repeat every single controversial, yet annoyingly trivial issue ever debated anywhere in the past
  878. # [16:19] <Lachy> who wants to place bets on the next one?
  879. # [16:20] <edas> Lachy, deprecate the "html" serialization ? ;)
  880. # [16:20] <anne> i hope MS will join
  881. # [16:20] <anne> then i'll unsubscribe for a week to avoid the 1000 e-mails
  882. # [16:21] <Lachy> is it possible to unusubscribe without leaving the group?
  883. # [16:21] <anne> and hopefully then we can get on with it
  884. # [16:21] <anne> Lachy, I don't think so
  885. # [16:21] <Lachy> and then is it possible to resubscribe without going through that long process again?
  886. # [16:21] <anne> maybe
  887. # [16:21] <anne> dunno
  888. # [16:40] <beowulf> maybe some guidelines on what topics are more about heat than light or something?
  889. # [16:41] * anne doesn't follow
  890. # [16:43] <Lachy> anne, beowulf seems to be referring to "We're generating a lot of heat and not much light." -- Dan Connolly in http://www.w3.org/mid/1175210133.5321.681.camel@dirk
  891. # [16:45] <anne> beowulf, ah, I think at this point there's not much to discuss
  892. # [16:45] <anne> without Microsoft there's not much to discuss really, imo
  893. # [16:46] <Lachy> yet, it's the most active mailing list I'm on at the moment!
  894. # [16:49] <anne> Everyone would make productive use of their time by reviewing HTML5 I suppose
  895. # [16:50] <Lachy> I wonder how many would actually do so considering its size
  896. # [16:51] <anne> it's not much larger compared to HTML4
  897. # [16:51] <anne> certainly not compared to HTML4+XHTML1.x+DOM2HTML which is what it replaces
  898. # [16:52] <anne> then again, not many people review those specs either :)
  899. # [16:53] * Joins: alexf (alejandro@85.152.42.1)
  900. # [16:54] <alexf> hello everybody
  901. # [16:54] <Lachy> hi alexf
  902. # [16:55] <anne> ello
  903. # [16:57] * Quits: anne (annevk@81.68.67.12) (Client exited)
  904. # [16:58] * Joins: anne (annevk@81.68.67.12)
  905. # [17:02] <ROBOd> Lachy: it is possible to disable email delivery
  906. # [17:03] <Lachy> how?
  907. # [17:03] <ROBOd> but i don't know where's the settings page...
  908. # [17:03] <Lachy> I've never seen such a page for w3c lists
  909. # [17:04] <Lachy> anyway, I'm off to bed. good night everyone
  910. # [17:04] <anne> nn
  911. # [17:04] <ROBOd> good night Lachy
  912. # [17:06] * Joins: Charl (charlvn@196.21.192.15)
  913. # [17:13] * Quits: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86) (Connection reset by peer)
  914. # [17:19] * Joins: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86)
  915. # [17:28] <anne> 785 messages ...
  916. # [17:36] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  917. # [17:41] * Parts: alexf (alejandro@85.152.42.1)
  918. # [17:41] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  919. # [17:45] <anne> welcome Charl!
  920. # [18:10] * Joins: tylerr (tylerr@66.195.32.2)
  921. # [18:19] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Quit: Quitte)
  922. # [18:36] * Joins: h3h (bfults@66.162.32.234)
  923. # [18:58] <anne> I should make a t-shirt: <standards></suck>
  924. # [19:01] <ROBOd> <? why(anne); ?>
  925. # [19:02] <ROBOd> :)
  926. # [19:02] <anne> That's quite simple: 1. Make a t-shirt. 2. ... 3. Profit!
  927. # [19:03] <ROBOd> rephrase: why standards suck?
  928. # [19:04] <anne> That story belongs to me and the guy on my blog.
  929. # [19:04] <ROBOd> make a blog post :)
  930. # [19:09] * Joins: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.187.33)
  931. # [19:11] * Joins: kingryan_ (kingryan@66.92.187.33)
  932. # [19:12] * Quits: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.187.33) (Ping timeout)
  933. # [19:24] * Joins: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30)
  934. # [19:28] <Charl> anne: thanks, sorry i didn't watch irc for a while
  935. # [19:29] * Quits: Charl (charlvn@196.21.192.15) (Quit: Charl)
  936. # [19:30] * Quits: kingryan_ (kingryan@66.92.187.33) (Ping timeout)
  937. # [19:33] <anne> It's probably not a design principle but I wonder if there should be something about "deprecation" somewhere.
  938. # [19:34] * Joins: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.187.33)
  939. # [19:34] <anne> For instance, that it's not useful and what the alternative is.
  940. # [19:35] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  941. # [19:40] <DanC> all this stuff about reply-to headers and such... I suppose it's inevitable in any large mailing list...
  942. # [19:40] <DanC> ... if I respond to it, I risk feeding the fire. I wonder if it's best that I just let it run its course.
  943. # [19:41] <DanC> I tend to not jump in until a couple days after a thread has started.
  944. # [19:42] <DanC> I got the *wierdest* response to my message about holding off on discussion of new features.
  945. # [19:42] <ROBOd> DanC: one advantage on forums is you can close/lock threads :)
  946. # [19:42] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
  947. # [19:42] <ROBOd> (not asking for forums, mailing list is just fine for me....)
  948. # [19:42] <DanC> email clients have had support for killing threads long before web forums existed
  949. # [19:43] <ROBOd> hmmm... too bad opera doesn't have this. i'd kill such threads
  950. # [19:43] * DanC stands by for somebody to point out that opera does have this after all
  951. # [19:43] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  952. # [19:43] * DanC doesn't use opera and doesn't know, but suspects it does
  953. # [19:43] * anne is pretty sure it does too
  954. # [19:44] <ROBOd> anne: where? :)
  955. # [19:44] <ROBOd> using opera for over one year (almost two years)... and i haven't noticed the feature
  956. # [19:44] <DanC> . /topic HTML WG and Opera Tech support
  957. # [19:44] <DanC> 1/2 ;-)
  958. # [19:44] <ROBOd> (obviously, i never looked for it)
  959. # [19:44] <ROBOd> DanC: hehe :)
  960. # [19:44] <anne> I'm not using threading
  961. # [19:45] <DanC> ?!
  962. # [19:45] <DanC> wow
  963. # [19:45] <ROBOd> will ask in appropriate channels right now ....
  964. # [19:45] <DanC> I couldn't survive without it
  965. # [19:46] <DanC> I just got a wild hair and made a local meetup group. http://webdesign.meetup.com/448/
  966. # [19:46] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
  967. # [19:49] <tylerr> Nice DanC!
  968. # [19:49] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  969. # [19:53] * Parts: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  970. # [19:54] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  971. # [19:56] * DanC writes to request management OK before announcing it widely
  972. # [19:59] <jgraham> Was there ever any progress on a meeting around XTech?
  973. # [19:59] <anne> Well, a date was proposed.
  974. # [19:59] <jgraham> On the mailing list?
  975. # [19:59] * jgraham misssed that
  976. # [20:00] <anne> I don't think it got that far.
  977. # [20:00] <anne> It would be the two days before XTech, if there'll be a meeting.
  978. # [20:00] <anne> (Also during the tutorial day.)
  979. # [20:00] <jgraham> 14th+15th?
  980. # [20:00] <anne> I think so, yes
  981. # [20:01] <jgraham> Someoneshould really post that to the mailing list :)
  982. # [20:01] <jgraham> (even if it's not final)
  983. # [20:02] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Quit: Quitte)
  984. # [20:03] <DanC> I'm not sure we have critical mass for a WG meeting around XTech. Those who are there will undoubtedly meet and greet to some extent.
  985. # [20:04] <DanC> the idea of not adding another international trip in May to my schedule is appealing to me
  986. # [20:06] <jgraham> Sure. It would just be very annoying to find that the meeting was organised for the day before I arrive...
  987. # [20:06] <DanC> yeah, I owe something definitive pretty soon
  988. # [20:07] <DanC> actually, I owed something at T-8 weeks. W3C process says that if a meeting is announced with less notice than that, one objection is enough to cancel the meeting.
  989. # [20:10] * Quits: jgraham (jgraham@85.210.140.237) (Client exited)
  990. # [20:10] * Joins: jgraham (jgraham@85.210.140.237)
  991. # [20:56] <Hixie> the <font> and style="" issue in HTML5 isn't even remotely decided yet
  992. # [20:56] <Hixie> the current text is clearly not acceptable to a majority of people and will be changing
  993. # [20:57] <anne> morning Hixie
  994. # [20:59] <Hixie> hi
  995. # [21:00] <anne> interesting, the XForms WG will henceforth be known as the Forms WG...
  996. # [21:00] <Hixie> we do need to find a solution to the style="" attribute problem though
  997. # [21:00] <Hixie> <style scoped> handles a bunch of the use cases
  998. # [21:00] <Hixie> <m> handles some more
  999. # [21:00] <anne> (which is in the XForms Activity to keep things simple)
  1000. # [21:00] <Hixie> most of the other use cases are about rapid prototyping
  1001. # [21:01] <Hixie> it could make sense to have conformance checkers have two modes, "prototyping" and "publishing" or some such
  1002. # [21:02] <anne> why would you want a conforming prototyping document?
  1003. # [21:02] <anne> to keep UAs from complaining about trivial issues?
  1004. # [21:02] * anne wonders how the UI for that would work
  1005. # [21:03] <Hixie> well you'd want to conformance check any document to check that what you're doing makes sense
  1006. # [21:06] <anne> From http://www.w3.org/2007/03/forms-charter.html#coordination "... and whenever appropriate, the HTML Working Group will also coordinate with groups not listed here."
  1007. # [21:06] * anne wonders how that makes sense in the Forms WG charter
  1008. # [21:08] <anne> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/forms-charter.html#deliverables is also weird as it seems that the Forms WG is somehow in charge of Web Forms 2 which I hope is not the case
  1009. # [21:10] * Joins: AnPol (anpol@85.118.224.254)
  1010. # [21:11] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.99.50)
  1011. # [21:16] <anne> DanC, re: versioning, http://www.w3.org/mid/A9925841-9449-4E5C-B149-EF07E1598735@iki.fi is also a good resource imo (although the real points start halfway)
  1012. # [21:17] <anne> DanC, and http://dbaron.org/log/2007-03#e20070325a
  1013. # [21:17] <anne> DanC, also http://www.w3.org/mid/20061214193700.GA9110@ridley.dbaron.org (Member only)
  1014. # [21:18] <mjs> should there be something in the Design Principles document about versioning?
  1015. # [21:19] <anne> "WebLanguageVersioning: Don't"
  1016. # [21:20] <DanC> hm... a wiki works best when documenting conventional wisdom, and this topic is somewhat controversial
  1017. # [21:21] <DanC> by the way, I tried to get the TAG to use a wiki in the very beginning. I'd be interested to try it for this topic
  1018. # [21:21] <DanC> we would need to get at least 3 or 4 TAG members to participate in the wiki.
  1019. # [21:22] <DanC> in particular, anne, "WebLanguageVersioning: Don't" is not a bumper sticker that Norm Walsh is going to buy and put on his car today.
  1020. # [21:22] * anne isn't sure there's much to decide actually
  1021. # [21:22] <mjs> DanC: well, I segregated currently disputed principles into a separate section there
  1022. # [21:23] <mjs> DanC: but I think we will have to decide on those, ultimately, despite the current lack of consensus
  1023. # [21:23] <DanC> I'd be happy to see progress on the principles around versioning
  1024. # [21:23] <anne> I mean, no versioning is pretty much how the web is able to evolve (CSS, HTML, DOM)
  1025. # [21:23] <DanC> and yes, we'll have to make some decisions about what goes at the top of HTML documents.
  1026. # [21:23] <ROBOd> Hixie: glad to read that the <font> and style="" issue is not yet decided
  1027. # [21:24] <mjs> I would personally favor a NoVersioning principle
  1028. # [21:24] <DanC> that name polarizes it too much...
  1029. # [21:24] <anne> it's a principle
  1030. # [21:24] <mjs> but it's worthy of discussion
  1031. # [21:24] <DanC> OneWeb is friendlier, but less precise...
  1032. # [21:24] <Hixie> in general in my experience one way to come up with more principles for our group would be to take the tag's principles and negate them
  1033. # [21:25] <mjs> lol
  1034. # [21:25] <Hixie> they seem to have a very poor batting average in terms of coming up with good principles
  1035. # [21:25] <DanC> Hixie, do you take special classes on how to be rude, or do you just do it naturally?
  1036. # [21:25] <h3h> what about something like OneTrueHTML?
  1037. # [21:26] <Hixie> DanC: what would have been a polite way to say that?
  1038. # [21:26] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.242)
  1039. # [21:26] <h3h> so "UA $x supports HTML" would be meaningful instead of "UA $x supports HTML $version"
  1040. # [21:27] <DanC> maybe "I know the TAG put in a lot of effort on web design principles, and most people seem to agree with them, but I don't"
  1041. # [21:27] <h3h> very PC :)
  1042. # [21:27] <Hixie> DanC: that would be a lie. i have no evidence they put in a lot of effort, and most people don't agree with them.
  1043. # [21:28] <DanC> the www-tag archives are extensive evidence of lots of effort
  1044. # [21:28] <DanC> no?
  1045. # [21:29] <Hixie> where?
  1046. # [21:29] <Hixie> they have very little traffic
  1047. # [21:29] <DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/
  1048. # [21:29] <Hixie> most of the e-mail is just people nit-picking grammar
  1049. # [21:29] <Hixie> no i mean where is the evidence
  1050. # [21:29] * Hixie is subscribed to www-tag
  1051. # [21:30] <DanC> the mail messages are evidence
  1052. # [21:30] <DanC> of thinking, writing, discussing, etc.
  1053. # [21:31] <DanC> nit-picking grammar is work
  1054. # [21:33] <Hixie> today's e-mails are: a mail from you saying that minutes were poor and an action item was dropped, quotes from this group, and a question. an agenda similar to the previous week's. minutes of a meeting where it seems little happened. another copy of hte same minutes. a proposal reiterating a year old proposal.
  1055. # [21:33] <DanC> then, as to "most people seem to agree with them," there was an open review process which lasted several years. People who disagreed with the TAG had some obligation to say so. Many of them did. We reached consensus with all but about 3 of those who participated.
  1056. # [21:34] <Hixie> people who disagreed with the tag typically didn't know the tag existed. the tag is widely ignored.
  1057. # [21:34] <Hixie> and the few times i've pointed out my disagreeement i've been dismissed, which isn't conducive to pointing out more disagreement.
  1058. # [21:34] <DanC> OK, so I'll stipulated that more than half of the 6 billion people on the planet have never heard of the TAG
  1059. # [21:35] <mjs> I think most people working with web technology don't really care what the TAG says
  1060. # [21:35] <Hixie> even within the web community the tag is ignored.
  1061. # [21:35] <DanC> you've been dismissed? I'm interested to look into that.
  1062. # [21:35] <Hixie> if you want to look into my being dismissed i'd rather you started looking at the svg wg
  1063. # [21:35] * anne is also glad the TAG produces non-normative documents
  1064. # [21:35] <DanC> well, the webarch document itself is a REC, anne
  1065. # [21:35] <Hixie> the svgwg are producing normative docs and dismissing my feedback, i care much more about that than the tag ignoring me
  1066. # [21:35] <DanC> the svg WG is another story. And yes, I'm still looking into that.
  1067. # [21:36] <anne> I should have said "mostly" in there somewhere
  1068. # [21:36] <Hixie> the webarch document is another example of a document with things that a lot of people disagree with
  1069. # [21:36] <Hixie> e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#versioning
  1070. # [21:37] <DanC> I, personally, have spent several years of my life (a) trying to write down what works well in the web, and (b) actively seeking the consensus of the community. I think the results are reasonably good.
  1071. # [21:37] <Hixie> or http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-links
  1072. # [21:38] <Hixie> or http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#error-handling
  1073. # [21:38] <Hixie> i mean come on, AWWW is full of things that directly contradict the basic principles of, e.g., this group, or the whatwg.
  1074. # [21:38] <DanC> we could discuss the level of success the tag has had, but for you to say, "they seem to have a very poor batting average in terms of coming up with good principles", as if I weren't even here or something, is the sort of rudeness I'm not interested to deal with.
  1075. # [21:38] <anne> or http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-media-types
  1076. # [21:38] <Hixie> i'm sure it's not your fault dan, the csswg also has a poor batting average in doing good work, and i'm a member of that group
  1077. # [21:39] <Hixie> please don't take my criticisms personally
  1078. # [21:39] <Hixie> (cdf is another group that is a disaster zone, and i was a member of that too for a long time)
  1079. # [21:39] <Hixie> (i'm not stranger to being on groups that do poor work)
  1080. # [21:39] <Hixie> s/not/no/
  1081. # [21:39] <DanC> please phrase your criticism more thoughtfully.
  1082. # [21:40] <Hixie> i should probably warn you if you got offended by my comment that we're likely to get a LOT of feedback like that on HTML5.
  1083. # [21:40] <Hixie> people telling us we're morons, or whatever
  1084. # [21:40] <mjs> DanC: I don't think the problem with the TAG's output is a result of TAG member incompetence, just that the way it is set up tends to lead to an ivory tower point of view
  1085. # [21:40] <Hixie> i wouldn't take that personally either
  1086. # [21:41] <DanC> yes, mjs, I argued against creating the TAG at all because I wondered whether it would do more good than harm
  1087. # [21:41] <mjs> DanC: the whole premise of an general architecture group that operates divorced from specific technologies, users and implementations will tend to lead to ideas that are less informed by real-world experience
  1088. # [21:42] <DanC> I know the TAG is ignored quite a bit, but I also know that what we do helps quite a few people.
  1089. # [21:43] <DanC> or at least: I know quite a few people appreciate it. (you could say that the TAG has misinfomred them.)
  1090. # [21:44] <DanC> as a practical matter, I don't intend to ignore TAG writings while chairing this WG. If we come up with arguments against TAG principles, I'll get the TAG principles changed.
  1091. # [21:44] <anne> cool
  1092. # [21:44] <DanC> I think architectural consistency at W3C is worth working on.
  1093. # [21:45] <mjs> I think the webarch principles that Hixie cited there are pretty much the opposite of right, and certainly opposed to the whatwg philosophy
  1094. # [21:45] <mjs> I will add that the whatwg phisosophy is remarkably coherent and widely agreed upon within that community without anyone writing an up-front statement of architectural principles
  1095. # [21:46] <DanC> that's #xml-media-types , #error-handling , and #versioning ?
  1096. # [21:46] <mjs> my ProposedDesignPrinciples doc is just reverse-engineered from observing the group
  1097. # [21:46] <mjs> #xml-links
  1098. # [21:46] <mjs> I think #error-handling is the most wrong
  1099. # [21:46] * anne mostly pointed out #xml-media-types as all browsers just treat text/xml identically to application/xml which imo makes more sense
  1100. # [21:47] <Hixie> i just picked three at random, i didn't really try to get a comprehensive list of things that were wrong, btw
  1101. # [21:47] <DanC> ok, so that's 3 or 4 or 5. I count 32 in total. a baseball player batting 27/32 could write himself blank checks all day long ;-)
  1102. # [21:47] <Hixie> i only looked at about 6. and i didn't understand the ones i didn't cite.
  1103. # [21:48] <DanC> I hope we find time to discuss the others in due course.
  1104. # [21:48] <Hixie> also, a good batting average for a working group would be "all correct", not 50% or something like a real batter :-)
  1105. # [21:50] <DanC> well, I have resigned myself that in consensus-driven standards work, "more good than harm" is a good goal.
  1106. # [21:50] <Hixie> that's one reason imho consensus-driven standards work doesn't work
  1107. # [21:50] <Hixie> "more good than harm" is imho a very low bar.
  1108. # [21:50] <mjs> sometimes making a choice one way or another is more valuable than preserving broader consensus
  1109. # [21:51] * DanC detects very little h in those imho statements
  1110. # [21:51] <DanC> yes. that's the art of all this.
  1111. # [21:51] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  1112. # [21:52] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254)
  1113. # [21:52] <DanC> you can't make everybody happy... but if you piss everybody off, you don't get critical mass.
  1114. # [21:52] <Hixie> true
  1115. # [21:53] <Hixie> although, depends how you define "everybody"
  1116. # [21:53] <Hixie> the whatwg did pretty much piss everybody at w3c off as far as i can tell
  1117. # [21:53] <DanC> not me.
  1118. # [21:53] <Hixie> but it clearly got critical mass :-)
  1119. # [21:54] <DanC> in fact, there's now a formal decision process that pretty strongly suggests that the WHATWG pissed off only a small part of the W3C constituency.
  1120. # [21:54] <mjs> I think this TAG principle is good, but widely ignored by the W3C: http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#orthogonal-specs
  1121. # [21:54] <Hixie> (http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060412 is another tag finding that a lot of people disagree with)
  1122. # [21:55] <Hixie> (i have to say that a lot of the tag findings are things i can't say that i disagree with, but i also can't say that i agree with them. i often don't really understand the applicability to the web.)
  1123. # [21:55] <Hixie> mjs: yeah, that's a good principle indeed
  1124. # [21:55] <DanC> yes, hixie, your objection to mime-respect-20060412 is noted. hmm... maybe not clearly enough, though. I still think respecting MIME types is good for web architecture, but I see both sides.
  1125. # [21:55] <Hixie> i'd love content-type to be respected across the board.
  1126. # [21:56] <Hixie> i think it would be wonderful if the web worked like that.
  1127. # [21:56] <Hixie> but it doesn't, and can't.
  1128. # [21:56] <Hixie> it's an example of what mjs was saying -- the tag's structure leads it to make ivory tower statements.
  1129. # [21:56] <DanC> "it doesn't" I agree with. but "can't"? I dunno.
  1130. # [21:56] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  1131. # [21:57] <mjs> DanC: if we boil the ocean it could work that way
  1132. # [21:57] <anne> DanC, did you guys talk to the MSIE team about that finding?
  1133. # [21:57] <DanC> yes
  1134. # [21:57] <DanC> well, indirectly, via...
  1135. # [21:57] <anne> and they would fix their implementation to respect it?
  1136. # [21:57] <DanC> umm... Paul Cotton
  1137. # [21:57] <Hixie> if browsers started honouring content-types on <img> elements, very few images on the web would render anymore.
  1138. # [21:58] <Hixie> if browsers honoured text/plain content-types, very few videos would be downloadable anymore
  1139. # [21:58] * Quits: tylerr (tylerr@66.195.32.2) (Quit: Leaving)
  1140. # [21:58] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro)
  1141. # [21:58] <Hixie> if they honoured the type of documents intended to be stylesheets, very few CSS files would apply any more
  1142. # [21:58] <Hixie> i mean you just can't do it
  1143. # [21:58] <DanC> IE has fixed some aspects of their broken MIME support, when they turned into security issues.
  1144. # [21:58] <Hixie> there's so much that depends on ignoring content-type.
  1145. # [21:59] <anne> I believe CSS is respected in standards mode. We recently fixed something there anyway...
  1146. # [22:00] <Hixie> yeah, but there's a reason that's in standards mode only
  1147. # [22:00] <DanC> The TAG knows we're pushing water uphill w.r.t. MIME types, at least to some extent. I think it's worthwhile.
  1148. # [22:00] <mjs> respecting content-type would have been good but it's just not feasible to try to apply it after the fact
  1149. # [22:00] <DanC> is the game really over? the future is longer than the past
  1150. # [22:01] <mjs> pushing water uphill out of a galactic core's gravity well
  1151. # [22:01] <anne> DanC, following that line of thought there's not much need for this HTML WG
  1152. # [22:01] <anne> DanC, XHTML will work "someday"
  1153. # [22:02] <mjs> if the finding were stated with a clear exception for compatibility, perhaps listing some of the cases where the finding is impractical to apply, it will make more sense
  1154. # [22:02] <mjs> *it would make more sense
  1155. # [22:02] <DanC> ah. now you're being so reasonable that I'm obliged to follow up on that idea, mjs.
  1156. # [22:02] * Quits: dino (dino@59.167.58.90) (Ping timeout)
  1157. # [22:03] <mjs> then you could take it as a principle for design of future features, rather than an attempt to deny reality
  1158. # [22:03] <Hixie> feeds is another place where you have to ignore content-type
  1159. # [22:04] <mjs> but even then, you'd think about how it interacts with a principle to gracefully handle errors
  1160. # [22:04] <Hixie> (the html5 spec has a set of rules for how to sniff the various places it says to sniff)
  1161. # [22:04] <anne> feeds is also a perfect example for why XML needs error handling... at least for character encoding issues
  1162. # [22:04] <DanC> yes, it's going to be very interesting to review those sniffing rules, Hixie.
  1163. # [22:04] <mjs> while text-based formats create a lot of ambiguity problems with sniffing, most binary formats, like image, video or audio types, are unambiguously sniffable from content
  1164. # [22:05] <Hixie> yeah
  1165. # [22:05] <mjs> so for example there's very little reason to require <video> to fail in cases where the server reports a bad content type
  1166. # [22:06] <anne> It would only complicate authoring if we required that I think...
  1167. # [22:06] <Hixie> yeah
  1168. # [22:06] <Hixie> and would complicated the UA
  1169. # [22:07] <mjs> on the other hand, sometimes there can be different content-types for bitwise identical formats that imply different handling
  1170. # [22:07] <DanC> my queue of stuff to re-consider in the TAG is full now... could we maybe change the subject? 1/2 ;-)
  1171. # [22:07] <mjs> if you were to take things literally, video/3gpp should be handled differently than video/mpeg4-generic when a non-3gpp codec is present
  1172. # [22:07] <DanC> I got a wild hair and created a local web design meetup group http://webdesign.meetup.com/448/
  1173. # [22:07] <mjs> but it's hard for me to tell a priori if it is better to respect that or not
  1174. # [22:08] <Hixie> mjs: would one of the two be a failure?
  1175. # [22:08] <mjs> Hixie: not failure, just ignoring tracks in unknown codecs
  1176. # [22:08] <mjs> er, disallowed codecs
  1177. # [22:08] <Hixie> ignoring data seems like a failure, from the user's standpoint
  1178. # [22:08] <mjs> true, it's unlikely someone would want a track to be ignored intentionally and use the MIME type to achieve that
  1179. # [22:19] <DanC> OneTrueHTML... that reminds me... http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity says "HTML is the family name for the group of languages that form the lingua franca of the World Wide Web." Karl and I changed that to "HTML is the publishing language of the World Wide Web." for http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
  1180. # [22:19] <DanC> the Activity statement is supposed to get negotiated actively every 6 months. 26 March was an internal deadline that got missed, so that process is at risk...
  1181. # [22:20] <DanC> ... but that Activity statement also tends to get read to reporters and such, so it does have some impact
  1182. # [22:20] <anne> HTML5 will probably make it the application language of the web as well...
  1183. # [22:21] <h3h> applications are published, in a sense
  1184. # [22:21] <mjs> what's an Activity statement?
  1185. # [22:22] <DanC> the way TimBL put it in 1990 was, "There is a set of formats which every client must be able to handle. These include 80-column text and basic hypertext ( HTML )." -- http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Formats
  1186. # [22:22] <DanC> an Activity statement is part of the "here's what we did with your money for the last 6 months" checks and balances at W3C
  1187. # [22:23] * Quits: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.187.33) (Ping timeout)
  1188. # [22:23] <DanC> "and what we're going to do with it for the next 6 months"
  1189. # [22:23] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.242) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  1190. # [22:23] <mjs> who is the audience for those statements? W3C Member organizations?
  1191. # [22:23] <DanC> they're world-readable...
  1192. # [22:24] <DanC> they sometimes get printed as marketing materials
  1193. # [22:24] <DanC> I mean... they mostly get ignored, of course.
  1194. # [22:24] <mjs> when is the next HTML one due?
  1195. # [22:24] <DanC> the next AC meeting is in May
  1196. # [22:25] <DanC> the page can get edited at any time, as long as it's with the knowledge and consent of the activity lead. (Steven Pemberton in our case.)
  1197. # [22:25] * Joins: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.187.33)
  1198. # [22:26] <DanC> like I say, it was supposed to get updated by 26 March, but it didn't. I could either leave it alone or actively do something about it.
  1199. # [22:26] <DanC> I'm more likely to actively do something about it if we settle on something inspiring around NoVersioning or OneTrueHTML
  1200. # [22:27] <DanC> and the audience includes reporters that call about HTML
  1201. # [22:31] <mjs> I could add those directly to the Disputed section for continuing debate
  1202. # [22:31] <mjs> the Disputed section should probably try to capture the differing points of view
  1203. # [22:31] <DanC> well, yes...
  1204. # [22:32] <DanC> sometimes there are principles that conflict, and it's worth documenting both of them
  1205. # [22:32] <anne> NoVersioning is also part of CSS, XBL, specs related to CSS...
  1206. # [22:32] <DanC> and sometimes there really is a principle and some noteable exeptions.
  1207. # [22:33] <DanC> it's really tricky to treat all points of view with due respect without totally watering everything down
  1208. # [22:34] <DanC> because parts of the web really do use versioning (or mime types) to achieve evolution, e.g. from GIF to PNG. and the XSLT version attribute seems to work pretty well.
  1209. # [22:35] <anne> Does anyone actually implement new versions of XSLT?
  1210. # [22:36] * anne thought only XSLT 1.0 was widely deployed
  1211. # [22:36] <Zeros> Isn't FF3 supposed to have XSLT2 support?
  1212. # [22:36] <DanC> XSLT 2 is catching on; yes, it's implemented
  1213. # [22:36] <anne> XML 1.1 is another case where versioning failed miserably...
  1214. # [22:36] <DanC> yes, XML 1.1 is a case study in how *not* to do versioning
  1215. # [22:37] <gavin_> no, there are no concrete plans for XSLT 2 support in Firefox 3
  1216. # [22:37] * anne was about to ask for pointers
  1217. # [22:37] <DanC> saxon is the XSLT2 implementaiton that I hear most about
  1218. # [22:37] <anne> That's not really a web client is it?
  1219. # [22:38] <Zeros> it could be integrated with one
  1220. # [22:38] <anne> I mean, in that sense Python 2.5 is being adopted as well...
  1221. # [22:38] <DanC> these things tend to get implemented in pointer-safe languages 1st and get implemented in C only later. it'll be interesting to see if XSLT2 requirements ever become worth the cost in contexts like ff
  1222. # [22:38] <DanC> ah... in web client code, I'm not aware of any XSLT 2 deployment
  1223. # [22:39] * anne should probably have picked a different language than Python which you can sort of use in Firefox in due course
  1224. # [22:39] <DanC> python in ff? how?
  1225. # [22:40] <anne> DanC, if you're making applications with XULRunner I believe
  1226. # [22:40] * anne doesn't know the details
  1227. # [22:40] <DanC> javascript is evolving in pythonic directions, and there were python plugins back when java plugins were hip, but I've written off hope of using python in web clients directly
  1228. # [22:41] <jgraham> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/PyDOM
  1229. # [22:41] <jgraham> (you can't access it from untrusted content)
  1230. # [22:42] <DanC> I don't see any installation instructions; it's not built-in currently, is it?
  1231. # [22:43] <jgraham> It's on the trunk but I don't know if it's compiled by default
  1232. # [22:43] <DanC> wild. learn something new every day
  1233. # [22:53] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.242)
  1234. # [23:02] <h3h> "pointer-safe" heh
  1235. # [23:03] <h3h> more like..."pointer-challenged" ;)
  1236. # [23:10] <Zeros> DanC, JS is evolving in pythonic directions?
  1237. # [23:10] <Zeros> Seems like ECMAScript is getting more and more like java with each iteration, just look at AS3
  1238. # [23:13] * DanC thinks he bookmarked something under http://del.icio.us/connolly/python+javascript ...
  1239. # [23:14] <anne> brendan said on his blog it'd be more Pythonic
  1240. # [23:14] <anne> or somewhere else
  1241. # [23:14] <DanC> yeah, that rings a bell. I can't find it just now
  1242. # [23:14] <anne> or maybe during XTech last year or some other presentation I've seen...
  1243. # [23:15] <h3h> ES4 is adding many Pythonic things, like generators and array comprehensions
  1244. # [23:16] <h3h> http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/ for details
  1245. # [23:16] <Zeros> E4X is pretty nice
  1246. # [23:16] <h3h> (and a few Java-like things... traditional classes, interfaces, etc.)
  1247. # [23:18] <Zeros> pretty much ripped right out of Java/C#, "public static override function foo() : void"
  1248. # [23:18] * anne thinks E4X is pretty bloated
  1249. # [23:18] * Joins: tylerr (tylerr@66.195.32.2)
  1250. # [23:19] <h3h> E4X targets a very specific type of development
  1251. # [23:20] <Zeros> you could also use XPath
  1252. # [23:20] <Zeros> both keep you from mucking around with the DOM interfaces
  1253. # [23:22] * Quits: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.187.33) (Ping timeout)
  1254. # [23:52] * Joins: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.187.33)
  1255. # [23:58] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  1256. # Session Close: Sat Mar 31 00:00:01 2007

The end :)