/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2007-06-27 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Wed Jun 27 00:00:00 2007
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:00] <Hixie> i don't really know what test cases would mean in this context
  4. # [00:00] <Hixie> style="" is very well understood technically, it's just the use cases that are lacking
  5. # [00:00] <Hixie> nobody is proposing changing how it works
  6. # [00:00] <Hixie> the question is whether it's the best solution to hte problems it solves, and what problems it is solving
  7. # [00:01] <Hixie> it bugs me when someone sends an e-mail along the lines of "i must insist that [something or other be changed]"
  8. # [00:01] <DanC> well, a test case could answer "is this in the language?"
  9. # [00:02] <Hixie> how is that useful?
  10. # [00:02] <Hixie> isn't it trivial?
  11. # [00:02] <DanC> well, a whole pile of discussion seems to think that it's not trivial.
  12. # [00:02] <Hixie> re the insists thing, for everyone who insists on one change, there are two people who insist on incompatible changes. insisting helps nobody. what we need is reasoning, so that hyatt and i can find solutons that address as much as ossible.
  13. # [00:02] <Hixie> DanC: no i mean the test case would be trivial.
  14. # [00:03] <DanC> I think a lot of people would stop sending so much mail if they were assured that style="" was going to stay in the language.
  15. # [00:03] <Hixie> ok, here's the testcase: "<!DOCTYPE HTML><p style="">Is this conforming?"
  16. # [00:03] <DanC> yup
  17. # [00:03] <Hixie> how are we further along now?
  18. # [00:03] <Hixie> i don't understand how the test case helps anything
  19. # [00:04] <Hixie> (in this case)
  20. # [00:04] <DanC> well, we'll be further along with a recorded decision that yes, it's conforming.
  21. # [00:04] <Hixie> (i agree that for, e.g., the parser section, test cases are pretty much the only way to go)
  22. # [00:04] <DanC> actually, I'm not sure an empty style makes for such a good test case, now that I look at it.
  23. # [00:04] <Hixie> right but how does the testcase help determine the answer to that question?
  24. # [00:04] <gavin_> isn't the entire discussion about whether or not it should be conforming?
  25. # [00:04] <Hixie> ok, here's the testcase: "<!DOCTYPE HTML><p style="color:blue">Is this conforming?"
  26. # [00:05] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@81.132.88.104)
  27. # [00:05] <Philip`> (Do you still need <title></title> too?)
  28. # [00:05] <DanC> well, yes, to some extent, the whole discussion is about whether it's conforming. but there's no black-and-white object of study to focus the discussion
  29. # [00:05] <Hixie> Philip`: "<!DOCTYPE HTML><title>style attribute</title><p style="color:blue">Is this conforming?"
  30. # [00:05] <Hixie> DanC: i don't understand how the testcase helps at all. i don't think anyone misunderstands what the question is.
  31. # [00:06] <DanC> I can imagine the discussion tweaking the test case until exemplifies a use case that everyone agrees merits inclusion in the language
  32. # [00:06] <Hixie> DanC: the problem is that we have no data to _answer_ the question
  33. # [00:06] <Hixie> DanC: that's use cases, not a test case
  34. # [00:06] <DanC> it can be both
  35. # [00:06] <Hixie> ok, well, feel free to try to get people to do that
  36. # [00:06] <Hixie> i don't really care how we get to use cases
  37. # [00:06] <Hixie> but my need here is use cases
  38. # [00:06] <Hixie> without them i can't progress on the issue
  39. # [00:07] <Hixie> (as i discussed in the e-mail)
  40. # [00:07] <DanC> I guess I haven't read enough of the discussion; I'm having a hard time imagining why the style attribute would be anything other than conforming in every sense, just like it has been as far back as I can remember.
  41. # [00:07] <Hixie> (use cases and other things, actually, see the e-mail for details)
  42. # [00:07] <Hixie> anyway, afk, bbiab
  43. # [00:09] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Quit: http://eric.daspet.name/ et l'├ędition 2007 de http://www.paris-web.fr/ )
  44. # [00:13] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  45. # [00:13] <DanC> ah... very nice... "Such arguments will have no effect on anything. You're not going to
  46. # [00:13] <DanC> convince the people who disagree with you by telling them they are wrong,
  47. # [00:13] <DanC> even if they _are_ wrong"
  48. # [00:18] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  49. # [00:29] * tH resists the urge to reply "+1"
  50. # [00:30] <gsnedders> tH: that often gets hard to resist, especially in arguments about the use of it, doesn't it?
  51. # [00:30] <Hixie> (back)
  52. # [00:30] * Philip` wonders how many weeks it has been since the last +1
  53. # [00:35] * DanC thanks tH for his discipline
  54. # [00:47] * Quits: tH (Rob@87.102.84.66) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.78.1-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.0.9/2006120508])
  55. # [00:58] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.97.186)
  56. # [01:02] <kingryan> +1 to tH
  57. # [01:11] * Joins: sbuluf (ihhzoqw@200.49.140.162)
  58. # [01:13] <mw22> -1
  59. # [01:14] <gavin_> << 1
  60. # [01:16] <kingryan> ^1
  61. # [01:18] <schepers> Hixie, I think you're wrong
  62. # [01:19] <schepers> (sorry, had to say that)
  63. # [01:20] * Parts: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
  64. # [01:22] <mjs> -1
  65. # [01:23] <schepers> :'(
  66. # [01:48] * Quits: kingryan (rking3@208.66.64.47) (Quit: kingryan)
  67. # [01:58] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30)
  68. # [02:05] * Joins: Lachy_ (chatzilla@203.158.59.119)
  69. # [02:07] * Quits: Lachy (chatzilla@203.158.59.119) (Ping timeout)
  70. # [02:07] * Lachy_ is now known as Lachy
  71. # [02:20] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  72. # [02:25] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  73. # [02:34] <karl> Hixie: good email on cooperative work through the wiki.
  74. # [02:37] <Hixie> now if only people listen to it :-/
  75. # [02:37] <Hixie> we've already had a +1 since that e-mail
  76. # [02:38] <karl> ;)
  77. # [02:38] <karl> because it is all about humans and not bots
  78. # [02:49] * Quits: zcorpan_ (zcorpan@84.216.41.174) (Ping timeout)
  79. # [02:49] <Hixie> you know, the more this naming discussion goes on, the more i wonder whether the better solution isn't just to rename xhtml2
  80. # [02:50] <Hixie> i've been trying to keep out of the discussion though
  81. # [02:51] <karl> Hixie, I proposed it to XHTML 2.0 too.
  82. # [02:52] <karl> s/XHTML 2.0/XHTML 2.0 WG/
  83. # [02:52] <Hixie> yeah
  84. # [02:52] <Hixie> i think danc has implied that xhtml2 might want to change name too
  85. # [02:52] <karl> I'm all for finding a reasonnable arangement between parties, and not that much for names ownership or "dick contest"
  86. # [02:53] <Hixie> yeah
  87. # [02:53] <karl> which until now sounds like it
  88. # [02:53] <Hixie> indeed
  89. # [02:53] <Hixie> that's why i've been trying to keep the heck away :-)
  90. # [02:53] * Joins: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30)
  91. # [03:02] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6)
  92. # [03:16] <karl> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jun/0122
  93. # [03:27] <mjs> I'm not sure what any of that means
  94. # [03:33] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6) (Quit: polin8)
  95. # [03:34] <karl> I think shane is saying what hixie says too and many others. That the PROSE of the spec defines the semantics. Then there are discussions on how to better integrate RDFa with future languages and old languages. And to do so in the less disruptive way.
  96. # [03:37] <Lachy> his argument doesn't follow. He says that a DTD only describes syntax, not semantics, and then concludes that the DOCTYPE can be used as an indicator for sementics.
  97. # [03:39] <karl> Lachy: yes it is what is an identifier, a label, a serial number, etc.
  98. # [03:39] <karl> a reference to a document
  99. # [03:50] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Client exited)
  100. # [04:27] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  101. # [04:32] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  102. # [04:43] <schepers> wow, Lachy, you're right, XHTML5 *is* a widely used term... about 1/10th as widely used as XHTML2
  103. # [04:46] <Lachy> schepers: I wasn't making a comparison of how widely each are used, it makes no difference that "XHTML2" is used more than "XHTML5"
  104. # [04:46] <schepers> then why did you make the argument?
  105. # [04:48] <Lachy> because it is a widely used term. just because A is more widely used than B, doesn't mean B isn't widely used
  106. # [04:49] <schepers> the only reason I see for HTML5's XML serialization to be called XHTML (as far as I can tell) is to attempt to undermine the efforts of XHTML2
  107. # [04:49] <schepers> why isn't HTML5/XML just as good, for example?
  108. # [04:50] <Lachy> so you're ignoring the fact that XHTML5 is much close to XHTML1, than XHTML2 is. If only one is to retain the name, it should be the one that is closer to XHTML1.
  109. # [04:50] <Lachy> however, I couldn't care less if XHTML2 retains it's name. XHTML2 is irrelevant
  110. # [04:50] <schepers> Lachy, I can read, and I've read that argument about 20 times now
  111. # [04:51] <Lachy> well, then why are you still debating?
  112. # [04:51] <schepers> it's clear that that's your opinion, but remember, "opinions don't matter", right?
  113. # [04:51] <schepers> I'm not debating, I'm pointing out that you aren't making very good arguments
  114. # [04:52] <schepers> I have no investment in XHTML2 at all, myself
  115. # [04:52] <Lachy> that XHTML2 is irrelevant is my opinion, but that XHTML5 is closer to XHTML1 than XHTML2 is, is a fact (which I already supplied evidence for)
  116. # [04:56] <schepers> on a syntactic level, perhaps
  117. # [04:56] <schepers> but not in spirit
  118. # [04:58] <mjs> XHTML2's effort doesn't need any undermining
  119. # [04:58] <mjs> they seem to be handling that fine by themselves
  120. # [04:58] <schepers> ok, then why are you getting in a pissing contest about the name?
  121. # [04:59] <mjs> I think it's fine for both to keep their current name
  122. # [04:59] <mjs> I'm not the one who started asking the other group to change
  123. # [04:59] <mjs> I think both using the XHTML1 namespace URI is a bigger problem, but it would be a problem for XHTML2 even if XHTML5 didn't exist
  124. # [05:02] <schepers> if XHTML2 is so doomed, why would you even want XHTML5 to be associated with the name?
  125. # [05:02] <schepers> or, in other news, why not just play nice and use a different name?
  126. # [05:04] <mjs> - the normal name so far for an XML version of HTML has been XHTML, there doesn't seem to be any deep need to change it
  127. # [05:04] <mjs> - why doesn't XHTML2 WG play nice and use a different name?
  128. # [05:04] <mjs> (not that I care if they do, but they are the ones who seem to think different names are important)
  129. # [05:06] <mjs> I think the XHTML2 WG passing a resolution that the HTML WG should not use a particular name is not a very friendly way to start the discussion
  130. # [05:08] <schepers> I believe that the discussion was started by the WHATWG appropriating the W3C name XHTML, don't you agree?
  131. # [05:08] <schepers> or am I mischaracterizing the situation?
  132. # [05:08] <mjs> WHATWG used the name "Web Apps 1.0"
  133. # [05:08] <mjs> although unofficially people referred to it as HTML5 and XHTML5
  134. # [05:09] <mjs> now it is a W3C spec maintained by the HTML WG
  135. # [05:09] <mjs> which has officially resolved to name it HTML5, but has not picked an official name for the XHTML serialization
  136. # [05:09] <mjs> although popular and sensible proposals include XHTML 5 and XHTML 1.5
  137. # [05:10] <schepers> that wasn't my question, mjs
  138. # [05:10] <mjs> I think it's a mischaracterization to say "the discussion was started by the WHATWG appropriating the W3C name XHTML"
  139. # [05:10] <mjs> which was in fact your question
  140. # [05:11] <schepers> how is it a mischaracterization?
  141. # [05:11] <schepers> Lachy stated that the term XHTML5 has been used for 3 years.... either it has been or it hasn't
  142. # [05:12] <schepers> and, in fact, it has
  143. # [05:12] <mjs> WHATWG didn't name anything XHTML5, random people called it that, now the WG is considering making it official
  144. # [05:12] <schepers> you should run for office :)
  145. # [05:13] <mjs> no one told XHTML2 WG what they should or shouldn't name their spec
  146. # [05:13] <mjs> both groups will be defining languages evolved from XHTML 1
  147. # [05:13] <mjs> I am sure arguments could be made why one side has more right to the name than the other
  148. # [05:13] <mjs> I think sharing is just fine
  149. # [05:13] <schepers> I think they were chartered to work on the XHTML spec, right?
  150. # [05:15] <schepers> I think it's not a very friendly way to start the discussion by appropriating the name of a language that they were chartered to define
  151. # [05:15] <mjs> they are chartered to "continue the XHTML2 work"
  152. # [05:15] <mjs> I didn't know they were chartered to define XHTML5
  153. # [05:15] <mjs> I don't think it says that in their charter
  154. # [05:16] <mjs> I don't see a problem with both languages being named XHTML N for different values of N
  155. # [05:16] <schepers> you can spin it howver you like, maciej, but I'll say again, the only reason I can see for the HTML WG (and the WHATWG) to use the term XHTML5 is to sow confusion and undermine the XHTML2 WG
  156. # [05:17] <schepers> and I suspect you think the same thing
  157. # [05:17] <mjs> I'd be fine with XHTML 1.5 as a name if it made people happy (makes it more clear that it is related to the XHTML 1.x family of languages, not XHTML2)
  158. # [05:17] <mjs> but I don't think it would make people happy
  159. # [05:17] <schepers> you know it wouldn't, and you know why
  160. # [05:18] <mjs> I personally don't care what the XHTML2 WG does and I wish they would leave us alone
  161. # [05:18] <mjs> we don't go to their mailing list to start turf wars or pissing matches
  162. # [05:18] <schepers> there's an easy way to do that: stop stepping on their toes... there are plenty of perfectly good acronyms out there
  163. # [05:19] <mjs> it could certainly reduce confusion if they didn't use "H", "T", "M" and "L" in that order in their name
  164. # [05:19] <schepers> but like I said, I'm just a spectator here
  165. # [05:19] <mjs> since it may lead people to think their language is suitable for use as an on-the-wire format, or would work in browsers
  166. # [05:19] <Lachy> there has been no real evidence for such confusion presented yet
  167. # [05:19] <mjs> but I don't think it's a big problem for them to keep the XHTML2 name
  168. # [05:20] <schepers> ah, yes, "evidence"
  169. # [05:20] <schepers> that's starting to sound like a dirty word
  170. # [05:21] <mjs> I actually don't know why XHTML 1.5 would be unacceptable either - it lets XHTML2 keep the privilege of the larger number and the appearance of the more radically forward-looking language
  171. # [05:21] <schepers> define evidence, please... and do avoid using the word "evident" because it's clear that's not what you mean
  172. # [05:22] <schepers> mjs, because there would be a name clash through iterations either way
  173. # [05:22] <mjs> I mean, I guess it is ok for the XHTML2 WG to make a polite request to change the name of the XML serialization of our language, but I also think it is ok for us to say "no" to that
  174. # [05:22] <Lachy> evidence for confusion would be things like forum posts, emails, blog posts, etc. that ask questions like what's the difference between XHTML2 and XHTML5, and saying I don't understand something, where such statements arise from the similarity in names
  175. # [05:22] <schepers> (assuming either language survives more than a couple decades, which I personally doubt)
  176. # [05:23] <mjs> arguments could be made both ways why one has more or less right to claim their language is a successor to XHTML
  177. # [05:23] <mjs> but arguing such things is a waste of time
  178. # [05:23] <mjs> let's just be nice and share
  179. # [05:23] <schepers> lol
  180. # [05:24] <schepers> I honestly think you're a good guy, mjs, but I don't think you're being straightforward here
  181. # [05:25] <schepers> Lachy, I've been at a meeting where there was, in fact, great confusion about the relationship of XHTML2 and XHTML5
  182. # [05:25] <schepers> it was a large meeting of mostly technical people
  183. # [05:25] <mjs> sample argument: XHTML5 will likely get served as application/xhtml+xml on the public web as a final format, XHTML2 likely won't (unless carefully restricted to an XHTML5 or XHTML1-compatible subset, or using trickery like client-side XSLT to transform to an actual end delivery format)
  184. # [05:26] <mjs> seems like the thing that will be served with the XHTML MIME type should be named XHTML
  185. # [05:26] <mjs> (this is not to disparage the potential value of XHTML2 as a back-end authoring format)
  186. # [05:27] <mjs> you can see how arguments along these lines could easily turn into a mean-spirited dick size flamewar
  187. # [06:26] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  188. # [06:35] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  189. # [06:40] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  190. # [08:43] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  191. # [08:47] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  192. # [08:54] <anne> hmm, the namespace we use also has "xhtml" in it
  193. # [08:56] <Lachy> I suppose we should document all these arguments in the wiki, so we can point people there instead of debating it again and again
  194. # [09:08] <anne> karl, all user agents support <image>
  195. # [09:09] * anne is not going to send another e-mail debating <image> suppor
  196. # [09:09] * anne ... support*
  197. # [09:09] <anne> I'm not aware of any table, I'm aware of tests that have been done
  198. # [09:10] <karl> anne: by user agents, do you mean desktop browsers?
  199. # [09:10] <karl> just to know
  200. # [09:10] <anne> Opera Mini, Opera Mobile, S60, etc. too at least
  201. # [09:10] <anne> I've no idea how far other mobile browsers care about the web versus walled garden content
  202. # [09:11] <karl> ok. thanks. because I try to search a bit and didn't find anything about it.
  203. # [09:11] <karl> I was curious
  204. # [09:11] * Joins: frippz (frippz@193.15.86.40)
  205. # [09:11] <anne> test it yourself...
  206. # [09:12] <anne> here's a testcase you can use: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C%21DOCTYPE%20html%3E%3Cimage%20src%3Dimage%3E
  207. # [09:12] <karl> If I do not find anything is what I will do :))) indeed
  208. # [09:12] * Joins: tH (Rob@87.102.84.66)
  209. # [09:12] <karl> hmmm the element name is even converted in the DOM, I see
  210. # [09:12] <anne> that's the whole point
  211. # [09:13] <anne> it's a parsing quirk
  212. # [09:13] <anne> the language stays unaffected
  213. # [09:13] <anne> I don't think anyone on the mailing list gets that though, but that's ok
  214. # [09:13] <karl> yirkkkk cat pictures :p
  215. # [09:14] <anne> however, I'd recommend against testing parsing quirk for parsing quirk
  216. # [09:14] <anne> that seems like a waste of time
  217. # [09:18] <anne> "There is no reason not to publish as a working draft. Although it's clearly incomplete and there are many open issues, it closely reflects the current state of HTML5, which is good enough for a WD."
  218. # [09:18] <anne> Lachy, what open issues?
  219. # [09:18] * anne also wonders what is missing
  220. # [09:19] <Lachy> open issues in HTML5 in general, such as the missing headers="", summary="", etc.
  221. # [09:19] <anne> oh
  222. # [09:21] <karl> anne: do you need me to send a new version of the status for the document?
  223. # [09:21] <karl> or will you include my version with the comments which have been made?
  224. # [09:22] <anne> could you give me a HTML version?
  225. # [09:22] <anne> I modified the abstract, fwiw
  226. # [09:22] <karl> yes :) I will
  227. # [09:26] <karl> oh btw mjs: I have been playing a bit with DashCode, nice piece of software
  228. # [09:26] <mjs> karl: glad to hear you like it
  229. # [09:29] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  230. # [09:37] * Quits: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  231. # [09:37] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Where dwelt Ymir, or wherein did he find sustenance?)
  232. # [10:23] * Joins: zcorpan_ (zcorpan@84.216.41.153)
  233. # [10:26] * Joins: Jero (Jero@213.46.207.230)
  234. # [10:49] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  235. # [10:54] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  236. # [10:59] * Quits: frippz (frippz@193.15.86.40) (Quit: frippz)
  237. # [10:59] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6)
  238. # [11:09] <hsivonen> Hixie: in case you are not reading every message on public-html at the moment, I'd like to call your attention to Aaron Leventhal's contributions to the "market hasn't spoken" thread
  239. # [11:15] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154)
  240. # [11:42] <mjs> I think an interim accessibility solution is useful but it doesn't need to be conforming to be (best practice would be use the appropriate element) and I kinda hate the baggage of the role attribute
  241. # [11:42] <mjs> the accessibility-only version sort of makes sense but it has become a magnet for semantics freaks
  242. # [11:42] <mjs> an interim solution based on class could be conforming w/o any changes to the HTML spec, and could be done as a separate spec
  243. # [11:43] <mjs> in fact there is a spec already for how to embed role information in class (not necessarily a very good one mind you)
  244. # [12:00] <hsivonen> mjs: not making it conforming leads to silliness like the recent IBM-authored Note
  245. # [12:01] <mjs> that being the one that says how to use class for accessibility info?
  246. # [12:01] <hsivonen> mjs: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/adaptable/HTML4/embedding-20061212.html
  247. # [12:01] <mjs> the only thing I find silly about it is that I don't get why they didn't do it that way in the first place
  248. # [12:02] <Lachy> hsivonen: Aaron's message is certainly a refreshingly objective post about accessibility
  249. # [12:02] <hsivonen> it's silly to hide stuff in another place to trick the validator and them move it with scripting instead of just making it ok to put it in the right place from the start
  250. # [12:02] <hsivonen> mjs: "that way" as in class or as in moving stuff with a script
  251. # [12:03] <mjs> as in using classes
  252. # [12:03] <mjs> instead of making up new global attributes
  253. # [12:05] <mjs> notice there are four different attributes in their simple XML example
  254. # [12:05] <anne> they have a lot more iirc
  255. # [12:05] <anne> it's quite complex stuff
  256. # [12:06] <mjs> so anyway I think a simple design based on class or other general-purpose extensibility hooks might be worth it, but as it is, it's a very purpose-specific and quite complex system, for an interim solution
  257. # [12:07] <mjs> better to build interim solutions on top of general mechanisms - then we know the general mechanisms are more likely to be ready for the next time someone needs an interim solution
  258. # [12:08] <mjs> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/GUI/roleTaxonomy-20060221.html
  259. # [12:08] <mjs> they have some quite silly roles in there
  260. # [12:08] <mjs> like "separator"
  261. # [12:09] * Quits: heycam (cam@203.214.72.248) (Ping timeout)
  262. # [12:09] <mjs> styling an <hr> already works in every browser afaik
  263. # [12:09] <hsivonen> as much as Hixie hates namespace prefixes, they could be the extensibility mechanims for special edge case stuff like this
  264. # [12:09] <beowulf> mm, styling an hr is a nightmare, i just don't use them
  265. # [12:10] * Joins: heycam (cam@203.214.72.248)
  266. # [12:10] * Quits: Lachy (chatzilla@203.158.59.119) (Ping timeout)
  267. # [12:10] * Joins: Lachy_ (chatzilla@203.158.59.119)
  268. # [12:10] * Lachy_ is now known as Lachy
  269. # [12:10] <mjs> maybe
  270. # [12:12] <mjs> wow, the WAI states are even sillier than the roles
  271. # [12:13] <mjs> anyway I guess namespaced attributes are a pretty obvious way to allow key/value data to be attached to an element for later use by scripting
  272. # [12:13] <mjs> just not sure if there's a way of using them that is backwards compatible and also XHTML - HTML cross-compatible
  273. # [12:20] <hsivonen> mjs: adding namespaces to HTML would make it XHTML-HTML cross-compatible. compat with shipped Firefox would need a script similar to what IBM is already advocating for HTML in the Note
  274. # [12:25] <zcorpan_> do we need to define role processing?
  275. # [12:26] <zcorpan_> isn't it better to try to get <progress> &c implemented?
  276. # [12:27] <hsivonen> zcorpan_: in the long term, yes. in the short term, making the role stuff (what's actually implemented) non-conforming is probably more harm than good
  277. # [12:28] <hsivonen> zcorpan_: I can see the point in what Aaron has implemented in Gecko. I don't see the point of the RDF complication
  278. # [12:28] <hsivonen> the new entity stuff is hard to get right when bending over backwards to avoid repetitive object allocation in an inner loop
  279. # [12:29] <mjs> hsivonen: what would you use to access namespaced attributes from script?
  280. # [12:29] <zcorpan_> hsivonen: we can make role conforming without defining processing
  281. # [12:29] <mjs> getAttributeNS would not do the right thing in old HTML versions
  282. # [12:29] <hsivonen> mjs: getAttributeNS() in HTML5 UAs and getAttribute() in legacy
  283. # [12:30] <zcorpan_> hsivonen: much like we can make RDF conforming without defining processing
  284. # [12:30] <hsivonen> zcorpan_: also true
  285. # [12:30] <mjs> hsivonen: how do you tell which one you are in? UA switching?
  286. # [12:30] <hsivonen> zcorpan_: although leaving it unspecified doesn't help other UA interoperate with Gecko
  287. # [12:31] <zcorpan_> hsivonen: indeed. perhaps they will opt implementing <progress> instead. :)
  288. # [12:31] <hsivonen> mjs: if the first returns null (in DOM5 return value semantics), try the other
  289. # [12:32] <zcorpan_> what i'm saying is that i see little point in reverse engineering and speccing role as implemented in firefox/jaws
  290. # [12:32] <mjs> hsivonen: and how would you set such attributes from script? also try both?
  291. # [12:33] <zcorpan_> because i think other vendors should implement the new stuff instead, like WF2
  292. # [12:34] <zcorpan_> if we spec how role is to be implemented, and other vendors implement that, it takes even longer time before <progress> and WF2 gets implemented
  293. # [12:34] <mjs> I don't think <progress> and WF2 are direct substitutes
  294. # [12:35] <zcorpan_> i think they are more important to implement than role
  295. # [12:35] <mjs> the direct substitute is being able to write <input type="checkbox"> but give it custom appearance and behavior
  296. # [12:35] <zcorpan_> i.e. xbl
  297. # [12:35] <mjs> so XBL2 would be one technology that can substitute
  298. # [12:35] <zcorpan_> yeah
  299. # [12:35] <mjs> (or for simpler cases CSS styling of form controls)
  300. # [12:35] <zcorpan_> indeed
  301. # [12:35] <hsivonen> mjs: I guess you'd have to try both
  302. # [12:36] <hsivonen> mjs: oops no
  303. # [12:36] <hsivonen> mjs: you'd have to try what currently works in Gecko, which AFAIK uses setAttrNS in text/html
  304. # [12:36] <hsivonen> mjs: I'm not an expert in the detail
  305. # [12:36] <hsivonen> s
  306. # [12:37] <hsivonen> mjs, zcorpan_: feel free to point out holes on the mailing list to get them on the record
  307. # [12:38] <mjs> hsivonen: I am not sure you can make a reasonable set of namespaced attribute operations that works across existing browsers in both HTML and XHTML mode
  308. # [12:39] <mjs> (without undesirable random side effects)
  309. # [12:39] <hsivonen> mjs: they need to work in existing browsers only to the extent the IBM script works today
  310. # [12:39] <mjs> at least I can't immediately think of such a thing
  311. # [12:39] <hsivonen> whew. I now pass test cases in the new entity tokenization world
  312. # [12:39] <hsivonen> that sure took time in the debugger
  313. # [12:40] <mjs> hsivonen: I am assuming namespaced attributes in HTML5 would be held to a higher standard than in that Note
  314. # [12:40] <mjs> i.e., suitable for general use and with a sane backward compatibility story
  315. # [12:41] <hsivonen> mjs: I think the best backwards compat story we could get on the serialization level is compat with whatever weird stuff IE does today with prefixes
  316. # [12:41] <zcorpan_> which is insane
  317. # [12:42] <mjs> I can't tell how well that script library works since the Note doesn't actually include or reference it
  318. # [12:42] <mjs> just describes sort of how it could work
  319. # [12:44] <hsivonen> I expect markp could have an opinion or two on what makes sense here
  320. # [12:48] <mjs> plus there's the fact that namespaces suck
  321. # [12:49] <mjs> so since the literal form of XML namespaced attributes doesn't have a good backwards compat story, maybe there is a different mechanism for extensions adding key/value pairs that would work reasonably
  322. # [12:50] * Quits: sbuluf (ihhzoqw@200.49.140.162) (Ping timeout)
  323. # [12:51] * Quits: heycam (cam@203.214.72.248) (Ping timeout)
  324. # [12:52] * Joins: Lachy_ (chatzilla@203.158.59.119)
  325. # [12:52] * Joins: heycam (cam@203.214.72.248)
  326. # [12:52] * Quits: Lachy (chatzilla@203.158.59.119) (Ping timeout)
  327. # [12:52] * Lachy_ is now known as Lachy
  328. # [12:52] <anne> maybe have a simple state= attribute that would take "foo=bar x=z" as values that would be exposed in some .state interface
  329. # [12:53] <anne> the problem with this, of course, is that you want semantics to be expressed in the element and not in some weird attribute only scripts deal with
  330. # [12:53] <mjs> yeah, and nesting key/value pairs in a key/value mechanism is lame
  331. # [12:53] <mjs> you could use a non-XML prefixing mechanism
  332. # [12:54] <anne> author-foo
  333. # [12:54] <mjs> dojo_extendedAttr="some-value"
  334. # [12:55] <mjs> any punctuation character that's allowed for attributes but not used in standard attributes would do, really
  335. # [12:55] <mjs> as a separator
  336. # [12:55] <mjs> it would be easier to make this work sanely than XML-style namespaces
  337. # [12:55] <mjs> (w/ backwards compat and all)
  338. # [12:56] <mjs> another possibility would be a child element that allows attributes of any name, but that doesn't work for void elements
  339. # [12:56] <mjs> but it does give up the idea that the true namespace identifier is a URI
  340. # [12:57] <hsivonen> mjs: I'd still try to go for XML NS compat by using the colon as the separator and having a long list of hardwired prefixes
  341. # [12:58] <anne> aah
  342. # [12:58] <mjs> the colon is what introduces the compat issues though
  343. # [12:58] <anne> yeah, colon == bad
  344. # [12:59] <anne> if we need extensibility lets at least have a sane way of doing it
  345. # [12:59] <anne> copy & paste compatible and all that
  346. # [13:01] <hsivonen> anne: what do you tell those who want an algorithmic mapping from any XHTML+custom attributes document to HTML5?
  347. # [13:01] <hsivonen> or elements even
  348. # [13:02] <mjs> that's quite a different problem than the desire for an extension mechanism
  349. # [13:03] <mjs> it may be you can solve both with the same solution, but the XML-mapping path is at odds with the goal for something with maximum backwards and cross-serialization compatibility
  350. # [13:06] * Joins: Patapouffe (Quetz16@84.100.205.108)
  351. # [13:06] * Parts: Patapouffe (Quetz16@84.100.205.108)
  352. # [13:36] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  353. # [13:37] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.97.186) (Ping timeout)
  354. # [13:41] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  355. # [14:00] <anne> hsivonen, tell them to use HTML5 syntax in XHTML
  356. # [14:01] <hsivonen> anne: that would be incompatible with whatever existing code there is written for a particular XML vocabulary
  357. # [14:09] <anne> like there's much of that...
  358. # [14:09] <anne> don't they have these cool XML tools?
  359. # [14:12] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6) (Quit: polin8)
  360. # [14:18] <hsivonen> anne: exactly
  361. # [14:19] <hsivonen> the problem is we don't know if it is a real problem because that part of code is hidden on the server side before content hits the Web
  362. # [14:24] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
  363. # [15:30] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3)
  364. # [15:41] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  365. # [15:42] * Quits: Lachy (chatzilla@203.158.59.119) (Ping timeout)
  366. # [15:44] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  367. # [15:44] * Joins: myakura (myakura@58.88.37.26)
  368. # [15:49] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  369. # [16:20] <zcorpan_> Simon Pieters (good standing) Opera Software
  370. # [16:22] <anne> welcome to the dark side
  371. # [16:22] <anne> euh, wait
  372. # [16:22] <zcorpan_> :)
  373. # [16:26] <zcorpan_> am i subscribed to the list with my gmail.com or opera.com address now?
  374. # [16:26] * Quits: nickshanks (nicholas@195.137.85.17) (Quit: nickshanks)
  375. # [16:26] <anne> opera prolly
  376. # [16:26] <hsivonen> we now have one "No, disagree"
  377. # [16:27] * Joins: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
  378. # [16:31] <zcorpan_> well, seems the mails are still coming in to my gmail
  379. # [16:31] <anne> and several unaddressed comments
  380. # [16:31] <anne> zcorpan_, you haven't left the WG as IE yet I think
  381. # [16:31] <hsivonen> anne: the W3C system allows a person change affiliation, right?
  382. # [16:32] * Joins: briansuda (briansuda@85.220.95.76)
  383. # [16:32] <hsivonen> anne: the system just changed zcorpan_'s affiliation record without changing the mail record
  384. # [16:32] <hsivonen> it seems
  385. # [16:33] <anne> zcorpan_, oh right, you can change your e-mail address if you want
  386. # [16:34] <zcorpan_> anne: where?
  387. # [16:36] <anne> zcorpan_, I think http://www.w3.org/Systems/db/memUser
  388. # [16:36] <hsivonen> ooh. no year in URI!
  389. # [16:38] * Joins: Schnitz (Miranda@84.153.87.189)
  390. # [16:38] <Schnitz> hi
  391. # [16:38] <hsivonen> hi
  392. # [16:38] <zcorpan_> anne: thanks
  393. # [16:53] * Quits: myakura (myakura@58.88.37.26) (Quit: Leaving...)
  394. # [16:54] <zcorpan_> anne: perhaps s/dropped/not included/ in html4-differences
  395. # [16:56] <zcorpan_> although that might be a larger edit than what is allowed
  396. # [16:56] <anne> DanC?
  397. # [16:56] <Schnitz> bye...
  398. # [16:56] <zcorpan_> Schnitz: cya
  399. # [16:57] * Quits: Schnitz (Miranda@84.153.87.189) (Quit: Schnitz)
  400. # [16:57] <DanC> umm... hi anne; I've got a telcon in 3min. what's up?
  401. # [16:58] <anne> DanC, see the suggestion from zcorpan_ above about s/dropped/not included/
  402. # [16:58] <DanC> that's definitely in the grey zone.
  403. # [16:58] <DanC> but yes, if others concur (zcorpan) then let's make that change. carefully.
  404. # [16:59] <anne> I don't feel strongly either way
  405. # [16:59] <DanC> I'm not sure I do either.
  406. # [16:59] * DanC must dash...
  407. # [16:59] <anne> people on the web are in favor of the document already; and this version is an improved version of the one "they" reviewed
  408. # [17:00] <zcorpan_> the edit wouldn't change what the document was intended to say, it would just make it clearer
  409. # [17:01] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3) (Ping timeout)
  410. # [17:18] * Joins: icaaq (icaaaq@217.13.228.226)
  411. # [17:30] * Parts: icaaq (icaaaq@217.13.228.226)
  412. # [17:34] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Ping timeout)
  413. # [17:45] * Joins: Lachy (chatzilla@203.158.61.14)
  414. # [17:51] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  415. # [17:54] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3)
  416. # [17:54] * Joins: Sander (svl@71.57.109.108)
  417. # [17:56] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  418. # [18:31] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  419. # [18:38] * Quits: jmb (jmb@81.86.70.47) (Ping timeout)
  420. # [18:45] * Joins: jmb (jmb@81.86.70.47)
  421. # [18:49] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  422. # [18:52] * Parts: anne (annevk@213.236.208.22)
  423. # [18:52] * Joins: anne (annevk@213.236.208.22)
  424. # [18:53] <anne> indeed, it's not an argument... it's a fact
  425. # [18:53] * anne ...
  426. # [19:02] <anne> bloating style= in such a way doesn't make much sense to me
  427. # [19:03] <anne> also considering all the API changes that would need to be made
  428. # [19:05] * Joins: hasather (hasather@80.203.71.22)
  429. # [19:29] * Parts: hasather (hasather@80.203.71.22)
  430. # [19:30] * Joins: hasather (hasather@80.203.71.22)
  431. # [19:48] * Joins: Lionheart (robin@198.86.248.1)
  432. # [19:58] * Quits: Lionheart (robin@198.86.248.1) (Quit: Leaving.)
  433. # [19:58] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  434. # [20:03] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  435. # [20:19] * Joins: Roger (roger@213.64.74.230)
  436. # [20:27] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3) (Ping timeout)
  437. # [20:30] * Quits: Roger (roger@213.64.74.230) (Quit: Roger)
  438. # [20:31] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3)
  439. # [20:33] * Quits: Jero (Jero@213.46.207.230) (Connection reset by peer)
  440. # [20:49] <anne> yay, formal objection
  441. # [20:50] <billmason> Love the analogy to the Patriot Act.
  442. # [20:51] <tH> can't say i'm surprised :(
  443. # [20:51] <anne> I suppose he'll formally object until we're done
  444. # [20:52] <anne> Not entirely sure why people say that it has already been published by the WHATWG...
  445. # [20:52] <anne> It was a WHATWG Wiki page at some point...
  446. # [21:02] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3) (Quit: polin8)
  447. # [21:05] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3)
  448. # [21:06] <DanC> the Patriot Act is so bar beyond the bounds of civility...
  449. # [21:09] <anne> it seems the FO completely missed which document is being published
  450. # [21:09] <anne> "i am EXTREMELY uncomfortable in being forced to choose a draft, in toto, as our bsic working draft slash foundational document"
  451. # [21:17] <tH> on the plus side, i now know more latin than i did when i woke up this morning
  452. # [21:24] * Joins: Jero (Jero@213.46.207.230)
  453. # [21:40] <beowulf> as i understand it this is to satisfy the "heartbeat" requirement, and will be continually republished over time?
  454. # [21:40] <beowulf> until it reaches Recommendation
  455. # [21:40] <anne> in theory a WG has to publish something every three months or indicate in some other way what it's up to to the public
  456. # [21:41] <beowulf> yes, that's what i though
  457. # [21:41] <beowulf> thought
  458. # [21:41] <anne> there are no real restrictions on what's published though
  459. # [21:41] <zcorpan_> we can publish tutorials... :)
  460. # [21:41] <beowulf> in that case i think this is perfect, nothing gives you a better idea of whats what than this (better than design principals imo)
  461. # [21:44] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3) (Quit: polin8)
  462. # [21:44] <beowulf> ah wait, i still haven't worked out my member affiliations
  463. # [21:45] * beowulf doesn't hit submit
  464. # [21:51] * Parts: hasather (hasather@80.203.71.22)
  465. # [21:51] * Joins: hasather (hasather@80.203.71.22)
  466. # [21:53] * Quits: briansuda (briansuda@85.220.95.76) (Quit: briansuda)
  467. # [21:55] * Joins: briansuda (briansuda@85.220.95.76)
  468. # [21:55] * Quits: briansuda (briansuda@85.220.95.76) (Client exited)
  469. # [22:02] <zcorpan_> i'm positively surprised that firefox doesn't pay attention to namespaces for role
  470. # [22:03] <anne> oh, I could have told you that
  471. # [22:03] <zcorpan_> -_-
  472. # [22:03] <zcorpan_> also for aaa:foo="" ?
  473. # [22:04] <anne> I knew they made it all work in HTML
  474. # [22:05] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  475. # [22:05] <zcorpan_> is that documented?
  476. # [22:05] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3)
  477. # [22:05] <anne> Don't know about that. Got most of my information from meetings and maybe some bug reports...
  478. # [22:07] <anne> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Accessible_DHTML seems to suggest they are namespaced though
  479. # [22:08] <zcorpan_> that's the thing -- i don't trust specs or documentation
  480. # [22:09] <anne> yeah, they're mostly wrong
  481. # [22:09] <DanC> test cases. test cases. test cases.
  482. # [22:09] <anne> problem with stuff like role= is that reverse engineering is even more annoying
  483. # [22:10] <zcorpan_> i don't plan to reverse engineer role. unless someone wants me to (i.e., if opera intends to implement it)
  484. # [22:11] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  485. # [22:11] <zcorpan_> DanC: yeah. test cases == reverse engineering :)
  486. # [22:14] * anne made some tests today
  487. # [22:17] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  488. # [22:18] * Quits: heycam (cam@203.214.72.248) (Ping timeout)
  489. # [22:19] * Joins: Lionheart (robin@66.57.69.65)
  490. # [22:29] * Joins: Bob_le_Pointu (mallory@80.248.208.232)
  491. # [22:29] <Bob_le_Pointu> Hi there.
  492. # [22:31] <anne> hi
  493. # [22:32] <Bob_le_Pointu> Do you think it would be a good idea to make this proposal : using a checksum attribute in some <a> tags to make the UA check itself the integrity of a downloadable file ?
  494. # [22:32] <gavin_> have you been following the proposal made by Gerv in the Mozilla newsgroups?
  495. # [22:33] <gavin_> he calls it "Link Fingerprints", and it's exactly that
  496. # [22:33] <Bob_le_Pointu> No, but if you can send me an URL, I'll see that.
  497. # [22:33] <gavin_> http://www.gerv.net/security/link-fingerprints/
  498. # [22:33] <Bob_le_Pointu> Thanks:)
  499. # [22:34] <gavin_> see also the various threads in mozilla.dev.apps.firefox
  500. # [22:34] <gavin_> (on google groups or nntp://news.mozilla.org)
  501. # [22:35] * Joins: heycam (cam@124.168.130.154)
  502. # [22:35] <Bob_le_Pointu> It's even better than my proposal.
  503. # [22:36] <Bob_le_Pointu> And it was proposed a long time ago :/
  504. # [22:37] <schepers> nevertheless, a good idea
  505. # [22:38] <Bob_le_Pointu> Was it submitted on the list ?
  506. # [22:38] <gavin_> not on the whatwg/html-wg lists, that I know of
  507. # [22:39] <gavin_> maybe you could ask Gerv about that, he's a member of this WG
  508. # [22:39] <gavin_> oh, maybe it was on the whatwg list
  509. # [22:39] <gavin_> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Link_Hashes
  510. # [22:40] <gavin_> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-November/thread.html#7825
  511. # [22:43] <mjs> we have something like that in Safari but it depends on downloading a checksum file from a trusted site followed by the content from a potentially untrusted site
  512. # [22:49] <gavin_> the Mozilla extension update system does the same
  513. # [22:49] <Bob_le_Pointu> So, it's on the way.
  514. # [22:49] <gavin_> (hash from trusted site, extension from potentially untrusted)
  515. # [22:49] <gavin_> no, I don't think that has really anything to do with Gerv's proposal
  516. # [22:49] <gavin_> different things, really
  517. # [22:54] <Bob_le_Pointu> So, should I ask Gerv to make a proposal on html-wg ?
  518. # [23:00] * Quits: Jero (Jero@213.46.207.230) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.78.1 [Firefox 2.0.0.4/2007051502])
  519. # [23:00] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Ping timeout)
  520. # [23:01] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154) (Client exited)
  521. # [23:05] * Joins: myakura (myakura@58.88.37.26)
  522. # [23:17] * Joins: kingryan (rking3@71.202.121.218)
  523. # [23:36] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3) (Quit: polin8)
  524. # [23:38] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3)
  525. # [23:40] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Ping timeout)
  526. # [23:48] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3) (Quit: polin8)
  527. # [23:52] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3)
  528. # [23:54] * Parts: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151)
  529. # [23:55] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@209.176.7.3) (Quit: polin8)
  530. # Session Close: Thu Jun 28 00:00:00 2007

The end :)