/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2008-06-13 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Fri Jun 13 00:00:00 2008
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:22] * Quits: Steve_f (chatzilla@82.44.69.8) (Ping timeout)
  4. # [00:24] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  5. # [00:24] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241)
  6. # [00:30] * Quits: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.246) (Quit: .)
  7. # [01:03] * Quits: smedero (smedero@192.223.6.251) (Quit: smedero)
  8. # [02:03] * Joins: adele (adele@192.42.249.16)
  9. # [02:19] * Joins: mjs (mjs@192.42.249.12)
  10. # [02:20] * Quits: hober (ted@206.212.254.2) (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
  11. # [02:24] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254)
  12. # [02:28] * Quits: marcos (marcos@131.181.148.227) (Quit: marcos)
  13. # [02:28] * Joins: marcos (marcos@131.181.148.227)
  14. # [02:38] * Quits: marcos (marcos@131.181.148.227) (Ping timeout)
  15. # [02:41] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241) (Ping timeout)
  16. # [02:53] * Quits: adele (adele@192.42.249.16) (Quit: adele)
  17. # [02:57] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241)
  18. # [03:18] * Quits: mjs (mjs@192.42.249.12) (Quit: mjs)
  19. # [03:19] * Quits: tH (Rob@87.102.5.204) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.82.1-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.0.9/2006120508])
  20. # [03:32] * Joins: marcos (marcos@131.181.148.227)
  21. # [03:51] * Quits: marcos (marcos@131.181.148.227) (Ping timeout)
  22. # [04:16] * Joins: DanC_lap (connolly@128.30.52.30)
  23. # [04:16] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  24. # [04:21] * Joins: Dashimon (noone@84.48.51.199)
  25. # [04:21] * DanC_lap waves, watching Mr. Bean with the kids
  26. # [04:22] * Quits: Dashiva (noone@84.48.51.199) (Ping timeout)
  27. # [04:22] * Dashimon is now known as Dashiva
  28. # [04:33] * Quits: DanC_lap (connolly@128.30.52.30) (Ping timeout)
  29. # [04:45] <Hixie> so MikeSmith, can i stop looking at the issue tracker and just look at bugzilla, or should i look at both?
  30. # [05:04] <Hixie> hey i forgot to put the cap on my bike after all my searching for it
  31. # [05:05] <Hixie> can you see if it's by the router and if so put it on the heater so the cats don't play with it again?
  32. # [05:05] <Hixie> little white nub thing
  33. # [05:06] <takkaria> I can't, but I assume whoever you wanted to talk can :)
  34. # [05:07] <Hixie> err
  35. # [05:07] <Hixie> indeed.
  36. # [05:07] <Hixie> clearly time to take a break! :-)
  37. # [05:32] * Joins: marcos (marcos@131.181.148.227)
  38. # [05:52] <MikeSmith> Hixie: you can stop looking at the Tracker and just look at bugzilla
  39. # [05:54] <takkaria> MikeSmith: what's the situation with chairs, btw?
  40. # [05:54] <MikeSmith> if/when there's a tracker issue that I think needs a specific response or action from you, I'll give you a heads up
  41. # [05:55] <MikeSmith> takkaria: I am remaining as the co-chair for the group, as announced, unless/until there is some announcement about it otherwise
  42. # [05:55] <takkaria> ta
  43. # [06:34] * Joins: amit (amit_paras@152.83.70.64)
  44. # [06:34] * Parts: amit (amit_paras@152.83.70.64)
  45. # [06:35] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.253.193.147) (Quit: gavin)
  46. # [06:40] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.253.193.147)
  47. # [06:48] * Joins: adele (adele@24.7.125.179)
  48. # [07:16] * Joins: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30)
  49. # [07:38] * Joins: mjs (mjs@24.5.43.151)
  50. # [07:40] * Quits: Navarr (navarr@75.53.202.105) (Quit: Navarr)
  51. # [07:44] * Joins: aroben (adamroben@72.165.115.225)
  52. # [07:56] * Quits: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30) (Quit: tlr)
  53. # [08:05] * Quits: adele (adele@24.7.125.179) (Ping timeout)
  54. # [08:10] * Quits: mjs (mjs@24.5.43.151) (Connection reset by peer)
  55. # [08:10] * Joins: mjs (mjs@24.5.43.151)
  56. # [08:13] <Hixie> MikeSmith: cool, thanks
  57. # [08:18] <hsivonen> MikeSmith: when I find a spec bug (i.e. not a feature suggestion), should I send email to public-html, file a bug in bugzilla or do something else? I think it would be good to have more guidance about the use of bugzilla on the mailing list.
  58. # [08:18] <hsivonen> MikeSmith: also, if spec bugs go to Bugzilla, what remains for the mailing list?
  59. # [08:25] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@78.51.68.82)
  60. # [08:30] * Quits: hyatt (hyatt@72.165.115.225) (Quit: hyatt)
  61. # [08:32] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254) (Quit: Leaving)
  62. # [08:38] <Hixie> MikeSmith: yeah if someone could send a message to the list clarifying what the status is (with both the chairing situation and the issue tracking situation, as well as maybe clarifying whether/why we're having any kind of formal meeting vs informal meetings, etc), that would be really useful
  63. # [08:39] * mjs would like to know what is up as well
  64. # [08:43] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.253.193.147) (Ping timeout)
  65. # [08:48] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.253.193.147)
  66. # [09:04] * Joins: Steve_f (chatzilla@82.44.69.8)
  67. # [09:07] <MikeSmith> Hixie, mjs : About the chairing situation, I plan to report back to the group by midday US time with a statement.
  68. # [09:08] <MikeSmith> hsivonen also
  69. # [09:09] <Hixie> cool.
  70. # [09:09] <Hixie> dealing with the w3c these days seems like trying to work while sitting in an office full of treacle.
  71. # [09:10] <MikeSmith> heh
  72. # [09:10] <MikeSmith> well, it will improve
  73. # [09:10] <MikeSmith> as far as the HTML WG goes at least
  74. # [09:10] <mjs> and you're not allowed to know where the treacle is coming from
  75. # [09:10] <Hixie> maybe the w3c hq is orbitting a black hole, and so thats making time slow down for w3c people.
  76. # [09:11] <Hixie> seriously though, i send mails into the w3c mothership, and it takes days or weeks for anything to happen
  77. # [09:11] <MikeSmith> I hope you haven't noticed that phenomenon with messages you send to me at least
  78. # [09:12] <Hixie> i have, but not necessarily due to you
  79. # [09:12] <Hixie> specifically right now there are four issues i'm waiting for some sort of response on
  80. # [09:13] <Hixie> three of them involve you :-)
  81. # [09:13] <Hixie> (the legal thing, the issues thing, and the chairs thing)
  82. # [09:13] <Hixie> oh, and the xhtml thing, so i guess five things, four involve you
  83. # [09:14] <Hixie> and that's just team-level things
  84. # [09:14] <Hixie> when it comes to dealing with actual working groups, good lord
  85. # [09:14] * Hixie stops ranting
  86. # [09:15] <MikeSmith> the chairs thing, Friday, the issues thing, Friday
  87. # [09:16] <mjs> what xhtml thing?
  88. # [09:16] <MikeSmith> the xhtml thing, I am waiting, I will send mail now to say that I'd like a response by Monday at the latest, preferably to the public-html mailing list
  89. # [09:17] <MikeSmith> mjs: Hixie recently made some language changes to the spec
  90. # [09:17] <mjs> is this a secret thing?
  91. # [09:17] <MikeSmith> no secret
  92. # [09:17] <MikeSmith> I will get the diff now
  93. # [09:17] <MikeSmith> http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1744&to=1745
  94. # [09:18] <mjs> I am still mildly annoyed at the handling of geolocation by the w3c, not that joining a separate WG is so much hassle (although I grumble whenever I have to change my mailing list filters) but the total lack of explanation or transparency
  95. # [09:18] <Hixie> mjs: trying to resolve the various issues that cause the w3c to want to change the spec before publication, no big deal
  96. # [09:18] <Hixie> oh yeah, the geo thing
  97. # [09:18] <MikeSmith> I have asked for a response about those changes
  98. # [09:18] <MikeSmith> about XHTML changes
  99. # [09:18] <Hixie> that brings it up to six things.
  100. # [09:19] <mjs> someone on the team really loves modularization, eh?
  101. # [09:19] <mjs> cause that's a lot of lip service for a goofy use of the practically-dead technology of XML DTDs
  102. # [09:20] <hsivonen> mjs: more to the point, modularization on the spec level has utterly failed
  103. # [09:20] <hsivonen> mjs: the de facto schema for HTML5 is modularized
  104. # [09:20] <hsivonen> but it's modularized on my and fantasai's whim and not in any normative way
  105. # [09:20] <mjs> the whole idea of modules to reuse part but not all of an XML language is also out of touch with how the Web works
  106. # [09:21] <mjs> (reuse in private vocabularies is not something that I think needs to be catered to with spec formalism)
  107. # [09:21] <hsivonen> indeed
  108. # [09:21] <MikeSmith> mjs: preaching to the choir as far that discussion goes with me
  109. # [09:22] <Hixie> the whole idea of normative schemas is dumb, imho, so a spec to modularise normative schemas normatively is just even more dumb...
  110. # [09:22] <Hixie> imho :-)
  111. # [09:23] <mjs> well, I do like symbolic formalisms when appropriate
  112. # [09:23] <mjs> not sure any schema language has yet proven to be a suitable one for defining markup languages in all their gory details
  113. # [09:24] <Hixie> i'm pretty sure none have :-)
  114. # [09:25] <MikeSmith> getting back to the questions about the issue-tracking situation, I will post to the list to say that I am asking Hixie to put into his queue all issues raised in bugzilla, but that I am no longer asking him to do that for the Tracker
  115. # [09:26] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: about your question, "when I find a spec bug (i.e. not a feature suggestion), should I send email to public-html, file a bug in bugzilla or do something else?"
  116. # [09:26] <MikeSmith> do you really want me to mandate what you should do for that case?
  117. # [09:26] <MikeSmith> we currently don't have any single mandated way to do that
  118. # [09:26] <MikeSmith> we have options
  119. # [09:26] <MikeSmith> whatwg list, public-html list, bugzilla, direct mail to Hixi
  120. # [09:26] <Hixie> the two ways to guarantee i see feedback at this point are to mail whatwg or to put it in bugzilla
  121. # [09:26] <MikeSmith> Hixie
  122. # [09:27] <Hixie> anything else, and i reserve the right to not see it
  123. # [09:27] <Hixie> and thus to not reply
  124. # [09:27] <MikeSmith> Hixie: OK
  125. # [09:27] <MikeSmith> then I will post to the list to say that
  126. # [09:27] <Hixie> :-)
  127. # [09:27] <MikeSmith> that makes it easy for me :)
  128. # [09:27] <mjs> Hixie: do you have a preference which is used for feature proposals, and for minor issues, respectively?
  129. # [09:27] <Hixie> mjs: no
  130. # [09:28] <hsivonen> MikeSmith: I don't want you to mandate what I should do, but I'd like to understand how bugzilla is meant to be used
  131. # [09:28] <Hixie> mjs: though if you want useful feedback, whatwg ends up having a better signal:noise ratio at the moment
  132. # [09:28] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: then the answer is, it's to be used as an alternative to the whatwg list to ensure a response from the editor
  133. # [09:29] <Hixie> (that is, feedback from people who aren't me)
  134. # [09:29] <mjs> well I haven't had any experience with bugzilla for the spec yet
  135. # [09:30] <hsivonen> MikeSmith: ok.
  136. # [09:31] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: about the relevance for the public-html list in this, for any issue that someone raises in bugzilla, I will ask that if they care to make others than Hixie and me aware of it, they should post a notification about it to the public-html list
  137. # [09:31] <hsivonen> hmm. filing a bug *and* sending mail seems complicated
  138. # [09:33] <hsivonen> I wonder if channeling bugmail to the issue tracking mailing list (at least for new bugs) makes sense
  139. # [09:33] <MikeSmith> yeah, I could that I guess
  140. # [09:34] <MikeSmith> makes sense to me at least
  141. # [09:34] <MikeSmith> though in general having bugmail go to a normal mailing list is sometimes not a great idea
  142. # [09:34] <MikeSmith> because of the potential volumen
  143. # [09:34] <MikeSmith> volume
  144. # [09:35] <MikeSmith> but I don't see that be a problem in this case
  145. # [09:35] <MikeSmith> as least for the time being
  146. # [09:35] <MikeSmith> Hixie: do you have numbers on how many messages were posted to the whatwg list last month?
  147. # [09:36] <MikeSmith> for the message I send to public-html about issue tracking, I want to point out the volume of mail we have had to the list in the last two months
  148. # [09:36] <Hixie> MikeSmith: i only know the net new messages - replied messages for whatwg + public-html + direct mail
  149. # [09:36] <MikeSmith> OK
  150. # [09:36] <Hixie> you can get the data from http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/
  151. # [09:37] <Hixie> 295 for may
  152. # [09:37] <Hixie> 357, 184, 269 for april march february
  153. # [09:38] <MikeSmith> ok, so we can compare that with 767 in may for public-html
  154. # [09:38] <MikeSmith> 802 for April
  155. # [09:39] <Hixie> right now whatwg has 877 members and public-html has 392 members
  156. # [09:39] <MikeSmith> and also point out the detail that the messages to the whatwg list likely have a much higher ratio of actionable relevance to your work as editor
  157. # [09:40] <MikeSmith> Hixie: I have never found those numbers to mean very much
  158. # [09:40] <Hixie> yeah the interesting number would number of people who e-mailed, and the graph of e-mails - per - person
  159. # [09:40] <Dashiiva> It suggests public-html members are more verbose than whatwg members :)
  160. # [09:40] <MikeSmith> the number that I think does mean something is:
  161. # [09:40] <MikeSmith> Hixie: yeah, that's what I was going to say
  162. # [09:40] <MikeSmith> the number of unique individuals who are posting each month
  163. # [09:41] <Hixie> i have a script somewhere that gives that data for a set of .mbx files
  164. # [09:41] <MikeSmith> for public-html last month, that number is 110
  165. # [09:41] <Hixie> but i don't have the whatwg mails as mbx files
  166. # [09:41] <MikeSmith> we got all w3c stuff as mbox at least
  167. # [09:41] <Hixie> yeah that's what the script was for
  168. # [09:41] <MikeSmith> http://markmail.org/ also has some useful data
  169. # [09:42] <MikeSmith> or specifically,
  170. # [09:42] <MikeSmith> http://w3.markmail.org/
  171. # [09:43] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@78.51.68.82) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 3.0/2008052906])
  172. # [09:43] <MikeSmith> http://w3.markmail.org/search/?q=#query:list%3Aorg.w3.public-html+page:1+state:facets
  173. # [09:44] <MikeSmith> well, i guess all that really gives is who posted the most messages over the whole history of the list
  174. # [09:45] <Hixie> good to know that i'm the most prolific author in w3c space after a computer and bjoern.
  175. # [09:45] * Quits: Steve_f (chatzilla@82.44.69.8) (Connection reset by peer)
  176. # [09:49] <hsivonen> Hixie: where do you see that? I'm seeing chaals as the most prolific contributor to the whole w3 space
  177. # [09:49] <hsivonen> at http://w3.markmail.org/search/?q=#query:page:1+state:facets
  178. # [09:49] <Hixie> http://w3.markmail.org/search/
  179. # [09:49] <hsivonen> ah
  180. # [09:50] <mjs> Hixie: you mean, after two computers?
  181. # [09:50] <Hixie> mjs: :-P
  182. # [09:50] <Hixie> wow, even if you exclude public-html i'm still basically in the top 4
  183. # [09:51] <Hixie> i'm amused that henri has sent nearly as many e-mails as me to public-html
  184. # [09:51] <Hixie> given that I HAVE TO REPLY TO ALL HIS MAILS
  185. # [09:52] <mjs> I'm only #37?
  186. # [09:52] <mjs> must send more useless mails!
  187. # [09:55] <hsivonen> mjs: and Rob has sent more mail than you to the HTML WG despite his hiatus
  188. # [09:55] <mjs> hsivonen: that is in some way impressive
  189. # [09:58] <MikeSmith> issue: resolve XHTML2 WG objections to language in HTML5 draft regarding XHTML1
  190. # [09:58] * trackbot noticed an ISSUE. Trying to create it.
  191. # [09:58] <trackbot> Created ISSUE-52 - Resolve XHTML2 WG objections to language in HTML5 draft regarding XHTML1 ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/52/edit .
  192. # [10:03] * Joins: laplink (link@193.157.66.115)
  193. # [10:08] * Quits: marcos (marcos@131.181.148.227) (Quit: marcos)
  194. # [10:22] <deane> MikeSmith: is it possible to see exactly what objections the XHTML2 WG has with the spec?
  195. # [10:23] <MikeSmith> deane: you would need to ask them
  196. # [10:23] <MikeSmith> they were not communicated to me publicly
  197. # [10:23] <MikeSmith> but I am responding to them publicly
  198. # [10:23] <deane> I see, I will
  199. # [10:25] * Quits: aroben (adamroben@72.165.115.225) (Quit: aroben)
  200. # [10:29] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: I've added public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org to the default Cc list, disabled all bugzilla mail for public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org except for "I want to receive mail when: The bug is resolved or reopened"
  201. # [10:29] <MikeSmith> I don't find an option for "I want to receive mail when: the bug is first opened"
  202. # [10:30] <MikeSmith> I assume it's not possible to opt-out of that
  203. # [10:31] <MikeSmith> that is, that anybody who's in the Cc field for a particular component gets mail about any new issues raised in that component
  204. # [10:31] <hsivonen> MikeSmith: thanks
  205. # [10:32] <MikeSmith> and I still welcome further suggestions
  206. # [10:32] <hsivonen> hmm. XHTML2 WG is chartered to be public, too
  207. # [10:33] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: I will work on a draft now of a "Issue-tracking clarification" message for public-html. will paste in a URL here when I've got a draft ready, would appreciate any feedback from you or others here before I send it.
  208. # [10:37] <MikeSmith> Hixie: for changes that you make in response to a set of messages in a mailing-list thread or set of threads, I'd like to ask you to please consider including as part of checkin description a URL to the list archive for the thread(s)
  209. # [10:37] <MikeSmith> that is, a link to the start of the thread
  210. # [10:37] <MikeSmith> or whatever appropriate part of it
  211. # [10:38] <MikeSmith> or link to a single message if it's the case that the change was in response to a single message
  212. # [10:38] <MikeSmith> I recognize that adds a step in your workflow
  213. # [10:38] <Hixie> that would be really complicated
  214. # [10:38] <Hixie> i don't have the link in most cases
  215. # [10:38] <MikeSmith> I see
  216. # [10:38] <Hixie> since i'm often cc'ed on the messages and don't have the X-Archived-At link
  217. # [10:38] <Hixie> and the whatwg list doesn't send that header at all
  218. # [10:39] <MikeSmith> then the message Subject(s) at least would be useful
  219. # [10:39] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@88.131.66.80)
  220. # [10:39] <Hixie> i'll see what i can do, but i make no promises
  221. # [10:39] <MikeSmith> OK, thanks
  222. # [10:40] <Lachy> since we're now using W3's bugzilla for tracking HTML5 issues, is it possible for me to be automatically CC'd on all issues that are raised against the spec?
  223. # [10:40] <Lachy> oh, I see, there's public-html-bugzilla now. Cool
  224. # [10:41] <MikeSmith> Lachy: I can add you do the default CC list of you want
  225. # [10:41] <MikeSmith> for the "Spec proposals" component
  226. # [10:42] <MikeSmith> in bugzilla
  227. # [10:42] <Lachy> MikeSmith, if public-html-bugzilla is always CC'd, then I'll just subscribe to that
  228. # [10:43] <MikeSmith> OK
  229. # [10:43] <MikeSmith> yeah, it is always CC'ed
  230. # [10:43] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  231. # [10:44] <Lachy> so now we're up to 6 HTMLWG related mailing lists. That seems a little excessive, but ok.
  232. # [10:47] <Lachy> how did public-html-bugzilla end up with 3 spam messages getting through to it after just a few days? Shouldn't the list be restricted to Bugzilla sending mails?
  233. # [10:48] <Hixie> MikeSmith: so fyi, if this last checkin is anything to go by, adding the subject line means that the cost breakdown in time for that checkin was: 10% reading the e-mail, 20% fixing the e-mail, 50% writing the checkin comment, 20% replying to the e-mail
  234. # [10:48] <Hixie> MikeSmith: if that's representative, i'm not going to keep doing it :-)
  235. # [10:53] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  236. # [11:01] <anne> I'm W3C mailing list spammer no 7
  237. # [11:02] <anne> I wonder if they have added fora@annevankesteren.nl and annevk@opera.com together
  238. # [11:09] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22)
  239. # [11:22] * Quits: laplink (link@193.157.66.115) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  240. # [11:48] * Quits: Hixie (ianh@129.241.93.37) (Ping timeout)
  241. # [11:48] * Quits: jmb (jmb@152.78.68.189) (Ping timeout)
  242. # [11:49] * Quits: hsivonen (hsivonen@130.233.41.50) (Ping timeout)
  243. # [11:53] * Joins: hsivonen (hsivonen@130.233.41.50)
  244. # [11:54] * Quits: xover (xover@193.157.66.22) (Connection reset by peer)
  245. # [11:54] * Joins: xover (xover@193.157.66.22)
  246. # [11:57] <anne> http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-tagmem-minutes.html#item06
  247. # [11:57] <anne> tagSoupIntegration-54 discussion
  248. # [11:57] <anne> apparently it's already public
  249. # [11:58] * Joins: Hixie (ianh@129.241.93.37)
  250. # [11:58] * Quits: mjs (mjs@24.5.43.151) (Connection reset by peer)
  251. # [11:59] * Joins: jmb (jmb@152.78.68.189)
  252. # [11:59] * Joins: mjs (mjs@24.5.43.151)
  253. # [12:01] <anne> not much interesting information though
  254. # [12:02] <anne> I wonder why the TAG doesn't ask questions because I often have the feeling, when reading their minutes, that they're missing the point
  255. # [12:05] <mjs> that log does seem to document a somewhat point-missing conversation
  256. # [12:05] * Joins: tH_ (Rob@87.102.5.204)
  257. # [12:06] * tH_ is now known as tH
  258. # [13:14] * Disconnected
  259. # [13:14] * Attempting to rejoin channel #html-wg
  260. # [13:14] * Rejoined channel #html-wg
  261. # [13:14] * Topic is 'HTML WG telcon 05 June 16:00Z | http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/agenda | this channel is logged: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/'
  262. # [13:14] * Set by MikeSmith on Thu Jun 05 09:49:33
  263. # [13:49] <anne> ooh, ARIA discussion in SVG WG went well it seems: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-svg-minutes.html#item06
  264. # [13:50] <anne> also for aligning with HTML <script>, good
  265. # [14:10] * Joins: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30)
  266. # [14:36] * Joins: philipj (philipj@88.131.66.80)
  267. # [14:36] * philipj is now known as foolip
  268. # [14:37] * Parts: foolip (philipj@88.131.66.80)
  269. # [14:46] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Ping timeout)
  270. # [14:46] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  271. # [16:03] * Quits: Dashiva (noone@84.48.51.199) (Ping timeout)
  272. # [16:08] * Joins: Dashiva (noone@84.48.51.199)
  273. # [16:20] * Joins: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.246)
  274. # [16:40] * Joins: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30)
  275. # [17:04] * Joins: adele (adele@24.7.125.179)
  276. # [17:06] * Joins: smedero (smedero@192.223.6.251)
  277. # [17:23] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@88.131.66.80) (Quit: zcorpan)
  278. # [17:36] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  279. # [18:03] * Quits: Philip (philip@80.177.163.133) (Ping timeout)
  280. # [18:04] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@71.204.153.3)
  281. # [18:11] * Joins: hober (ted@206.212.254.2)
  282. # [18:18] * Joins: Philip (philip@80.177.163.133)
  283. # [18:19] * Quits: xover (xover@193.157.66.22) (Quit: Leaving)
  284. # [18:23] * Joins: xover (xover@193.157.66.22)
  285. # [18:24] * DanC looks around for smedero , MikeSmith
  286. # [18:24] <smedero> howdy.
  287. # [18:24] <MikeSmith> DanC: here now
  288. # [18:25] <DanC> double bingo
  289. # [18:25] * Quits: xover (xover@193.157.66.22) (Quit: Leaving)
  290. # [18:25] <DanC> I'd like to noodle on issues process, mailing list shaping in the wiki. near http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/
  291. # [18:26] * Joins: aroben (adamroben@72.165.115.225)
  292. # [18:27] * DanC confirms that tracker supports "Pending review" state for issues as well as actions now
  293. # [18:27] * smedero finds himself saying "noodling" a lot these days
  294. # [18:27] <DanC> you can see it in the pulldown on http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/12/edit
  295. # [18:27] <smedero> ooh, new states
  296. # [18:29] <smedero> That's helpful
  297. # [18:29] <smedero> postponed makes sense too....
  298. # [18:29] <DanC> ok, http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTemplate is still there and not too far off... smedero wanna take a look at that and see if it has fallen out of date? also, does it clarify what's wierd about the block of issues GR raised?
  299. # [18:30] <smedero> alright, can do.
  300. # [18:30] <DanC> "link to each mail on the topic" is overkill, IMO. linking to each relevant thread, with perhaps some excerpts/summaries seems more useful, no?
  301. # [18:31] <smedero> I think the Tracker does a good job of at least getting you to the starting points on email threads
  302. # [18:31] <smedero> (when you "link" the issues to emails anyway)
  303. # [18:32] <smedero> So, the breakdown of tools we have in our toolbox seems to be
  304. # [18:32] <DanC> ah... good point... we're not actually using the wiki to track individual issues... just for policy stuff
  305. # [18:32] <smedero> Wiki - Issue noodling.
  306. # [18:33] <smedero> W3C Bugzilla - Raw issue tracking....
  307. # [18:33] <smedero> and then I guess it feels like
  308. # [18:33] <smedero> the Tracker is more ... high priority issues and agenda building
  309. # [18:33] <smedero> is that correct?
  310. # [18:34] <MikeSmith> smedero: correct
  311. # [18:34] <smedero> I mean, you can also noodle on issues on public-html
  312. # [18:34] <DanC> I sorta lump the wiki, comments list, and bugzilla together... you can put stuff there, and we hope to get to it, but until it gets into tracker, don't get your hopes up
  313. # [18:34] <MikeSmith> right, agreed
  314. # [18:34] <smedero> Ok.
  315. # [18:35] <smedero> So in that case the issue template could be refined a bit
  316. # [18:35] <smedero> simplified really.
  317. # [18:35] <DanC> hmm... http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTemplate could usefully say somethinga bout requirements issues (should we tackle this problem?) vs design issues (is this the right design?)
  318. # [18:36] <DanC> re the XHTML 1 changes, I'm interested to see that you write "Mike Smith, on behalf of the HTML Working Group"... i.e. you're speaking for the WG, but you didn't actually ask the WG if they agree. that's kinda iffy, given our charter.
  319. # [18:37] <smedero> I think someone too we need to help set expectations on the lifecycle of an issue... it might takes MONTHS.
  320. # [18:38] <smedero> Hixie has been tackling lots of issues lately... but many of them date months back... because he process threads more by what section of the spec he is working on and not the order they were posted to whatwg or public-html.
  321. # [18:39] <MikeSmith> DanC: agreed, I should not have written "on behalf of the HTML Working Group"
  322. # [18:40] * DanC is juggling too many threads of thought... plus, I need breakfast.
  323. # [18:40] <smedero> Good to have you back DanC!
  324. # [18:40] <MikeSmith> smedero: yeah, people need to understand that Hixie has a stack of issues that he does not necessarily process in chronological order
  325. # [18:41] <smedero> I mean that seems really obvious to me... given the complexity of the task and the fact that context switching is like wasting an entire day just doing a brain dump.
  326. # [18:41] <DanC> hixie did say he'd take input on the order he processes issues; I'd really like to figure out a good schedule, looking forward about 6 weeks
  327. # [18:42] <DanC> document order is one natural order for issues.
  328. # [18:42] <DanC> I don't think we have a good index of where issues show up in the spec
  329. # [18:43] * DanC wonders if issue-52 is a dup...
  330. # [18:43] <DanC> issue-52?
  331. # [18:43] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-52
  332. # [18:43] <trackbot> ISSUE-52 -- Resolve XHTML2 WG objections to language in HTML5 draft regarding XHTML1 -- OPEN
  333. # [18:43] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/52
  334. # [18:43] <smedero> well issue-52 probably overlaps a few
  335. # [18:43] <smedero> issue-4
  336. # [18:43] <DanC> no... it's something I was tracking on http://www.w3.org/html/wg/il16 but hadn't moved to tracker yet
  337. # [18:44] <DanC> issue-4?
  338. # [18:44] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-4
  339. # [18:44] <trackbot> ISSUE-4 -- HTML Versioning and DOCTYPEs -- RAISED
  340. # [18:44] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4
  341. # [18:44] <DanC> they're related, but that's not a dup
  342. # [18:44] <smedero> correct, I didn't mean dupe
  343. # [18:44] <smedero> just, overlap...
  344. # [18:44] <DanC> I was tracking it as "Name for XHTML serialization" on http://www.w3.org/html/wg/il16
  345. # [18:44] * Quits: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30) (Quit: tlr)
  346. # [18:46] * Joins: xover (xover@193.157.66.22)
  347. # [18:47] <DanC> action-62?
  348. # [18:47] * trackbot getting information on ACTION-62
  349. # [18:47] <trackbot> ACTION-62 -- Dan Connolly to ensure HTML WG response to XHTML 2 WG re name of XML serialization http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0385.html -- due 2008-05-31 -- OPEN
  350. # [18:47] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/62
  351. # [18:48] <DanC> why are there only 5 users in http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/ ?
  352. # [18:51] * matt looks back and sees mention of linking to just the relevant thread, not emails and notes that the way our mail archive works this can make people think a thread is done because the threads indexes only list threads in that particular mailing lists archive period...
  353. # [18:51] <DanC> yes, life is hard
  354. # [18:52] <DanC> shawn, you wrote "The problem (from my POV) with prematurely opening issues is that they
  355. # [18:52] <DanC> haven't been vetted"
  356. # [18:52] <DanC> which raised a big thread about "what's the vetting process?"
  357. # [18:52] <DanC> the process that I had in mind just involved discretion on the part of the issue tracking elves
  358. # [18:56] <MikeSmith> DanC: there are 5 users because I drastically cut back the number of people who have edit access to the tracker
  359. # [18:56] <DanC> MikeSmith, do you know why there are just 5 people in http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/ there were a dozen or so as of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008Apr/0000.html
  360. # [18:56] <MikeSmith> because of issues 42-50
  361. # [18:56] <DanC> ah.
  362. # [18:57] <MikeSmith> we can add people back in after we have agreement who should be in there
  363. # [18:57] <DanC> I suggest adding James Graham back
  364. # [18:57] <MikeSmith> DanC: OK, agreed
  365. # [18:58] <DanC> in any case, yes, it makes sense to re-sync with people
  366. # [18:58] <MikeSmith> I can re-add James, or feel free to re-add yourself directly if you want
  367. # [18:58] <MikeSmith> DanC: yeah
  368. # [18:58] <MikeSmith> I just think we all really don't want further "drive bay" issue-adding going on
  369. # [18:59] <MikeSmith> nor issues getting summarily closed while members of the group want them to remain open
  370. # [19:00] <DanC> are we clear about specifics of what went wrong? I never did look at all 10 or whatever of those issues. ah... good... shawn pointed out specifics in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008May/0007.html
  371. # [19:01] <MikeSmith> I'm clear about what went wrong. At least I've tried to make it clear to Gregory and Robert
  372. # [19:01] <MikeSmith> regardless, I won't be spending any more time discussing it with them further right now
  373. # [19:02] <DanC> well, I'd like to take advantage of the new "pending review" state and generally clean up the issues list, so I'd appreciate if you'd be willing to look at some of them now, e.g.
  374. # [19:02] <DanC> issue-50?
  375. # [19:02] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-50
  376. # [19:02] <trackbot> ISSUE-50 -- Markup improvements and UA norms to associate attributions, citations, quotations and references -- RAISED
  377. # [19:02] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/50
  378. # [19:03] <DanC> that points to http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AttrtibuCitaQuotationReferencing which looks like original research
  379. # [19:03] <DanC> (in wikipedia terms)
  380. # [19:04] * Quits: xover (xover@193.157.66.22) (Quit: Leaving)
  381. # [19:04] * smedero catches up
  382. # [19:04] * DanC hunts for my message from a year or so ago about the cost of new features...
  383. # [19:05] <DanC> ah... found it... "I suggest discussion of new features at this point in
  384. # [19:05] <DanC> this WG is not likely to be a good use of time." -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0735.html
  385. # [19:06] <smedero> yeah, I tried to step in to at least say... "whoa, wait. these are topics that could be developed into issues but the appropriate place for them is public-html."
  386. # [19:06] * Joins: Navarr (navarr@75.53.202.105)
  387. # [19:06] <DanC> hmm... 0735 isn't quite what I was looking for...
  388. # [19:07] <smedero> that whole period there in late May/early June was rather nasty... but to be fair the conference call yesterday went well I thought.
  389. # [19:07] <smedero> MikeSmith did a good job explaining the process.
  390. # [19:08] <DanC> bummer I missed it; on the other hand, I'm representative of all the other people that missed it.
  391. # [19:09] <smedero> yeah, understood - we'll update the wiki-fy the scribe notes from yesterday.
  392. # [19:09] <smedero> erm. typos.
  393. # [19:09] <smedero> oh well.
  394. # [19:09] <smedero> the wg homepage does have a good summary on what the Tracker is for now. MikeSmith added that.
  395. # [19:10] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@88.131.66.80)
  396. # [19:11] <DanC> hmm... maybe the note on the homepage is good enough and we don't need to update http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTemplate
  397. # [19:12] <smedero> Well I'd like to update http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/
  398. # [19:12] <DanC> pls do
  399. # [19:12] <smedero> with a brief description of the two new states
  400. # [19:12] <smedero> so I'll start that
  401. # [19:12] <DanC> bummer... looks like I never sent my essay about the cost of new issues.
  402. # [19:13] <Julian> DanC: "issues" or "features"? :-)
  403. # [19:13] <DanC> hmm... is "No normative schema" worth a WG decision, as Henri proposed back in March 2007? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0357.html
  404. # [19:13] <DanC> ah... I meant features, Julian
  405. # [19:14] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@88.131.66.80) (Quit: zcorpan)
  406. # [19:16] <smedero> Good catch Dan. Is the normative schema something TAG would weigh in on?
  407. # [19:16] * Joins: jgraham_ (jgraham@131.111.68.181)
  408. # [19:16] <DanC> perhaps... but I think I'm going to leave that aside for now and get back to...
  409. # [19:16] <DanC> issue-50?
  410. # [19:16] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-50
  411. # [19:16] <trackbot> ISSUE-50 -- Markup improvements and UA norms to associate attributions, citations, quotations and references -- RAISED
  412. # [19:16] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/50
  413. # [19:17] <DanC> perhaps mark it like the others that were "raised based on a misunderstanding"?
  414. # [19:18] <DanC> i.e. state CLOSED, product NONE, with a note
  415. # [19:18] <smedero> That was what I had in mind... I believe MikeSmith too.
  416. # [19:19] <smedero> Did you ever find a pointer to your thoughts on the "cost of new features"?
  417. # [19:19] <smedero> oh, it looks like you didn't.
  418. # [19:21] <smedero> DanC, what did you have in mind with regards to PENDINGREVIEW and POSTPONED?
  419. # [19:23] <DanC> I had in mind that PENDINGREVIEW means "editor is done; the WG chairs should look at how to check whether the rest of the WG is satisfied"
  420. # [19:24] <DanC> POSTPONED typically means "yeah, tough issue, but we don't see a cost-effective solution and we think we can meet our requirements without solving it."
  421. # [19:24] <DanC> and "... we hope somebody figures this out, eventually"
  422. # [19:24] <DanC> POSTPONED represents a decision to cut features in order to meet the ship date
  423. # [19:25] <hsivonen> chances are the rest of the WG will never be satisfied
  424. # [19:25] <hsivonen> that is, for any Tracker-worthy issue, there's sure to be dissent
  425. # [19:26] <DanC> saying that makes it more likely to come true. I think we can reach consensus on lots of issues.
  426. # [19:26] <DanC> meanwhile, yes, we'll probably have more issues closed over objection than the typical W3C WG. such is life.
  427. # [19:27] * jgraham_ tends to agree with hsivonen
  428. # [19:28] <DanC> I think most WG participants will learn that consensus doesn't mean "I love how every detail is specified" but "I agree this is acceptable, given the engineering constraints"
  429. # [19:29] <jgraham_> I'm not sure that we have agreement on what the engineering constraints are
  430. # [19:29] <hober> Generally yes, though I get a "damn the engineering constraints, full speed ahead!" vibe from some posts/posters
  431. # [19:30] <DanC> I intend to put more energy into helping them learn that this WG isn't about "damn the engineering constraints, full speed ahead!"
  432. # [19:30] <hsivonen> when consensus on opinion isn't reachable but running code interoperates with running code, it would be pragmatic to side with running code
  433. # [19:31] <DanC> indeed, when people learn that the opinion of any one person is largely irrelevant and that the only thing that matters is to convince a critical mass of developers of software, authoring tools, pages, etc.
  434. # [19:31] <DanC> that's when dissent just for the sake of it passes away
  435. # [19:32] <hsivonen> also, I think it would be good for the WG not to spend a lot of time on deliberating issues that don't have implementor interest (yet or ever)
  436. # [19:33] * DanC hopes to get past philosophy, get some clarity on issues process, and get to stuff like the testing hsivonen posted about
  437. # [19:33] <smedero> exactly
  438. # [19:33] <DanC> yes, I expect the issue tracking elves to be reasonable judges of implementor interest
  439. # [19:34] <DanC> I wouldn't mind a more transparent process for guaguing implementor interest, but I haven't come up with one
  440. # [19:34] <smedero> I don't want to spend my time discussing "Robert's Rules of Order"... I respect that the W3C has a process, we have a charter, and other legal issues to deal with... and that these topics will come up from time to time. I'd rather being doing research, test cases, writing... evangelism, etc.
  441. # [19:36] <smedero> That said, I'm glad we are address this topic on IRC, public-html, and telecons because it is obviously irked a number of WG members... and I rather deal it with it now.
  442. # [19:36] <DanC> MikeSmith, smedero pls take a look at the way I marked issue-50
  443. # [19:36] <smedero> will do
  444. # [19:37] <MikeSmith> DanC: looking now
  445. # [19:37] <hsivonen> DanC: I've often felt that it has been sufficiently transparent when Hixie's focus for the week has been in response to an implementor asking on IRC or sending email
  446. # [19:37] <hsivonen> DanC: OTOH, implementor disinterest is less explicit
  447. # [19:37] <hsivonen> since implementors rarely proclaim that they'll never implement a nice-to-have-but-not-that-important feature
  448. # [19:38] <hsivonen> something has to suck pretty badly to get direct expressions of unwillingness to implement
  449. # [19:38] <hsivonen> so I guess we are left with tracking active interest
  450. # [19:38] <hsivonen> and assume relative disinterest for the rest
  451. # [19:41] * DanC marked issue-42 likewise
  452. # [19:41] <jgraham_> Of course people often come up with "nice to have but not that important features" and can't understand why they aren't being included since they are nice to have. So it is good to be explicit about needing implementor support
  453. # [19:41] <jgraham_> s/nice/apparently nice/
  454. # [19:42] <DanC> issue 43 has a related webkit bug report; was it raised by the same guy?
  455. # [19:42] <DanC> yup
  456. # [19:42] <hsivonen> jgraham_: I agree. I think Laura Carlson's recent email implied, that there'd be an opinion-based process for including stuff in the spec.
  457. # [19:43] <hsivonen> while at this point the main way to get stuff *added* is to be a browser vendor and threaten to implement single-vendor technology unless Hixie agrees to spec it
  458. # [19:43] <DanC> "This issue is being extensively discussed by the HTML WG right
  459. # [19:43] <DanC> now"
  460. # [19:43] <DanC> issue-43?
  461. # [19:43] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-43
  462. # [19:43] <trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Enhanced Client-side Image Maps -- RAISED
  463. # [19:43] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/43
  464. # [19:43] <DanC> is that one a real issue?
  465. # [19:44] <DanC> the "extensively discussed" quote is from https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15032
  466. # [19:49] * DanC closed issue 44
  467. # [19:50] * DanC closed issue 45
  468. # [19:51] * DanC closed issue 46
  469. # [19:52] <DanC> ISSUE-47 got some discussion...
  470. # [19:54] <DanC> hmm... I wonder about putting an [original research] tag in the title of these issues, sorta like the way we put [dup] and [oops] tags
  471. # [19:55] <hsivonen> from wikipedia, original research has a bad connotation even though research should have a good connotation in connection to HTML
  472. # [19:56] <DanC> true...
  473. # [19:56] <DanC> probably not sufficiently self-explanatory
  474. # [19:57] <DanC> issue-48?
  475. # [19:57] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-48
  476. # [19:57] <trackbot> ISSUE-48 -- 'marks' content markup attribute for Q (quotation) and BLOCKQUOTE -- RAISED
  477. # [19:57] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/48
  478. # [19:58] <DanC> there's some indication that's a real issue too. I'll let mike or shawn close it
  479. # [19:58] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  480. # [20:00] <MikeSmith> DanC: I think the issues of whether UAs should generates quotes for Q is a real issue
  481. # [20:00] <MikeSmith> not sure whether this specific tracker item is the right issue to track that
  482. # [20:01] <MikeSmith> but i guess if lacking another one, we use that one
  483. # [20:01] <MikeSmith> because the Q thing is something that the HTML5 has changed
  484. # [20:01] <MikeSmith> over HTML4 and XHTML1
  485. # [20:01] <DanC> ok
  486. # [20:02] <MikeSmith> the notes for issue 50 and the others closed look spot-on to me
  487. # [20:04] <DanC> take a look at 43, pls?
  488. # [20:06] <jgraham_> FWIW my feeling is that issue 48 is not the right place to discuss generation of quotation marks since it is not about the general issue but advocating a particular solution
  489. # [20:07] <DanC> I think mike is suggesting editing it to make it the right place
  490. # [20:07] <MikeSmith> jgraham_: what DanC said
  491. # [20:07] <jgraham_> Oh, OK, that makes sense I guess
  492. # [20:07] <DanC> though the number doesn't matter to me; until there are more pointers to it
  493. # [20:07] * smedero catches up again
  494. # [20:08] <DanC> first guy to either make a new issue or edit 48 wins, for me
  495. # [20:08] <MikeSmith> yep
  496. # [20:09] * DanC stars reviewing the CLOSED issues to see which ones should be PENDINGREVIEW
  497. # [20:09] <MikeSmith> editing issue 48 seems to me easiest, but I'm not going to be doing it today myself :), so anybody else who has time feel freed
  498. # [20:09] <DanC> issue-23?
  499. # [20:09] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-23
  500. # [20:09] <trackbot> ISSUE-23 -- External conformance dependency in forms -- CLOSED
  501. # [20:09] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/23
  502. # [20:09] * smedero keeps getting pulled into side meetings about flooding in Iowa affecting my company's data center.
  503. # [20:09] <smedero> s/affecting/effecting/
  504. # [20:09] <DanC> ew
  505. # [20:10] <jgraham_> smedero: affecting is right surely?
  506. # [20:10] <smedero> i honestly can never tell... i'm married to a linguistic too... sigh.
  507. # [20:11] * jgraham_ is no longer sure of himself and it's not important anyway...
  508. # [20:11] <DanC> following the link to 23 shows smedero withdrew it. I'm marking it [oops] to save others the trouble of following the link
  509. # [20:11] <DanC> likewise 22
  510. # [20:11] <smedero> yeah, I closed some bogus issues (that I opened anyway)
  511. # [20:12] <smedero> I emailed WHATWG per Hixie's request.
  512. # [20:13] <smedero> I'll tackle ISSUE-48
  513. # [20:13] <DanC> bummer... the Raised By gets reset to me cuz GR is no longer in the list.
  514. # [20:15] <DanC> hmm....
  515. # [20:15] <DanC> issue-3?
  516. # [20:15] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-3
  517. # [20:15] <trackbot> ISSUE-3 -- conformance of element level style attributes -- CLOSED
  518. # [20:15] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/3
  519. # [20:15] <DanC> that should be pending review, right, MikeSmith ?
  520. # [20:15] <jgraham_> Hmm Erik Wilde seems to be forwarding all his bugmail to public-html Is that the expected mode of operation?
  521. # [20:15] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Ping timeout)
  522. # [20:16] * DanC doubts it
  523. # [20:16] <MikeSmith> DanC: yeah, I think we need to actually get explicit confirmation from Glazou on issue-42
  524. # [20:16] <MikeSmith> issue-3
  525. # [20:16] <MikeSmith> I meant
  526. # [20:16] <DanC> and a test case, I hope
  527. # [20:17] <smedero> re: issue-3 ...yeah there was no pending-review as of yesterday... apologies.
  528. # [20:17] <smedero> it was sitting in the raised state... I should have just moved it to open.
  529. # [20:17] <MikeSmith> jgraham_: he forwared one so far that I can see. I don't see a problem with it
  530. # [20:20] <jgraham_> MikeSmith: I have 2 (one is Hixie's comment in the bug, one is his reply)
  531. # [20:20] <DanC> issue-13?
  532. # [20:20] * trackbot getting information on ISSUE-13
  533. # [20:20] <trackbot> ISSUE-13 -- Handling HTTP status 401 responses / User Agent Authentication Forms -- RAISED
  534. # [20:20] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/13
  535. # [20:21] <DanC> ^ I made that one a requirements issue
  536. # [20:21] <MikeSmith> jgraham_: ah, OK
  537. # [20:22] <MikeSmith> yeah, I guess i would prefer that he just had forwarded his response
  538. # [20:22] <MikeSmith> only
  539. # [20:23] * Joins: oedipus (oedipus@71.250.58.111)
  540. # [20:23] <MikeSmith> DanC: that sounds right to me. I seem to remember asking Julian to take a look at the HTTP issues and report back about which ones could be closed
  541. # [20:23] * Quits: aroben (adamroben@72.165.115.225) (Quit: aroben)
  542. # [20:23] <oedipus> aloha, danC - just got your emessage....
  543. # [20:23] <jgraham_> I think there needs to be a clear policy on whether (particular types of) discussion should happen in bugzilla or on the mailing list, otherwise it will be confusing for everyone
  544. # [20:27] <DanC> hi oedipus
  545. # [20:28] <MikeSmith> jgraham_: It would be great if somebody were to draft up a suggested policy for that
  546. # [20:29] <oedipus> there are a few overlappoing issues here - one is the upside and downside of having a centralized list (public-html); another is the upside and downside of having many lists forming multiple feedback streams (public-html-wg-issue-tracking, public-html-wg-bugzilla); the upshot as far as i'm concerned is that splitting feedback loops into separate lists won't alleviate the amount of traffic on public-html, it will filter and order it, so that issues are in th
  547. # [20:30] <hsivonen> oedipus: you got cut off at "so that issues are in th"
  548. # [20:30] * oedipus trying to catch up via the IRC log
  549. # [20:30] <oedipus> there are a few overlappoing issues here - one is the upside and downside of having a centralized list (public-html);
  550. # [20:31] <oedipus> another is the upside and downside of having many lists forming multiple feedback streams (public-html-wg-issue-tracking, public-html-wg-bugzilla);
  551. # [20:31] <oedipus> the upshot as far as i'm concerned is that splitting feedback loops into separate lists won't alleviate the amount of overall email, but it will filter and order the influx of email, so that issues are in the issues list, bugs in the bugzilla list, and discussion in public-html -- as long as there is a clearly articulated policy, i don't think there is much to lose by having dedicated-resource lists
  552. # [20:31] * oedipus hsivonen - did you get all that?
  553. # [20:32] <oedipus> i'm not crazy about multiple lists, but it seems the only "sane" approach to public-html overload
  554. # [20:33] <hsivonen> oedipus: I got everything up to "having dedicated-resource lists"
  555. # [20:33] <oedipus> that's as far as i got...
  556. # [20:34] <oedipus> i don't mind specific lists associated with specific tools -- in fact it would help separate the wheat from the chaff
  557. # [20:35] <jgraham_> So, given an issue in bugzilla, do people anticipate most of the discussion for that issue happening in the bug comments or on the list? Bug comments seem like thay have the disadvantage of being linear and harder to manage, but easier to compartmentalise just the issues that you care about
  558. # [20:35] <jgraham_> Or does it depend on the type of issue and if so how?
  559. # [20:36] <jgraham_> e.g. the @alt discussion in bugzilla might have been even more of a mess
  560. # [20:36] <MikeSmith> jgraham_: yeah, I think it depends on the issue
  561. # [20:36] <hsivonen> jgraham_: I think it would be good to have comments of technical substance in the bug comments
  562. # [20:36] <oedipus> either we break out discussion on issues based on issue type (issue, bug, etc.) or the extra lists simply serve as announcement lists, and the concentrated discussion of a specific issue/bug will be easier to track and manage
  563. # [20:37] <MikeSmith> there have been some discussions on the list that to me almost seem to amount to discussions between two people that don't need to take place on the list
  564. # [20:38] <MikeSmith> those kinds of discussions would better take place as part of bugzilla items, I think
  565. # [20:38] * DanC hopes he can continue to avoid bugzilla
  566. # [20:38] <oedipus> er, i meant if the bugzilla and issue-tracker lists are used only to log opening and closing of issues and bugs, all conversation will continue to happen on public-html, which has a far too high signal-to-noise ratio to address specific bugs and issues in a timely manner\
  567. # [20:38] <jgraham_> My main concern about bugzilla is the non-threadedness
  568. # [20:39] <hsivonen> aside: It seems to me that http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/17 got resolved
  569. # [20:39] <MikeSmith> oedipus: whatever ideas we have to get traffic down on public-html are ideas worth serious consideration
  570. # [20:39] <MikeSmith> the 800 messages to the list in April were too many
  571. # [20:39] <MikeSmith> the higher the volume of the list traffic goes up, the more people just check out
  572. # [20:40] <MikeSmith> they give up and quit paying attention
  573. # [20:40] <oedipus> yes, yes, and YES!
  574. # [20:40] <oedipus> danC, what would you advocate instead of bugzilla?
  575. # [20:40] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254)
  576. # [20:41] <oedipus> bugzilla has an audit trail, and allows individuals to "vote" rather then send a "plus one" post to public-html with a +1 preceding the original message in toto
  577. # [20:42] <DanC> tracker and public-html are enough for me. if somebody wants to organize a petition, they can use the wiki or their blog or whatever
  578. # [20:42] <oedipus> it could be a policy to vote on bugs, but not to simply +1 them or respond to their logging unless it is to add more information
  579. # [20:43] <oedipus> (i know a lot of listmembers are frustrated by plus one posts)
  580. # [20:43] <jgraham_> bugzilla has a pretty crummy interface for submitting bugs. Could we wrap that in something approachable which gives bug authors guidance on the right structure to use for their issues?
  581. # [20:43] <oedipus> i'd be willing to work with the systeam on such a project, jgraham, to ensure its WCAG compliance
  582. # [20:44] <DanC> I prefer to avoid the problem of coming up with an interface that's usable by hundreds/thousands. a dozen or so issue tracking elves and tracker works for me
  583. # [20:44] <oedipus> i've worked with the systeam on other resources in the past
  584. # [20:44] <oedipus> either the hundreds/thousands use bugzilla, or they'll use public-html - it's a catch-22
  585. # [20:45] * jgraham_ can't reasonably commit any more of his time but may find a few moments to play around
  586. # [20:45] <oedipus> me neither, really, jgraham, but if it will benefit the w3c i'm willing to make the time
  587. # [20:45] <oedipus> that is, if the fixes are not merely local, but global
  588. # [20:45] <DanC> public-html is our main mechanism by charter. it scales to hundreds, with a little more effort on the part of me and others to shape the traffic
  589. # [20:46] <oedipus> danC, what about limiting bugzilla use to wg members, just as many WGs do with their wikis
  590. # [20:47] <hsivonen> oedipus: why?
  591. # [20:47] <oedipus> hsivonen, just a straw-man argument, i strongly believe bugzilla should be open to everyone
  592. # [20:48] <jgraham_> DanC: I agree with MikeSmith; the mailing list is driving people away. Unless you can manage expectations to be more like the WHATWG list I can't see that changing
  593. # [20:48] <oedipus> jgraham, can you point to WHATWG's list policy/policies?
  594. # [20:48] <hsivonen> Hixie said the privately tells people not to post useless messages when someone posts a "+1+
  595. # [20:49] <hsivonen> to the WHATWG list
  596. # [20:49] <oedipus> that's a recipie for a backlash - consult the minutes from yesterday's telecon!
  597. # [20:49] <jgraham_> oedipus: Er, I'm not sure if they're documented anywhere. The point is that the WHATWG has a shared expectation of how the process will work that is different from the W3C.
  598. # [20:50] <oedipus> can you point to something that explains the "shared expectation" - i'm not sure what that term means
  599. # [20:50] <MikeSmith> oedipus: as I said on the call, I agree about the +1 messages being a problem
  600. # [20:50] <smedero> I've edited ISSUE-48 to represent a problem statement (instead of a proposal): http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/48
  601. # [20:50] <MikeSmith> i am willing to deal with the backlash
  602. # [20:50] <smedero> hopefully I've captured the spirit of what was intended...
  603. # [20:50] <jgraham_> Or more precidely different from the parties who participate prinipally through the W3C
  604. # [20:50] <MikeSmith> smedero: looking now
  605. # [20:50] <hsivonen> oedipus: I'm not sure if it has been written down anywhere, but here are things that I believe are shared expectations on the WHATWG list:
  606. # [20:51] * Joins: mjs (mjs@24.5.43.151)
  607. # [20:51] <oedipus> mikeTMsmith: i know - i was just juxtaposing the attitude of an administrator to a listmember
  608. # [20:51] <hsivonen> 1) Non-implementors are welcome to suggest stuff, but should expect to be able to "force" implementors into doing something.
  609. # [20:51] <smedero> (scroll past the linked emails on the issue... I left links to relevant proposals, resources, etc.)
  610. # [20:51] <takkaria> smedero: it seems factually inaccurate; the current HTML5 draft says that the author should add quotation marks
  611. # [20:51] <hsivonen> 2) No votes.
  612. # [20:51] <hsivonen> 3) Technical merit matters.
  613. # [20:51] <smedero> hrm, I didn't see that in the draft..
  614. # [20:51] <smedero> let me re-read it
  615. # [20:51] <MikeSmith> smedero: what takkaria said
  616. # [20:51] <takkaria> smedero: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/text-level.html#the-q
  617. # [20:51] <hsivonen> 4) The editor considers the technical merit.
  618. # [20:52] <jgraham_> s/should/shouldn't/ in point 1) I think
  619. # [20:52] * oedipus thanks hsivonen
  620. # [20:52] <MikeSmith> s/but should expect/but not should expect/ in what hsivonen said above
  621. # [20:52] <oedipus> in the WHAT WG is the editor the de facto chair?
  622. # [20:52] <hsivonen> 5) Features with no implementor interest can't stay around, because eventually, there have to be two interoperable implementations
  623. # [20:52] <hober> oedipus: there's nothing like a chair on that side
  624. # [20:52] <hsivonen> right, s/should/shouldn't/ in point #1
  625. # [20:53] <jgraham_> oedipus: What do you mean "chair"> i.e. what functions are you thinking of?
  626. # [20:53] <hsivonen> oedipus: the editor is a de facto chair in the sense that he tells people not to say +1
  627. # [20:53] <jgraham_> s/>/?/
  628. # [20:53] <hsivonen> oedipus: and can ban badly behaving people for a week or two
  629. # [20:54] <hsivonen> oedipus: the ban has been used only once, to my knowledge
  630. # [20:54] <oedipus> in the w3c, there is a chair/chairs, staff contact and editor/editors - the editor doesn't have the final say
  631. # [20:54] <MikeSmith> oedipus: Hixie is the one on the WHATWG list who has worked the most to set the list discussion convention
  632. # [20:54] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@71.204.153.3) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  633. # [20:54] * oedipus thanks for background
  634. # [20:54] * DanC noodles on a schedule of issues
  635. # [20:55] <oedipus> hsivonen, list administration can be an enourmous burden (all of the open a11y lists are moderated by hand - mine)
  636. # [20:55] <jgraham_> FWIW, from the point of view of a list member it has never been very obvious what Hixie has had to do to foster the environment that exists
  637. # [20:56] <MikeSmith> oedipus: Hixie wrote up a response to Laura a couple days ago that outlines the process that he has used for vetting proposals
  638. # [20:56] <MikeSmith> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0140.html
  639. # [20:56] <oedipus> thanks-will check
  640. # [20:57] <hsivonen> I believe the "poisonous people" talk by the SVN leaders has been an inspiration
  641. # [20:57] * hsivonen looks up the URI
  642. # [20:57] <hober> indeed, that was a wonderful talk
  643. # [20:57] <mjs> wow this channel is hopping lately
  644. # [20:58] * oedipus asks out of ignorance for an expansion for SVN (sweedish vampire nation?)
  645. # [20:58] <smedero> subversion, source control management software
  646. # [20:58] <hsivonen> oedipus: Subversion
  647. # [20:58] <hsivonen> the talk: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645
  648. # [20:58] * oedipus thanks
  649. # [20:59] <hsivonen> (substance in audio)
  650. # [20:59] * oedipus thanks!
  651. # [21:01] * oedipus listening to google talk
  652. # [21:04] <DanC> hsivonen, have you gotten around to any validator test cases?
  653. # [21:04] <hsivonen> DanC: not under the new harness
  654. # [21:04] <DanC> I wonder if the html5lib parser test case materials can be shared at all
  655. # [21:04] <hsivonen> DanC: only under old harnesses
  656. # [21:05] <hsivonen> DanC: I already use the html5lib tests on the parser layer
  657. # [21:05] <takkaria> how do you mean, "shared"? I don't see any impediment to that
  658. # [21:05] <hsivonen> DanC: but I don't have automated full-stack tests yet
  659. # [21:05] <jgraham_> html5lib tests can, roughly speaking, be reused by anyone for anything they choose
  660. # [21:06] <jgraham_> (hsivonen has been a major contributer to those tests in fact)
  661. # [21:06] * Quits: oedipus (oedipus@71.250.58.111) (Ping timeout)
  662. # [21:07] <DanC> I'm looking for issues that we can close by saying "does everybody agree that the right outcome from this test is X?"
  663. # [21:07] <DanC> hmm... travis's question wasn't just about parsing, was it. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008May/0571.html
  664. # [21:09] <DanC> oh... maybe it is... I got the impression it was about how to fix things when the DOM was modified by javascript, but I was reading too fast...
  665. # [21:11] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241)
  666. # [21:19] * Joins: mjs_ (mjs@24.5.43.151)
  667. # [21:19] * Quits: mjs (mjs@24.5.43.151) (Connection reset by peer)
  668. # [21:21] * DanC wanders off to lunch...
  669. # [21:25] * Quits: jgraham_ (jgraham@131.111.68.181) (Quit: leaving)
  670. # [21:35] * Joins: oedipus (oedipus@71.250.58.111)
  671. # [21:41] * Quits: smedero (smedero@192.223.6.251) (Connection reset by peer)
  672. # [21:41] * Joins: smedero (smedero@192.223.6.251)
  673. # [21:54] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
  674. # [21:55] * Joins: xover (xover@193.157.66.22)
  675. # [21:57] <Philip> http://dev.w3.org/recent-commits?user=%22%3E%3Cscript%3Ealert(%22I'm%20stealing%20your%20cookies:%20%22%2Bdocument.cookie)%3C/script%3E
  676. # [21:57] <Philip> Does anyone care about this kind of thing?
  677. # [21:58] <oedipus> all i get is "I'm stealing your cookies: "+document.cookie)"
  678. # [21:59] <oedipus> plus the size attribute for the INPUT isn't nested properly
  679. # [22:00] <Philip> It injects a <script> tag into the page, so someone following the link (without scripting disabled etc) would run the script with all the permissions of a dev.w3.org page (e.g. accessing cookies from that domain)
  680. # [22:01] <oedipus> my screen reader(s) (i've tried 2 so far) don't recognize the FORM control and won't let me tab to it
  681. # [22:03] <oedipus> extant: <input name="user" value=""><script>alert("I'm stealing your cookies: "+document.cookie)</script>" size="10">.
  682. # [22:03] <oedipus> should be: <input name="user" value="" size="10"><script>alert("I'm stealing your cookies: "+document.cookie)"</script></input>.
  683. # [22:05] <Philip> It should be <input name="user" value="&lt;script&gt;alert(&quot;etc etc etc)" size="10">
  684. # [22:05] <oedipus> well, yeah, i was just resorting the original doc source
  685. # [22:05] <oedipus> either way, it's broken as far as my assistive tech is concerned
  686. # [22:10] <oedipus> hm - the only syntax i can get my AT to recognize as a form is: <input name="user" value="" size="10"><script>alert("I'm stealing your cookies: "+document.cookie)"</script></input>.
  687. # [22:11] <oedipus> not that that has anything to do with your original question <grin>
  688. # [22:38] <smedero> Philip: Good catch, I guess we alert the w3c systeam? MikeSmith would know.
  689. # [22:49] * Quits: oedipus (oedipus@71.250.58.111) (Quit: so long, lil' dudes -- don't learn anything i wouldn't learn!)
  690. # [23:07] <Hixie> so did the htmlwg come up with a topic i should be working on?
  691. # [23:07] <Hixie> i guess the big problem is the uri/iri thing
  692. # [23:11] <DanC> we made some progress toward a schedule of issues, Hixie , but mostly getting other stuff out of the way. MikeSmith, are you around?
  693. # [23:11] <Hixie> k
  694. # [23:11] <DanC> uri/iri thing? what brings that to mind?
  695. # [23:11] <Hixie> it's the biggest red box in the spec, afaik
  696. # [23:12] <Hixie> and, not counting issues that i have put on hold, the biggest folder of outstanding issues and the folder with the oldest e-mail
  697. # [23:12] * Quits: trackbot (trackbot@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  698. # [23:13] <Hixie> afaik it's also the last remaining huge issue that uas implement mostly interoperably in a completely non-specified way
  699. # [23:13] <DanC> got an easy list of issues you put on hold?
  700. # [23:13] <DanC> which section is the big red uri/iri box in?
  701. # [23:13] <Hixie> "URLs" under "Microsyntaxes"
  702. # [23:14] * Joins: trackbot (trackbot@128.30.52.30)
  703. # [23:14] * DanC runs across noreferrer, wonders about fallback there
  704. # [23:14] <Hixie> http://www.corp.google.com/~erikv/msie-cs-sorted.txt
  705. # [23:14] <Hixie> er, wrong url.
  706. # [23:14] <Hixie> http://www.whatwg.org/issues/top
  707. # [23:14] <Hixie> that has the list of things that are delayed for some reason or other
  708. # [23:14] <Hixie> see the list at the bottom
  709. # [23:15] <Hixie> basically forms stuff is delayed waiting for the forms tf, svg and aria are delayed waiting for those groups
  710. # [23:15] <Hixie> rendering is the last thing i'll do
  711. # [23:15] <Hixie> just before references
  712. # [23:15] <Hixie> and the -v2 things are things that are waiting for 5.1 or implementations to catch up in general
  713. # [23:16] * DanC sees "Web Forms 2", feels some obligation to talk about when we'll get to that, but not much excitement to do so
  714. # [23:18] <Hixie> anything related to forms is blocked on the forms-tf
  715. # [23:18] * Quits: trackbot (trackbot@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  716. # [23:18] <Hixie> because if they decide we're not doing wf2 but are doing xforms, i don't want to have wasted my time merging wf2 in
  717. # [23:19] <Hixie> ok gotta go, bbl
  718. # [23:19] <DanC> "getting rid of references to [RFC3986] [RFC3987]"?
  719. # [23:20] * Joins: trackbot (trackbot@128.30.52.30)
  720. # [23:21] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  721. # [23:28] * Joins: mjs (mjs@24.5.43.151)
  722. # [23:28] * Quits: mjs_ (mjs@24.5.43.151) (Connection reset by peer)
  723. # [23:48] <Lachy> hmm, I wonder why Erik felt the need to forward the bugzilla messages to public-html. That's going to be annoying if people continually do that.
  724. # [23:50] <Lachy> MikeSmith, could you post a message about the existence of public-html-bugzilla, and say that if people with to keep track of the bugs, they should subscribe.
  725. # [23:50] <Lachy> and that they should avoid forwarding bug mails to public-html, unless there is a specific reason to follow up with some discussion about it there.
  726. # [23:54] * Joins: zyx386 (zyx386@87.55.138.244)
  727. # [23:54] <zyx386> hi
  728. # Session Close: Sat Jun 14 00:00:00 2008

The end :)