/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2008-06-16 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Mon Jun 16 00:00:00 2008
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:05] * Joins: Dashiva (noone@84.48.51.199)
  4. # [00:07] * Quits: heycam (cam@203.217.69.250) (Quit: bye)
  5. # [00:15] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238) (Quit: I get eaten by the worms)
  6. # [00:49] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238)
  7. # [01:43] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238) (Quit: I get eaten by the worms)
  8. # [01:47] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238)
  9. # [02:04] * Quits: jgraham (jgraham@81.86.222.238) (Client exited)
  10. # [02:09] * Joins: jgraham (jgraham@81.86.222.238)
  11. # [02:13] * Joins: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84)
  12. # [02:18] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238) (Quit: I get eaten by the worms)
  13. # [02:46] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  14. # [02:46] * Joins: billyjack (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  15. # [02:47] * Quits: billyjack (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Client exited)
  16. # [03:04] * Joins: marcos (marcos@131.181.210.216)
  17. # [03:07] * Quits: marcos (marcos@131.181.210.216) (Quit: marcos)
  18. # [03:20] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  19. # [03:26] * Joins: marcos (marcos@131.181.210.216)
  20. # [03:33] * Quits: marcos (marcos@131.181.210.216) (Ping timeout)
  21. # [04:07] * Quits: tH (Rob@87.102.5.204) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.82.1-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.0.9/2006120508])
  22. # [04:22] * Joins: marcos (marcos@131.181.210.216)
  23. # [05:05] * Quits: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@123.176.107.50) (Connection reset by peer)
  24. # [05:07] * Joins: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@123.176.107.50)
  25. # [05:42] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@129.2.175.74)
  26. # [05:42] * Quits: marcos (marcos@131.181.210.216) (Quit: marcos)
  27. # [05:48] * Joins: marcos (marcos@131.181.210.216)
  28. # [05:57] * Quits: marcos (marcos@131.181.210.216) (Ping timeout)
  29. # [06:01] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@129.2.175.74) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  30. # [06:44] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.40.140)
  31. # [06:47] * Quits: anne (annevk@213.236.208.22) (Connection reset by peer)
  32. # [06:48] * Joins: inimino (weechat@67.207.138.202)
  33. # [07:38] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.40.140) (Quit: Leaving)
  34. # [07:46] * Quits: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84) (Quit: bye)
  35. # [08:22] * Joins: heycam (cam@203.217.69.250)
  36. # [08:32] * Joins: mjs (mjs@24.5.43.151)
  37. # [08:32] * Quits: mjs_ (mjs@24.5.43.151) (Connection reset by peer)
  38. # [09:22] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238)
  39. # [09:30] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238) (Quit: I get eaten by the worms)
  40. # [10:02] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  41. # [10:11] * Quits: Dashiva (noone@84.48.51.199) (Ping timeout)
  42. # [10:17] * Joins: Dashiva (noone@84.48.51.199)
  43. # [10:27] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  44. # [10:30] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@88.131.66.80)
  45. # [10:38] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@92.226.152.44)
  46. # [10:51] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@92.226.152.44) (Ping timeout)
  47. # [10:55] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@92.227.79.101)
  48. # [11:07] * Joins: ROBOd2 (robod@89.122.216.38)
  49. # [11:09] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  50. # [11:10] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Ping timeout)
  51. # [11:20] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22)
  52. # [11:20] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22) (Client exited)
  53. # [11:20] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22)
  54. # [11:30] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238)
  55. # [11:38] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238) (Quit: I get eaten by the worms)
  56. # [11:57] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  57. # [12:02] * Joins: myakura (myakura@222.145.138.216)
  58. # [12:06] * Joins: anne (annevk@213.236.208.22)
  59. # [12:10] * Joins: tH_ (Rob@87.102.5.204)
  60. # [12:10] * tH_ is now known as tH
  61. # [13:03] <Lachy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0085.html - wow, Rob really ruined it for everyone. :-(
  62. # [13:03] <Lachy> I don't mind being removed though, it's not as if I really need it at this stage. But still, it's surprising.
  63. # [13:04] <anne> shit, missed lunch
  64. # [13:05] <Lachy> anne, if you hurry, you might be able to grab some left overs.
  65. # [13:06] * Lachy wonders why people CC www-archive when they're also posting to public-html?
  66. # [13:06] * hsivonen wonders why people CC WAI leadership when complaining about HTML WG things
  67. # [13:07] * Quits: ROBOd2 (robod@89.122.216.38) (Ping timeout)
  68. # [13:07] <Lachy> probably because everything they think we do wrongly has a big impact on accessibility
  69. # [13:08] <Lachy> and they're appealing to people with authority to jump in and back them up.
  70. # [13:08] <Dashiiva> They're afraid we'll make the process inaccessible to trolls
  71. # [13:11] * Dashiiiva apologizes to log viewers for that comment. It was a jest.
  72. # [13:12] * Quits: Dashiiva (noone@195.18.164.170) (Ping timeout)
  73. # [13:28] * anne found some food after all
  74. # [13:30] <zcorpan> Lachy: www-archive is easier to follow than public-html
  75. # [13:33] <hsivonen> zcorpan: as long as everything from public-html isn't CCed there :-)
  76. # [13:34] <Lachy> thankfully, www-archive has relatively little traffic. But most people don't subscribe to it.
  77. # [13:39] <MikeSmith> Lachy: A lot of things are surprising. but that said, maybe it's just me, but I don't e-mail 4 different mailing list and other WG chairs every time I find something surprising
  78. # [13:41] <MikeSmith> what I find kind of surprising is somebody who even though people turn to e-mail cross-posting all the hell all over the place instead of, say, giving the benefit of the doubt, and maybe pinging me directly to ask me something
  79. # [13:41] <MikeSmith> or jumping on here to talk to me
  80. # [13:41] <MikeSmith> where I can be found, like, 18 hours out of the day
  81. # [13:43] <zcorpan> MikeSmith: wouldn't generate enough noise
  82. # [13:44] <MikeSmith> heh
  83. # [13:45] <MikeSmith> to be clear about the tracker changes, I removed people to get us back to a rational baseline, and with the anticipation of re-adding people back in who we have agreement should be there
  84. # [13:48] <Lachy> MikeSmith, yeah, it makes sense to only add people who need to be there.
  85. # [13:48] <Lachy> IIRC, I was only added originally for tracking issues related to the authoring guide.
  86. # [13:50] <MikeSmith> yeah, and we can re-add you in their again if/when we need to assign and action to you and you agree to have it assigned to you
  87. # [13:50] <MikeSmith> that's how most users ended up in the tracker to begin with
  88. # [13:50] <Lachy> MikeSmith, since I can no longer do it, can you update the date in http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34 to mid-August, as disucssed in the last telcon
  89. # [13:50] <MikeSmith> yes
  90. # [13:50] <MikeSmith> doing now
  91. # [13:51] <Lachy> ah, I see you already added a note about it, but didn't update the due date.
  92. # [13:51] <MikeSmith> yeah, I thought I had already, seems I just forget the date, yeah
  93. # [13:52] <MikeSmith> action-34
  94. # [13:52] * RRSAgent sees no action items
  95. # [13:52] <MikeSmith> action-34?
  96. # [13:52] * trackbot getting information on ACTION-34
  97. # [13:52] <trackbot> ACTION-34 -- Lachlan Hunt to prepare "Web Developer's Guide to HTML5" for publication in some way, as discussed on 2007-11-28 phone conference -- due 2008-08-14 -- OPEN
  98. # [13:52] <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/34
  99. # [13:53] <MikeSmith> note that the tracker can't distinguish between people who are tracker admins and people who just have actions assigned to them
  100. # [13:54] <MikeSmith> in other words, in order to be able to just assign someone an action, I effectively have to make them admins too
  101. # [13:54] <Lachy> ok, so when you add people, you would have to make it clear what rights you're giving them and trust that they won't abuse the system.
  102. # [14:06] * Quits: deane (dean@121.98.128.155) (Ping timeout)
  103. # [14:09] <MikeSmith> Lachy: right. which is something we never did previously
  104. # [14:09] <MikeSmith> so I won't be adding anybody back unless they are clear on what the rules are
  105. # [14:09] <MikeSmith> Shawn Medero is clear on it, without me needing to spell it out to him
  106. # [14:10] <MikeSmith> Julian also
  107. # [14:11] <Julian> for now I'll use it exactly for those cases where I feel HTML5 has a collision or undesirable overlap with an IETF spec. Hope this is ok.
  108. # [14:12] <MikeSmith> Julian: yeah, that's exactly what we need
  109. # [14:12] <MikeSmith> those are the kinds of issues we really must get resolution on
  110. # [14:12] <MikeSmith> at some point
  111. # [14:13] * Quits: myakura (myakura@222.145.138.216) (Quit: Leaving...)
  112. # [14:20] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  113. # [14:29] * Joins: deane (dean@121.98.128.155)
  114. # [14:46] * Joins: Steve_f (chatzilla@82.44.69.8)
  115. # [14:46] <Steve_f> hey mike, can you provide access to the issue tracker for someone to add and maintain issues related to accessibility issues?
  116. # [14:47] <Steve_f> as per the discussed processes in regards to PF
  117. # [14:52] <hsivonen> Steve_f: is it assumed that the current people who can add and maintain issues wouldn't cover accessibility among everything else?
  118. # [14:55] <Steve_f> no, but a lot of conversation has revolved around people not having time to deal with issue administration, I have also found that things are lost intranslation when added by third parties, so would like to see direct input of substantive issues by someone who is dealing with such issues
  119. # [14:56] <Steve_f> plus, it is a apain to ask to modify current issues to keep up with developments concerning those issues
  120. # [15:00] <hsivonen> I thought the Tracker was now only for inter-WG liason stuff
  121. # [15:00] <hsivonen> so usual issues would go to Bugzilla
  122. # [15:01] <Steve_f> yes, that is true as agreed
  123. # [15:04] <Steve_f> what I am talking about is the addition and maitnenance of sunbstative issues that have not progressed from the bugzilla, but have been reviewed by PF WG and a request is then made by PF to reconsider the issue. current issues in that category are the alt and summary, but i envisage that there will be more.
  124. # [15:05] <hsivonen> hmm. expecting there to be more doesn't seem like a good outlook
  125. # [15:05] <Steve_f> henri: this email may help clarify: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0049.html
  126. # [15:06] <Steve_f> just being realistic, not neg/pos
  127. # [15:08] <Steve_f> there hasn't exactly been a good track record of resolving such issues before they would need to be added to the tracker
  128. # [15:09] <Steve_f> but we can live in hope
  129. # [15:09] <hsivonen> there seem to be two very different views about raising a point about the spec
  130. # [15:10] <hsivonen> 1) (the old WHATWG way) wanting something to be considered by Hixie in due course
  131. # [15:10] <hsivonen> and
  132. # [15:10] <hsivonen> 2) (the html4all way) expecting to disagree with Hixie and using the PFWG to override him
  133. # [15:10] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  134. # [15:11] <hsivonen> I think it might be useful to try to analyze where this difference comes from
  135. # [15:11] <Steve_f> well i don't agree or appreciate your characterisation of it
  136. # [15:12] <hsivonen> Steve_f: the email you referred to seemed to anticipate escalation
  137. # [15:12] <Lachy> Steve_f, AFICT, hsivonen's #2 basically matches what your email suggested.
  138. # [15:13] <hsivonen> Steve_f: as well as your statement above that you expect there to be more than just the alt and summary issues that will need a heavier inter-WG process
  139. # [15:14] <Lachy> in general, it's better to work out issues within the WG, without appealing to the PFWG or other WGs, which I think some people do far too often.
  140. # [15:15] <Lachy> just look at how many times emails have been x-posted to other mailing lists, and it's usally always by the same group of people.
  141. # [15:16] <Steve_f> what i have suggested is a mechanism whereby accessibility related issues can be filtered through the PF, so that if issues are rejected by hixie that is not the end of story
  142. # [15:16] <anne> that hixie rejects something does not mean end of story in the WHATWG, fwiw
  143. # [15:16] <hsivonen> Steve_f: why is it that you anticipate rejection for accessibility-related issues in particular?
  144. # [15:16] <anne> he rejected the placebo / in void elements for many years
  145. # [15:17] <anne> well, maybe not many years :)
  146. # [15:17] <anne> but certainly for quite a while
  147. # [15:18] <Lachy> if there's new evidence to present or if Hixie failed to adequately consider some prior evidence, then issues can be reraised. But simply involving the PFWG on the basis of disagreement seems largely inappropriate.
  148. # [15:18] <Steve_f> Anything to do with accessibility in other specs is the also the domain of the PF
  149. # [15:19] <hsivonen> Steve_f: anyway, signaling beforehand that you anticipate to routinely use another WG to come in and override put rubs people the wrong way even if you were right about the issues
  150. # [15:19] <Lachy> re the '/' placebo, I still wish it had been rejected, but unfortunately there were strong reasons to allow it. The problem is, it has turned into a slipperly slope with people asking for it to be more meaningful in some situations.
  151. # [15:20] <anne> Lachy, not really, people have asked that for ages as well
  152. # [15:21] <hsivonen> s/ put //
  153. # [15:21] <Steve_f> well I getted rub up the wrong way quite often, but i am not here to make friends, I am here to get a process whereby issues that i think are inprtant related to accessibility will get prperly dealt with, not shutdown by one or a few people
  154. # [15:23] <Steve_f> I don't think i have brought up spurious issues in the apst and will not do so in the future, but will use the W3C processes to ensure that sunbstatntive issues are resolved in a resaonable manner
  155. # [15:24] <anne> it seems less effective than staying friendly
  156. # [15:24] <Steve_f> I am not unfriendly, am I?
  157. # [15:25] <hsivonen> Steve_f: you are expecting special treatment, though, by expecting a different process than what has worked for everything else in the spec
  158. # [15:25] <anne> sometimes you are
  159. # [15:25] <Steve_f> OK, sometimes many people on the group are
  160. # [15:25] <Steve_f> There is no "special treatment" expected
  161. # [15:26] <anne> true, I guess I'm referring to this single-line sniper replies in the alt thread
  162. # [15:26] <anne> s/this/the/
  163. # [15:26] <hsivonen> Steve_f: expecting someone to override the editor without bringing new points to the discussion is special
  164. # [15:26] <Steve_f> i get poissed out of frustration sometimes, like all, as i try to do the right thing and get bullshit responses sometimes
  165. # [15:27] <Julian> hsivonen: it seems there's disagreement about whether the existing process "has worked" so far.
  166. # [15:27] <hsivonen> Julian: indeed.
  167. # [15:28] <Steve_f> there are some issues that will need to be resolved before the spec can get through last call, that is what mike smith has charactereided as "sunbstantive", those issues will not be decided by the editor, unless soem agreement and consensus can be made, i would much prefer that occurs
  168. # [15:29] <Steve_f> but am not a hopeless idealist
  169. # [15:32] <hsivonen> Julian: it seems to me that disagreement about what "works" comes mainly from two different views of what standardization is about:
  170. # [15:32] <hsivonen> 1) Implementors want to implement concept foo and come together to spec out foo for interop.
  171. # [15:33] <hsivonen> 2) Non-implementors use a standard as a way to "force" implementors to fulfill their wishes by writing the wishes in a standard.
  172. # [15:34] <Julian> hsivonen: 1) sounds good.
  173. # [15:34] <Philip> s/"force"/encourage/ perhaps?
  174. # [15:34] <Julian> hsivonen: but the problem is the definition of "implementors".
  175. # [15:34] <hsivonen> It seems to me that things are working great if one subscribes to view #1, but not so great if one subscribes to view #2 and one's wishes happen to diverge from implementor opinion sufficiently.
  176. # [15:35] <hsivonen> Julian: for the purpose of UA conformance, implementors are people who can commit code to a top-4 browser engine
  177. # [15:35] <Julian> hsivonen: it seems currently only browser implementors, as opposed to content implementors (frameworks, servers, editors...) are considered.
  178. # [15:36] <hsivonen> Julian: I'd love to see framework implementors speak up in the WG more
  179. # [15:36] <hsivonen> Julian: editor implementors, too
  180. # [15:36] <Julian> hsivonen: I though you just said their opinion isn't important?
  181. # [15:36] <Lachy> yeah, getting framework implementers involved is important. I wish that had happened sooner for selectors api.
  182. # [15:37] <Julian> the discussion about extending fragment identifiers is a nice example.
  183. # [15:37] <Julian> as long as there's no content using it, *obviously* the browser implementors aren't very interested.
  184. # [15:38] <Julian> That's why they can't be the *single* criterium.
  185. # [15:38] * Joins: aroben (adamroben@76.111.160.14)
  186. # [15:38] <anne> that seems not true, because we are interested in e.g. <canvas>
  187. # [15:38] <anne> which didn't have much content
  188. # [15:38] <Lachy> AFAICT, the fragment identifier issue has been rejected mostly because fixing up xpointer is out of our scope.
  189. # [15:38] <Julian> lachy: has it been rejected?
  190. # [15:38] <anne> (though people did try to do <canvas> like things for many years)
  191. # [15:38] <Lachy> it should be, if it hasn't.
  192. # [15:38] <anne> (which is what Hixie was asking for with the fragment id thing)
  193. # [15:38] <Julian> lachy: and didn't the o.p. ask for something simpler than XPointer, *because* it has failed?
  194. # [15:39] <hsivonen> Julian: for the purpose of UA conformance, I think browser implementor opinion is more important if opinions of framework vendors aren't aligned
  195. # [15:39] * Joins: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30)
  196. # [15:39] <Lachy> the bug is marked WONTFIX, so yeah, it's been rejected.
  197. # [15:39] <Lachy> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5744
  198. # [15:39] <hsivonen> Julian: for the purpose of document conformance, authoring tool developer opinion would be very good to have
  199. # [15:40] <hsivonen> Julian: I have no idea why e.g. the Dreamweaver team doesn't show up
  200. # [15:40] <Lachy> is Adobe in the WG?
  201. # [15:40] <hsivonen> Lachy: not last time I looked, but it's been a while since I looked
  202. # [15:40] <anne> hsivonen, it doesn't really seem in the interest of Adobe to improve the Web platform
  203. # [15:40] <Lachy> no, they're not.
  204. # [15:40] <Lachy> that sucks.
  205. # [15:40] <Julian> Lachy: I think the issue should not have been closed.
  206. # [15:41] <Lachy> Julian, why?
  207. # [15:41] <hsivonen> anne: ok, I could try guessing why they aren't involved, but I'd prefer not to
  208. # [15:41] <Julian> Because I think that better addressability of HTML content would be good.
  209. # [15:42] <Lachy> it may be good in theory, but that doesn't address the questions about market demand or whether or not it's within our scope.
  210. # [15:42] <Julian> So, who's got the authority to close bugs in Bugzilla?
  211. # [15:42] <Lachy> Hixie does.
  212. # [15:42] <Lachy> probably the chairs as well
  213. # [15:42] <Julian> Who has got the *authority* to do so.
  214. # [15:43] <Julian> It is def. in scope, because HTML 5 defines the text/html media type.
  215. # [15:43] <Philip> Lachy: "out of our scope" doesn't sound a very compelling argument, when Hixie has said he prefers to go outside the scope to ensure there aren't cracks between different specs
  216. # [15:43] <Julian> It is totally in scope.
  217. # [15:43] <hsivonen> fwiw, I'd expect Hixie to have the authority to flip to RESOLVED and the chairs to have the authority to mark VERIFIED/CLOSED
  218. # [15:43] <Julian> hsivonen: +1
  219. # [15:43] <Lachy> Philip, yeah, but XPointer is way outside of our scope and it can be fixed up independently from HTML
  220. # [15:44] <Julian> Lachy: XPointer would be out of scope, but that's not what the O.P. asked for.
  221. # [15:44] <hsivonen> Julian: the bug was clearly about reinventin XPointer, only better
  222. # [15:45] <hsivonen> Julian: so the merit of the bug seems to hinge on *why* XPointer has failed
  223. # [15:45] <Lachy> but, if there are people within the WG who want to work on fixing up XPointer, why not volunteer to be editor(s), contact the relevant XML WG about taking over XPointer and go from there.
  224. # [15:45] <Julian> hsivonen: if better ~~ simpler, then why not?
  225. # [15:45] <hsivonen> Julian: I'm not sure which way that "if" falls, because I haven't analyzed why XPointer has failed
  226. # [15:46] <Lachy> but ultimately, even if you work on the spec, it will still depend on support from browser vendors which I haven't seen a whole lot of.
  227. # [15:46] <Julian> My gut feeling is that it failed because it's much bigger than it needs to be, but I may be wrong.
  228. # [15:46] <Julian> Lachy: I hear that a lot.
  229. # [15:46] * Philip wonders if there has been any browser vendor support for elements like <section>
  230. # [15:47] <Julian> lachy: but it seems a bit like a circular argument.
  231. # [15:47] <Lachy> Philip, yeah, I'm fairly sure we intend to support those elements.
  232. # [15:47] <Julian> Lachy: browser vendors aren't interested because it's not in HTML 5, and HTML 5 is already too big.
  233. # [15:48] <hsivonen> Julian: FWIW, I agree the resolution of that bug appeared hasty, but I also agree that the right way to go about developing the feature would be starting by analyzing why XPointer has failed
  234. # [15:48] <Julian> Lachy: where "browser vendors" usually excluses the biggest one, because we simply do not know what they're planning, and they don't tell us.
  235. # [15:48] <hsivonen> (the answer may be the XPointer dismissed text/html and text/html is what most fragment links point to)
  236. # [15:48] <Lachy> Julian, no, that's not why they're not interested. The reason is that in the grand scheme of things, the market demand for the feature is significantly less than many other features, we have limited resources and thus we have to prioritise.
  237. # [15:48] <Julian> hsivonen: that I agree with.
  238. # [15:49] <Julian> Lachy: how do you measure that demand?
  239. # [15:49] <Julian> Lachy: and please do not repeat Ian's response :-)
  240. # [15:49] <Lachy> I was just going to point to his response :-)
  241. # [15:51] <Julian> hsivonen: so an interesting question would be whether UA vendors would be willing to implement a well-defined subset of XPointer if it would work for both XML and text/html.
  242. # [15:51] <hsivonen> Julian: note that demand for having something specified may be biased by what people working on browsers find cool compared to what "people out there" would want browsers to do
  243. # [15:51] <Philip> You measure by asking a few like-minded people to guess, because it would too expensive to do anything more precise :-)
  244. # [15:51] <Lachy> there are a variety of ways authors could implement XPointer-like functionality in web sites. e.g. JavaScript libraries can inspect the fragment identifiers, parse thema and scroll appropriately. CMSs can introduce IDs on every element, Browser plugins can be written. etc.
  245. # [15:51] <Lachy> fxpointer is an example of such a plugin.
  246. # [15:52] <Lachy> but, AFAIK, it hasn't got wide deployment.
  247. # [15:53] <Julian> I didn't know it, now I do. One positive outcome of raising the issue.
  248. # [15:53] <zcorpan> regardless of whether browsers would implement something like xpointer, i don't think authors would use it
  249. # [15:53] <Lachy> There are a few authors that add IDs to every element on the page. e.g. Joe Clark does that on some of his sites.
  250. # [15:54] <zcorpan> enough to make it worthwhile
  251. # [15:54] <zcorpan> i'd rather come up with an algorithm to make the browser look up quoted text automagically
  252. # [15:54] <zcorpan> or make <blockquote cite> do that and expose cite somehow
  253. # [15:54] <Philip> FXPointer doesn't seem to work unless the person sending the link and the person receiving the link both have it installed, which makes it not useful in practice
  254. # [15:55] <Julian> At least FXPointer makes it simpler to discover *existing* anchors, which already is useful.
  255. # [15:55] <Lachy> Philip, yeah, that's a deployment issue. But there are lots of tools that require both parties to participate for it to work.
  256. # [15:55] <zcorpan> ideally such a feature should work on already existing content
  257. # [15:55] <Julian> I'd also like to see UAs implement the new fragid syntax for text/plain, but that is really out of scope :-)
  258. # [15:55] <hsivonen> the thing is that having affine transforms, bitmap filters and SQL storage is much cooler than being able to link more precisely
  259. # [15:56] <zcorpan> Julian: my idea would work for text/plain
  260. # [15:56] <Philip> zcorpan: Not enough people use <blockquote cite> to make it worthwhile to add non-trivial functionality to it
  261. # [15:56] <zcorpan> Philip: indeed
  262. # [15:56] <zcorpan> Philip: <blockquote></blockquote><a href>
  263. # [15:56] <Julian> hsivonen: is it?
  264. # [15:56] <Lachy> e.g. All chat and IM clients, mobile phones with support for SMS, etc. It took a while, but eventually those managed to become widely enough deployed to be useful, and then continued to grow from there.
  265. # [15:56] <hsivonen> Julian: yes, it is :-)
  266. # [15:57] <Julian> see, more disagreement :-)
  267. # [15:57] <anne> wow
  268. # [15:57] <hsivonen> Julian: I'll revise my statement if hyatt or roc out of the blue post on their blogs about having implemented more precise linking :-)
  269. # [15:58] <Julian> don't forget to balance the "coolness" of something with the implementation cost.
  270. # [15:58] <Julian> there may be things that aren't as "cool", but which will be useful nevertheless and would be cheap to implement.
  271. # [15:58] <zcorpan> what's the use of having browsers implement a trivial linking scheme if no-one uses it?
  272. # [15:59] <anne> yeah, just complicates code and adds to QA
  273. # [15:59] <Lachy> and remember the implementation cost or xpointer involves more than just handling the fragment identifiers. It also involves finding a good UI for users so that they can create them easilly enough.
  274. # [15:59] <Julian> zcorpan: what's the point in implementing anything new if nobody uses it *yet*?
  275. # [15:59] <anne> Julian, see what I said about <canvas> above
  276. # [15:59] <Julian> Lachy: like a context menu entry (as in FXPointer)?
  277. # [15:59] <zcorpan> Julian: sorry, i meant if people aren't going to use it (on the large)
  278. # [16:00] <zcorpan> Julian: i don't expect people to use precise linking over quoting a piece of text and page-URL
  279. # [16:00] <Philip> Most of HTML5 is very uncool, since it's just describing existing features in tedious detail
  280. # [16:00] <Lachy> it's possible that auto-generated TOC's displayed in a sidebar or something could provide such a UI for cases where there aren't IDs on headings or the surrounding div/section/etc.
  281. # [16:00] <zcorpan> Julian: isn't it better to make the browser be smart with just quote+URL?
  282. # [16:00] <zcorpan> Julian: like, make an inline search automatically?
  283. # [16:00] <Lachy> I don't think the context menu is a great UI.
  284. # [16:01] <hsivonen> Julian: this was about the relative probability of new features getting implemented
  285. # [16:01] <hsivonen> Julian: speccing existing features in detail is different
  286. # [16:01] <Lachy> a slightly better UI would be something like selecting "Link to here..." (or similar) from a menu or button, and then hovering over the page until the correct section is highlighted, and then clicking.
  287. # [16:02] <Lachy> that would make it more clear exactly where the link will point.
  288. # [16:02] <hsivonen> and Re: <section>, there's clearly author demand for it, but I have doubts about getting the HTML5 outline algorithm worked into Selectors
  289. # [16:02] * Philip wants an easy way to give people links into the HTML5 spec, even if it's no more precise than the existing #id links (as long as it's easier to work out what id to link to)
  290. # [16:02] <hsivonen> without which <section> isn't too useful
  291. # [16:02] <Julian> Philip: FXPointer does that for you.
  292. # [16:03] <Philip> Julian: Also I want it in Opera :-)
  293. # [16:03] <Julian> Philip: now you're asking for too much - go find an Opera employee :-)
  294. # [16:03] <Lachy> hsivonen, in what way could the outline algorithm potentially be worked into Selectors?
  295. # [16:04] <Lachy> Julian, there's an Opera employee right here :-)
  296. # [16:04] <hsivonen> Lachy: having a ::foo-something() that matches on outline depth
  297. # [16:04] <Julian> I know.
  298. # [16:04] <Lachy> ok
  299. # [16:05] <Lachy> maybe section:level(3)>:heading would be nice.
  300. # [16:06] <Lachy> hmm, JQuery has :header
  301. # [16:10] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@92.227.79.101) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 3.0/2008052906])
  302. # [16:13] <zcorpan> Lachy: what does it do?
  303. # [16:15] * Quits: deane (dean@121.98.128.155) (Client exited)
  304. # [16:15] * Joins: deane (dean@121.98.128.155)
  305. # [16:16] <Lachy> zcorpan, http://docs.jquery.com/Selectors
  306. # [16:16] <Lachy> :header matches all heading elements, h1, h2, etc.
  307. # [16:18] * Joins: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.232)
  308. # [16:19] * Quits: deane (dean@121.98.128.155) (Ping timeout)
  309. # [16:22] * Quits: Steve_f (chatzilla@82.44.69.8) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 2.0.0.14/2008040413])
  310. # [16:38] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238)
  311. # [16:45] * Quits: aroben (adamroben@76.111.160.14) (Quit: aroben)
  312. # [17:02] * Quits: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@123.176.107.50) (Connection reset by peer)
  313. # [17:04] * Joins: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@123.176.107.50)
  314. # [17:19] * Quits: hsivonen (hsivonen@130.233.41.50) (Ping timeout)
  315. # [17:29] * Joins: aroben (adamroben@71.58.56.76)
  316. # [17:31] * Quits: aroben (adamroben@71.58.56.76) (Quit: aroben)
  317. # [17:31] * Joins: aroben (aroben@71.58.56.76)
  318. # [17:38] * Joins: laplink (link@81.0.149.84)
  319. # [17:48] * Quits: laplink (link@81.0.149.84) (Quit: Leaving)
  320. # [17:55] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@71.204.153.3)
  321. # [17:57] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 3.0/2008052906])
  322. # [18:04] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  323. # [18:15] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
  324. # [18:27] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246) (Quit: Leaving)
  325. # [18:28] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
  326. # [18:50] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@88.131.66.80) (Quit: zcorpan)
  327. # [19:40] * Joins: adele (adele@17.203.14.243)
  328. # [19:44] * Quits: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Core Breach)
  329. # [19:45] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@71.204.153.3) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  330. # [19:50] * Joins: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.103)
  331. # [19:59] * Joins: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.30)
  332. # [20:06] * Joins: adele_ (adele@17.255.98.33)
  333. # [20:07] * Quits: adele_ (adele@17.255.98.33) (Client exited)
  334. # [20:07] * Quits: adele (adele@17.203.14.243) (Ping timeout)
  335. # [20:07] * Joins: adele (adele@17.255.98.33)
  336. # [20:28] * Quits: mjs (mjs@24.5.43.151) (Quit: mjs)
  337. # [20:29] * Joins: smedero (smedero@192.223.6.251)
  338. # [20:48] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  339. # [20:48] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241)
  340. # [21:00] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  341. # [21:04] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
  342. # [21:04] * Quits: Dashiva (noone@84.48.51.199) (Ping timeout)
  343. # [21:06] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246) (Quit: Leaving)
  344. # [21:06] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
  345. # [21:07] * DanC waves
  346. # [21:08] * smedero waves
  347. # [21:08] <smedero> did you enjoy your father's day, Dan?
  348. # [21:10] * Joins: Dashiva (noone@84.48.51.199)
  349. # [21:10] <Lachy> What? Fathers' day isn't till September!
  350. # [21:11] <Lachy> at least, that's what it is in Australia
  351. # [21:11] <smedero> Hrm, well for whatever reason it is in June in the US.
  352. # [21:11] <gavin_> crazy australians
  353. # [21:11] <Lachy> crazy rest-of-the-world
  354. # [21:11] <smedero> :)
  355. # [21:12] <Lachy> I suppose, I shouldn't be surprised, American's do a lot of other things backwards
  356. # [21:13] <anne> Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father's_Day Australia is kind of backward
  357. # [21:13] * smedero prepares for a lesson on compulsory voting.
  358. # [21:13] <anne> which make sense, since it's at the other side
  359. # [21:13] <Lachy> nope, we're just too good for anyone else.
  360. # [21:13] <Lachy> wow, Norway doesn't have it till November
  361. # [21:14] <anne> :o
  362. # [21:14] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  363. # [21:14] <smedero> Nothing like grilling outdoors in Finland... in November.
  364. # [21:16] <Lachy> smedero, do you mean BBQing?
  365. # [21:16] <smedero> indeed, yes.
  366. # [21:16] <Lachy> it'd be a bit cold in November, wouldn't it?
  367. # [21:17] <Lachy> at least for the upside-down northern hemisphere
  368. # [21:17] <smedero> Yeah, I was being sarcastic.
  369. # [21:18] <smedero> I suspect the US traditions (june, summer, bbq) don't hold up very well in an Scandinavian November...
  370. # [21:18] <Lachy> no, but November to February in Aus is a great time for a real BBQ
  371. # [21:20] <DanC> yup, enoyed father's day. waded in the creek with my boys and dogs http://www.zooomr.com/photos/16350@Z01/5106464/
  372. # [21:22] <DanC> speaking of Australia, I agreed to speak at KM Australia 2008 in Melbourne... anybody know anything about that crowd? http://www.kmaustralia.com/
  373. # [21:25] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  374. # [21:26] <Lachy> no, never heard of them.
  375. # [21:35] * DanC wonders how far Lachy is from MEL... finds out via http://esw.w3.org/topic/PeopleLocation
  376. # [21:35] <anne> pretty far, Lachy is in Oslo
  377. # [21:35] <anne> :)
  378. # [21:36] <DanC> that's 2 cases of that directory being out of date. smedero , you're another one
  379. # [21:47] * gsnedders has lived in the same house all his life :P
  380. # [21:49] <Lachy> wow, I'd totally forgotten about that directory
  381. # [21:53] * Lachy updated it.
  382. # [22:06] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@92.227.79.101)
  383. # [22:12] <smedero> woops. updated. thanks for the heads up DanC
  384. # [22:23] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.96.158)
  385. # [22:40] * Joins: adele_ (adele@17.203.14.243)
  386. # [22:42] * Quits: adele (adele@17.255.98.33) (Ping timeout)
  387. # [22:42] * Joins: rking3 (rking3@24.5.77.167)
  388. # [22:42] * Quits: rking3 (rking3@24.5.77.167) (Quit: rking3)
  389. # [22:42] * Joins: rking3 (rking3@24.5.77.167)
  390. # [22:54] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241)
  391. # [22:59] * Quits: adele_ (adele@17.203.14.243) (Quit: adele_)
  392. # [23:00] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.96.158) (Quit: mjs)
  393. # [23:08] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238) (Quit: I get eaten by the worms)
  394. # [23:09] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238)
  395. # [23:09] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.222.238) (Quit: I get eaten by the worms)
  396. # [23:11] * Joins: adele (adele@17.255.68.150)
  397. # [23:12] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.69.132)
  398. # [23:12] * Quits: adele (adele@17.255.68.150) (Connection reset by peer)
  399. # [23:12] * Joins: adele (adele@17.255.68.150)
  400. # [23:39] * Quits: jgraham (jgraham@81.86.222.238) (Ping timeout)
  401. # [23:41] * Joins: jgraham (jgraham@81.86.219.217)
  402. # Session Close: Tue Jun 17 00:00:00 2008

The end :)