/irc-logs / freenode / #whatwg / 2007-12-11 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Tue Dec 11 00:00:01 2007
  2. # Session Ident: #whatwg
  3. # [00:00] * Joins: phsiao (i=shawn@nat/ibm/x-9e9f05cb32c1d91f)
  4. # [00:00] * Quits: mpt (n=mpt@ip-81-1-120-153.cust.homechoice.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  5. # [00:00] <G0k> like preventing connections from timing out, getting around the 2 connection limit, checking up on the connection download progress
  6. # [00:00] <Hixie> anne-mac: no, no redirects as far as i know
  7. # [00:00] <Hixie> (except maybe in the multipage version?)
  8. # [00:00] <Hixie> afk, brb
  9. # [00:05] <anne-mac> G0k, I'm not sure how to do one and two, but three is addressed
  10. # [00:05] <G0k> uhm. how about just allowing authors to set the connection timeout?
  11. # [00:06] <anne-mac> ah yeah, that's been suggested
  12. # [00:06] <anne-mac> send(data, timeout) or something like that
  13. # [00:07] <G0k> that sounds like progress yes.
  14. # [00:07] <anne-mac> I've only seen one or two requests for that so far
  15. # [00:08] <anne-mac> and it's doable using setTimeout ... (although maybe slightly more annoying)
  16. # [00:09] <G0k> yeah but that sucks
  17. # [00:09] <G0k> you basically end up polling the thing
  18. # [00:14] <G0k> plus...i mean i guess it's an implementation issue but abort() isn't very reliable
  19. # [00:14] <anne-mac> in general we don't want to introduce new features just because others are badly implemented
  20. # [00:16] <G0k> yeah fair enough
  21. # [00:17] <G0k> i mean i feel like, in principle, we should be able to implement dom events with XHR
  22. # [00:17] <G0k> should be a design goal, that
  23. # [00:17] <anne-mac> dom events?
  24. # [00:17] <G0k> er...server-sent dom events
  25. # [00:17] <G0k> if they're really going bye bye
  26. # [00:18] <anne-mac> i also think that in general overloading xhr is a bad idea
  27. # [00:18] <anne-mac> it's already pretty bloated thanks to historic accidents
  28. # [00:18] <G0k> i also kinda feel like the name is sorta crappy
  29. # [00:18] <G0k> why not just make it HttpRequest?
  30. # [00:18] <anne-mac> with weird events being dispatched at random places
  31. # [00:19] <anne-mac> that would be similar to renaming <html> to <web>
  32. # [00:19] <G0k> but....no one uses it for xml
  33. # [00:20] <anne-mac> i'll try again; it already works, why break that?
  34. # [00:21] <G0k> just because it works doesn't mean that a new API wouldn't be clearer, less buggy, and more featureful
  35. # [00:21] <anne-mac> sounds like xhtml2 to me
  36. # [00:21] <Hixie> a new api means two apis
  37. # [00:21] <Hixie> two apis, one of which sucks, is worse than one api which sucks.
  38. # [00:22] <G0k> well there's already about 6 APIs for drawing a box
  39. # [00:22] <Hixie> it means more spec work, more implementation work, more testing, more tutorials, etc
  40. # [00:22] <anne-mac> G0k, that should not be an excuse to make it worse! :)
  41. # [00:22] <Hixie> bad things exist. they aren't a license to add more bad things.
  42. # [00:23] <Hixie> (the same arguments suggest removing event-source and co, btw)
  43. # [00:23] <G0k> so i presume <canvas> is going away too? :)
  44. # [00:23] <anne-mac> (i'm not convinced)
  45. # [00:25] <Hixie> anne-mac: that's why it's not already gone :-)
  46. # [00:25] <G0k> i mean we have to break backwards compatibility anyway to implement certain features
  47. # [00:26] <Hixie> G0k: how do you create, say, a fractal viewer, without <canvas>?
  48. # [00:26] <G0k> extreme SVG use?
  49. # [00:27] <Hixie> uh huh
  50. # [00:27] <Philip`> Lots and lots of tiny <div>s
  51. # [00:27] <Hixie> without taking down the browser.
  52. # [00:27] <Hixie> and without abusing semantics.
  53. # [00:27] <Philip`> That's just a quality-of-implementation issue
  54. # [00:27] <Philip`> <div> has no semantics :-)
  55. # [00:27] * Joins: heycam` (n=cam@clm-laptop.infotech.monash.edu.au)
  56. # [00:28] <inimino> Hixie: http://claudiusmaximus.goto10.org/GG/graphgrow.svg
  57. # [00:28] <G0k> and if we're going into semantics, then continuing to use the XMLHttpRequest name is especially ridiculous
  58. # [00:29] <Hixie> semantics are related to definitions, not names
  59. # [00:29] <inimino> (I think it would be more better with <canvas> though)
  60. # [00:30] * anne-mac wonders why that doesn't show anything in Opera
  61. # [00:31] * inimino looks for the link to the description page...
  62. # [00:31] <G0k> even then, the XHR definition of "scripted client functionality for transferring data between a client and a server" is not quite right
  63. # [00:33] <G0k> in any case, retaining backwards compatibility with oddities in the old ActiveX control's API seems equivalent to adding the marquee and blink tags back in
  64. # [00:34] * Quits: jruderman (n=jruderma@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com)
  65. # [00:35] <G0k> anyway i'm off for a bit
  66. # [00:35] * Quits: G0k (n=hmason@cpe-24-58-3-19.twcny.res.rr.com)
  67. # [00:37] * Joins: jruderman (n=jruderma@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com)
  68. # [00:37] <inimino> http://claudiusmaximus.blurty.com/#419
  69. # [00:38] <inimino> anne-mac: looks like it was tested only in Fx
  70. # [00:39] <inimino> when it works you can build fractals like this http://mjclement.com/images/screenshots/2007-12-09_4.png
  71. # [00:39] <inimino> and it uses SVG + JavaScript
  72. # [00:39] <anne-mac> interesting
  73. # [00:40] <inimino> I think an implementation using <canvas> could be faster
  74. # [00:40] <anne-mac> i wonder how the bugs are distributed
  75. # [00:40] <inimino> I didn't look at the code but I assume the SVG ends up rather large
  76. # [00:44] <anne-mac> there's some script error in Opera
  77. # [00:44] <anne-mac> looks like something is null/undefined where an object is expected
  78. # [00:44] <anne-mac> oh well, too late
  79. # [00:58] * Joins: csarven (n=nevrasc@modemcable130.251-202-24.mc.videotron.ca)
  80. # [01:01] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.184)
  81. # [01:30] * Quits: tndH (i=Rob@87.102.10.86) ("ChatZilla 0.9.79-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.0.9/2006120508]")
  82. # [01:35] * Quits: phsiao (i=shawn@nat/ibm/x-9e9f05cb32c1d91f)
  83. # [01:38] * Quits: anne-mac (n=annevk@88.80-202-68.nextgentel.com) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  84. # [01:39] * Quits: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.184)
  85. # [01:48] * Quits: mpt_ (n=mpt@ip-81-1-120-153.cust.homechoice.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  86. # [01:51] * Joins: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@adsl-074-229-248-021.sip.bhm.bellsouth.net)
  87. # [01:52] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.136)
  88. # [02:31] * Joins: grimboy_uk (n=grimboy@85-211-243-174.dsl.pipex.com)
  89. # [02:48] * Quits: grimeboy (n=grimboy@85-211-254-241.dsl.pipex.com) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  90. # [03:08] * Quits: grimboy_uk (n=grimboy@85-211-243-174.dsl.pipex.com) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  91. # [03:09] * Joins: kfish (n=conrad@61.194.21.25)
  92. # [03:09] * Joins: grimboy_uk (n=grimboy@85-211-243-118.dsl.pipex.com)
  93. # [03:11] * Quits: gavin_ (n=gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Remote closed the connection)
  94. # [03:11] * Joins: gavins (n=gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  95. # [03:14] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@58.157.21.205) ("Less talk, more pimp walk.")
  96. # [03:19] <Hixie> i've changed the meanings of the implementation status settings
  97. # [03:21] <Hixie> "The World Wide Web Consortium, or W3C, a group devoted to publishing web standards, recently moved to approve the Ogg video and audio formats for inclusion into the forthcoming HTML5 standard."
  98. # [03:21] <Hixie> -- http://www.clipotech.com/2007/12/nokia-wants-w3c-to-remove-ogg-from.html
  99. # [03:22] <Hixie> we did? holy crap! i had no idea we were nearing FPWD publication
  100. # [03:22] <Hixie> that's awesome!
  101. # [03:24] <othermaciej> I don't understand what the brightness level of the logos means
  102. # [03:24] <othermaciej> in the status messages
  103. # [03:24] <othermaciej> is there a legend?
  104. # [03:24] <Hixie> there are tooltips
  105. # [03:28] * othermaciej wonders where the line is between "no support" and "some support, with bugs"
  106. # [03:29] <Hixie> no support means strictly zero support
  107. # [03:29] <Hixie> as in, indistinguishable from what the UA would be doing if the spec didn't exist
  108. # [03:29] <Hixie> and if the implementors had never thought about it
  109. # [03:30] <othermaciej> what about when the spec defines something that was already in UAs?
  110. # [03:31] <othermaciej> (Selection is the case I'm looking at)
  111. # [03:31] <Hixie> then it's a common sense approach
  112. # [03:31] <Hixie> feel free to modify it if i made a mistake
  113. # [03:32] <Hixie> i wasn't sure who supported what
  114. # [03:32] <Hixie> off hand
  115. # [03:32] <Hixie> double-click to edit
  116. # [03:32] <othermaciej> I'm just asking so I know whether to suggest changes
  117. # [03:32] <Hixie> don't worry about suggesting changes, just double click the section and edit it :-)
  118. # [03:32] * bradee-oh is now known as bradee-goesHome
  119. # [03:33] <othermaciej> ok, I will, if I can figure out how to change
  120. # [03:33] <Hixie> double clicking the section (or if the section already has an annotation, the annotation itself) will popup a dialog
  121. # [03:33] <Hixie> let me know if it doesn't work
  122. # [03:34] * Joins: othermaciej_ (n=mjs@17.203.15.152)
  123. # [03:35] <Hixie> <Hixie> double clicking the section (or if the section already has an annotation, the annotation itself) will popup a dialog
  124. # [03:35] <Hixie> <Hixie> let me know if it doesn't work
  125. # [03:36] * Quits: csarven (n=nevrasc@modemcable130.251-202-24.mc.videotron.ca) ("http://www.csarven.ca/")
  126. # [03:36] * Hixie casually removes Ogg from the spec and sees what happens
  127. # [03:37] * othermaciej_ takes shelter
  128. # [03:40] * weinig is now known as weinig|food
  129. # [03:41] * Quits: kingryan (n=kingryan@dsl092-002-056.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net)
  130. # [03:42] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@eM60-254-244-220.pool.emnet.ne.jp)
  131. # [03:44] * Joins: Oeighty (n=polx@ip-118-90-47-156.xdsl.xnet.co.nz)
  132. # [03:50] * Quits: othermaciej (n=mjs@17.255.109.51) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  133. # [04:00] * Quits: Oeighty_ (n=polx@ip-118-90-24-157.xdsl.xnet.co.nz) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  134. # [04:03] * Joins: grimeboy (n=grimboy@85-211-246-139.dsl.pipex.com)
  135. # [04:06] <kfish> Hixie!
  136. # [04:08] * Quits: grimboy_uk (n=grimboy@85-211-243-118.dsl.pipex.com) (Connection timed out)
  137. # [04:10] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@eM60-254-244-220.pool.emnet.ne.jp) ("Less talk, more pimp walk.")
  138. # [04:12] * kfish throws a tantrum on behalf of the free software community
  139. # [04:17] * Joins: csarven (n=nevrasc@modemcable130.251-202-24.mc.videotron.ca)
  140. # [04:20] * Quits: Oeighty (n=polx@ip-118-90-47-156.xdsl.xnet.co.nz) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  141. # [04:22] * Joins: aphid (n=aphid@dsl-63-249-87-11.cruzio.com)
  142. # [04:28] * Quits: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.136) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  143. # [04:29] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.136)
  144. # [04:30] * kfish reads the replacement text and revokes the tantrum
  145. # [04:31] <kfish> Hixie, actually you didn't casually remove Ogg, you made the case for Ogg stronger, so thankyou :-)
  146. # [04:36] <Dashiva> "Lift the cat who was amongst the pigeons up and put him back on his pedestal for now."
  147. # [04:36] <Dashiva> Poetic
  148. # [04:38] <Hixie> kfish: :-)
  149. # [04:55] <Hixie> so people keep asking for a way to do <code type="python">...</code> or equivalent
  150. # [04:59] <Dashiva> But the use cases are kinda lacking...
  151. # [05:00] <Hixie> the use cases are being able to automatically syntax-highlight the code
  152. # [05:00] <Hixie> e.g. using a second script
  153. # [05:00] <Dashiva> Yeah, and I don't see why that needs @type
  154. # [05:00] <Hixie> the question is, does class="" address that sufficiently
  155. # [05:00] <Dashiva> It's pure presentation, after all
  156. # [05:00] <Hixie> well, not really
  157. # [05:01] <Hixie> no more than "em" is "pure presentation"
  158. # [05:01] <Dashiva> Well, saying a code block is c++ is semantics, but coloring the block is presentation
  159. # [05:02] <Hixie> syntax highlighting can be much more than specific colours
  160. # [05:02] <Hixie> it could be fonts, voices, etc
  161. # [05:02] <Hixie> it's not _specific_ presentation
  162. # [05:02] * Quits: dbaron (n=dbaron@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com) ("8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.")
  163. # [05:03] <Dashiva> No, not specific. But some kind of.
  164. # [05:03] <Hixie> right. like <em>.
  165. # [05:03] <Hixie> or <p>
  166. # [05:03] <Hixie> or <h1>
  167. # [05:03] <Hixie> or...
  168. # [05:03] <Dashiva> <poem>
  169. # [05:03] <Hixie> right
  170. # [05:03] <Dashiva> If we do decide to add @type, who decides the values?
  171. # [05:04] <Hixie> yeah, that's one of the problems
  172. # [05:04] <Dashiva> Would microformats fit?
  173. # [05:04] <Hixie> another is that actually, as much as i thought i saw this often, i've only been able to find 2 e-mails in my piles
  174. # [05:05] <Dashiva> (Assuming they get rel)
  175. # [05:05] <Hixie> well, you could certainly define a set of classes as a microformat for <code class="">
  176. # [05:05] <Hixie> in fact the first e-mail i have on this was sent to mf-discuss
  177. # [05:06] <Dashiva> mediaformats?
  178. # [05:06] <Hixie> ?
  179. # [05:06] <Dashiva> mf
  180. # [05:06] <Hixie> no :-P
  181. # [05:07] <Dashiva> Some mozilla then? :)
  182. # [05:07] <Hixie> microformat-discuss, silly :_P
  183. # [05:07] <Dashiva> oh
  184. # [05:07] <Dashiva> duh
  185. # [05:07] <Hixie> :-P
  186. # [05:08] <Dashiva> I imagine whoever ends up with it will have lots of fun deciding whether gcc-version-x.y.z is a separate code type because it has some special quirk
  187. # [05:08] <Hixie> hah
  188. # [05:11] <Dashiva> oh wow, 5 am. Time to poof
  189. # [05:11] <Hixie> later
  190. # [05:11] <Hixie> thanks for the help
  191. # [05:12] <Dashiva> I don't recall being much, but hey :P
  192. # [05:12] <Hixie> :-)
  193. # [05:12] <Hixie> always helpful to have someone to bounce things off
  194. # [05:12] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@adsl-074-229-248-021.sip.bhm.bellsouth.net)
  195. # [05:24] * Joins: dolphinling (n=chatzill@132.198.252.49)
  196. # [05:49] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@dhcp-246-19.mag.keio.ac.jp)
  197. # [05:50] * Joins: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no)
  198. # [05:51] <MikeSmith> Lachy - hei
  199. # [05:52] <Lachy> hi
  200. # [05:53] * Quits: dolphinling (n=chatzill@132.198.252.49) (Remote closed the connection)
  201. # [05:57] * Quits: roc (n=roc@202.0.36.64)
  202. # [06:01] * Joins: Oeighty (n=polx@ip-118-90-51-37.xdsl.xnet.co.nz)
  203. # [06:50] * Quits: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  204. # [06:54] * weinig|food is now known as weinig
  205. # [06:57] <Hixie> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#When_will_HTML_5_be_finished.3F updated again
  206. # [07:01] * Quits: csarven (n=nevrasc@modemcable130.251-202-24.mc.videotron.ca) ("http://www.csarven.ca/")
  207. # [07:10] * Joins: ray (i=ray@freenode/helper/ray)
  208. # [07:19] * Joins: _Ivo (n=ivo@89-180-93-199.net.novis.pt)
  209. # [07:21] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@dhcp-246-19.mag.keio.ac.jp) (Remote closed the connection)
  210. # [07:22] * Joins: maikmerten (n=merten@ls5laptop14.cs.uni-dortmund.de)
  211. # [07:24] <jruderman> hmm "user agents will be required to support the marquee element, but authors must not use the marquee element in conforming documents."
  212. # [07:24] * jruderman 's head explodes
  213. # [07:24] <gavin> why?
  214. # [07:25] * Quits: heycam` (n=cam@clm-laptop.infotech.monash.edu.au) ("bye")
  215. # [07:26] <jruderman> requiring support for an entire disallowed feature... seems strange
  216. # [07:26] <jruderman> although i guess you could say the same about tag soup parsing or boring deprecated elements
  217. # [07:26] <gavins> right
  218. # [07:26] <gavins> web browsers need to support it, so it needs to be specified
  219. # [07:27] <gavins> seperate issue than whether or not it should be recommended to authors
  220. # [07:28] * gavins is now known as gavin_
  221. # [07:35] * Joins: Thezilch (n=fuz007@ip68-111-154-116.sd.sd.cox.net)
  222. # [07:55] * Quits: weinig (n=weinig@17.203.15.140)
  223. # [07:59] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@tea12.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp)
  224. # [08:09] * Joins: devinus (n=devinus@cpe-24-27-62-98.austin.res.rr.com)
  225. # [08:09] * Quits: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.136) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  226. # [08:10] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.136)
  227. # [08:30] * Joins: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@pat-tdc.opera.com)
  228. # [08:42] * Joins: weinig (n=weinig@c-71-198-185-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  229. # [08:49] * Quits: jruderman (n=jruderma@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com)
  230. # [08:50] * Parts: devinus (n=devinus@cpe-24-27-62-98.austin.res.rr.com) ("programmin' it up!")
  231. # [08:53] * Quits: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@pat-tdc.opera.com) ("Leaving")
  232. # [09:05] * Joins: othermaciej (n=mjs@17.255.109.51)
  233. # [09:15] * Quits: othermaciej (n=mjs@17.255.109.51)
  234. # [09:18] * Quits: othermaciej_ (n=mjs@17.203.15.152) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  235. # [09:28] * Joins: jruderman (n=jruderma@c-67-180-15-227.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  236. # [09:36] * Quits: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.136)
  237. # [09:36] * Joins: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no)
  238. # [09:37] * Quits: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no) (Client Quit)
  239. # [09:38] * Joins: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no)
  240. # [09:39] * Quits: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no) (Client Quit)
  241. # [09:39] * Joins: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no)
  242. # [09:39] * Quits: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no) (Remote closed the connection)
  243. # [09:41] * Joins: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no)
  244. # [09:42] * Quits: _Ivo (n=ivo@89-180-93-199.net.novis.pt) (Remote closed the connection)
  245. # [09:58] <mitsuhiko> flamewars ahead
  246. # [10:16] * Joins: othermaciej (n=mjs@dsl081-048-145.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net)
  247. # [10:16] * Joins: Lfe_ (n=lfe@bergstroem.nu)
  248. # [10:19] * Joins: zcorpan (n=zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  249. # [10:19] <Hixie> jruderman: where did i say they will be required to support it? i imagine the support will actually be limited to the dom aspects; the rendering will probably not be required
  250. # [10:19] * Joins: roc (n=roc@121-72-24-31.dsl.telstraclear.net)
  251. # [10:20] <jruderman> Hixie: i pasted from http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_does_HTML5_legitimise_tag_soup.3F
  252. # [10:20] <Hixie> aah
  253. # [10:20] <Hixie> yeah
  254. # [10:20] <Hixie> the faq probably plays fast and loose with the truth in parts
  255. # [10:20] <jruderman> you might want to edit it to say that simply rendering it as block or inline-block or whatever is acceptable
  256. # [10:28] * Quits: Lfe (n=lfe@bergstroem.nu) (Read error: 111 (Connection refused))
  257. # [10:29] <zcorpan> hsivonen: yt?
  258. # [10:31] * Lfe_ is now known as Lfe
  259. # [10:33] * Joins: ROBOd (n=robod@89.122.216.38)
  260. # [10:35] <Hixie> jruderman: well, we'll see waht the spec says
  261. # [10:46] <Hixie> i need a personal www-archive
  262. # [10:47] <Hixie> somewhere i can just cc that will make my e-mails public
  263. # [10:47] <Hixie> for things unrelated to the web
  264. # [10:47] * Joins: hdh (n=hdh@58.187.109.98)
  265. # [10:48] * Joins: mpt (n=mpt@ip-81-1-124-252.cust.homechoice.net)
  266. # [10:50] <hdh> in the first example of #the-small, the footer has address and p as children, but one is block-level and the other inline
  267. # [10:51] <hdh> oops, address is block level too
  268. # [11:01] <Hixie> prepare for a lot of e-mails about random stuff that nobody cares about...
  269. # [11:12] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@tea12.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp) ("Less talk, more pimp walk.")
  270. # [11:19] * Quits: aphid (n=aphid@dsl-63-249-87-11.cruzio.com)
  271. # [11:20] * Joins: aphid (n=aphid@dsl-63-249-87-11.cruzio.com)
  272. # [11:36] <Hixie> hsivonen: you around?
  273. # [11:36] <Hixie> i was idly wondering if you had an opinion on the issue of block vs inline
  274. # [11:37] <Hixie> in particular, given the proposal of removing the distrinction, but considering that there are certain nestings we still want to disallow, whether you had any ideas on how to define that
  275. # [11:37] <Hixie> distinction, even
  276. # [11:38] <Hixie> e.g. <section> bla bla <p> bla bla <ol><li> bla bla </li></ol></p></section>
  277. # [11:38] <Hixie> should be valid
  278. # [11:38] <Hixie> but
  279. # [11:38] * Quits: roc (n=roc@121-72-24-31.dsl.telstraclear.net)
  280. # [11:38] <Hixie> e.g. <section> bla bla <p> bla bla <ol><li> <p> bla bla </li></ol></p></section>
  281. # [11:38] <Hixie> should not be valid
  282. # [11:38] <Hixie> ...because nesting paragraphs is meanignless
  283. # [11:38] <Hixie> meaningless even
  284. # [11:38] <annevk> the above being XML markup?
  285. # [11:38] <Hixie> yeah, all xml
  286. # [11:38] <annevk> i'm not convinced we should allow <ol> inside <p>
  287. # [11:39] <Hixie> html technicalities aside, do you agree that a single sentence cannot span more than one paragraph?
  288. # [11:40] * Quits: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  289. # [11:40] * Joins: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no)
  290. # [11:41] <annevk> yeah, nested paragraphs don't make sense
  291. # [11:42] <annevk> I haven't quite up made my mind about nested links yet though
  292. # [11:42] <Hixie> no i mean can a sentence start in one paragraph and end in a sibling paragraph?
  293. # [11:42] <Hixie> ignore html for now
  294. # [11:42] <Hixie> i just mean with actual paragraphs
  295. # [11:42] <aphid> only fantastical paragraphs. how else would they be connected?
  296. # [11:42] <annevk> I agree it doesn't make much sense, but that's how everyone is marking up their code
  297. # [11:43] <annevk> so maybe it should just work
  298. # [11:43] <Hixie> annevk: i'm confused as to what you are talking about
  299. # [11:43] <aphid> it shouldn't, thought isn't so hierarchical
  300. # [11:43] <Hixie> i'm just talking about normal human language
  301. # [11:43] <Hixie> like in a book
  302. # [11:44] <othermaciej> It's possible for a sentence to start in one paragraph and end in another
  303. # [11:44] <othermaciej> though usually it's a special effect with unusual punctuation
  304. # [11:44] <othermaciej> (like ... or an emdash)
  305. # [11:45] <othermaciej> you could argue these are two separate sentence fragments
  306. # [11:45] <annevk> yeah, &hellip;
  307. # [11:45] <hdh> or when people leave half a sentence in blog title, to be completed in the post
  308. # [11:45] <Hixie> i'm just thinking that a paragraph with a sentence like "i bought (1) a tree, (2) a chainsaw, and (3) an apple, and then went home."
  309. # [11:46] <Hixie> imho that belongs in one paragraph
  310. # [11:46] <Hixie> not five
  311. # [11:46] <othermaciej> that certainly makes sense as a paragraph, however, the presentation/semantics boundary becomes a bit fuzzy here
  312. # [11:46] <othermaciej> If instead you say:
  313. # [11:46] <othermaciej> I bought:
  314. # [11:46] <Hixie> (there are places in the html5 spec right now where i have sentences like that and html4 forces me to spread it over multiple paragraphs)
  315. # [11:46] <othermaciej> (1) a tree
  316. # [11:47] <othermaciej> (2) a chainsaw
  317. # [11:47] <othermaciej> (3) an apple
  318. # [11:47] <othermaciej> and then went home
  319. # [11:47] <othermaciej> (end of example)
  320. # [11:47] <othermaciej> that's less clearly a paragraph
  321. # [11:47] <Hixie> possibly
  322. # [11:47] <Hixie> still
  323. # [11:47] <Hixie> we do want to be able to nest lists
  324. # [11:48] <Hixie> so <ol> <li> <ol> <li> needs to be valid
  325. # [11:48] <Hixie> hmm...
  326. # [11:48] <othermaciej> list nesting certainly makes sense
  327. # [11:48] <othermaciej> is that not valid now?
  328. # [11:48] <Hixie> sure
  329. # [11:48] <Hixie> i'm just thinking out loud
  330. # [11:49] <Hixie> i suppose making lists not be paragraphs does just basically mean that all we need to say is that inlines in block-level contexts get implied paragraphs wrapping them and then we're done
  331. # [11:49] <Hixie> <em> <ol>...</ol> </em> wouldn't be allowed
  332. # [11:49] <Hixie> presumably
  333. # [11:50] <othermaciej> usually I would not care much about issues like this but at least it's not about codecs
  334. # [11:50] <Hixie> heh
  335. # [11:50] <Hixie> i'm just idly pondering the issue
  336. # [11:50] <Hixie> it's one of the things we'll need to fix
  337. # [11:51] <Hixie> right now it's pretty much the #1 issue people run into when transitioning to html5
  338. # [11:51] <Hixie> (or html4 strict)
  339. # [11:57] <othermaciej> I think looser content rules could be good
  340. # [11:57] <othermaciej> And I agree that being able to use list markup for inline-level lists and nesting lists both seem like sensible use cases
  341. # [11:57] <othermaciej> also that nesting a paragraph inside a paragraph is not
  342. # [11:58] <othermaciej> also that nesting anything but its normal expected children in an element with a highly structured content model it generally not sensible
  343. # [11:58] <othermaciej> (things like lists, dables, etc)
  344. # [11:59] <Hixie> maybe i need to do a matrix if {block|inline elements} x {block|inline elements} and just figure out which is allowed where
  345. # [11:59] <Hixie> sure
  346. # [11:59] <Hixie> i'm just talking about inlines and blocks
  347. # [11:59] <Hixie> where they are allowed, and which elements claim to be them
  348. # [12:00] <othermaciej> I'm just stating the premises relating to this that seem fairly obvious
  349. # [12:00] <Hixie> yeah
  350. # [12:00] <othermaciej> hopefully some final rule results that is not completely ad-hoc
  351. # [12:01] <Hixie> yeah, that's what i'm hoping. maybe some new categorisation that is neither inline nor block
  352. # [12:01] <Hixie> but which denotes what's allowed where
  353. # [12:02] * Joins: roc (n=roc@121-72-24-31.dsl.telstraclear.net)
  354. # [12:06] * Quits: ROBOd (n=robod@89.122.216.38) ("http://www.robodesign.ro")
  355. # [12:06] * Joins: gsnedders (n=gsnedder@host86-135-224-200.range86-135.btcentralplus.com)
  356. # [12:10] <Philip`> The idea of 'It costs us nothing to keep <some obscure element> because everyone has implemented it already' seems to conflict with that of 'We want to define HTML so that new competitors will be able to enter the browser space' (since they'll have to implement all these obscure historical elements from scratch)
  357. # [12:14] <Hixie> good god the ogg thing hit reddit.
  358. # [12:15] <Hixie> Philip`: <kbd> is extremely cheap to implement for browser vendors. the cost is mostly on the spec and tutorial side.
  359. # [12:16] <othermaciej> Hixie: multiple times
  360. # [12:23] * Joins: OmegaJunior (n=ZJr@a82-95-48-162.adsl.xs4all.nl)
  361. # [12:35] <zcorpan> Hixie: personally, i think html5 should be more like html4 transitional wrt content model
  362. # [12:36] <zcorpan> drop structured inline concept, disallow <p><ol/></p>
  363. # [12:36] <zcorpan> allow <div>foo<p>bar</p></div>
  364. # [12:37] <zcorpan> doing so will save lots of time for authors understanding the rules
  365. # [12:37] <zcorpan> i think that the current rules will make more authors ignore conformance altogether, because they're too complicated and seemingly arbitrary
  366. # [12:38] <zcorpan> also, i think <div>foo<p>bar</p></div> is pretty harmless
  367. # [12:41] <annevk> html5.org on reddit
  368. # [12:42] <annevk> I better add some text links :evil:
  369. # [12:42] <gsnedders> <http://www.sitepoint.com/article/ie-standards-chris-wilson> for those who haven't seen
  370. # [12:42] <gsnedders> (says one or two things about IE8)
  371. # [12:42] <annevk> summary?
  372. # [12:46] <gsnedders> - Redoing layout engine (which was already known), first major revision to that code in years
  373. # [12:46] * Quits: kfish (n=conrad@61.194.21.25) ("Pike!")
  374. # [12:46] * Joins: ROBOd (n=robod@89.122.216.38)
  375. # [12:46] <gsnedders> - Not using Gecko/WebKit because of potential licensing issues
  376. # [12:47] <gsnedders> - If there was a bug in either, they'd be to blame and responsible for it
  377. # [12:47] <gsnedders> - Fixing security bugs in a codebase you don't know is hard
  378. # [12:48] <gsnedders> - If all standardise on one implementation you end up with how IE/Netscape are/were defining the de-facto rules for the web
  379. # [12:48] <annevk> I guess after six years you might forget a thing or two :)
  380. # [12:48] <gsnedders> Who actually did the security updates for IE while there was no IE team?
  381. # [12:48] <annevk> Hmm, yeah, that's certainly true. We already have to copy crazy-ass Firefox features :(
  382. # [12:49] <gsnedders> look at the latest Netscape, for example
  383. # [12:50] <gsnedders> There's various other interesting things in it, but I need to go
  384. # [12:54] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@58.157.21.205)
  385. # [12:54] * Joins: billyjack (n=MikeSmit@58.157.21.205)
  386. # [12:55] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@58.157.21.205) (Client Quit)
  387. # [12:56] <gsnedders> is it 10 or 20 years old that patents need to be to expire?
  388. # [12:56] <gsnedders> 20?
  389. # [12:57] <annevk> they still seem to have the vendor-lock-in idea
  390. # [12:57] <annevk> or the infinite amount of quirks modes
  391. # [12:57] <Hixie> "You haven't read the HTML5 spec. You get to define your own tags and the CSS statement for your new tag may reuse the definitions of other tags like { display: p } for example."
  392. # [12:57] <Hixie> -- http://programming.reddit.com/info/62oek/comments/c02n4nm
  393. # [12:57] <Hixie> i can't tell if that's a troll or not...
  394. # [12:57] * gsnedders blinks
  395. # [12:58] <annevk> I think he might have read Crockford HTML5
  396. # [12:58] <gsnedders> that makes no sense to me however many times I read it, yet alone make it wrong
  397. # [12:58] <annevk> which advocates that kind of stuff
  398. # [12:58] <gsnedders> anyhow, I really need to run off now
  399. # [12:58] <gsnedders> MPEG-1 is still too new, though, which is what I thought.
  400. # [12:58] <annevk> http://crockford.com/html/ search for "display: div"
  401. # [12:59] <annevk> Hixie, "Error loading the folder list: Internal Server Error. Let Hixie know." (on /issues/
  402. # [12:59] <annevk> )
  403. # [12:59] <annevk> (oh, already resolved)
  404. # [13:00] <Hixie> yeah the server is probably getting hit too hard
  405. # [13:01] * Quits: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no) ("Leaving")
  406. # [13:01] <Philip`> Hixie: <tv-show> would be equally cheap as <kbd> for browser vendors to implement, and equally costly to spec (since the <kbd> spec is rewritten anyway, and they only need about one line of definition)
  407. # [13:02] <Philip`> so I'm not certain where the "much cheaper" comes from, in "since browser vendors aren't going to drop support for existing elements, existing elements end up being much cheaper to "add" than new elements"
  408. # [13:04] <Hixie> if we do nothing at all, e.g. if we simply don't have an html5 spec, then <kbd> continues to exist but <tv-show> doesn't exist
  409. # [13:04] <Hixie> to effect a change, we have to do something (a cost)
  410. # [13:04] <Hixie> adding <tv-show> thus has a cost
  411. # [13:05] <Hixie> i agree that at the end of the day <tv-show>, if it basically did nothing, would be cheap to add
  412. # [13:05] <Hixie> orders of magnitude cheaper than, say, <video>
  413. # [13:05] <Philip`> gsnedders: Normally 20, but browser developers have to care about the relevant laws and filing dates in every country in the world
  414. # [13:06] * Joins: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no)
  415. # [13:07] <Philip`> Hixie: Adding <kbd> to HTML5 has a similar cost, so that doesn't seem a convincing argument for adding <kbd> but not adding <tv-show>
  416. # [13:12] <Hixie> fair enough
  417. # [13:12] <Hixie> i don't know what would convince you, or, really, what we're actually trying to establish here
  418. # [13:16] <Hixie> right well enough of this firefighting, time to sleep
  419. # [13:16] <Hixie> nn
  420. # [13:16] <alp> Hixie: VP3 was from "On2", not "On3" btw
  421. # [13:17] <alp> On2 donated the VP3 codec before going on to create further editions which have had some success
  422. # [13:19] <roc> annevk: what "crazy-ass Firefox features"?
  423. # [13:20] <roc> because I'm trying to kill off getBoxObjectFor as fast as I can!
  424. # [13:20] <Philip`> Hixie: Maybe the cost of removing the feature is a more important point than the cost of adding it - it would make a few sites harder to migrate from HTML4 to HTML5, and annoy people who spent lots of time carefully semanticising their HTML4 since they'd have to strip it out
  425. # [13:22] <annevk> roc, extensions of Range, but some may be useful enough to consider extending the Range specification
  426. # [13:22] <annevk> some were not, but I believe you guys are removing these (or it was one) in Firefox 3 so it may get better
  427. # [13:22] <Philip`> Hixie: I don't want to be convinced about anything - I just wanted to note that your response to someone else didn't seem very compelling to me, so maybe a different response would be better in the future, if anyone cares enough to raise the point again :-)
  428. # [13:23] * Joins: Camaban (n=adrianle@host217-41-27-233.in-addr.btopenworld.com)
  429. # [13:25] <roc> the extensions we currently have look pretty useful:
  430. # [13:25] <roc> http://mxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/dom/public/idl/range/nsIDOMNSRange.idl
  431. # [13:25] <mpt> HTML5. Brought to you by the letter W, the number 5, and the word "Sadly".
  432. # [13:25] <Dashiva> Wow, that crockford html page was like reading about xhtml2 :)
  433. # [13:25] <roc> I actually want to add some more Range extensions
  434. # [13:26] <roc> like some form of getClientRects
  435. # [13:26] <annevk> I think createContextualFragment was causing us issues
  436. # [13:26] <annevk> I agree with getClientRects: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom-view/#the-rangeview-interface
  437. # [13:27] <roc> ah excellent
  438. # [13:27] <roc> the wording sounds suspiciously similar to what I had in mind
  439. # [13:27] <roc> did I suggest it?
  440. # [13:27] <roc> :-)
  441. # [13:27] * Quits: billyjack (n=MikeSmit@58.157.21.205) ("Less talk, more pimp walk.")
  442. # [13:27] <annevk> i found it on a bug report I was cc'ed on :)
  443. # [13:28] <roc> another thing we need in Range is some way to get at the text nodes that comprise logical runs of text
  444. # [13:28] <roc> for things like Find
  445. # [13:29] <roc> or if a Web app wanted to implement its own spellchecking
  446. # [13:30] <annevk> I saw something about that elsewhere, about having an API to give a run of text some type of "class" which you can then use in ::selection("class") or something like that
  447. # [13:30] <roc> that might be different
  448. # [13:30] <roc> that sounds like an API for doing custom selections
  449. # [13:32] <roc> what I want is an API like "give me a list of text nodes that comprise the first 'text run' in the Range"
  450. # [13:32] <roc> taking into account various CSS features like block boundaries, generated content, etc
  451. # [13:33] <annevk> that might be tricky
  452. # [13:33] <roc> yeah
  453. # [13:33] <roc> it's tricky
  454. # [13:33] <annevk> given that generated content is some kind of pseudo-DOM
  455. # [13:33] <roc> yeah
  456. # [13:33] <roc> returning a list of text nodes doesn't quite work
  457. # [13:34] <roc> but some guy wanted to pay FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS for this approximately this feature for a Firefox extension
  458. # [13:35] <annevk> must be useful then :p
  459. # [13:35] * roc must sleep
  460. # [13:35] * Quits: roc (n=roc@121-72-24-31.dsl.telstraclear.net)
  461. # [13:44] <hdh> I have this tb when running html5lib runtests.sh http://pastebin.ca/812008
  462. # [14:20] <Philip`> hdh: Which version of html5lib is that?
  463. # [14:20] <hdh> I just pulled it from svn
  464. # [14:21] <Philip`> Hmm, I just get a load of "AttributeError: class simplejson has no attribute 'loads'"
  465. # [14:22] <hdh> I got that too, and installed python-simplejson (ubuntu) to exercise those tests
  466. # [14:22] <annevk> I guess you're both relying on the simplejson emulater which I believe is full of bugs
  467. # [14:23] <annevk> oh
  468. # [14:23] * Philip` emerges simplejson
  469. # [14:23] <Philip`> "ValueError: Invalid \escape: "'": line 436 column 27 (char 13046)"
  470. # [14:25] * Quits: mpt (n=mpt@ip-81-1-124-252.cust.homechoice.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  471. # [14:25] * Philip` tries to remember how to commit a fix
  472. # [14:26] <hdh> btw, the LICENSE file spells "Contributers"
  473. # [14:26] <krijnh> Silly Dutchies :)
  474. # [14:27] * Philip` will fix that too :-)
  475. # [14:30] <Philip`> hdh: Should be fixed in SVN now
  476. # [14:30] <annevk> krijnh, I'm you're referring to me, it might be the British who've done that
  477. # [14:30] <annevk> (and fixed it subsequently, which is nice)
  478. # [14:31] <krijnh> annevk: Ah, sorry :)
  479. # [14:31] <krijnh> annevk: Are there more dutchies contributing?
  480. # [14:31] <Philip`> "svn blame" says "296 jgraham.cantab Contributers:"
  481. # [14:31] * Joins: Teratogen (i=leontopo@slashsnot.org)
  482. # [14:32] <Teratogen> what's going on with ogg?
  483. # [14:32] <Teratogen> why was it removed from the HTML5 spec?
  484. # [14:34] * hdh needs to figure out how to revert his "contributors" commit, bzr-svn
  485. # [14:34] <Teratogen> I want ogg!
  486. # [14:35] <hdh> donate to who ever are working on theora
  487. # [14:37] <annevk> the main reason is potential submarine patents as I understand it
  488. # [14:37] <annevk> the other reasons seem mostly FUD
  489. # [14:43] <Camaban> I felt http://blog.kfish.org/2007/12/html5-for-free-media-today-on-whatwg.html gave me most of the relevant info needed to understand the OGG issue :)
  490. # [14:47] <hdh> Philip`: ok, no E now, but 3 Fs
  491. # [14:49] <Philip`> hdh: I get 4 Fs (test_absolute_uri_ref_with_space_in svg_attribute test_absolute_uri_refs_in_svg_attributes test_allow_html5_image_tag test_should_sanitize_tag_broken_up_by_null)
  492. # [14:50] <hdh> I don't have the by_null one
  493. # [14:50] <Philip`> I know very little about the html5lib code so I won't try fixing those :-)
  494. # [14:50] <Philip`> hdh: Oh, odd
  495. # [14:50] <Philip`> I get AssertionError: u'&lt;scr\xef\xbf\xbdipt&gt;alert("XSS")&lt;/scr\xef\xbf\xbdipt&gt;' != u'&lt;scr\ufffdipt&gt;alert("XSS")&lt;/scr\ufffdipt&gt;'
  496. # [14:52] <Philip`> ...maybe because I don't have a ucs2 version of Python?
  497. # [14:52] <hdh> ubuntu's is ucs4
  498. # [14:53] <Philip`> "[- ] ucs2 (dev-lang/python): Enable byte size 2 unicode (DON'T USE THIS UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING)"
  499. # [14:53] <Philip`> Not sure what the default on Gentoo is
  500. # [14:53] <Philip`> Oh, it's ucs4 if you don't explicitly specify ucs2
  501. # [14:54] <Philip`> so that sounds like it shouldn't differ from Ubuntu
  502. # [14:55] <hdh> weird, if I compile python without explicitly asking for ucs4, I get undefined PyFromUCS4 or somesuch when trying to use distro's c modules
  503. # [14:55] <Philip`> Gentoo says "enabling UCS2 support will break your existing python modules" which sounds reasonable
  504. # [14:56] <Teratogen> bring back ogg!
  505. # [14:56] <hdh> is preferred extension for theora ogv or ogm?
  506. # [14:57] <Teratogen> for ogg it's .ogg
  507. # [14:57] <Philip`> hdh: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-October/012861.html says ogv
  508. # [14:58] <hdh> thx
  509. # [14:59] * Philip` wonders how many people will write <video ... type="video/ogg; codecs="theora, vorbis"">
  510. # [14:59] <hdh> can't they just use " ' ' "
  511. # [14:59] <Philip`> Can't we use single quotes in the examples somewhere? &quot; is just really ugly
  512. # [14:59] <Philip`> hdh: Good idea :-)
  513. # [15:00] * hdh likes python's strings for that
  514. # [15:00] * Philip` has no idea if the MIME type parameters allow "'"
  515. # [15:01] <hdh> Philip`: uhm, there's this one http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/Notepad-Translation-Error.aspx
  516. # [15:02] <hdh> maybe google cache has the text
  517. # [15:03] <Philip`> (Looks like MIME types use RFC822's quoted-string which only allows double-quotes)
  518. # [15:09] <hdh> at least xsltproc keeps ' "" ' for me
  519. # [15:25] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@58.157.21.205)
  520. # [15:30] <Teratogen> bring back ogg!
  521. # [15:30] * Joins: csarven (n=nevrasc@81-5-133-33.static.nfwebsolutions.com)
  522. # [15:31] <alp> Teratogen: you're probably doing more to hurt the adoption of ogg than to help it by participating in the debate through the wrong channels
  523. # [15:32] <Lfe> alp: Something with trolls and feed? :-)
  524. # [15:32] <alp> Lfe: heh
  525. # [15:35] <annevk> <video ... type=...> is pretty silly in itself
  526. # [15:44] * Joins: colione (n=f@17.247.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net)
  527. # [15:45] * Parts: colione (n=f@17.247.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net)
  528. # [15:47] * Joins: colione (n=colione@17.247.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net)
  529. # [15:48] * Parts: colione (n=colione@17.247.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net)
  530. # [15:49] * Joins: colione (n=colione@17.247.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net)
  531. # [16:00] * Quits: maikmerten (n=merten@ls5laptop14.cs.uni-dortmund.de) ("Verlassend")
  532. # [16:01] <zcorpan> annevk: <address> allows structured inline
  533. # [16:01] <zcorpan> so possibly, <address><ul><li>
  534. # [16:02] * Joins: colione_ (n=colione@17.247.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net)
  535. # [16:02] <annevk> hmm
  536. # [16:02] <zcorpan> but it's not clear to me why that would be better
  537. # [16:02] <annevk> it does indeed seem way better than a simple <br>
  538. # [16:03] * Quits: colione (n=colione@17.247.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  539. # [16:04] <Philip`> <br> in <address> is useful to get an hCard linebreak
  540. # [16:10] * Parts: hdh (n=hdh@58.187.109.98)
  541. # [16:15] <krijnh> Bah, damn 'tables are bad' people
  542. # [16:15] <krijnh> <ul class="article_order_details cart-overview"><li class="article_price"><span class="label">Price</span><span class="valuta"><span class="valuta-sign"> ...
  543. # [16:15] <krijnh> :/
  544. # [16:16] <krijnh> So much worse than a <br> in an <address>
  545. # [16:23] * Joins: phsiao (i=shawn@nat/ibm/x-24dd963ac22371ac)
  546. # [16:32] * Parts: zcorpan (n=zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  547. # [16:32] * Joins: zcorpan (n=zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  548. # [16:36] * Joins: billmason (n=billmaso@ip156.unival.com)
  549. # [16:52] * Joins: tndH (i=Rob@87.102.10.86)
  550. # [16:56] * Joins: G0k (n=hmason@hermes.mae.cornell.edu)
  551. # [16:57] <G0k> hey all
  552. # [16:57] * Parts: G0k (n=hmason@hermes.mae.cornell.edu)
  553. # [16:57] <annevk> and bye
  554. # [16:57] * Joins: G0k (n=hmason@hermes.mae.cornell.edu)
  555. # [16:57] <G0k> arg
  556. # [16:57] <G0k> i think we should pick h.261 and be done with it. :)
  557. # [16:58] <annevk> does it do streaming?
  558. # [16:58] <hsivonen> zcorpan, Hixie: I'm here now
  559. # [16:58] <annevk> is it reasonably compact?
  560. # [16:58] <G0k> yes. yes.
  561. # [16:59] <G0k> and it was finalized in 1990, so patents should be gone by now
  562. # [16:59] <annevk> 1990...
  563. # [16:59] <annevk> no
  564. # [16:59] <annevk> that takes at least 20 years depending on your jurisdiction I believe
  565. # [16:59] <hsivonen> Hixie: I have to think a bit more to formulate an opinion about block/inline
  566. # [17:00] <hsivonen> Hixie: what you have now makes semantic sense but is impractical for authors
  567. # [17:00] <G0k> yeah but...html5 wont be approved until 2010+, so....
  568. # [17:00] <hsivonen> Hixie: specifically, bimorhic seem more like a hard-to-grasp thing than block/inline
  569. # [17:00] * Joins: madness (n=mng@91.84.56.254)
  570. # [17:00] <hsivonen> I'll get back to you on this
  571. # [17:01] <G0k> http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000035.shtml
  572. # [17:01] <G0k> at least they seem to think there are no patents
  573. # [17:01] <annevk> hmm, html5.org is getting hit hard
  574. # [17:02] <G0k> the loc
  575. # [17:02] <annevk> and svn.whatwg.org probably too because html5.org doesn't do caching :)
  576. # [17:03] <annevk> heh, it went from about 1000 a week to 16000 in the week that is one day old
  577. # [17:04] <G0k> well duh, insulting an open source project like Ogg is possibly the best way to get hits
  578. # [17:04] <G0k> next we should say something nasty about vi and emacs
  579. # [17:05] <annevk> html5.org is not insulting anyone
  580. # [17:05] <annevk> it just hosts a service that provides interesting views on HTML5
  581. # [17:05] <G0k> yeah tell that to the mob outside the door
  582. # [17:06] <madness> normally lurk on the mailing list - I've noticed alot of talk on reddit about the ogg stuff :/
  583. # [17:06] <annevk> reddit is top referrer
  584. # [17:06] <madness> people who don't understand that issues are more complicated than they first appear spouting off if appears.
  585. # [17:06] <G0k> what ogg stuff? i don't seen any ogg stuff. that is unstuff.
  586. # [17:17] * Joins: bakarat (n=arnath@d54C1C929.access.telenet.be)
  587. # [17:18] <bakarat> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/2007-December/000094.html <- says it all
  588. # [17:19] <G0k> "OGG" indeed
  589. # [17:19] <G0k> and how exactly do you "set" a de facto standard
  590. # [17:19] <G0k> de facto means you don't set it
  591. # [17:20] <madness> it's all a bit tin-foil-hat, to be honest
  592. # [17:20] <G0k> "at least know that ogg will be supported by all (standards-compatible) browsers"
  593. # [17:21] <madness> "people are questioning ogg, a darling of open source people, so it must be because of DRM/Vendor lock-in/insert other evil reason"
  594. # [17:21] <G0k> because you know...we have such great luck with that
  595. # [17:21] <annevk> oh, I missed help@whatwg.org was becoming active again
  596. # [17:21] <Dashiva> At least this means we're getting attention :)
  597. # [17:21] <madness> instead of taking the reason given, which is actually a sensible one
  598. # [17:21] <madness> (at least for theora)
  599. # [17:21] <G0k> i think someone needs to make a video explaining the whole situation
  600. # [17:21] <madness> not sure about vorbis..
  601. # [17:22] <gsnedders> G0k: encoded how? :)
  602. # [17:22] <G0k> MJPEG
  603. # [17:22] <Teratogen> bring back ogg!
  604. # [17:22] <G0k> no patents on that
  605. # [17:22] <Teratogen> ogg is free
  606. # [17:22] <annevk> I think Hixie is ok with that as long as you pay the Google bandwidth bill G0k
  607. # [17:22] <gsnedders> Thezilch: so? You still, as with anything invented within the last 20 years (including Ogg/Vorbis/Theora), run the risk of a submarine patents.
  608. # [17:23] <Dashiva> G0k: Isn't gif also up for grabs? :P
  609. # [17:23] <G0k> Dashiva: gif looks like crap
  610. # [17:23] <G0k> 8-bit color for the suck
  611. # [17:24] <gsnedders> How does Opera currently deal with <video>? It's own decoders? The OS?
  612. # [17:24] <madness> Teratogen: have you something sensible to contribute to the debate, also ?
  613. # [17:24] <G0k> bundles libtheora
  614. # [17:24] * Quits: OmegaJunior (n=ZJr@a82-95-48-162.adsl.xs4all.nl) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  615. # [17:24] <gsnedders> s/'//
  616. # [17:26] <gsnedders> G0k: which I assume means it doesn't work for anything apart from Theora?
  617. # [17:26] <G0k> gsnedders: nope
  618. # [17:26] <gsnedders> G0k: nope agreeing or disagreeing?
  619. # [17:26] <gsnedders> silly English…
  620. # [17:26] <G0k> gsnedders: it only works for theora
  621. # [17:26] <gsnedders> OK.
  622. # [17:27] <G0k> as far as I can tell, annevk might have better info
  623. # [17:27] <gsnedders> WebKit on OS X already supports H.261 which is a slight advantage
  624. # [17:27] <G0k> i kinda suggested H.261 as a joke
  625. # [17:27] <gsnedders> it and MJPEG are the two most likely specs IMO to be allowed
  626. # [17:28] <G0k> the fundamental fact that is being ignored here is that no one is going to make content with a non-competitive codec
  627. # [17:28] <gsnedders> G0k: YouTube?
  628. # [17:28] <annevk> our experimental builds support Ogg/Theora/Vorbis
  629. # [17:28] <G0k> gsnedders: i mean given the oppurtunity
  630. # [17:29] <gsnedders> YouTube is H.263 actually
  631. # [17:29] <gsnedders> But that's far too new
  632. # [17:30] <G0k> gsnedders: if safari/IE/firefox ship with h.264 decoders and theora/263/261 decoders, the reason to make content in the other format is approximately zero
  633. # [17:30] <gsnedders> G0k: Saf/IE won't ship Theora.
  634. # [17:30] <G0k> right but...ok, remove theora/263 from that last sentence
  635. # [17:30] <gsnedders> G0k: Win32 doesn't support H.264 yet IIRC
  636. # [17:31] <G0k> yeah but...xboxes do, zunes do...
  637. # [17:31] <G0k> it's only a matter of time before windows does
  638. # [17:31] <gsnedders> That's true.
  639. # [17:31] <G0k> and how many windows users have itunes/quicktime
  640. # [17:31] <madness> is there a case for mandating a container format but not a codec ?
  641. # [17:31] <madness> the submarine concern is about codecs, not containers, right ?
  642. # [17:31] <gsnedders> madness: both.
  643. # [17:32] <G0k> a mandated container is kinda silly
  644. # [17:32] <gsnedders> G0k: needed, though
  645. # [17:32] <G0k> and if we were doing that...Ogg is frankly kinda shitting
  646. # [17:32] <G0k> *shitty
  647. # [17:32] <gsnedders> allows anything as content, though, unlike the MPEG4 one
  648. # [17:32] <G0k> eh you can kinda force anything in MooV
  649. # [17:33] <G0k> plus it's really a standard
  650. # [17:33] <gsnedders> the spec disallows any non-MPEG4 codec within an MPEG4 container
  651. # [17:33] <G0k> yeah i mean the MP4 spec itself is pretty limiting
  652. # [17:33] <G0k> but the ISO..."metacontainer" i guess is really flexible
  653. # [17:34] <gsnedders> anyone know about the content of ISO/IEC 14496-12:2005?
  654. # [17:34] <G0k> somewhat
  655. # [17:35] <G0k> it was basically an ISO-ification of the quicktime atomic container format
  656. # [17:35] <gsnedders> I know the outline of the other MPEG4 container standard
  657. # [17:35] <gsnedders> G0k: yeah, I know tht
  658. # [17:35] <gsnedders> *that
  659. # [17:35] <G0k> i know they also use it for JPEG-2000
  660. # [17:35] <gsnedders> ISO/IEC 14496-14 is slightly different
  661. # [17:35] <gsnedders> Maybe -12 doesn't limit it to MPEG4
  662. # [17:35] <G0k> i believe -14 is the mp4-specific parts
  663. # [17:35] <G0k> and -12 is the base iso format
  664. # [17:36] <G0k> http://mp4ra.org/
  665. # [17:36] <G0k> apple maintains a registry of stuff based on it
  666. # [17:36] <gsnedders> is it MPEG4 specific?
  667. # [17:37] <gsnedders> (the extras in -14)
  668. # [17:37] <gsnedders> I know -14 limits content to MPEG4, but I don't know what else is different from 012
  669. # [17:37] <gsnedders> *-12
  670. # [17:37] <G0k> i believe so....one sec, lemme look through my ISO docs :)
  671. # [17:37] * gsnedders doesn't have copies of many ISO docs
  672. # [17:37] * gsnedders doesn't have the money
  673. # [17:37] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.140)
  674. # [17:38] <gsnedders> I think ISO8601 is the only one I have, plus a draft of C99 (whichever spec that is)
  675. # [17:38] <G0k> heh well it looks like i did the right thing after my last contract job and deleted it. :/
  676. # [17:39] <Teratogen> bring back ogg!
  677. # [17:39] <G0k> i believe -14 added stuff like how to pack the ESDS and junk in
  678. # [17:39] <G0k> and hinting
  679. # [17:40] <G0k> (which is patent encumbered sadly)
  680. # [17:40] * madness /ignores Teratogen
  681. # [17:40] <gsnedders> Teratogen: that isn't a very useful comment.
  682. # [17:40] <gsnedders> G0k: ESDS?
  683. # [17:40] <G0k> gsnedders: MPEG-4 codec specific information
  684. # [17:40] <G0k> then -15 added stuff for H.264
  685. # [17:42] <G0k> "Most of the specifications are related to the first MPEG-4 file format (MP4 version 1), which in turn was derived from the QuickTime file format defined by Apple Computer. More recently the MP4 file format was generalized into the ISO Base Media File Format, which defines a general structure for time-based media files. It in turn is used as the basis for other file formats in the family."
  686. # [17:42] <gsnedders> the ISO Base Media File Format still has the known patent issue, though
  687. # [17:42] <zcorpan> isn't the best way for people to push ogg to publish their content as ogg? content on the web is what can make big companies want to implement ogg, not a requirement in the spec
  688. # [17:43] <G0k> "but i can't publish my content as Ogg until Hixie says I'm allowed to!"
  689. # [17:43] * gsnedders would look up the quote about us being Hixie's "followers"
  690. # [17:43] <gsnedders> I don't always agree with what Hixie has concluded. Just because I give people the reasons why the spec is as it is doesn't mean I agree with them.
  691. # [17:44] <G0k> i mean it's a shitty situation but I feel like the horrible truth is that the patent-free policy is going to need to get twisted a bit for the video part
  692. # [17:44] * gsnedders ponders
  693. # [17:45] <gsnedders> MUST support H.261 and SHOULD support H.264
  694. # [17:45] <gsnedders> would anyone complain?
  695. # [17:45] <G0k> it would be the same as saying MUST support raw RGB
  696. # [17:45] <G0k> no one is going to use it
  697. # [17:45] <G0k> it's not going to reflect the current or future state of the web
  698. # [17:45] <gsnedders> It's widely supported though :P
  699. # [17:46] <G0k> but yeah i mean if we had to pick a baseline...MPEG-1/H.261 is a reasonable place to start
  700. # [17:46] <gsnedders> MPEG-1 is too new
  701. # [17:46] <G0k> well MPEG-1 is just H.261 with new gunk
  702. # [17:46] <gsnedders> MPEG-LA still collects money for it
  703. # [17:46] <gsnedders> It's still too new.
  704. # [17:47] <G0k> see i kinda wonder
  705. # [17:47] <G0k> this might be a good place for a bribe
  706. # [17:48] <G0k> wonder if MPEG-LA would go for some kind of web exception
  707. # [17:48] <madness> perhaps it needs to be recognised that whatever is specified is unlikely to be competitive if we want it to be free of submarine patents
  708. # [17:48] <gsnedders> G0k: nobody pays to encode MP3 anyway
  709. # [17:48] <gsnedders> (though legally you must)
  710. # [17:49] <gsnedders> I think what someone who strongly believes Ogg/Theora/Vorbis is patent free needs to do is say they'll pay for any patent infringements that come up.
  711. # [17:49] <madness> as a baseline, if I know I can use <insert standard here> I can provide that standard, knowing it will work everywhere, and then provide better to clients that can use it
  712. # [17:49] <doublec> gsnedders: even mpeg-la don't do that
  713. # [17:49] <doublec> for h.264
  714. # [17:49] <gsnedders> doublec: don't do what? patent infringement? they don't claim its free of other patents, though.
  715. # [17:49] <G0k> doublec: technically no, but since there are so many customers of MPEG LA, you get power in numbers
  716. # [17:50] <madness> even if it doesn't work as well, at least I know as a small web dev, that I can get my content to any client using <insert outdated codec here>
  717. # [17:50] <doublec> they don't offter to pay for patent infringements that come up
  718. # [17:50] <doublec> it's not possible to be free of submarine patents
  719. # [17:50] <doublec> for any format
  720. # [17:50] <annevk> hi doublec, what are the plans for <video> in Firefox?
  721. # [17:50] <gsnedders> doublec: it is, if the standards are old enough.
  722. # [17:50] <doublec> annevk: we are sticking with Ogg
  723. # [17:50] <annevk> I saw in an article that was republished along the globe it won't make Firefox 3, but when will it hit "the market"?
  724. # [17:51] <Philip`> gsnedders: That kind of 'guarantee' isn't very useful for a company that gets sued for $1.5B, because there's no way the guaranteer will be able to pay that
  725. # [17:51] <gsnedders> doublec: people are claiming that Ogg/Theora/Vorbis is patent free. MPEG-LA don't make such a claim. That's my point.
  726. # [17:51] <gsnedders> Philip`: I know, that's the very problem.
  727. # [17:51] <doublec> gsnedders: Ah, I see
  728. # [17:51] <doublec> I think they are saying (or should be saying) all known patents have been dealt with
  729. # [17:51] <annevk> people claim it's patent free? it's public knowledge Ogg/etc. aren't
  730. # [17:52] <annevk> right
  731. # [17:52] <G0k> if anyone has good patents on H.264/AAC, the probability that they wouldn't have sued already is disappearingly small
  732. # [17:52] <doublec> annevk: It's under discussion as to when exactly it will hit the market
  733. # [17:52] <G0k> and if they did, they'd have about a trillion dollar of corporate lawyers to fight
  734. # [17:53] <annevk> thx
  735. # [17:53] <annevk> that didn't help with MP3
  736. # [17:53] <doublec> The issue is that we don't want to ship a partial implementation of a spec, or something that may change and we end up shipping something broken.
  737. # [17:54] <annevk> I see, but you don't want to wait until 2022 either :)
  738. # [17:54] <doublec> Yep :)
  739. # [17:55] <doublec> I am hoping for a point release after 3
  740. # [17:55] <annevk> I personally don't think that it's an issue to implement a subset of the spec initially, as long as it's implemented per the spec
  741. # [17:55] <doublec> I personally agree
  742. # [17:55] <gsnedders> annevk: you got any links to any patents that cover Ogg/etc.?
  743. # [17:55] <annevk> everyone does that with SVG and CSS already, if you need arguments :)
  744. # [17:55] <G0k> gsnedders: much of On2's portfolio....
  745. # [17:56] <gsnedders> … that aren't covered by the RF grants?
  746. # [17:56] <doublec> All the people wanting it, and the other browsers implementing it are certainly helping the case too
  747. # [17:56] <G0k> gsnedders: it's important to note that there are some truely ridiculous MPEG-related video patents
  748. # [17:56] <gsnedders> G0k: I'm aware.
  749. # [17:58] <G0k> there's a patent on storing integers a little bit bigger than they need to be to avoid rounding errors
  750. # [17:58] <G0k> then there's a second patent on the same thing...except applied to a different codec
  751. # [18:00] * Joins: Yarou (n=himurake@unaffiliated/yarou)
  752. # [18:00] * Joins: jdandrea (n=jdandrea@ool-44c0a1fe.dyn.optonline.net)
  753. # [18:02] * Quits: mitsuhiko (n=mitsuhik@ubuntu/member/mitsuhiko) ("Terminated with extreme prejudice - dircproxy 1.0.5")
  754. # [18:03] <G0k> i wonder what would be involved in making a state of the art H.261 encoder
  755. # [18:04] <G0k> i suppose libavcodec's encoder would be close to that
  756. # [18:05] * Philip` wonders how many people do their own video transcoding, compared to just uploading to YouTube
  757. # [18:06] * Joins: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@233.80-203-100.nextgentel.com)
  758. # [18:06] <G0k> well yeah but now YouTube of the future will need to do that transcoding
  759. # [18:06] <G0k> re-encoding reall
  760. # [18:07] <G0k> *really
  761. # [18:07] <gsnedders> They already have H.263 and for some content H.264
  762. # [18:07] * Joins: mitsuhiko (n=mitsuhik@hammett.srv.pocoo.org)
  763. # [18:08] <gsnedders> http://pastebin.ca/812265 — anyone able to eyeball that?
  764. # [18:09] * Joins: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@adsl-065-081-081-030.sip.bhm.bellsouth.net)
  765. # [18:10] <Philip`> It seems a harder problem if authors are doing their own encoding, since they'll need easy-to-use suitably-priced tools, which means it's nice if e.g. Windows Movie Maker can generate it directly, whereas YouTube can pay for an encoder (I assume they already do for FLV) and can do all the fiddly setup
  766. # [18:11] <G0k> gsnedders: looks good to me
  767. # [18:11] * Quits: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@233.80-203-100.nextgentel.com) ("Leaving")
  768. # [18:13] <madness> gsnedders: looks sane.
  769. # [18:13] <Philip`> gsnedders: Maybe you should say explicitly that the companies are already taking the submarine patent risk on e.g. MPEG4 (and occasionally getting hit by it), i.e. it's not a unique problem to Theora, but they prefer not to take on the additional risk from a new codec
  770. # [18:13] <gsnedders> Philip`: ah, yeah, better add that.
  771. # [18:15] <Philip`> ('MPEG4 has as much risk as Theora' may be true, but the relevant point is that MPEG4+Theora has more risk than MPEG4 alone)
  772. # [18:16] <G0k> yeah that's a really excellent point there
  773. # [18:17] <Philip`> gsnedders: Also, it's probably correcter to say Apple doesn't intend to implement Ogg just because the spec requires it (as opposed to "even if the spec requires it")
  774. # [18:17] <G0k> Apple/Microsoft/Google already have patent exposure on MPEG
  775. # [18:17] <G0k> not so on Ogg
  776. # [18:17] <gsnedders> Philip`: s/correcter/more correct/
  777. # [18:17] <gsnedders> :)
  778. # [18:17] <gsnedders> :P
  779. # [18:19] <G0k> the best part so who wants to start a petition to get MPEG-LA to grant an exception for MPEG patent use in open source web browsers?
  780. # [18:19] <Philip`> gsnedders: Also, "It won't be supported by all standards-compatible browsers" is untrue in the situation you were responding to, where support was required by the standards and hence anything without support would not be standards-compatible
  781. # [18:20] <G0k> isn't this what eventually happened with certain accessibility patents in HTML?
  782. # [18:20] <gsnedders> Philip`: I thought he/she meant the (Fx/Saf/Op)s of the world
  783. # [18:21] <gsnedders> Philip`: "It won't be supported by all (currently) standards-compatible browsers"?
  784. # [18:21] <Philip`> gsnedders: Hmm, I suppose that's a reasonable interpretation
  785. # [18:21] <gsnedders> That covers both.
  786. # [18:22] <Philip`> There's IE too, which is standards-compatible (though not perfectly standards-compatible, but no other web browser is either)
  787. # [18:22] <gsnedders> "IIt won't be supported by all (currently) "standards-compatible" browsers"? :P
  788. # [18:22] <G0k> by charter what wg members?
  789. # [18:23] <gsnedders> G0k: huh?
  790. # [18:23] <G0k> s/"all (currently) standards-compatible browsers"/"original WHAT WG member-made browsers
  791. # [18:24] <gsnedders> ergh.
  792. # [18:24] <gsnedders> That cuts out too many others.
  793. # [18:24] <gsnedders> Konqueror, iCab, etc.
  794. # [18:24] <G0k> sigh
  795. # [18:24] <G0k> the non-IE browsers
  796. # [18:24] <gsnedders> or recent non-Trident browsers :P
  797. # [18:25] <G0k> it would be strangely microsoftian if they announced IE8 would support Ogg now
  798. # [18:25] <gsnedders> we're overcomplicating this.
  799. # [18:25] <gsnedders> http://xkcd.com/309/
  800. # [18:26] <G0k> heh
  801. # [18:27] <Dashiva> There's so much FUD in the pro-OGG mails, it's scary :)
  802. # [18:27] <G0k> ok i have to state a complaint here
  803. # [18:27] <G0k> it's "Ogg"
  804. # [18:27] <G0k> not "OGG"
  805. # [18:27] <gsnedders> http://pastebin.ca/812288?
  806. # [18:28] <gsnedders> Philip`: that address MPEG4 submarine well enough?
  807. # [18:28] <Dashiva> G0k: It's easier to keep holding the shift key than to let go and hope it doesn't become OGg
  808. # [18:28] <gsnedders> Dashiva: peh. learn to type.
  809. # [18:28] <gsnedders> Dashiva: or do what I do in IRC and use very few capitals :)
  810. # [18:29] <Dashiva> But ogg is also wrong :P
  811. # [18:29] <G0k> ogg is easier on the eyes than OGG
  812. # [18:29] <Philip`> It's easier if someone on this channel called themselves Ogg, and then we could use tab completion
  813. # [18:29] <Philip`> s/It's/It would be/
  814. # [18:29] <Dashiva> You're a genius
  815. # [18:29] <G0k> it's like when people call apple's computing platform "MAC"
  816. # [18:29] <gsnedders> Nobody on freenode call Ogg. go ahead.
  817. # [18:30] <gsnedders> s/call/called/
  818. # [18:30] <Philip`> gsnedders: Sounds good to me now :-)
  819. # [18:30] * gsnedders has found one more thing to add
  820. # [18:30] <doublec> "don't want to take the risk of being sued for submarine patents which are known to exist for Ogg/Vorbis/Theora"
  821. # [18:30] * gsnedders wonders whether it is worth CC'ing to public-html to give all this reasoning there too, or whether that'll cause chaos
  822. # [18:30] <doublec> what are the known submarine patents?
  823. # [18:30] <Dashiva> So one of the mails suggests we should just let google decide... that's novel
  824. # [18:30] <doublec> if they were known, they wouldn't be submarine
  825. # [18:32] * gsnedders nudges annevk
  826. # [18:32] <G0k> heh you know
  827. # [18:32] <G0k> Google Video Codec
  828. # [18:33] <annevk> uh?
  829. # [18:33] <G0k> kinda rolls off the tongue
  830. # [18:33] <gsnedders> "Also, if it a MUST everyone in the WG would be issuing a RF license covering any patents they hold covering Ogg/Vorbis/Theora to everyone else in the WG (as per <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential>), which companies such as MS and Nokia have said they are unwilling to do"; does that sound all right as a penultimate paragraph?
  831. # [18:33] <Dashiva> ogg = open google graphics!
  832. # [18:33] <gsnedders> annevk: you among others have made mention of known patents covering Ogg/etc
  833. # [18:34] <G0k> FLV = feeling lucky video
  834. # [18:34] <annevk> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg_Theora
  835. # [18:34] <annevk> second paragraph
  836. # [18:34] <gsnedders> annevk: ah, you were just referring to those patents
  837. # [18:35] <annevk> everyone is, afaict
  838. # [18:35] <Philip`> gsnedders: Maybe conclude with some point encouraging people to try to establish Theora as a de-facto standard because that'll be the most effective way of getting browser support for it?
  839. # [18:36] <gsnedders> annevk: some people have said there are known patents outwith of those
  840. # [18:36] <Philip`> (to avoid sounding like you don't want Theora to succeed)
  841. # [18:36] <G0k> great, now we get a drive of people making the mediocre de facto. splendid.
  842. # [18:37] <doublec> gsnedders: yes, but a lot of people are saying things that aren't necessarily true. On both sides of course.
  843. # [18:37] <Philip`> I remember people saying their legal departments thought there was probably a significant risk of submarine patents, but don't remember anyone saying they knew of any in particular (or had even looked for any)
  844. # [18:37] * gsnedders wouldn't have remembered it'd been said if it weren't someone he trusts
  845. # [18:37] <doublec> better I think would be to scratch the 'which are known to exist'
  846. # [18:38] <doublec> It's true they don't want to take on the risk of submarine patents
  847. # [18:38] <gsnedders> doublec: already done :)
  848. # [18:38] <doublec> cool :)
  849. # [18:38] <doublec> The risk is on their for whatever codec they choose. It's just they've already taken the risk for one particular codec.
  850. # [18:39] <doublec> and aren't keen to take it on for another
  851. # [18:39] <doublec> from what I can gather
  852. # [18:39] <gsnedders> doublec: well, more than one codec :P
  853. # [18:39] <doublec> and bonus if they actually get income from various patents related to those codecs too :)
  854. # [18:40] <csarven> how does a browser know (or the process that it goes through) that a deprecated block level element is to be displayed block in HTML 4.10 Strict?
  855. # [18:40] <csarven> (i only tested <menu> in Firefox2)
  856. # [18:41] <gsnedders> Philip`: "If you truly do want make no compromises yourself, you may be able to get the major browser manufacturers that are currently unwilling to implement Ogg/Vorbis/Theora by getting a critical mass of content already out there. Bare in mind, though, that MS still does not support MPEG-4 out of the box (except for Zune), despite the huge amount of MPEG-4 content already out there"?
  857. # [18:41] <Philip`> csarven: The same as how it knows an undeprecated block level element is to be displayed block
  858. # [18:42] <Dashiva> One point many seem to gloss over is that Apple and MS already had video codecs for their OS anyway, it's not like they paid for them for browser use
  859. # [18:42] <csarven> Philip` that means that the browser displays a set of elements in their default displays regardless of the doctype
  860. # [18:43] <Philip`> gsnedders: s/Bare/Bear/, and also the first sentence misparses as "... major browser manufacturers that are (currently unwilling to implement Ogg/...) by getting ..."
  861. # [18:43] <gsnedders> s/Theora/Theora to implement them/?
  862. # [18:44] <G0k> Dashiva: yeah but that's unfair to Opera + Mozilla
  863. # [18:44] <Dashiva> It's not about whether it's fair or not, it's just a fact
  864. # [18:45] <csarven> Philip` so then how does the browser differentiate between a set of elements thats to be displayed and the DTD?
  865. # [18:45] <Philip`> csarven: Yes - browsers support all elements regardless of the doctype, and the only effect of the doctype is to trigger certain buggy rendering behaviour
  866. # [18:45] <gsnedders> I also imply that MS support MPEG-4, which is untrue
  867. # [18:45] <Philip`> csarven: It just ignores the DTD
  868. # [18:46] <csarven> whats an example of a buggy rendering behaviour for the doctypes?
  869. # [18:46] <Philip`> gsnedders: That makes my brain parse it correctly :-)
  870. # [18:47] <gsnedders> Philip`: re-reading caused a fatal error in my brain too :)
  871. # [18:47] <gsnedders> csarven: IE box model
  872. # [18:47] <doublec> on the mailing list is mentioned a analysis by Dave Singer regarding codecs. Does anyone have a link to that?
  873. # [18:47] <Lachy> csarven, look up Quirks Mode
  874. # [18:48] <gsnedders> doublec: <http://www.w3.org/mid/p06240820c379fc1ecf69@%5B17.202.35.52%5D>
  875. # [18:48] <doublec> thanks gsnedders
  876. # [18:49] <Lachy> csarven, http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Mozilla_Quirks_Mode_Behavior
  877. # [18:49] <csarven> if i understand this correctly; the elements that the browser displays (how and what to do with it) is not borrowed from a specific DTD?
  878. # [18:50] <csarven> it belongs to SUPER_DTD of some sort?
  879. # [18:50] <Lachy> csarven, correct. The DTD is completely irrelevant to browsers.
  880. # [18:50] <G0k> aw man support vector machines are making my computer cry
  881. # [18:50] <Philip`> csarven: See what they said, or e.g. http://tinyurl.com/2act2m vs http://tinyurl.com/23pyfv
  882. # [18:51] <Philip`> (where "bgcolor" is supported in both cases, but invalid values in the bgcolor are only supported in one case, at least in a few of the browsers)
  883. # [18:51] <csarven> alright cool. thanks :)
  884. # [18:51] <gsnedders> I think <http://pastebin.ca/812313> addresses all the feedback
  885. # [18:51] <gsnedders> ergh. quotes aren't marked.
  886. # [18:52] <gsnedders> I think you guys know what the quotes are by now :)
  887. # [18:53] <Philip`> csarven: The set of elements supported by a browser is usually just spread through all its C++ code - they don't have a simple list saying what exists
  888. # [18:53] <gsnedders> <http://pastebin.ca/812315> marks the quotes
  889. # [18:53] <Lachy> gsnedders, why didn't you just reply in a proper email
  890. # [18:54] <gsnedders> Lachy: "proper" how?
  891. # [18:54] <gsnedders> Lachy: all this is is a draft :P
  892. # [18:56] <Philip`> gsnedders: Still s/Bare/Bear/ :-p
  893. # [18:56] <gsnedders> Philip`: see, that's why I said thought :)
  894. # [18:56] <Lachy> gsnedders, ok. didn't realise it was just a draft.
  895. # [18:57] <gsnedders> Lachy: the fact I've now been editing it for 49 minutes may make you think that, yeah :)
  896. # [18:57] <gsnedders> (and have now been dragged into an IM convo)
  897. # [19:00] <Lachy> gsnedders, I've only been watching the conversation for 5 minutes, so I didn't know
  898. # [19:01] <gsnedders> Is it worth copying it to public-html to explain a lot of it there, or will that cause more chaos than it is worth.
  899. # [19:01] <Lachy> when did MS and Nokia say they were unwilling to give up any patents they have covering ogg theora?
  900. # [19:02] <gsnedders> week or two ago
  901. # [19:02] <Lachy> it's highly unlikely that they actually have any patents covering it anyway
  902. # [19:02] <gsnedders> MS have a large number of video/audio coded patents, though
  903. # [19:03] <Philip`> gsnedders: Seems worthwhile to send/copy to whatwg@whatwg.org, but probably not worth dragging public-html into the unproductive discussion since there hasn't been any misinformation there yet
  904. # [19:04] <Philip`> Oh, was it in response to a whatwg@... post?
  905. # [19:04] <Philip`> Oh, no, it was the help@ one
  906. # [19:04] <gsnedders> Philip`: it was sent to both, IIRC
  907. # [19:04] * Philip` was confused by the line wrapping and didn't recognise it
  908. # [19:05] <gsnedders> Philip`: yeah, both
  909. # [19:05] <Lachy> I'd rather not see the debate continue much longer. It will continue to be entirely unproductive
  910. # [19:05] * Quits: madness (n=mng@91.84.56.254)
  911. # [19:06] * Parts: Camaban (n=adrianle@host217-41-27-233.in-addr.btopenworld.com)
  912. # [19:06] <Philip`> gsnedders: Oh, so it was, but I don't seem to have received that message
  913. # [19:07] <Philip`> I have eight messages under "[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*" and nothing else :-/
  914. # [19:08] <G0k> i honestly can't read the word "preposterous" without thinking of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-3qncy5Qfk
  915. # [19:09] * Joins: Polar (i=polar@polar.xen.chris-lamb.co.uk)
  916. # [19:10] <Philip`> I think we should find an area that isn't actually controversial, but make a controversial change, and then spread it on Digg and Reddit and everywhere and get people to sign up to the mailing list and argue against it, and then wait a few days and say "wow, you're right, let's change back" and then we'll have a few dozen more members than before
  917. # [19:10] <gsnedders> :D
  918. # [19:11] <gsnedders> So more irrational arguments?
  919. # [19:11] <G0k> yeah
  920. # [19:11] <gsnedders> Philip`: should we make XHTML illegal?
  921. # [19:12] <G0k> "Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich don't support HTML 5!"
  922. # [19:13] <G0k> wow "an outrageous disaster"
  923. # [19:15] <Dashiva> gsnedders: On pain of death, even
  924. # [19:15] * Philip` hasn't received any emails after http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013168.html :-(
  925. # [19:15] <Philip`> Some of them weren't about Ogg, so I hope they turn up eventually
  926. # [19:17] <G0k> i'm suprised we haven't got any matroska trolls yet
  927. # [19:17] <Dashiva> matroska is the best codec in the world when used in a mov container
  928. # [19:17] <Dashiva> there, happy?
  929. # [19:17] <G0k> excellent
  930. # [19:17] <G0k> no wait
  931. # [19:18] <G0k> matroska is the best codec in the world when used in a theora container
  932. # [19:18] <Philip`> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013120.html ?
  933. # [19:18] <G0k> especially when combined with tarkin audio
  934. # [19:19] <G0k> heh ohz
  935. # [19:19] <gsnedders> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013186.html
  936. # [19:20] <Philip`> By the way, "Matroska trolls" is an excellent phrase
  937. # [19:20] <G0k> i guess i fail to understand why it's been deemed required to specify audio and video formats while image formats worked fine without specifications
  938. # [19:22] <MikeSmith> if Matroska trolls, then Oggres?
  939. # [19:23] <annevk> G0k, image formats will be in there in due course
  940. # [19:23] * Quits: weinig (n=weinig@c-71-198-185-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  941. # [19:24] <G0k> MikeSmith: Imp-egs
  942. # [19:24] <G0k> (a stretch i know)
  943. # [19:25] <annevk> one of these slashdot posts points to http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/diff/ which seems wrong
  944. # [19:25] <MikeSmith> G0k - I raise the Goblet of Rock unto you for the effort
  945. # [19:28] <G0k> uhm
  946. # [19:29] <G0k> where the hell is rudd-o getting is information
  947. # [19:29] <Dashiva> G0k: Imp Eggs if so :)
  948. # [19:29] <G0k> " Where would we be today if the HTML
  949. # [19:29] <G0k> spec didn't specify jpg, gif, and png as baseline standards for the image
  950. # [19:29] <G0k> tag?"
  951. # [19:29] <G0k> you mean like...the way it doesn't?
  952. # [19:30] <G0k> all HTML 4.0.1 says is " Examples of widely recognized image formats include GIF, JPEG, and PNG."
  953. # [19:31] <G0k> says nothing about should, may, must....
  954. # [19:31] * Joins: roc (n=roc@121-72-24-31.dsl.telstraclear.net)
  955. # [19:31] <G0k> In fact, you know what, I'm going to say that
  956. # [19:31] <tndH> the requirement for ogg should be in a <blink>, see if we get a new /. story every few seconds
  957. # [19:31] <annevk> HTML5 will require those, fwiw
  958. # [19:31] <annevk> probably also APNG
  959. # [19:32] * Joins: bitcrumb (n=Lode@120.90-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be)
  960. # [19:32] <G0k> yeah but....the argument that JPEG/GIF/PNG only happened because the HTML standard mandated them is not valid
  961. # [19:32] * Quits: bitcrumb (n=Lode@120.90-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be) (Client Quit)
  962. # [19:32] <annevk> yeah, we've been lucky with those
  963. # [19:32] <gsnedders> annevk: but patents on them?
  964. # [19:32] * Joins: bitcrumb (n=Lode@120.90-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be)
  965. # [19:33] * Quits: bitcrumb (n=Lode@120.90-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be) (Remote closed the connection)
  966. # [19:33] <gsnedders> annevk: or are we just ignoring them?
  967. # [19:33] * annevk is confused
  968. # [19:33] <Lachy> there were patents covering GIF compression, but not decomopression, so browsers could implement it freely
  969. # [19:34] * Quits: jruderman (n=jruderma@c-67-180-15-227.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  970. # [19:34] * Quits: Yarou (n=himurake@unaffiliated/yarou) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  971. # [19:34] <Dashiva> What does Apple gain (not save) from mpeg use growing?
  972. # [19:35] <roc> when browsers started supporting GIF they didn't know about the patents
  973. # [19:35] <G0k> Dashiva: takes market share away from Windows Media
  974. # [19:35] <gsnedders> Dashiva: patent charges
  975. # [19:35] <G0k> Dashiva: plus they have 200 million ipods which play MPEG
  976. # [19:36] <gsnedders> Lachy: and JPEG/PNG?
  977. # [19:36] <G0k> so they want their customers to be able to play them
  978. # [19:36] <Lachy> don't know about jpeg.
  979. # [19:37] <Dashiva> gsnedders: So they do get money? Okay, was wondering
  980. # [19:37] <gsnedders> Dashiva: I'm not sure what the cuts are between the patent holders. it's 0.75USD in total per implementation, Apple will likely get less than 0.10USD
  981. # [19:37] <Lachy> png was designed to avoid all patents somehow
  982. # [19:38] <G0k> there's also a dirty little secret about the MPEG patents
  983. # [19:38] <G0k> they have caps on how much money a company can pay
  984. # [19:38] <G0k> so Apple just pays the cap every year
  985. # [19:38] <G0k> and then they're covered
  986. # [19:39] <Dashiva> Also, re:jpeg/gif/png, IE6 had awesome support for PNG, amirite
  987. # [19:39] <G0k> yeah clearly mandating PNG as a W3C spec really helped there
  988. # [19:39] <gsnedders> G0k: $300k, IIRC
  989. # [19:40] <G0k> gsnedders: er i think it's more like $3.5 million now
  990. # [19:40] * Dashiva realizes that if this conversation was about accessibility, there would be at least two formal objections raised by now
  991. # [19:40] <gsnedders> G0k: it was mentioned on public-html/whatwg a while back, I'm just trying to remember :P
  992. # [19:40] <G0k> yeah i mean the point is
  993. # [19:40] <gsnedders> you pay per shipped binary implementation of a standard up to that limit, though.
  994. # [19:40] <G0k> the way patent pools are set up
  995. # [19:40] <G0k> it's highly anti-competitive
  996. # [19:41] <G0k> because big companies just pay the cap
  997. # [19:41] <G0k> little companies are fucked
  998. # [19:41] <gsnedders> it's a huge number of copies you need to ship, though
  999. # [19:41] <G0k> yeah so...apple doesn't care about selling 100 million ipods, microsoft about 10 million xboxes...
  1000. # [19:42] <G0k> me and my friends who want to sell 100,000 copies of software, we get screwed
  1001. # [19:42] <doublec> 4.25 million for 2007/2008
  1002. # [19:42] * Joins: sYn-Zilch (n=fuz007@ip68-111-154-116.sd.sd.cox.net)
  1003. # [19:42] <doublec> 5 million for 2009/2010
  1004. # [19:42] * Quits: Thezilch (n=fuz007@ip68-111-154-116.sd.sd.cox.net) (Connection reset by peer)
  1005. # [19:43] <doublec> according to: http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf
  1006. # [19:43] <G0k> alright so...point is, apple net pays like 2 cents per ipod
  1007. # [19:43] <G0k> me, i'd pay more like $2
  1008. # [19:43] <G0k> that's a huge competitive advantage apple has
  1009. # [19:44] <G0k> so yeah, that's another reason apple might have to make sure that mpeg spreads
  1010. # [19:46] <annevk> so the storage spec changed, was Mozilla contacted?
  1011. # [19:46] <doublec> Paying that money still doesn't prevent problems with patent holders who aren't part of the mpeg-la wanting to negotiate their own agreements
  1012. # [19:47] <doublec> or those that try to work around the mpeg-la agreement: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=21774
  1013. # [19:47] <gsnedders> G0k: I truly doubt there is anything except submarines causing issues
  1014. # [19:47] <annevk> there's https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=337311#c18
  1015. # [19:48] <G0k> doublec: they're going to have to fight those battles anyway, the question is whether they want to fight more battles too
  1016. # [19:49] <gsnedders> G0k: to take the MP3 submarine case, it's the diff between 1.52 giga-dollars, and 3.04 giga-dollars, a big difference.
  1017. # [19:49] <gsnedders> (yes, I did just use SI prefixes for money :))
  1018. # [19:50] <Dashiva> It's a good idea if you ask me
  1019. # [19:51] <Dashiva> Saves the whole "what is a billion" issue
  1020. # [19:51] * Joins: tndH_ (i=Rob@adsl-77-86-6-102.karoo.KCOM.COM)
  1021. # [19:51] <gsnedders> yeah, that's half the reason I used it there
  1022. # [19:51] <gsnedders> but there again, what is a dollar?
  1023. # [19:51] <G0k> gsnedders: is that 1.52 * 2^30 dollars or 1.52 * 10^9?
  1024. # [19:51] <gsnedders> G0k: see the SI prefixes.
  1025. # [19:51] <Dashiva> gibi-dollars? :)
  1026. # [19:51] <gsnedders> G0k: I don't go for the non-standard former option.
  1027. # [19:51] <G0k> ah not gibi-bucks
  1028. # [19:53] <Dashiva> Poor gsnedders, all alone against the email horde
  1029. # [19:53] * gsnedders has stopped
  1030. # [19:53] <G0k> i'm with you! kinda
  1031. # [19:53] <gsnedders> well, I'm not writing anything that long again
  1032. # [19:53] <gsnedders> anything I can answer in three sentences or less I'll do.
  1033. # [19:55] <Dashiva> That makes me wonder, how would you summarize HTML5 in three sentences or less
  1034. # [19:55] <G0k> Awesome. New. Standard.
  1035. # [19:55] <G0k> or
  1036. # [19:55] <G0k> Best. HTML. Ever.
  1037. # [19:56] <Dashiva> Shouldn't it be "yet"? :)
  1038. # [19:56] <G0k> well, summary needs to lose a little precision
  1039. # [19:56] <Dashiva> true
  1040. # [19:56] <gsnedders> Defined parsing for text/html. HTML/XHTML both defined in a single document relative to their DOM. <canvas>, <embed>, <video>, and <audio> defined and conformant.
  1041. # [19:56] <G0k> technically, those are are sentence fragments
  1042. # [19:57] <G0k> i think hixie should do one of his patent pending "see how often a feature is used" thing to see how many theora links actually exist
  1043. # [20:04] * Quits: sYn-Zilch (n=fuz007@ip68-111-154-116.sd.sd.cox.net) (Connection timed out)
  1044. # [20:04] * Quits: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.140) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  1045. # [20:04] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.140)
  1046. # [20:07] * Joins: jruderman (n=jruderma@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com)
  1047. # [20:08] * Quits: tndH (i=Rob@87.102.10.86) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1048. # [20:10] * Quits: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.140)
  1049. # [20:13] <Dashiva> By the way, when do I get my share of the quick buck? :)
  1050. # [20:14] * Quits: grimeboy (n=grimboy@85-211-246-139.dsl.pipex.com) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1051. # [20:15] * Joins: hasather (n=hasather@90-231-107-133-no62.tbcn.telia.com)
  1052. # [20:18] * Joins: jgraham (n=jgraham@81-86-217-3.dsl.pipex.com)
  1053. # [20:20] * Joins: weinig (n=weinig@17.203.15.140)
  1054. # [20:29] * Joins: _Ivo (n=ivo@89.180.105.255)
  1055. # [20:35] <bradee-goesHome> I was just thinking the same thing
  1056. # [20:35] <bradee-goesHome> Hixie: are you holding out on us???
  1057. # [20:35] * bradee-goesHome is now known as bradee-oh
  1058. # [20:35] <gsnedders> I must admit I do like how everyone thinks that Hixie must've been paid for this.
  1059. # [20:46] <Philip`> I find it strange that so many people get trapped inside King's College - whenever I'm there in an evening, there's always one or two people standing by the (locked) back gate, looking a bit lost and confused, occasionally shaking the gate a little, until a kind student with a key happens to come along and let them out
  1060. # [20:49] * Philip` assumes the average inter-arrival time is low enough that nobody is going to freeze to death while waiting, but isn't entirely confident about that
  1061. # [20:51] <gsnedders> Philip`: the back gate, on the far side of the Cam?
  1062. # [20:52] <Philip`> Yes
  1063. # [20:52] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.179)
  1064. # [20:52] * gsnedders never knew that got locked
  1065. # [20:53] <gsnedders> there again, I've never been through King's on my own
  1066. # [20:53] <gsnedders> Always been with my mother (daughter of former teacher) or sister (who has an MA from Cambridge)
  1067. # [20:54] * Quits: G0k (n=hmason@hermes.mae.cornell.edu)
  1068. # [20:55] * Joins: grimeboy (n=grimboy@78.150.244.113)
  1069. # [20:55] <Philip`> It gets locked at about 18:30, at least around this time of year, but it seems most people don't know that until just when they're trying to get through it
  1070. # [20:55] <gsnedders> Long way back, if you have to go back :\
  1071. # [20:55] <gsnedders> Then a long way around.
  1072. # [20:57] <Philip`> Observational evidence indicates that you can simply climb around the side of the gate where it's above a sometimes-river sometimes-ditch, so it's not exactly great security
  1073. # [20:58] <gsnedders> Are the fences round Kings that small?
  1074. # [21:01] <Hixie> holy crap. given how many people thought that the spec saying Ogg actually meant we had settled on Ogg, I'm extremely glad I made teh change.
  1075. # [21:01] <Philip`> There aren't any fences at that point (except of the tiny "please keep off the grass" variety), perhaps since they assume (quite reasonably) the only people stupid enough to climb around that way are students who should be allowed in anyway
  1076. # [21:02] <gsnedders> ah. true.
  1077. # [21:02] <gsnedders> and it isn't and overly nice ditch.
  1078. # [21:02] <gsnedders> *an
  1079. # [21:03] <Teratogen> bring back ogg!
  1080. # [21:04] <annevk> man, media query parsing is painful
  1081. # [21:05] * Philip` wonders if it's possible to make something equivalent to BNF that does all the error handling stuff that's needed in practice
  1082. # [21:08] <annevk> Philip`, is it possible to do another HTML survey checking values of media="" ?
  1083. # [21:09] <annevk> on <link> and <style> on hopefully a lot of sites?
  1084. # [21:10] <Philip`> Looks like ~10% of pages have media, so it should be reasonable to collect some number of them
  1085. # [21:10] <hsivonen> annevk: re: partial <video>: actually, it's important to get the <source> selection right enough not to poison it for the future
  1086. # [21:11] <annevk> not having <source> would suffice for now
  1087. # [21:12] <roc> hmm
  1088. # [21:12] <roc> what's this about partial <video>?
  1089. # [21:13] <annevk> i think it was about a release of Firefox that implemented a subset of HTML5
  1090. # [21:13] <annevk> <video>
  1091. # [21:13] <roc> was doublec involved?
  1092. # [21:14] <annevk> yeah
  1093. # [21:14] <Philip`> hsivonen: I think you suggested HttpClient in the past, so I was wondering if you happen to know if there's an easy way to cache responses? (Ideally it would work exactly like normal except it would never download the same file twice)
  1094. # [21:14] <roc> regardless, can someone summarize to the list?
  1095. # [21:14] * roc has to go
  1096. # [21:14] * Quits: roc (n=roc@121-72-24-31.dsl.telstraclear.net)
  1097. # [21:15] <Philip`> (I've not found anything better than manually saving the URI/headers/body into some kind of databasey thing)
  1098. # [21:16] <annevk> Philip`, cool, that would be useful
  1099. # [21:16] * annevk needs to know how much web pages rely on crazy-ass stuff in media=""
  1100. # [21:16] * tndH_ is now known as tndH
  1101. # [21:20] <Hixie> hey
  1102. # [21:20] <Hixie> all this talk about codecs has done wonders for our membership
  1103. # [21:20] <annevk> Hixie, you can do this too maybe
  1104. # [21:20] <Hixie> we're up to 840+
  1105. # [21:20] <annevk> Hixie, research values of media=""
  1106. # [21:21] <dglazkov> Hixie, quick, zap something else from the spec. We can quadruple the membership by the end of the week!
  1107. # [21:21] <annevk> whether or not we can drop the crazy-ass HTML4 rules for what's specified now in HTML5 is depending on such a thing
  1108. # [21:21] <Hixie> probably won't happen for a while, but if you have a specific request, e.g. "top 200 values", send mail to ianh@google.com
  1109. # [21:21] <Hixie> annevk: ^
  1110. # [21:21] <Hixie> dglazkov: hah
  1111. # [21:22] <annevk> k, hopefully your future data will back up Philip`'s data :)
  1112. # [21:22] <hsivonen> annevk: HTML5 probably shouldn't require JPEG but the subset of JFIF/JPEG supported by the IJG code (that is, no arithmetic coding).
  1113. # [21:22] <gsnedders> For an I-D/RFC, should a reference that needs to be read to understand an informative section be normative or not?
  1114. # [21:22] <Hixie> oh and anne, anytime you want to add caching to the diff script, please feel free to do so :-P
  1115. # [21:23] <annevk> hehe
  1116. # [21:23] * gsnedders wonders why Hixie wants caching :P
  1117. # [21:24] <Hixie> it certainly has nothing to do with the diff script being posted to reddit, no sirree
  1118. # [21:25] <annevk> i've yet to get the first offer for advertizements on html5.org
  1119. # [21:25] <doublec> does the opera build with <video> support <source>?
  1120. # [21:25] <annevk> no
  1121. # [21:26] <annevk> our implementation is pretty basic
  1122. # [21:26] <gsnedders> Hixie: why would it? I mean, it wouldn't mean running a diff on every request, would it?
  1123. # [21:26] <hsivonen> Philip`: I don't know about HttpClient caching. for Validator.nu, I don't want caching, because it is rare to want to validate a cache page (except if Slashdot links to a validation result)
  1124. # [21:26] <doublec> I've got partial support for <source>. No media= yet
  1125. # [21:26] <annevk> <video controls src=theora>
  1126. # [21:26] <Hixie> gsnedders: right now every time you hit anne's page it causes my subversion server to use 50% CPU for a second or so
  1127. # [21:26] <annevk> and some scripting
  1128. # [21:26] <annevk> and a closing tag
  1129. # [21:27] <gsnedders> Hixie: yeah, I know. :)
  1130. # [21:27] <doublec> And we only use the <source> with a type of video/ogg
  1131. # [21:27] <gsnedders> Hixie: I mean, we're never sarcastic, ever.
  1132. # [21:27] <Hixie> hah
  1133. # [21:27] <gsnedders> I mean, I don't need to do my homework due on 20071103.
  1134. # [21:27] <gsnedders> sorry, 20071203.
  1135. # [21:27] <_Ivo> Hixie: regarding one of your recent reddit posts, if everyone including Apple is looking out for a solution to the problem, it may be worth considering putting a MUST there to avoid the possible submarine issues.
  1136. # [21:27] <gsnedders> not quite that overdue.
  1137. # [21:28] <gsnedders> _Ivo: that would only cover patents held by WG members.
  1138. # [21:28] <gsnedders> _Ivo: there are many more people who hold patents outwith of the WG.
  1139. # [21:28] <_Ivo> gsnedders: I see.
  1140. # [21:29] * gsnedders bursts out laughing reading the RFC Editor's instructions2authors.txt
  1141. # [21:30] <gsnedders> "Note that in past years the RFC Editor has sometimes published serious documents with April 1 dates. Readers who cannot distinguish satire by reading the text may have a future in marketing".
  1142. # [21:30] <Dashiva> So Hixie, how much did they pay you?
  1143. # [21:30] <dglazkov> one
  1144. # [21:30] <dglazkov> million
  1145. # [21:30] <dglazkov> dollars!
  1146. # [21:30] <gsnedders> earthlings
  1147. # [21:30] <hsivonen> annevk: shipping with src='' support without <source> support seems like a distincly bad idea unless the spec is modified to allow both src='' and <source> as conforming such that the src='' is used as the last resort if every <source> fails
  1148. # [21:30] <csarven> [15:19:37] <Hixie> all this talk about codecs has done wonders for our membership -- what membership are you referring to?
  1149. # [21:31] <hsivonen> csarven: whatwg list most likely
  1150. # [21:31] <annevk> hsivonen, no <video src> overrides <source>
  1151. # [21:31] <annevk> it's a shorthand
  1152. # [21:31] * csarven checks to see if he is on that list-thingy
  1153. # [21:31] <hsivonen> annevk: that sucks big time for forward compat
  1154. # [21:31] <csarven> i think i pulled out last year :S
  1155. # [21:31] <annevk> i don't follow
  1156. # [21:32] <Hixie> _Ivo: how do you mean?
  1157. # [21:32] <Hixie> Dashiva: seriously, if there was money in this, i'd be so much happier :-P
  1158. # [21:32] * Joins: roc (n=roc@202.0.36.64)
  1159. # [21:32] <Hixie> csarven: whatwg
  1160. # [21:32] <hsivonen> annevk: suppose Opera ships with src='' only and with Ogg/Vorbis/Theora only
  1161. # [21:33] <hsivonen> annevk: then later a browser comes along that supports Ogg/Vorbis/Dirac
  1162. # [21:33] <Dashiva> Hixie: Yeah, I suppose google took it all :P
  1163. # [21:33] * aroben is now known as aroben|lunch
  1164. # [21:33] <Hixie> i'm a little disturbed that slashdot summaries are on a first-name basis with me
  1165. # [21:33] <hsivonen> annevk: how would you author content such that it is conforming, doesn't use scripting to sniff Opera and would still cause Theora to play in legacy Opera and Dirac in new browsers?
  1166. # [21:34] <annevk> you wouldn't
  1167. # [21:34] <hsivonen> annevk: hence, sucks big time for forward compat
  1168. # [21:34] <annevk> i'm not convinced that authors will offer multiple video streams
  1169. # [21:34] <roc> I think we can implement <source> for FF3
  1170. # [21:34] <annevk> but this is experimental
  1171. # [21:34] <roc> I'm more worried about partial DOM APIs
  1172. # [21:34] <doublec> A developer from another browser asked if I'd be willing to add support for <source> so they could demo a page on their browser at firefox at the w3c workshop
  1173. # [21:35] <doublec> on the same page, with it falling back to the ogg source on firefox and mp4 on theirs
  1174. # [21:35] <doublec> which is why I added the currently limited support
  1175. # [21:36] <annevk> hmm, media= on <source>
  1176. # [21:36] <annevk> yet another hole for interop errors
  1177. # [21:36] <Dashiva> media="*"
  1178. # [21:36] <hsivonen> annevk: I think the codecs hole is bigger
  1179. # [21:37] <annevk> hsivonen, I would expect market pressure to get people to implement <source>
  1180. # [21:37] <doublec> where is 'a valid media query' defined?
  1181. # [21:37] <doublec> the link in the spec appears to go nowhere
  1182. # [21:37] <roc> CSS?
  1183. # [21:38] <annevk> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/
  1184. # [21:38] <doublec> thanks
  1185. # [21:38] <hsivonen> doublec: dbaron said on www-style that he has code
  1186. # [21:38] <doublec> thanks hsivonen
  1187. # [21:38] <annevk> however, the parsing details for media="" are not entirely clear yet
  1188. # [21:38] <annevk> but i guess that doesn't matter much initially
  1189. # [21:39] <hsivonen> I guess I should write tests that/demos that mix src='' and <source>
  1190. # [21:42] <Hixie> "Where would we be today if the HTML spec didn't specify jpg, gif, and png as baseline standards for the image tag?"
  1191. # [21:42] <Hixie> hah
  1192. # [21:42] <Hixie> i wonder if the person saying that knew what they were saying
  1193. # [21:42] <hsivonen> annevk: it's not unreasonable to expect people to develop automated encoding solutions that take a video file and spit out multiple formats and HTML that uses <source> for them
  1194. # [21:42] <annevk> i haven't seen a precedent for that
  1195. # [21:43] <hsivonen> annevk: Google Video already gives you 2 formats automatically
  1196. # [21:43] <Philip`> By "people", do you mean "normal people" or do you mean "YouTube/etc developers"?
  1197. # [21:43] <hsivonen> annevk: it used to give you 4!
  1198. # [21:43] <roc> Wikipedia serves video in multiple formats
  1199. # [21:43] <_Ivo> [20:38] <roc> Wikipedia serves video in multiple formats << I think you meant Internet Archive; Wikipedia does only Theora
  1200. # [21:43] <hsivonen> Philip`: I mean YouTube devs, blip.tv devs, and people who write scripts like the ones markp wrote for his video podcasts
  1201. # [21:44] <Philip`> archive.org gives 13 different versions of one of the videos on their front page
  1202. # [21:44] <roc> sorry, yes, you're right. I was thinking of something else
  1203. # [21:44] <Philip`> http://www.archive.org/details/VisittoS1963 - mostly various MPEGs, plus Real and Cinepack
  1204. # [21:45] <Philip`> and animated GIF, but I don't think that counts
  1205. # [21:45] <Philip`> and embedded FLV too
  1206. # [21:49] * Quits: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  1207. # [21:50] <aphid> right, if those 13 formats are uploaded by a user. pretty sure they only transcode to mp4 and mpeg1 though
  1208. # [21:50] <Philip`> hsivonen: About caching: Okay, thanks - I'll just try the obvious/dumb caching method
  1209. # [21:50] <hsivonen> Philip`: HttpClient has a lot of config but it is tedious to find what is where
  1210. # [21:51] <hsivonen> a couple of months ago I made an effort to find an online video hosting service that'd generate .ogg, .flv and .mp4 for me from any reasonable source file
  1211. # [21:51] <hsivonen> I found none
  1212. # [21:52] <hsivonen> blip.tv will host the files if the content provider encodes the files
  1213. # [21:52] <hsivonen> blip.tv only generates .flv
  1214. # [21:52] <hsivonen> I was rather disappointed
  1215. # [21:53] <hsivonen> (moreover, blip.tv is for episodic shows and doesn't work well as a hosting service for isolated videos)
  1216. # [21:53] <Philip`> FFmpeg/MEncoder make it 'easy' to convert into pretty much anything, though with varying quality-of-implementation for different formats, and with lots of pain when trying to find the best encoder settings the first time you set it up
  1217. # [21:55] <hsivonen> Philip`: that's why a driver script written by e.g. markp is needed
  1218. # [21:55] <doublec> but using that for a commercial service would be risky?
  1219. # [21:55] <doublec> according to ffmpeg's license faq
  1220. # [21:55] <hsivonen> doublec: the word out there is that Google uses ffmpeg and x264
  1221. # [21:56] <Philip`> hsivonen: Indeed - once you've got everything condensed into a script, then it's easy because you just feed it video files and get new video files popping out a (long) while later and everything is happy :-)
  1222. # [21:56] <hsivonen> doublec: my conjecture is that the work around GPLv2 and patents by never distributing the software and by paying patent license fees
  1223. # [21:57] <Dashiva> That rudd-O person is starting to annoy me. Especially when he CCs whatwg in a mail to... whatwg
  1224. # [21:58] * Joins: mpt (n=mpt@ip-81-1-117-61.cust.homechoice.net)
  1225. # [21:59] <gsnedders> goddamnit.
  1226. # [21:59] <gsnedders> I just did that in a Reply All to him.
  1227. # [21:59] <gsnedders> For an I-D/RFC, should a reference that needs to be read to understand an informative section be normative or not?
  1228. # [22:00] <annevk> i'd suggest to reply less to obvious flame wars
  1229. # [22:00] <annevk> give it a week or so
  1230. # [22:01] <Hixie> a pearl of wisdom from anne there
  1231. # [22:01] <gsnedders> Yeah, I probably should.
  1232. # [22:02] <Dashiva> Well, it's good to have a few sensible replies to point to later when people start talking about being ignored :)
  1233. # [22:02] * gsnedders guesses the school spec only says you SHOULD (under the [RFC2119] meaning) do homework
  1234. # [22:03] * aroben|lunch is now known as aroben
  1235. # [22:03] <gsnedders> i.e., if you have a good reason it's all right.
  1236. # [22:03] * Joins: Lachy (n=Lachlan@cm-84.215.41.149.getinternet.no)
  1237. # [22:05] <Philip`> Is doing homework a requirement for interoperability? If not, it shouldn't use a normative keyword at all
  1238. # [22:05] <Dashiva> Depends. Some tasks are MUST requirements to pass the course
  1239. # [22:05] <Dashiva> Philip`: Interoperability in grades
  1240. # [22:06] <gsnedders> Philip`: for your knowledge to be interoperable with the final exam, yes.
  1241. # [22:08] * Philip` tries to remember how to write Java
  1242. # [22:10] <hsivonen> Philip`: with Eclipse, it's all autocomplete--no remembering :-)
  1243. # [22:10] * gsnedders presses tab
  1244. # [22:10] <gsnedders> oh, nice, a full HTML parser.
  1245. # [22:12] <hsivonen> gsnedders: you need the Maven plug-in for that :-)
  1246. # [22:12] <Philip`> The autocomplete in Visual Assist (for Visual C++) is the nicest I've ever used (though admittedly I haven't used many others, except Eclipse) - it occasionally autocompleted entire lines of code for me
  1247. # [22:12] <mpt> annevk, or we could reply 2.5 years from now when none of the original posters are subscribed any more :-)
  1248. # [22:12] <hsivonen> (I should remember to advertize the Mavenization of the Validator.nu parser)
  1249. # [22:14] * Joins: kingryan (n=kingryan@74.95.195.25)
  1250. # [22:15] * gsnedders sighs
  1251. # [22:15] <gsnedders> Hixie: your website is blocked at my school
  1252. # [22:16] <gsnedders> literally everything is.
  1253. # [22:16] <Hixie> heh
  1254. # [22:16] <gsnedders> Sometimes I wonder why they don't just use a whitelist.
  1255. # [22:16] <gsnedders> It'd have the same affect more or less.
  1256. # [22:16] <gsnedders> it is proof that Hixie is more famous than myself, annevk, or Eric Meyer.
  1257. # [22:18] <Dashiva> I think it's because of his cats
  1258. # [22:18] <Dashiva> They probably got him on a porn filter
  1259. # [22:18] * Quits: ROBOd (n=robod@89.122.216.38) ("http://www.robodesign.ro")
  1260. # [22:19] <gsnedders> That would explain why Molly is blocked too…
  1261. # [22:22] * MikeSmith wonders how come gsnedders don't post about HTML5 on his blog more
  1262. # [22:22] <gsnedders> MikeSmith: because… my lust life is more interesting?
  1263. # [22:23] <gsnedders> Or, more seriously, I don't have the time.
  1264. # [22:23] <gsnedders> three posts in Oct and Nov, one in Sep…
  1265. # [22:24] <_Ivo> An actual good comment from reddit: "So, let me get this: one member of the group wants a change, and it happens? I thought it was one member, one vote. The size or capitalization or your corporation shouldn't matter."
  1266. # [22:24] <gsnedders> it's never been one member/one vote in the W3C.
  1267. # [22:24] <_Ivo> It's supposedly two members, though, but the point remains.
  1268. # [22:24] <Dashiva> one member, one vote is IEEE, isn't it?
  1269. # [22:25] <gsnedders> Dashiva: IETF certainly, dunno about IEEE
  1270. # [22:25] <_Ivo> So, how does the WHATWG achieves consensus?
  1271. # [22:25] <gsnedders> _Ivo: the editor decides based on grounds of the strengths of the argument
  1272. # [22:25] <Hixie> _Ivo: with more than 800 participants, we can never achieve true consensus. basically, i try to balance everyone's arguments and take the best approach each time.
  1273. # [22:26] <Hixie> sometimes people disagree, and then we change the approach and try again.
  1274. # [22:28] <_Ivo> Yes, but your entire argument seems to be based on the lack of consensus
  1275. # [22:30] <gsnedders> _Ivo: remember the same spec is the W3C document, and that there you can formally object. we simply wouldn't have been able to publish the document in that state.
  1276. # [22:31] <_Ivo> That is one good reason.
  1277. # [22:32] <gsnedders> Vorbis has also been tested more in the real world (GTA:SA, UE2.5–3.0) than Theora (which has never had major companies shipping it)
  1278. # [22:33] <Dashiva> ROSE Online used both ogg and mp3, sometimes it had both versions of the same tune even
  1279. # [22:34] * kingryan is amused by the amount of attention this issue has gotten on the web
  1280. # [22:34] <_Ivo> gsnedders: That is certainly true. Although, Linux companies like Red Hat and Cannonical do shipt Theora.
  1281. # [22:34] <gsnedders> _Ivo: why was MS sued over MP3 not any other company? You wait till the biggest company you can get ships it.
  1282. # [22:35] <_Ivo> gsnedders: of note is that while MS was sued, the case was settled and MS has paid nothing to Alacatel so far, and probably never will.
  1283. # [22:36] <gsnedders> I'm well aware.
  1284. # [22:36] <_Ivo> if Microsoft had paid Alcatel, they would go after Apple and their iPod next
  1285. # [22:36] <Dashiva> The point is that they waited
  1286. # [22:37] <Hixie> sweet!
  1287. # [22:37] <Hixie> > Really if *anyone* should have any sway here (and I personally think
  1288. # [22:37] <Hixie> > that no 1 or 2 companies should) it should be Google lets face it they
  1289. # [22:37] <Hixie> > are the largest power on the Internet whether you love em/hate em/dont
  1290. # [22:37] <Hixie> > know who they are..
  1291. # [22:37] * Hixie informs the writer of his employment status
  1292. # [22:37] * gsnedders bows down before Hixie and other googlities
  1293. # [22:37] <Dashiva> uh-oh
  1294. # [22:38] <_Ivo> Well, Google will likely attent the W3C video workshop. Supposedly, an official statement will be made.
  1295. # [22:38] <Dashiva> That could backfire, suddenly Google is running errands for the other companies
  1296. # [22:38] <_Ivo> attend*
  1297. # [22:40] <_Ivo> Is there any comment in Slashdot requesting people to post on the WHATWG list? Because new comments just keep coming.
  1298. # [22:40] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@adsl-065-081-081-030.sip.bhm.bellsouth.net) (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
  1299. # [22:40] <Hixie> yeah
  1300. # [22:40] <Hixie> there is
  1301. # [22:40] <_Ivo> oh great
  1302. # [22:41] <gsnedders> I'll try and be in #video while the discussion regarding HTML 5 at the Video workshop is on tomorrow
  1303. # [22:41] <kingryan> most of the comments are along the lines of "this is wrong. you're doing a bad thing. don't do it"
  1304. # [22:41] <kingryan> which no suggestions of a better way
  1305. # [22:41] <_Ivo> Yes, which is why they're not helping.
  1306. # [22:42] <kingryan> and why I've stopped responding to them
  1307. # [22:43] <kingryan> people seem to have the idea that if Ogg/* is in the spec, it will be implemented
  1308. # [22:43] <gsnedders> kingryan: but they will! the spec says so! it must be true!
  1309. # [22:43] <Dashiva> And that if it's not in the spec, nobody will ever touch it
  1310. # [22:43] <kingryan> with no clear reason on how you get from point A (spec) to point B (impl) to point C (deployment)
  1311. # [22:44] <kingryan> Dashiva: right
  1312. # [22:44] <kingryan> people don't realize that companies can still implement it
  1313. # [22:44] <kingryan> and, in fact, the spec probably won't make much difference in terms of what containers/codec get implemented
  1314. # [22:44] <kingryan> its like the tail wagging the dog
  1315. # [22:45] <_Ivo> kingryan: Well, it will certainly have a bigger chance of being implemented if it's there than if it's not. Not that big, but still notable.
  1316. # [22:45] <Dashiva> I see Hixie brought out the "sadly" again :)
  1317. # [22:46] <Hixie> hm?
  1318. # [22:46] <kingryan> _Ivo: I don't think that's true
  1319. # [22:46] <Hixie> _Ivo: not really
  1320. # [22:46] <Philip`> I wonder if it's fortunate that I've got a three hour delay on whatwg emails, so there's no danger of me even thinking about replying to someone
  1321. # [22:46] <Hixie> heh
  1322. # [22:47] * Quits: csarven (n=nevrasc@81-5-133-33.static.nfwebsolutions.com) ("http://www.csarven.ca")
  1323. # [22:49] <gsnedders> do we define any specific behaviour for invalid byte sequences for a given character set?
  1324. # [22:50] <Dashiva> Hixie: You used "sadly" 6 times in your latest mail.
  1325. # [22:50] <gsnedders> how sad.
  1326. # [22:50] <Dashiva> Reminded me of this: [13:24:38] <mpt> HTML5. Brought to you by the letter W, the number 5, and the word "Sadly".
  1327. # [22:51] * Quits: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.179) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  1328. # [22:51] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@209.79.152.179)
  1329. # [22:52] <_Ivo> Ah, it's that Amador guy who's asking people to e-mail WHATWG
  1330. # [22:52] <Hixie> Dashiva: hah
  1331. # [22:52] <Hixie> Dashiva: well it is a sad situation.
  1332. # [22:52] <Hixie> :-)
  1333. # [22:54] * gsnedders cries
  1334. # [22:55] * kingryan laughs at http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013210.html
  1335. # [22:55] <gsnedders> kingryan: I mean, our feed parsers should totally send that!
  1336. # [22:56] <kingryan> you mean "User-Agent: Please!" ?
  1337. # [22:56] <gsnedders> no, the Accept header
  1338. # [22:56] <gsnedders> IIS would send 400 Bad Request with an exclamation mark, I think
  1339. # [22:57] <gsnedders> actually, ! is fine.
  1340. # [22:58] <Philip`> annevk: Out of 32 sites, there's one <link media=screen> and one <style media=screen>
  1341. # [22:58] * Philip` tries to scale upwards a bit
  1342. # [23:00] * Parts: jdandrea (n=jdandrea@ool-44c0a1fe.dyn.optonline.net)
  1343. # [23:01] * gsnedders laughs at "I really wish I had" in Hixie's latest email
  1344. # [23:01] <Philip`> Hmm, I only just remembered that I've been sort of teaching people Java for the past two months, so I ought to actually know how to write it by now
  1345. # [23:02] * gsnedders concludes
  1346. # [23:02] <gsnedders> I won't make any further comment on Ogg till after the workshop tomorrow is over.
  1347. # [23:02] <gsnedders> (though I may spend a while writing an email addressing it)
  1348. # [23:03] * gsnedders runs off and falls alseep
  1349. # [23:03] * Quits: gsnedders (n=gsnedder@host86-135-224-200.range86-135.btcentralplus.com)
  1350. # [23:04] <Lachy> I really hate how the ogg discussion is spanning 3 separate mailing lists. I just wish it would stop!
  1351. # [23:07] <_Ivo> I think igoring the lists for now would be a good idea.
  1352. # [23:07] <kingryan> _Ivo: I agree
  1353. # [23:07] <_Ivo> ignoring*
  1354. # [23:07] <kingryan> I don't think there's anything any of us can say right now that will make a difference
  1355. # [23:08] <Hixie> 3?
  1356. # [23:08] <Dashiva> What's the third?
  1357. # [23:09] <Philip`> help@whatwg.org?
  1358. # [23:09] <Hixie> cos help@ has received as much as www-archive@ on the subject, so far
  1359. # [23:10] <Dashiva> whatwg@, help@, and...?
  1360. # [23:11] <Hixie> oh actually help@ has had two, my bad
  1361. # [23:11] <Hixie> public-html, presumably, is the second
  1362. # [23:15] * Joins: hubick (n=hubick@cs14.pc.athabascau.ca)
  1363. # [23:15] <Dashiva> That one mail about US-centricity? :)
  1364. # [23:15] <Hixie> that was amusing
  1365. # [23:15] <Hixie> given that more than half of the major browser vendors are based in the US...
  1366. # [23:16] <Philip`> HTTP has footers? How peculiar
  1367. # [23:16] <Hixie> ok i have dealt with the majority of feedback on the ogg thing
  1368. # [23:17] <Hixie> now i will shower and then possibly go to work
  1369. # [23:17] <Dashiva> Philip`: They come after the content-body, presumable
  1370. # [23:17] <Dashiva> *y
  1371. # [23:18] <hubick> If I ask a question about the Theora mailing list discussion here, will people get mad? :)
  1372. # [23:18] <Dashiva> Nah
  1373. # [23:18] <Philip`> Depends on which sense of "mad" you mean :-)
  1374. # [23:19] <hubick> I don't want to get in the way of any productive work happening here
  1375. # [23:19] <Dashiva> Don't worry about that, Hixie's in the shower
  1376. # [23:19] <hubick> the implication reading Hixie's latest email is that Theora is a possible submarine patent risk
  1377. # [23:19] <Dashiva> Indeed
  1378. # [23:20] <hubick> there are no other current options that I see... which raises the question, IF someone were to go create such an option
  1379. # [23:20] <hubick> how would it not pose the same risk as Theora?
  1380. # [23:20] <Dashiva> By being old enough
  1381. # [23:20] <hubick> is there any actual hard evidance towards such a risk surrounding THeora, that some other format wouldn't have?
  1382. # [23:21] <hubick> Is there an older format that fits the bill?
  1383. # [23:21] <doublec> some have mentioned h.261 as being a possibility
  1384. # [23:21] <Dashiva> There's nothing specific about Theora, any format not implemented by the giant cash cows is a risk
  1385. # [23:21] <doublec> I haven't seen any actual confirmation that that is the case though
  1386. # [23:22] <kingryan> doublec: confirmation of what? that h.261 is old enough?
  1387. # [23:22] <doublec> that there are no currently valid patents covering it
  1388. # [23:22] <doublec> Nokia's paper says something like 'might have expired'
  1389. # [23:23] <Philip`> hubick: MPEG4 has similar submarine patent risks to Theora; but Microsoft/Apple/etc already support MPEG4, so they don't take on any extra risk by supporting it for <video>, whereas adding support for Theora (or any other format that isn't ancient and that they don't already support) would be an additional risk
  1390. # [23:23] <kingryan> patents only last 20 years, so if h.261 is older than that, all patents must have expired or be invalid
  1391. # [23:23] <kingryan> that doesn't mean that someone can't still try and sue you for it
  1392. # [23:23] * Joins: jgraham_ (n=james@81-86-217-3.dsl.pipex.com)
  1393. # [23:23] <hubick> Philip`: you can argue that you shouldn't implement ANY new tech because it could have submarine patents though... that is no way to operate
  1394. # [23:24] <Dashiva> No, it's a matter of risk vs reward
  1395. # [23:24] <Philip`> Video seems particularly bad for this kind of thing
  1396. # [23:24] <Dashiva> Have you read Hixie's mail to the list, hubick?
  1397. # [23:24] <hubick> Dashiva: yes
  1398. # [23:24] <doublec> so h.261 is from 1990?
  1399. # [23:25] * jgraham_ seems to have got his internet connection restored just in time for the great video debate
  1400. # [23:26] <roc> does Microsoft actually ship MPEG4 in Windows?
  1401. # [23:26] <roc> that's something I've never gotten a straight answer on
  1402. # [23:27] <Philip`> jgraham_: If you've only just joined, you've missed a whole day of it already :-)
  1403. # [23:27] <hubick> To be honest, I have never heard of h.261 until know... is it really a viable format? My hunch is that it would be functionally "worse" than Theora, and thus tilting the "risk vs reward" factor in favor of Theora - mainly because, having believed the party line, I was led to believe Theora wasn't at significant risk.
  1404. # [23:28] * Philip` wonders where Windows keeps its list of installed codecs
  1405. # [23:28] <Dashiva> It's hard to run an organization based on belief, unless it's a religion :)
  1406. # [23:29] <othermaciej> wow, that's a lot of ogg email
  1407. # [23:30] <Dashiva> And it's all your (and Nokia's) fault
  1408. # [23:30] * Dashiva hides
  1409. # [23:30] <roc> Just because a standard is more than 20 years old doesn't eliminate your patent exposure.
  1410. # [23:30] <roc> Your *implementation* also has to be more than 20 years old
  1411. # [23:30] <othermaciej> Dashiva: I specifically said I don't care if the current statement is removed from the spec
  1412. # [23:31] * Joins: csarven (n=nevrasc@modemcable130.251-202-24.mc.videotron.ca)
  1413. # [23:31] <Dashiva> othermaciej: But that's because a should can be ignored, isn't it?
  1414. # [23:32] * hubick would like to see a SHOULD for *some* (any) Free/Open format
  1415. # [23:32] <othermaciej> roc: patents that are fundamental to a standard are a bigger risk than patents on specific implementation techniques
  1416. # [23:32] <othermaciej> roc: since by definition you can't code around them
  1417. # [23:32] <roc> sure,
  1418. # [23:32] <othermaciej> roc: and since it is easier for patent trolls to tell who is infringing (anyone implementing the spec)
  1419. # [23:33] <Dashiva> hubick: We don't want a should, that means it can be ignored
  1420. # [23:33] * Quits: mpt (n=mpt@ip-81-1-117-61.cust.homechoice.net) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  1421. # [23:33] <roc> patent trolls don't particularly care about the accuracy of their threats as far as I can tell
  1422. # [23:33] <hubick> Dashiva: I mean, at the very least, something would be better than nothing
  1423. # [23:34] <Dashiva> hubick: But the last resort comes many years from now, when the spec is being finished
  1424. # [23:34] <othermaciej> There's a reasonable argument that H.264 has less submarine risk than Theora
  1425. # [23:34] <Dashiva> Until then, we should strive for something better
  1426. # [23:35] <hubick> Dashiva: then you put out an "acid5" test with some OGG in it (transformed via SVG, woo), and get popular grass roots push for vendors to implement that, like previous acid tests
  1427. # [23:35] <othermaciej> specifically, it was developed as an open standard through a process with IP disclosure requirements, and including most of the key players with large codec patent portfolios
  1428. # [23:35] <othermaciej> this means judges will likely invalidate any submarine patents held by those parties
  1429. # [23:35] <Dashiva> hubick: And look how well IE7 passes that, yeah
  1430. # [23:35] <othermaciej> but Theora has never gone through such a process
  1431. # [23:36] * Quits: aphid (n=aphid@dsl-63-249-87-11.cruzio.com) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  1432. # [23:36] <othermaciej> the same holds for other codecs developed as open standards under IP disclosure (H.261, H.263, MPEG-2, etc)
  1433. # [23:36] <hubick> Dashiva: yeah, and it's a rally point for web devs to complain to MS about - they are under pressure for not supporting it
  1434. # [23:36] <Dashiva> pressure doesn't matter if it doesn't lead to results
  1435. # [23:36] * Joins: aphid (n=aphid@dsl-63-249-87-11.cruzio.com)
  1436. # [23:36] <roc> sometimes pressure leads to results
  1437. # [23:36] <hubick> results may yet come
  1438. # [23:37] <othermaciej> I don't really know how Ogg Theora compares technically to H.261 or H.263 or other older open standard codecs
  1439. # [23:38] <roc> I seem to recall reading that the Xiph people compared Theora to the MPEG patent pool
  1440. # [23:38] <othermaciej> I think Vorbis is the codec where they did an extensive patent search
  1441. # [23:40] <othermaciej> or at least, I know they did that for Vorbis, I have not heard similar claims from them about Theora
  1442. # [23:43] <hubick> I just think that html5 has potential to be the chicken that solves the chicken vs egg problem with uptake of a free format, by pointing to *something*. My worry is, will there be some free format pointed to?
  1443. # [23:43] <hubick> Or maybe I'm wrong, and that will just make it into another XHTML
  1444. # [23:44] * Joins: anne-mac (n=annevk@88.80-202-68.nextgentel.com)
  1445. # [23:44] <othermaciej> anyway I hope someone knows how to do a meaningful test to compare quality of Theora to other codecs where patents are expired (H.261) or effectively not enforced (H.263)
  1446. # [23:44] <Dashiva> hubick: There's one thing that everyone involved must realize, specs don't force implementation
  1447. # [23:44] <othermaciej> I personally have no idea how to do that kind of "shootout" test
  1448. # [23:46] * Quits: grimeboy (n=grimboy@78.150.244.113) (Connection timed out)
  1449. # [23:46] <anne-mac> Philip`, yeah, need a bit larger set than 32 :)
  1450. # [23:47] <hubick> Dashiva: I would like to put video on the web on sites I run. I will only do it in a universal and free format. Having *some* kind of spec would focus/corrall others like me to authoring pages using that same common format, hopefully with the end result of spurring users to install the codec if they see it used in more and more places.
  1451. # [23:48] <Dashiva> Then you should go start a movement to create theora content for the web
  1452. # [23:48] * Joins: mpt (n=mpt@ip-81-1-117-61.cust.homechoice.net)
  1453. # [23:49] <Philip`> anne-mac: Are there other attributes that are interesting to look at? (I might as well check as many things as possible at once)
  1454. # [23:49] <Dashiva> Someone has to be the mutated proto-chicken that lays the egg
  1455. # [23:49] <hubick> Dashiva: A movement like that is best spurred by some group that already has the ear of some number of developers: ie, whatwg :)
  1456. # [23:50] <Dashiva> No, that would be circular reasoning
  1457. # [23:51] <hubick> Specs don't force implementation, but there are a lot of web developers that will see a 'SHOULD' and do exactly that as a result.
  1458. # [23:52] <Hixie> that's not been my experience
  1459. # [23:52] <Dashiva> Developers are more famous for creating dirty hacks that make it work no matter what the consequences :)
  1460. # [23:53] <hubick> Just because it's not the most common doesn't mean there aren't a lot of developers that try to do the right thing (ie, validate pages as XHTML)
  1461. # [23:53] <mpt> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/08/16/specs
  1462. # [23:53] <anne-mac> Philip`, sorry, I'm only interested in media=
  1463. # [23:54] <Dashiva> hubick: Validate as xhtml and send the wrong content-type, yeah
  1464. # [23:54] <hubick> Dashiva: yeah!
  1465. # [23:54] <Hixie> hubick: i've studied literally billions of html pages as part of scans i've done here at google and my experience is that very, very few authors actually try to validate pages as XHTML
  1466. # [23:55] <Hixie> despite everyone's claims, in fact, few authors actually try to use XHTML at all -- only 15% of the billions of pages I looked at even had the XHTML namespace
  1467. # [23:55] <hubick> it seems I have outed myself as an attempted web purist
  1468. # [23:55] <Hixie> and that (due to copy/paste) is many more pages than those actually attempting to use xhtml for real
  1469. # [23:55] <hubick> 15% of a billion isn't a lot?
  1470. # [23:55] <hubick> you need to start somewhere
  1471. # [23:55] <Hixie> xhtml has been around since 1999
  1472. # [23:56] <Hixie> 15% in 8 years is nothing
  1473. # [23:56] <Philip`> (Argh, I want a particular method that was added in HttpClient 3.1, but Gentoo and Fedora only have 3.0)
  1474. # [23:56] * Philip` tries to work out how to use JARs again
  1475. # [23:56] <Dashiva> You just use them
  1476. # [23:56] <Dashiva> classpath
  1477. # [23:57] <Philip`> (In Eclipse)
  1478. # [23:58] <Dashiva> Right-click, "add to build path"
  1479. # [23:58] <Philip`> (except I'll need to move this to another machine to run it faster)
  1480. # [23:58] <hubick> Philip`: Project Menu->Properties Item->Java Build Path Item->Libraries tab
  1481. # [23:59] <Philip`> Aha, seems to work now
  1482. # [23:59] <Philip`> and it no longer complains about me downloading potentially infinitely large files
  1483. # Session Close: Wed Dec 12 00:00:00 2007

The end :)