/irc-logs / freenode / #whatwg / 2010-03-02 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Tue Mar 02 00:00:00 2010
  2. # Session Ident: #whatwg
  3. # [00:00] * Joins: Heimidal (~heimidal@pool-71-111-221-213.rlghnc.dsl-w.verizon.net)
  4. # [00:00] * Quits: Heimidal (~heimidal@pool-71-111-221-213.rlghnc.dsl-w.verizon.net) (Changing host)
  5. # [00:00] * Joins: Heimidal (~heimidal@unaffiliated/heimidal)
  6. # [00:01] * Quits: Michelangelo (~Michelang@93-41-21-196.ip79.fastwebnet.it) (Remote host closed the connection)
  7. # [00:02] <othermaciej> Hixie: I believe the essential part of the requested status change was s/this specification/the contents of this specification/
  8. # [00:02] <Hixie> sam and i figured it out on #html-wg
  9. # [00:02] <othermaciej> k
  10. # [00:03] <othermaciej> Hixie: in issue 27 - the registry is not testable, the ETA we were given for when it would be testable was "about 6 weeks", that being 2 weeks ago now
  11. # [00:03] <Hixie> k
  12. # [00:03] <othermaciej> Hixie: we would accept someone volunteering with a long deadline to account for that, and a plan to re-evaluate if the registry is not ready in time
  13. # [00:04] * Quits: zcorpan__ (~zcorpan@91-103-36-68.dynamic.thecloud.net) (Quit: zcorpan__)
  14. # [00:04] <Hixie> k, i'll volunteer to organise a test of the registry when it's available
  15. # [00:04] <Hixie> issue-31 is very confusing... any chance we can get that split into one issue per actual problem instead of just having a catch-all?
  16. # [00:05] <Hixie> -32 also
  17. # [00:05] <othermaciej> Hixie: it does seem to me that (a) the three Change Proposals submitted for 31 appear to be largely orthogonal; and (b) Laura's in particular bundles multiple changes
  18. # [00:06] <othermaciej> I am not sure we want to flood the issue tracker, but I can see how it may get confusing with counter-proposals or alternatives
  19. # [00:06] <Hixie> as far as i can tell, the confusing issues are always the ones that are about a topic and not about a specific problem
  20. # [00:06] <othermaciej> On -32, I want to see what the accessibility TF actually ends up submitting
  21. # [00:06] <othermaciej> indeed, and sadly many of our pre-new-process issues are about a topic
  22. # [00:07] <Hixie> maybe i should file a bug on the process to ask that we change the issue mechanism to require that issues specify a specific problem :-)
  23. # [00:07] <othermaciej> well, that's effectively true for new issues, since they need to be escalated from a bug
  24. # [00:07] <othermaciej> question is really what, if anything, to do for the finite number of pre-existing issues that are more open-ended than we'd like for new issues
  25. # [00:09] <Hixie> ok off to work to get food so i can resume editing websocket
  26. # [00:09] <Hixie> back in a bit
  27. # [00:13] <annevk> I replied to public-html on some email about schemas -- big mistake
  28. # [00:14] <annevk> Learning from past mistakes is something I should take more seriously...
  29. # [00:15] * Quits: nattokirai (~nattokira@y226086.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp) (Quit: nattokirai)
  30. # [00:16] <annevk> It was a while ago though: http://annevankesteren.nl/2007/04/html-red-pill
  31. # [00:16] * Quits: MikeSmith (~MikeSmith@EM114-48-41-230.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  32. # [00:16] * annevk still likes that post
  33. # [00:17] <othermaciej> annevk: interesting to look at how many of those we are still discussing
  34. # [00:17] <othermaciej> No one seems to care about "No SGML" any more
  35. # [00:22] * Quits: beilabs (~beilabs@ppp121-44-57-138.lns20.syd6.internode.on.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  36. # [00:24] * Joins: MikeSmith (~MikeSmith@EM114-48-129-31.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  37. # [00:27] * Quits: othermaciej (~mjs@17.246.17.155) (Quit: othermaciej)
  38. # [00:27] <Dashiva> You can remove the SGML from HTML, but you can't remove the SGML from their hearts
  39. # [00:27] * Joins: TabAtkins (~chatzilla@70-139-15-246.lightspeed.rsbgtx.sbcglobal.net)
  40. # [00:28] * Quits: Heimidal (~heimidal@unaffiliated/heimidal) (Remote host closed the connection)
  41. # [00:33] * Quits: paul_irish (~paul_iris@12.33.239.250) (Quit: paul_irish)
  42. # [00:34] * Quits: tametick_ (~chatzilla@chello084114134061.3.15.vie.surfer.at) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6/20100115132715])
  43. # [00:35] * Quits: Amorphous (jan@unaffiliated/amorphous) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  44. # [00:37] * Joins: tametick (~chatzilla@chello084114134061.3.15.vie.surfer.at)
  45. # [00:50] * Joins: Amorphous (jan@unaffiliated/amorphous)
  46. # [00:58] * Joins: paul_irish (~paul_iris@c-71-192-163-128.hsd1.nh.comcast.net)
  47. # [01:07] * Quits: jgornick (~joe@199.199.212.242) (Quit: jgornick)
  48. # [01:08] * Joins: slightlyoff (~slightlyo@nat/google/x-qlxrzwkeeeggudij)
  49. # [01:23] * Joins: othermaciej (~mjs@17.246.17.155)
  50. # [01:23] * Quits: tametick (~chatzilla@chello084114134061.3.15.vie.surfer.at) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6/20100115132715])
  51. # [01:24] * Joins: weinig (~weinig@12.130.118.120)
  52. # [01:25] * Quits: weinig (~weinig@12.130.118.120) (Client Quit)
  53. # [01:25] * Quits: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  54. # [01:27] * Joins: boblet (~boblet@p1072-ipbf36osakakita.osaka.ocn.ne.jp)
  55. # [01:31] * Joins: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  56. # [01:39] * Quits: dglazkov (~dglazkov@nat/google/x-fwqczxcudykvbanh) (Quit: dglazkov)
  57. # [01:39] * Joins: wakaba_ (~wakaba_@122x221x184x68.ap122.ftth.ucom.ne.jp)
  58. # [02:13] * Joins: mpilgrim (~mark@rrcs-98-101-146-174.midsouth.biz.rr.com)
  59. # [02:15] * Quits: JonathanNeal (~JonathanN@rrcs-76-79-114-213.west.biz.rr.com) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  60. # [02:16] * Quits: sicking (~chatzilla@nat/mozilla/x-edndhmukmnyzzggd) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
  61. # [02:18] * Joins: sicking (~chatzilla@nat/mozilla/x-kqtehqkelrjbtqxb)
  62. # [02:35] * Quits: ap (~ap@17.246.19.5) (Quit: ap)
  63. # [02:54] * Joins: miketaylr (~miketaylr@24.42.95.234)
  64. # [02:56] * Quits: othermaciej (~mjs@17.246.17.155) (Quit: othermaciej)
  65. # [02:58] * Joins: othermaciej (~mjs@17.246.17.155)
  66. # [03:00] * Quits: mpilgrim (~mark@rrcs-98-101-146-174.midsouth.biz.rr.com) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  67. # [03:07] * Quits: dave_levin (~dave_levi@nat/google/x-ovqgycbjgvlqmnxj) (Quit: dave_levin)
  68. # [03:20] * Quits: FireFly (~firefly@unaffiliated/firefly) (Quit: Leaving)
  69. # [03:25] * Quits: ttepasse (~ttepasse@dslb-088-077-085-115.pools.arcor-ip.net) (Quit: Verlassend)
  70. # [03:30] * Quits: slightlyoff (~slightlyo@nat/google/x-qlxrzwkeeeggudij) (Quit: slightlyoff)
  71. # [03:31] * Joins: john_fallows (~j_r_fallo@adsl-75-61-84-181.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net)
  72. # [03:36] * Quits: john_fallows (~j_r_fallo@adsl-75-61-84-181.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net) (Client Quit)
  73. # [03:36] <othermaciej> just waiting on html4diffs and h:tml to be updated now
  74. # [03:38] * Quits: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
  75. # [03:38] * Quits: roc (~roc@203-97-204-82.dsl.clear.net.nz) (Quit: roc)
  76. # [03:40] * Quits: wycats (~yehudakat@enginey-9.border1.sfo002.pnap.net) (Quit: wycats)
  77. # [03:41] <MikeSmith> othermaciej: I just now updated the h:tml draft and waiting for the cvs commit to complete
  78. # [03:41] <MikeSmith> oK
  79. # [03:41] <MikeSmith> done
  80. # [03:41] <othermaciej> MikeSmith: hawt
  81. # [03:41] <othermaciej> MikeSmith: so now we're just waiting on Anne
  82. # [03:41] <MikeSmith> OK
  83. # [03:42] <MikeSmith> annevk still awake?
  84. # [03:42] <othermaciej> I asked him to update earlier today, so hopefully he'll do it whenever he gets up
  85. # [03:42] <othermaciej> I am assuming no
  86. # [03:42] <othermaciej> I asked him to update ~5 hours ago
  87. # [03:43] <othermaciej> even though it is an arbitrary milestone, I am for some reason very excited about publishing
  88. # [03:43] * Joins: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  89. # [03:47] <MikeSmith> othermaciej: I think the biggest positive effect of WD publication is that it gets documents a lot wider attention than just editor's-draft publication does
  90. # [03:48] <MikeSmith> at least as far as W3C publication goes
  91. # [03:48] <MikeSmith> and for a certain period of time, at least
  92. # [03:48] <othermaciej> in the context of HTML5, I have not seen it result in a higher level of technical review
  93. # [03:48] <MikeSmith> yeah
  94. # [03:48] <othermaciej> though it does get some sort of attention in the tech press
  95. # [03:49] * Joins: mpilgrim (~mark@rrcs-98-101-146-174.midsouth.biz.rr.com)
  96. # [03:50] <MikeSmith> othermaciej: yeah, the downside of that is that one of the first questions all the media people seem to ask every time W3C publishes and HTML5 WD is that, "OK, so when will HTML5 be done?" question
  97. # [03:51] <MikeSmith> to which it seems to me the only proper response is to try to get them to see that they're asking the wrong question
  98. # [03:51] <MikeSmith> but that's not usually successfull
  99. # [03:51] <othermaciej> then we can just point to the charter and indicate that the next milestone is Last Call
  100. # [03:51] <othermaciej> which is on schedule, so long as we can invent time travel technology in the next few months
  101. # [03:51] <MikeSmith> heh
  102. # [03:53] <Hixie> the ietf guys argued that websocket would get wider review if we went through the ietf, but so far all the useful feedback i've received has been either off-list or on the whatwg list
  103. # [03:54] <Hixie> similar to how it was argued that html5 would get more review if we went through the w3c
  104. # [03:54] <Hixie> looks to me like the standards organisations are out of date in terms of what gets wider useful feedback :-)
  105. # [03:55] <othermaciej> Hixie: I sent useful feedback on the ietf list... I think
  106. # [03:56] <Hixie> i think everything you said on the list you first said on the adam/you/me thread we had
  107. # [03:56] <Hixie> and adam and you would have reviewed the spec anyway, regardless of whether we went w3c, whatwg, or ietf
  108. # [03:56] <othermaciej> nah, I pointed out the reverse cross-protocol problem on the list first, then discussed it with you on IRC, then on the email thread with Adam
  109. # [03:56] <othermaciej> I would like to say I would have given that feedback anyway but I only thought of it due to people questioning the handshake
  110. # [03:57] <Hixie> fair enough
  111. # [03:57] <MikeSmith> Hixie: standards organizations are out of date in a lot of ways.. I guess until we actually work on coming up with viable alternative, we are stuck with what we got, and hopefully at least we can (or have) managed to get some improvements made
  112. # [03:57] <othermaciej> I mean, I might have still had the thought
  113. # [03:58] <Hixie> MikeSmith: my most successful standard i think has been pingback, which didn't involve a standards organisation at all
  114. # [03:58] <othermaciej> it's not clear to me how to make a good standards org
  115. # [03:58] <Hixie> MikeSmith: so it's not clear to me that we _need_ an alternative
  116. # [03:58] <MikeSmith> I think the existence of the Web Sockets discussion at IETF has helped to changed the IETF culture for the better
  117. # [03:58] <othermaciej> all the existing ones either come down to pay-to-play voting or dictatorship by an elite oligarchy, if you push hard enough
  118. # [03:59] <Hixie> really? how so?
  119. # [03:59] <Hixie> er, that was to mike
  120. # [03:59] <Hixie> othermaciej: i think the oligarchy mechanism is the only one that truly works, but it only works so long as the oligarchy has the respect of the implementors
  121. # [04:00] <Hixie> othermaciej: and i think it pretty much stops having the respect as soon as there's a process in place, because a process forcibly distances the oligarchy from the implementors
  122. # [04:00] <Hixie> part of the problem the w3c and ietf both have is that they try to solve too many problems at once
  123. # [04:00] <Hixie> having multiple focus areas is a huge red flag for a std org imho
  124. # [04:00] <MikeSmith> Hixie: I think the implementors issue is something that the Web Sockets work has helped to raise awareness about in the IETF
  125. # [04:01] <othermaciej> oligarchy can work with the right oligarchs
  126. # [04:01] <othermaciej> and so long as it does not get overwhelmed with legitimacy disputes
  127. # [04:01] <Hixie> legitimacy disputes = lack of respect
  128. # [04:02] <MikeSmith> Hixie: the awareness being that it is risky to develop a spec without also working hard to get implementor buy-in during the spec-development process
  129. # [04:02] <othermaciej> IETF and W3C try to have consensus/voting as the front line decision-making tool, with escalation to a dictator/oligarchy
  130. # [04:02] <othermaciej> sometimes I wonder if the other way around would work better
  131. # [04:02] * Joins: roc (~roc@121-72-172-168.dsl.telstraclear.net)
  132. # [04:02] <othermaciej> of course, in the HTML WG we kinda have a sandwich
  133. # [04:02] <Hixie> not really
  134. # [04:03] <Hixie> we just have three tiers of <span>abort the
  135. # [04:03] <Hixie> er
  136. # [04:03] <Hixie> mispaste
  137. # [04:03] <Hixie> we just have three tiers of oligarchy
  138. # [04:03] <othermaciej> I guess layers at least limit the damage that can be done by any one layer going off the rails
  139. # [04:04] <Hixie> each tier being further removed from the issues, leading to more and more random resolutions as an issue is escalated ;-)
  140. # [04:05] <othermaciej> I find I need to have a lot more familiarity with the issues than I think I should have to for my role
  141. # [04:06] * roc wonders what Apple's Webkit devs are doing
  142. # [04:06] <othermaciej> right now?
  143. # [04:06] <othermaciej> most of them are either at home, or having dinner
  144. # [04:07] <Hixie> roc: i think he means his role as htmlwg chair, not webkit manager :-P
  145. # [04:07] <othermaciej> oh
  146. # [04:07] <othermaciej> yeah
  147. # [04:07] <roc> no, my comment was random
  148. # [04:07] <MikeSmith> heh
  149. # [04:09] <othermaciej> trac would give you a good approximation if you can filter down to Apple committers
  150. # [04:09] <roc> indeed
  151. # [04:09] <MikeSmith> webkit devs seem to be doing a lot of bug fixing these days, as opposed to feature implementation
  152. # [04:10] <othermaciej> MikeSmith clearly reads the webkit commits twitter feed
  153. # [04:11] <MikeSmith> I do notice that Dirk Schulze seems to still be actively been doing some refinements to the svg filters stuff
  154. # [04:13] <MikeSmith> I wish trac had a better way to track commits per-developer
  155. # [04:14] <MikeSmith> per-committer feeds
  156. # [04:14] * Joins: beilabs (~beilabs@ppp121-44-57-138.lns20.syd6.internode.on.net)
  157. # [04:14] <Hixie> i wish trac had a lot of things
  158. # [04:20] <MikeSmith> Hixie: who's developed the http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker UI, annevk ?
  159. # [04:20] * Quits: dbaron (~dbaron@nat/mozilla/x-eumpzsonyvcvldop) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  160. # [04:20] <Hixie> yes
  161. # [04:20] <Hixie> iirc
  162. # [04:20] <Hixie> at last he hosts it
  163. # [04:20] <MikeSmith> OK
  164. # [04:20] <Hixie> it's in google code if you want to offer patches
  165. # [04:20] <Hixie> product html5, iirc
  166. # [04:20] <MikeSmith> OK
  167. # [04:21] <MikeSmith> I would like for it to have a feature that lets users supplement that indicators
  168. # [04:21] * Quits: jwalden (~waldo@nat/mozilla/x-vpcgbjukwdgimxlz) (Quit: dinnertime)
  169. # [04:21] <roc> man, the per-platform test results make Webkit SVN enormous
  170. # [04:22] * Quits: scherkus (~scherkus@74.125.59.73) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  171. # [04:28] * Quits: othermaciej (~mjs@17.246.17.155) (Quit: othermaciej)
  172. # [04:33] * Quits: drunknbass_work (~aaron@pool-71-106-110-90.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  173. # [04:38] <Hixie> ok, bbl, food time.
  174. # [04:38] <Hixie> if anyone wants to review proposals for websocket, i just regenned the complete.html spec with the new proposed handshake
  175. # [04:45] * Joins: Heimidal (~heimidal@66.184.176.26)
  176. # [04:45] * Quits: Heimidal (~heimidal@66.184.176.26) (Changing host)
  177. # [04:45] * Joins: Heimidal (~heimidal@unaffiliated/heimidal)
  178. # [04:57] * Quits: cpearce (~cpearce@203-97-204-82.dsl.clear.net.nz) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.15/2009101909])
  179. # [04:59] * Joins: dglazkov (~dglazkov@c-67-188-0-62.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  180. # [05:00] * Joins: wycats (~yehudakat@c-69-181-212-215.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  181. # [05:03] * Joins: paul_irish_ (~paul_iris@c-71-192-163-128.hsd1.nh.comcast.net)
  182. # [05:05] * Quits: dglazkov (~dglazkov@c-67-188-0-62.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Quit: dglazkov)
  183. # [05:05] * Quits: miketaylr (~miketaylr@24.42.95.234) (Remote host closed the connection)
  184. # [05:06] * Quits: paul_irish (~paul_iris@c-71-192-163-128.hsd1.nh.comcast.net) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  185. # [05:10] * paul_irish_ is now known as paul_irish
  186. # [05:12] * Quits: Heimidal (~heimidal@unaffiliated/heimidal) (Remote host closed the connection)
  187. # [05:13] * Joins: dglazkov (~dglazkov@c-67-188-0-62.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  188. # [05:23] * Quits: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  189. # [05:24] * Joins: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  190. # [05:28] * Quits: karlcow (~karl@nerval.la-grange.net) (Remote host closed the connection)
  191. # [05:35] * Quits: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.81.236) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  192. # [05:42] * Joins: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.88.216)
  193. # [05:42] * Quits: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  194. # [05:43] * Joins: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  195. # [06:07] * Joins: othermaciej (~mjs@c-69-181-42-237.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  196. # [06:12] * Joins: MikeSmithX (~MikeSmith@EM114-48-46-214.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  197. # [06:16] * Quits: MikeSmith (~MikeSmith@EM114-48-129-31.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  198. # [06:29] * Joins: JonathanNeal (~JonathanN@99-59-124-67.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net)
  199. # [06:29] * Quits: GabrielVI (~johnhenry@rrcs-24-227-222-140.sw.biz.rr.com) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  200. # [06:37] * Quits: m_W (~mwj@c-69-141-106-205.hsd1.nj.comcast.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  201. # [06:38] * Joins: m_W (~mwj@c-69-141-106-205.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
  202. # [06:40] <MikeSmithX> Hixie: (when you get back) - I'm wondering if you made any changes at all in response to Noah's message about explicitly defining the term "conforming document" - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2010Feb/0011.html
  203. # [06:40] * MikeSmithX is now known as MikeSmith
  204. # [06:50] * Joins: GabrielVI (~johnhenry@rrcs-24-227-222-140.sw.biz.rr.com)
  205. # [06:54] * Quits: sicking (~chatzilla@nat/mozilla/x-kqtehqkelrjbtqxb) (Remote host closed the connection)
  206. # [06:58] * Quits: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.88.216) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  207. # [07:01] * Joins: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.85.93)
  208. # [07:02] <MikeSmith> othermaciej: I think at some point we should publish a WD of the static "author view" of HTML5
  209. # [07:02] <MikeSmith> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/
  210. # [07:02] <othermaciej> MikeSmith: I agree
  211. # [07:03] <othermaciej> MikeSmith: should it still have all the trappings of normativity?
  212. # [07:03] <MikeSmith> that part I dunno
  213. # [07:03] <othermaciej> I feel weird having multiple normative references for the same thing even if they are mechanically generated from a single source
  214. # [07:03] <othermaciej> but other than that - we did suggest to the TAG that we'd like to do this
  215. # [07:03] <MikeSmith> and that TAG seems to actually like that doc OK
  216. # [07:04] <MikeSmith> Noah at least does, I know
  217. # [07:04] <MikeSmith> well, I guess I shouldn't say "I know", but I think he has publicly commented quite positively
  218. # [07:05] <MikeSmith> anyway, I suppose we should start discussion about publishing after we get the current round of WDs out
  219. # [07:05] <MikeSmith> *publishing the author view
  220. # [07:06] <othermaciej> yeah I'd like to get the current round done
  221. # [07:06] <othermaciej> and get more issues in the pipeline
  222. # [07:06] <othermaciej> we have 10 sitting on "Chairs" now
  223. # [07:06] * Quits: roc (~roc@121-72-172-168.dsl.telstraclear.net) (Quit: roc)
  224. # [07:11] * Quits: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  225. # [07:11] * Joins: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  226. # [07:12] <MikeSmith> othermaciej: I also have a couple of bugzilla bugs assigned to me that have not been escalated to issues yet and that I'm hoping won't have to be
  227. # [07:13] <MikeSmith> hmm, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2010Mar/0008.html
  228. # [07:13] <MikeSmith> "Can the script element please allow the scope attribute in the same semantic way as the style element? The dom would be limited to only elements under that node."
  229. # [07:14] <othermaciej> interesting idea
  230. # [07:14] <othermaciej> hard to implement and use
  231. # [07:14] <othermaciej> probably not viable as as a security feature, if that is what the commentor intends
  232. # [07:21] * Quits: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.85.93) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
  233. # [07:21] <MikeSmith> not sure what the commenter intends -- the embedded commenting feature is great for reporting outright bugs but doesn't encourage a lot of elaboration
  234. # [07:26] * Joins: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.89.19)
  235. # [07:36] * Quits: dglazkov (~dglazkov@c-67-188-0-62.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Quit: dglazkov)
  236. # [07:40] * Quits: JoePeck (~JoePeck@c-67-188-171-45.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  237. # [07:44] <hsivonen> Hixie: so your most successful spec depends on xml-rpc!
  238. # [07:46] * Joins: sicking (~chatzilla@c-69-181-197-163.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  239. # [08:10] * Quits: michaeln (~michaeln@nat/google/x-dizkquhpkhxwogrd) (Quit: Leaving.)
  240. # [08:11] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: which one is that?
  241. # [08:14] <Hixie> MikeSmith: i don't think so... did he file a bug?
  242. # [08:15] <MikeSmith> Hixie: no, he didn't.. I can suggest to him that he should, or I can file one myself, I guess. He just posted only to the public-html-comments list about it, as far as I can see
  243. # [08:15] * MikeSmith goes to raise new bug for it
  244. # [08:15] <hsivonen> MikeSmith: pingback according to the log
  245. # [08:16] <MikeSmith> ah
  246. # [08:16] <Hixie> hsivonen: yeah, that's embarassing as heck :-)
  247. # [08:21] <annevk> MikeSmith, I'll update nowish I guess
  248. # [08:21] * annevk is trying to wake up
  249. # [08:21] <MikeSmith> annevk: great
  250. # [08:21] * annevk has a headache for unknown reasons
  251. # [08:21] * Quits: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.89.19) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  252. # [08:21] * annevk wonders if it's because the heating is working again and his body is no longer used to the warmth
  253. # [08:22] <MikeSmith> Hixie: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9178 (new bug for defining "conforming document")
  254. # [08:22] <MikeSmith> btw, I notice that pubrules still doesn't recognize CSS3 color names
  255. # [08:23] <MikeSmith> I would say, "That seems like it would be relatively easy to fix" but if I did I would probably get asked to fix it
  256. # [08:24] * Joins: roc (~roc@121-72-172-168.dsl.telstraclear.net)
  257. # [08:24] * Joins: mat_t (~mattomasz@ppp-0-155.edin-a-1.access.uk.tiscali.com)
  258. # [08:27] * Joins: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.88.117)
  259. # [08:34] <MikeSmith> othermaciej: I guess one advantage of publishing the author view of the spec as non-normative would be that we'd not need to do an LC round for it
  260. # [08:34] <MikeSmith> nor CR
  261. # [08:34] <othermaciej> MikeSmith: we'd probably want to anyway, to let it stay in sync with the main HTML5 draft
  262. # [08:34] <MikeSmith> yeah, true
  263. # [08:35] <MikeSmith> no, not true
  264. # [08:35] <othermaciej> MikeSmith: how hard do you think it would be to get pubrules changed to allow HTML5 as a publication format?
  265. # [08:35] <othermaciej> I periodically have the urge to try to pursue that, but I am not sure if it is worth my time
  266. # [08:35] * Joins: eighty4 (~eighty4@h-112-7.A163.corp.bahnhof.se)
  267. # [08:35] <MikeSmith> pubrules would be relatively easy to change, actually
  268. # [08:36] <MikeSmith> it's not a technical problem that blocks that
  269. # [08:36] <othermaciej> I didn't mean "how technically hard"
  270. # [08:36] <MikeSmith> well, not hard, then
  271. # [08:36] <othermaciej> I mean, "If I suggested it, is there a chance I'd get anywhere?"
  272. # [08:36] <MikeSmith> I meant, "well, hard, then"
  273. # [08:36] <othermaciej> and if so, what would be the right venue
  274. # [08:36] <othermaciej> should I ask privately what the actual blocker is?
  275. # [08:37] <MikeSmith> no need to ask privately
  276. # [08:37] <othermaciej> what's the actual blocker?
  277. # [08:38] <othermaciej> I wondered if maybe there was some idea that a format spec had to be at REC before it could be used, but I notices that even Working Drafts of XHTML1 were published as XHTML1, not as HTML4
  278. # [08:38] <MikeSmith> the blocker is that the team doesn't believe it's appropriate yet to be publishing documents that use features from HTML5 that are not at least in a PR draft
  279. # [08:38] <othermaciej> so it doesn't seem like there is a hard and fast rule
  280. # [08:38] <MikeSmith> as far as XHTML1 and HTML4, that was then, this is now
  281. # [08:39] <MikeSmith> there were a whole lot of corners cut in publishing HTML4 and XHTML1
  282. # [08:39] <MikeSmith> I would suggest that we don't want to use their publication approach as a precedent
  283. # [08:39] <othermaciej> it just seems like an embarrassment to me that we can't publish HTML5 as HTML5
  284. # [08:39] <othermaciej> but from what you say, it sounds like it would be a waste of time to pursue it
  285. # [08:40] <Hixie> it's an embarassment to the w3c
  286. # [08:40] <Hixie> html5 has been published as html5 for years
  287. # [08:40] * Joins: Maurice (~ano@a80-101-46-164.adsl.xs4all.nl)
  288. # [08:40] <MikeSmith> fwiw, I have argued that simply using <!doctype html> as the doctype on a document does not constitute publishing it as HTML5
  289. # [08:40] <othermaciej> it's an embarrassment to the HTML WG, even though it is not up to us
  290. # [08:42] <othermaciej> anyway I'll mentally file it away as "it's political and not worth pursuing" unless the other HTML WG chairs decide they care too at some point
  291. # [08:43] <MikeSmith> I am happy to pursue it if the chairs will agree to support pushing for it
  292. # [08:43] <othermaciej> I'll ask the other co-chairs then
  293. # [08:43] <othermaciej> another data point: XHTML 1.1 Working Drafts were also published as XHTML 1.1
  294. # [08:43] <othermaciej> that's not quite as long ago as HTML4 or XHTML 1.0, but still pretty long ago
  295. # [08:43] * Joins: zalan (~zalan@catv-89-135-108-81.catv.broadband.hu)
  296. # [08:45] <MikeSmith> XHTML 1.1 is another case of a spec that I don't think it'd be prudent to use as a precedent for anything
  297. # [08:45] <MikeSmith> anyway, I don't want to (re)raise it if somebody's going to end up pulling the rug out from underneath
  298. # [08:45] * Joins: drunknbass_work (~aaron@cpe-76-173-195-145.socal.res.rr.com)
  299. # [08:45] <othermaciej> I'm not asking you to pursue it right now
  300. # [08:45] <othermaciej> I just wanted to understand the issue
  301. # [08:45] <MikeSmith> OK
  302. # [08:46] <MikeSmith> I do want to say that a technical way we could address this is in part is by having <!doctype html> be defined in a separate spec that we could move through Rec track more quickly
  303. # [08:47] <othermaciej> this is the relevant rule, right: http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=filter&uri=#format
  304. # [08:48] <MikeSmith> othermaciej: yeah
  305. # [08:48] <othermaciej> interesting note: the XHTML 1.1 REC is in violation of that rule
  306. # [08:49] <MikeSmith> yep
  307. # [08:50] * Quits: mat_t (~mattomasz@ppp-0-155.edin-a-1.access.uk.tiscali.com) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  308. # [08:50] * Quits: drunknbass_work (~aaron@cpe-76-173-195-145.socal.res.rr.com) (Client Quit)
  309. # [08:51] <MikeSmith> anyway, to be clear, I do think it is worth pursuing at least getting agreement to be allowed to publish the spec with the <!doctype html> doctype
  310. # [08:52] <MikeSmith> but I suggest that not be considered the same thing as "publishing
  311. # [08:52] <hsivonen> othermaciej: occasionally, I wish people who raise process issues about the HTML WG went raise the same issues about the XHTML2 WG first
  312. # [08:52] <othermaciej> the most recent violation of pubrules format requirements I can find so far was January 16, 2009
  313. # [08:52] <annevk> MikeSmith, I doubt that would go to REC more quicly
  314. # [08:52] <MikeSmith> meant to write, I suggest that not be considered the same thing as publishing the spec "as HTML5"
  315. # [08:52] <MikeSmith> annevk: why?
  316. # [08:53] <annevk> MikeSmith, because there's a bunch of open debates around the DOCTYPE
  317. # [08:53] <annevk> (I also have no idea how you would separate it out, but aside from that...)
  318. # [08:53] * Quits: zalan (~zalan@catv-89-135-108-81.catv.broadband.hu)
  319. # [08:54] <othermaciej> to be fair this is only a Note, perhaps those are not considered to have any normative versions at all
  320. # [08:54] <othermaciej> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20090116/
  321. # [08:54] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: it does seem that the HTML WG gets singled for process problems that are not unique to this group
  322. # [08:55] <othermaciej> but the pubrules for WG Notes still have the format requirements
  323. # [08:55] <othermaciej> this one seems to have slipped through the checker
  324. # [08:55] <hsivonen> if the doctype were a separate spec, versioning fans could object to it and say in public that they aren't objecting to HTML5--just the doctype
  325. # [08:55] * Joins: zalan (~zalan@catv-89-135-108-81.catv.broadband.hu)
  326. # [08:56] <MikeSmith> othermaciej: I'm not sure whether the pubrules checker has always checked for the doctype constraint or not
  327. # [08:56] <MikeSmith> I think mi
  328. # [08:56] <MikeSmith> it might just pass it to the validator as-is
  329. # [08:56] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: I suppose
  330. # [08:57] <othermaciej> I do fear that splitting off the doctype could harm substantive progress
  331. # [08:57] <JonathanNeal> Is role="banner" gone?
  332. # [08:57] <MikeSmith> so the thing is, we would then need to define what we mean by "publishing as HTML5"
  333. # [08:57] <othermaciej> JonathanNeal: it still exists - just not default
  334. # [08:57] <JonathanNeal> I couldn't find it anywhere in the draft.
  335. # [08:58] <MikeSmith> for example, does "publishing as HTML5" mean we want it to be OK for a document to include features that don't yet have any implementation support?
  336. # [08:58] <othermaciej> JonathanNeal: it's specified in WAI-ARIA, which is a reference
  337. # [08:58] <JonathanNeal> or the WAI ARIA @ http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#banner (seems to have been removed?)
  338. # [08:59] <hsivonen> JonathanNeal: ARIA changed to publishing only the TOC at the main URL
  339. # [08:59] <othermaciej> JonathanNeal: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#banner
  340. # [08:59] <othermaciej> it's a multipage spec
  341. # [08:59] <JonathanNeal> Thanks hsivonen and othermaciej, found it now.
  342. # [08:59] * hsivonen doesn't like multipage specs
  343. # [08:59] * JonathanNeal agrees with hsivonen on that one.
  344. # [08:59] <othermaciej> MikeSmith: I think we would want to exercise judgment and not use markup features that break in current browsers or that are expected to break (or change) in the future
  345. # [09:00] <othermaciej> MikeSmith: perhaps the WC3 Team would not trust the HTML WG to exercise that level of judgment
  346. # [09:00] <othermaciej> I like my find in page, so me three
  347. # [09:00] <JonathanNeal> A lot of these roles are now elements in HTMl5.
  348. # [09:01] <annevk> MikeSmith, what does publishing as HTML4 mean?
  349. # [09:01] <annevk> MikeSmith, we could publish HTML4 that validates perfectly fine but is not usable in any browser, is that more acceptable than HTML5?
  350. # [09:02] <annevk> I'd argue that with HTML5 such a problem is less likely to occur
  351. # [09:03] <othermaciej> annevk: you could write validating HTML5 that is not usable in any browser (for example if it makes assumptions about default rendering)
  352. # [09:03] <MikeSmith> annevk: you're preaching to the choir here -- I'm saying we need to make sure we be clear about what it is we want to get approval for
  353. # [09:04] <othermaciej> I will ask the other two co-chairs if they feel this is an important issue
  354. # [09:04] <othermaciej> to me it's lower on the priority list than getting to Last Call, but it does kinda bother me
  355. # [09:05] <MikeSmith> othermaciej: as far as trust, it would seem to me at least that the W3C Team does trust that chairs of the HTML WG
  356. # [09:05] <MikeSmith> otherwise they would not continue to be the chairs
  357. # [09:05] <othermaciej> all trust has limits, I don't think they would give me the W3C's bank account number
  358. # [09:05] <othermaciej> then again, nor do I want it
  359. # [09:07] <sicking> i wouldn't mind if someone gave it to me
  360. # [09:08] <MikeSmith> sicking: !
  361. # [09:08] <sicking> as long as I got permission to use it for whatever i wanted :)
  362. # [09:08] <sicking> hey Mike!
  363. # [09:08] <MikeSmith> long time no see
  364. # [09:09] <sicking> yeah, i think my irc client wasn't configured to autoconnect here for a long time
  365. # [09:09] <sicking> iirc as a result of my mac dying
  366. # [09:10] * sicking looks at maciej
  367. # [09:10] <sicking> though really it was seagates fault, it was due to hard drive failure
  368. # [09:11] <MikeSmith> some might argue that hard drive failures are inevitable, so that any unforeseen consequences of a hard-drive failure are actually pilot error (that is, lack of preparing for the inevitable) :)
  369. # [09:14] <othermaciej> sicking: your Mac died?
  370. # [09:14] <othermaciej> sorry to hear
  371. # [09:15] <sicking> MikeSmith: it is true. Our desktop admin had asked me to get backup for quite some time
  372. # [09:15] <Hixie> why is the doctype an issue?
  373. # [09:15] <Hixie> that's not the interesting part of html5
  374. # [09:15] <sicking> othermaciej: work mac. HD failed. It ended up not being a huge deal, just lost a few days worth of work
  375. # [09:15] <othermaciej> I see
  376. # [09:16] <sicking> othermaciej: could have been *much* worse, but i got lucky
  377. # [09:16] <othermaciej> I concur with blaming yourself and/or the drive manufacturer
  378. # [09:16] <sicking> now i back up religiously. I have to say that time machine rocks
  379. # [09:16] <othermaciej> my most important things are checked into repositories or on mail or web servers
  380. # [09:16] * Joins: pesla (~retep@procurios.xs4all.nl)
  381. # [09:16] * Quits: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  382. # [09:16] <othermaciej> it would mostly be a personal annoyance, not a work one, if my drive totally failed
  383. # [09:17] * Joins: mhausenblas (~mhausenbl@wg1-nat.fwgal01.deri.ie)
  384. # [09:17] <roc> for Mozilla development it's pretty easy to keep your work in Mercurial patch queues and save them to http://hg.mozilla.org/users/rocallahan_mozilla.com/ etc
  385. # [09:18] <roc> sicking: just don't lose XBL2!
  386. # [09:19] <sicking> roc: you push your mq repository there?
  387. # [09:19] <annevk> XBL2 is more than a pipe dream? :)
  388. # [09:19] <roc> I push some there
  389. # [09:19] <roc> now that I mention it, I really should push my other big queue there too
  390. # [09:21] <othermaciej> I guess for extra safety I could post more works-in-progress to bugs.webkit,.org
  391. # [09:21] <othermaciej> as a manager I don't have the time to code anything that complicated though
  392. # [09:21] * roc anxiously scans his patch queue for anything embarrassing
  393. # [09:22] <roc> hg qdel video-h264
  394. # [09:23] <annevk> othermaciej, MikeSmith, http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/
  395. # [09:24] <othermaciej> annevk: thanks
  396. # [09:25] <othermaciej> if you're gonna do that then I guess I should delete my ogg patch from bugs.webkit.org
  397. # [09:25] * Joins: zcorpan (~zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  398. # [09:26] <MikeSmith> heh
  399. # [09:26] <MikeSmith> annevk: ah, cool
  400. # [09:27] <sicking> roc: dude, you're sitting there watching youtube on <video> but holding out on the rest of us?
  401. # [09:28] <sicking> roc: i want lolcats in HTML too!!
  402. # [09:28] * Quits: virtuelv (~virtuelv_@pat-tdc.opera.com) (Quit: Ex-Chat)
  403. # [09:29] * Joins: virtuelv (~virtuelv_@pat-tdc.opera.com)
  404. # [09:29] <roc> annevk: that's a great document
  405. # [09:32] * Quits: roc (~roc@121-72-172-168.dsl.telstraclear.net) (Quit: roc)
  406. # [09:32] <annevk> thanks!
  407. # [09:34] * Joins: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  408. # [09:36] * Joins: roc (~roc@121-72-172-168.dsl.telstraclear.net)
  409. # [09:41] * Joins: svl (~chatzilla@a194-109-2-65.dmn.xs4all.nl)
  410. # [09:54] <zcorpan> annevk: "Web Sockets" should not be a link?
  411. # [09:55] <zcorpan> annevk: under 5.3. Changes from 12 February 2009 to 23 April 2009
  412. # [09:57] <zcorpan> annevk: "potential hostile content inline" - potentially
  413. # [09:59] * Quits: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.88.117) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  414. # [10:00] * Quits: virtuelv (~virtuelv_@pat-tdc.opera.com) (Quit: Ex-Chat)
  415. # [10:00] * Joins: virtuelv (~virtuelv_@pat-tdc.opera.com)
  416. # [10:00] <MikeSmith> ah, cool.. Opera "Check for Updates" works for me now in my 10.5 alpha install and lets me install beta 1
  417. # [10:01] <annevk> zcorpan, potentially, really?
  418. # [10:01] <annevk> zcorpan, there's two separate drafts, wasn't sure what to link to
  419. # [10:04] <Hixie> it's called "WebSocket" now btw (the specs are WebSocket API and WebSocket protocol)
  420. # [10:05] <annevk> i guess I can rename it
  421. # [10:06] <annevk> Hixie, maybe remove "The" before WebSocket API? e.g. it's also Selectors API and hardly any other spec has "The"
  422. # [10:07] * Joins: ttepasse (~ttepasse@dslb-084-060-057-086.pools.arcor-ip.net)
  423. # Session Close: Tue Mar 02 10:07:26 2010
  424. #
  425. # Session Start: Tue Mar 02 10:08:42 2010
  426. # Session Ident: #whatwg
  427. # [10:08] * Now talking in #whatwg
  428. # [10:08] * Topic is 'WHATWG: http://www.whatwg.org/ -- logs: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ -- stats: http://gavinsharp.com/irc/whatwg.html -- Please leave your sense of logic at the door, thanks!'
  429. # [10:08] * Set by annevk42 on Mon Oct 19 22:03:06
  430. # [10:11] <zcorpan> annevk: i'm no english expert but i'd say potentially there
  431. # [10:11] * Joins: tametick (~chatzilla@chello084114134061.3.15.vie.surfer.at)
  432. # [10:11] * Joins: Phae (~phaeness@gateb.thls.bbc.co.uk)
  433. # [10:11] <annevk> zcorpan, same here, but then for potential
  434. # [10:11] * Joins: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.88.117)
  435. # [10:12] <annevk> MikeSmith, opinions?
  436. # [10:13] <MikeSmith> annevk: sorry, wasn't paying attention.. what's the particular thing you guys have been talking about?
  437. # [10:14] <annevk> the phrase "potential hostile content inline" in my draft
  438. # [10:15] <MikeSmith> annevk: I think zcorpan is right that "potentially" would be better
  439. # [10:16] <MikeSmith> because "potentially" is an adverb modifying "hostile"
  440. # [10:16] <MikeSmith> whereas otherwise I suppose it might be ambiguous about meaning "potential content"
  441. # [10:16] <annevk> fixored
  442. # [10:18] <MikeSmith> so, I guess I can start getting the drafts staged into the dated TR URLs
  443. # [10:43] * othermaciej wonders where to find 15-year-old HTML
  444. # [10:43] * othermaciej also wonders where to find whatever dope dbaron has been smoking
  445. # [10:45] * Quits: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  446. # [10:45] * Joins: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  447. # [10:45] <annevk> img { border:0 } is one of the few things I always use when I add images
  448. # [10:46] <othermaciej> does Opera put borders on img in links by default?
  449. # [10:46] <annevk> nope
  450. # [10:46] <annevk> which is a reason I not always use that rule anymore I think
  451. # [10:46] <annevk> just forget about it sometimes
  452. # [10:47] <Philip`> I wish Opera did, so that I wouldn't accidentally make pages that look uglier than expected in Firefox
  453. # [10:47] <annevk> I believe zcorpan did some research at some point on this subject
  454. # [10:48] <othermaciej> we have never had it in WebKit
  455. # [10:48] <othermaciej> and I don't think we ever got a bug, internal or external, to add it
  456. # [10:49] <hsivonen> othermaciej: Mac IE 5 didn't have the border
  457. # [10:50] <othermaciej> hsivonen: yeah, but in the early days, Mozilla/Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox was most people's standard of "correct' rendering
  458. # [10:50] <othermaciej> for people who filed bugs anyway
  459. # [10:51] <asmodai> annevk: If you ever see TMS (again), make sure to bring him stroopwafels
  460. # [10:53] * Joins: _Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.83.94)
  461. # [10:54] <othermaciej> ok, I found a bug related to borders around images
  462. # [10:54] <othermaciej> it was that we still drew a border for <input type=image border=0> in Safari 0.6
  463. # [10:55] * Quits: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.88.117) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  464. # [10:56] <othermaciej> hmm I take it back, I found a site that deliberately adds a blue border to image links:
  465. # [10:56] <othermaciej> http://news.google.com/
  466. # [10:57] <hsivonen> othermaciej: that's not the *default* blue border, though, in any browser
  467. # [10:57] <othermaciej> hsivonen: indeed
  468. # [11:02] <annevk> asmodai, TMS being?
  469. # [11:03] <asmodai> TMS!~Thomas@pat-tdc.opera.com
  470. # [11:04] <zcorpan> annevk: i researched image borders?
  471. # [11:04] <annevk> zcorpan, maybe I misremembered
  472. # [11:04] <zcorpan> i might well have, don't remember either :)
  473. # [11:06] <annevk> asmodai, ah
  474. # [11:06] * Joins: karlcow (~karl@nerval.la-grange.net)
  475. # [11:06] <othermaciej> I could understand arguing they are needed for compat, I was surprised at the argument that it's actually a good default
  476. # [11:08] * Joins: GarethAdams|Home (~GarethAda@pdpc/supporter/active/GarethAdams)
  477. # [11:10] * Joins: mat_t (~mattomasz@91.189.88.12)
  478. # [11:11] * Quits: Lachy (~Lachlan@london.perfect-privacy.com) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  479. # [11:15] * Quits: mat_t (~mattomasz@91.189.88.12) (Remote host closed the connection)
  480. # [11:15] * Joins: mat_t (~mattomasz@91.189.88.12)
  481. # [11:24] * Joins: ROBOd (~robod@89.122.216.38)
  482. # [11:25] <Hixie> there's a request that we report whether a websocket connection closed gracefully or not
  483. # [11:25] <Hixie> i see two ways to do this:
  484. # [11:25] <Hixie> 1. add some state data to the 'close' event
  485. # [11:25] <Hixie> 2. add a new event
  486. # [11:25] <Hixie> if we go with 2, does anybody have any suggestions for what the two events should be?
  487. # [11:25] <Hixie> onclose and onerrorclose?
  488. # [11:26] <Hixie> (onerror is going to be used for when an unexpected frame type is received)
  489. # [11:28] * Joins: Lachy (~Lachlan@pat.se.opera.com)
  490. # [11:28] <jgraham> I think I prefer 1). Having to register two different event handlers in the case that you don't care about the error seems unweildy
  491. # [11:29] <Philip`> Are people usually going to want to perform the same processing in response to both types of closing?
  492. # [11:29] <jgraham> Plus the state seems needed anyway if there is more than one possible type of error
  493. # [11:29] <Hixie> k
  494. # [11:29] <othermaciej> Hixie: are there any non-fatal errors?
  495. # [11:29] <othermaciej> I would say "close" and "error" if there were two events
  496. # [11:29] <Hixie> othermaciej: yeah, receiving a frame of an unexpected type
  497. # [11:29] <othermaciej> I also think extra info in the "close" event is good
  498. # [11:29] <Hixie> k
  499. # [11:30] <othermaciej> it would be nice if the close event could tell you the last message known to be delivered, but that requires more than clean close I think
  500. # [11:32] <Hixie> v2.
  501. # [11:32] * Quits: tametick (~chatzilla@chello084114134061.3.15.vie.surfer.at) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6/20100115132715])
  502. # [11:32] <Hixie> actually you couldn't do that in the close event anyway
  503. # [11:32] <Hixie> you need to reconnect to find that information
  504. # [11:33] <annevk> can't we use a different event for a frame of an unexpected type
  505. # [11:33] <annevk> the error event has always been used for network errors
  506. # [11:33] <Hixie> we can use whatever event you want
  507. # [11:34] <Hixie> what would you like
  508. # [11:36] <annevk> messageerror?
  509. # [11:36] <Hixie> done
  510. # [11:37] <annevk> http://isgeolocationpartofhtml5.com/ sweet
  511. # [11:37] <othermaciej> Hixie: last message *known* to be delivered - it would be a pessimistic estimate in the error case, and exact in the clean close case
  512. # [11:37] <othermaciej> Hixie: would not require reconnectin
  513. # [11:37] <othermaciej> Hixie: but it would require some form of per-message acks
  514. # [11:38] <Hixie> othermaciej: definitely v2.
  515. # [11:38] <othermaciej> not saying this is essential, just theorizing
  516. # [11:38] <othermaciej> annevk: a lot of people would disagree with that site
  517. # [11:38] <othermaciej> Hixie: I don't know if it has to be v-anything
  518. # [11:39] <othermaciej> there is a tension in designing this protocol
  519. # [11:39] <othermaciej> on the one hand, it would be hugely valuable to have practical experience before adding a lot of stuff
  520. # [11:39] <othermaciej> on the other hand, you really don't want to accidentally lock in a flawed design prematurely
  521. # [11:39] <othermaciej> that seems like a weakness in Roy's proposed "deploy first, then standardize" model
  522. # [11:41] <Hixie> specs have to be written while implementations grow
  523. # [11:41] <Hixie> there's no magical solution, you just have to be careful
  524. # [11:41] <Hixie> anyway, what should this event attribute be. event.closeError?
  525. # [11:42] <Hixie> (boolean)
  526. # [11:43] <othermaciej> I like booleans to start with something like "has" or "is" but that's hard to do in this case
  527. # [11:44] <Hixie> event.wasClean?
  528. # [11:45] <Hixie> what's the opposite of a clean close
  529. # [11:45] <Hixie> abrupt?
  530. # [11:45] <Hixie> terminated?
  531. # [11:45] <annevk> why do we need an event attribute if you have error/close?
  532. # [11:45] <Hixie> annevk: it was argued that we should have only one event
  533. # [11:45] <annevk> that's not really consistent with <img>, XHR, etc.
  534. # [11:46] <Hixie> since in most cases you won't care
  535. # [11:46] <Hixie> well on those this event is called "load"
  536. # [11:46] <annevk> you can just do socket.onerror = x; socket.onclose = x;
  537. # [11:46] <Hixie> (which isn't really especially meaningful here)
  538. # [11:46] <Hixie> annevk: yeah but that means the simple case is harder
  539. # [11:46] <Hixie> which is bad API design
  540. # [11:47] <annevk> i guess those will get img.onloadend or some such
  541. # [11:47] <annevk> at some point
  542. # [11:47] <annevk> hmm
  543. # [11:48] * Quits: sicking (~chatzilla@c-69-181-197-163.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  544. # [12:02] * Joins: maikmerten (~merten@dialbs-213-023-033-115.static.arcor-ip.net)
  545. # [12:03] * Quits: ROBOd (~robod@89.122.216.38) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  546. # [12:04] * Quits: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  547. # [12:04] * Joins: ROBOd (~robod@89.122.216.38)
  548. # [12:05] * Joins: gavin_ (~gavin@CPE001346f5db49-CM0018c0db9a8a.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com)
  549. # [12:05] * Quits: gavin_ (~gavin@CPE001346f5db49-CM0018c0db9a8a.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) (Changing host)
  550. # [12:05] * Joins: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  551. # [12:06] * Quits: _Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.83.94) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  552. # [12:06] * Quits: ttepasse (~ttepasse@dslb-084-060-057-086.pools.arcor-ip.net) (Quit: Verlassend)
  553. # [12:10] * Quits: beilabs (~beilabs@ppp121-44-57-138.lns20.syd6.internode.on.net) (Quit: Leaving)
  554. # [12:12] * Joins: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.82.49)
  555. # [12:12] * Joins: MikeSmithX (~MikeSmith@EM114-48-7-186.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  556. # [12:16] * Quits: MikeSmith (~MikeSmith@EM114-48-46-214.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) (Disconnected by services)
  557. # [12:16] * MikeSmithX is now known as MikeSmith
  558. # [12:16] * Joins: _Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.85.110)
  559. # [12:17] <MikeSmith> zcorpan: how about "A void element is an element whose content model never allows it to have contents under any circumstances." ?
  560. # [12:17] <MikeSmith> that would seem to exclude the <colgroup span> case
  561. # [12:18] <Hixie> an element being void or not has nothing to do with its content model, in theory
  562. # [12:18] <MikeSmith> Hixie: so what does it have to do with?
  563. # [12:18] <Hixie> (though of course in practice there's a relationship)
  564. # [12:18] <Hixie> it's just a syntax thing
  565. # [12:18] <Hixie> there's a list of elements that are void
  566. # [12:18] <Hixie> they are the ones that never have an end tag
  567. # [12:19] <Hixie> that's all there is to it
  568. # [12:19] <MikeSmith> so you are not defining them as "void" in the XML syntax?
  569. # [12:19] * Quits: Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.82.49) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
  570. # [12:19] <Hixie> "void" is a text/html syntax feature, it has no equivalent in XML
  571. # [12:20] <Hixie> it's similar to optional tags
  572. # [12:20] <Hixie> or RCDATA elements
  573. # [12:21] <asmodai> hahaha
  574. # [12:21] <asmodai> http://i.imgur.com/Zdk4B.jpg
  575. # [12:21] <asmodai> Now that's nifty
  576. # [12:21] * Quits: _Utkarsh (~admin@117.201.85.110) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  577. # [12:24] <zcorpan> Hixie: why messageerror and not just error?
  578. # [12:24] <MikeSmith> Hixie: I guess rather than getting hung up on the word "void", I am more interested in finding a way to describe what the common characteristic of this particular set of elements is in the abstract language, rather than in any particular syntax
  579. # [12:24] <Hixie> zcorpan: anne asked for it, see about an hour ago in the irc logs
  580. # [12:24] <Hixie> zcorpan: i'd rather have error, so if you convince him to change his mind, i'll change it :-)
  581. # [12:25] <Hixie> MikeSmith: the concept of "void" is a syntax thing, it has nothing to do with the abstract language
  582. # [12:25] <zcorpan> annevk: error isn't always about network errors
  583. # [12:25] <zcorpan> annevk: what's the benefit of messageerror over error?
  584. # [12:26] <Hixie> MikeSmith: you can probably come up with some characteristic of the abstract language that all the void elements share, but it'll be just a coincidence
  585. # [12:27] <zcorpan> MikeSmith: how do you describe elements that have optional tags?
  586. # [12:29] <MikeSmith> zcorpan: I don't label them with anything. Is your suggestion that it would be an improvement to not have any special label for "elements that are not allowed to have contents under any circumstances"?
  587. # [12:29] <zcorpan> MikeSmith: it's similar in concept; i don't suggest which approach is better
  588. # [12:29] <annevk> zcorpan, I thought we were going to have an event for network errors as well
  589. # [12:30] <zcorpan> MikeSmith: but if you're talking about void elements, i think the definition should be accurate
  590. # [12:30] <annevk> zcorpan, and since I thought that was the case I thought it should be error rather than closeerror
  591. # [12:30] <MikeSmith> OK
  592. # [12:31] <annevk> zcorpan, Hixie, so since we now expose this information on close I suppose we can use error after all
  593. # [12:31] <annevk> zcorpan, Hixie, though having said that, is there a context where error is dispatched more than once?
  594. # [12:31] <annevk> hmm, maybe applicationCache
  595. # [12:31] <Hixie> script onerror
  596. # [12:32] <Hixie> as in, window.onerror
  597. # [12:32] <zcorpan> but that's not an actual event :)
  598. # [12:32] <zcorpan> media elements can get error several times if you load() it several times
  599. # [12:32] <Hixie> workers too
  600. # [12:33] <zcorpan> or change src
  601. # [12:33] * pesla is now known as peslalunch
  602. # [12:33] <annevk> zcorpan, well yeah, but goes for <img>, XMLHttpRequest etc. too
  603. # [12:33] <annevk> zcorpan, I meant one operation causing it to be dispatched multiple times
  604. # [12:33] * annevk forgot how window.onerror worked
  605. # [12:40] * Joins: lazni (~lazni@118.71.41.35)
  606. # [12:40] * Joins: myakura (~myakura@p3213-ipbf4202marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp)
  607. # [12:51] * Joins: Michelangelo (~Michelang@193.205.162.69)
  608. # [13:07] * Quits: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  609. # [13:14] * Joins: Utkarsh (Utkarsh@117.96.54.93)
  610. # [13:15] * Quits: m_W (~mwj@c-69-141-106-205.hsd1.nj.comcast.net) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  611. # [13:17] <hsivonen> sigh. I broke sync XHR semantics
  612. # [13:17] <hsivonen> (locally only but still annoying)
  613. # [13:19] * Joins: FireFly (~firefly@unaffiliated/firefly)
  614. # [13:20] * Joins: utvikl (~gorm@ft172067.dep.no)
  615. # [13:20] <zcorpan> should .ogg be video/ogg or audio/ogg ?
  616. # [13:20] <Philip`> No
  617. # [13:21] <Lachy> application/ogg
  618. # [13:21] <Lachy> I think
  619. # [13:21] <Lachy> .ogv is conventially video/ogg
  620. # [13:21] <Philip`> Seems like you need more information than the file extension to make a correct choice
  621. # [13:21] * zcorpan leaves out .ogg from his article
  622. # [13:22] * Quits: Michelangelo (~Michelang@193.205.162.69) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  623. # [13:22] <jgraham> It seems like media is all too confusing and should be served with a mime type like media/theres-no-way-I-made-the-right-choice
  624. # [13:24] <Dashiva> Thanks to .ogg existing, you can't even tell whether it's audio or video...
  625. # [13:25] <GarethAdams|Home> zcorpan: if you could determine MIME types based solely on file extension, there wouldn't be a need for MIME types
  626. # [13:25] <Lachy> Dashiva, that's an inherent problem with container formats that can contain 1 or more streams of multiple formats
  627. # [13:25] * Quits: mat_t (~mattomasz@91.189.88.12) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  628. # [13:26] <annevk> jgraham, just omit Content-Type!
  629. # [13:27] <Dashiva> media/unknown
  630. # [13:27] <Philip`> unknown/ogg
  631. # [13:28] <Dashiva> Lachy: Makes me wonder, what happens if you give a file containing multiple audio streams as input to <audio>?
  632. # [13:29] <Lachy> I believe it will select the first audio stream
  633. # [13:29] <Lachy> since there is no stream selection in the api
  634. # [13:29] * hsivonen notes that Larry took credit on putting MIME into HTTP in his latest blog post
  635. # [13:29] <hsivonen> s/on/for/
  636. # [13:29] <Lachy> but UAs might provide some stream selection mechanism
  637. # [13:33] <Dashiva> "In a normal standards group, the group would have a discussion, and come to some conclusion, and the editor would follow along with the group consensus."
  638. # [13:33] <Dashiva> Kind of like how the group had a discussion and concluded canvas was in scope
  639. # [13:35] * Quits: wakaba_ (~wakaba_@122x221x184x68.ap122.ftth.ucom.ne.jp) (Quit: Leaving...)
  640. # [13:36] * Quits: Utkarsh (Utkarsh@117.96.54.93) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  641. # [13:40] <asmodai> Well, that was funny, opened a linked Google Wave and the scripts it uses is making Firefox cry and hang. Good thing I got a stop script at one point.
  642. # [13:42] * Quits: eighty4 (~eighty4@h-112-7.A163.corp.bahnhof.se) (Quit: Leaving...)
  643. # [13:48] * Joins: Utkarsh (Utkarsh@117.96.0.107)
  644. # [13:48] * Quits: Utkarsh (Utkarsh@117.96.0.107) (Client Quit)
  645. # [13:49] * Joins: workmad3 (~workmad3@188-222-158-93.zone13.bethere.co.uk)
  646. # [14:00] * Quits: Rik` (~Rik`@pha75-2-81-57-187-57.fbx.proxad.net) (Remote host closed the connection)
  647. # [14:00] * Joins: Rik` (~Rik`@pha75-2-81-57-187-57.fbx.proxad.net)
  648. # [14:17] * Joins: taf2 (~taf2@173-13-232-33-WashingtonDC.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
  649. # [14:17] * Quits: Rik` (~Rik`@pha75-2-81-57-187-57.fbx.proxad.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  650. # [14:17] * Joins: Rik`_ (~Rik`@pha75-2-81-57-187-57.fbx.proxad.net)
  651. # [14:19] <foolip> zcorpan: .ogg should actually be audio/ogg according to some RFC, for legacy reasons mostly
  652. # [14:21] * Joins: mat_t (~mattomasz@91.189.88.12)
  653. # [14:22] <zcorpan> foolip: yeah i've heard that, although i think some conversion tools output ogg videos with .ogg extensions
  654. # [14:23] <zcorpan> which kinda makes the rfc out of touch with reality, and we'll probably end up with videos labeled as audio/ogg
  655. # [14:24] <zcorpan> which is why browsers will assume <video> when loading audio/ogg content directly
  656. # [14:34] * Joins: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  657. # [14:42] <asmodai> zcorpan / annevk: congratz on 10.50
  658. # [14:45] <foolip> zcorpan: doesn't matter, serving everything as any "maybe" or "yes" mime type (e.g. .m4v as audio/x-wav) would work
  659. # [14:46] <foolip> I'm not sure if browsers rejecting e.g. text/plain will actually lead to the right mime type being used
  660. # [14:49] <zcorpan> asmodai: thanks
  661. # [14:50] <zcorpan> foolip: gif/jpg/ico are in the same situation, but are mostly correctly labeled (i think)
  662. # [14:51] <zcorpan> and png
  663. # [14:52] * Joins: eighty4 (~eighty4@h-112-7.A163.corp.bahnhof.se)
  664. # [14:53] * Joins: aroben (~aroben@unaffiliated/aroben)
  665. # [14:56] <Dashiva> For some definition of mostly
  666. # [14:56] <Dashiva> I get warnings about mislabeled images from irfanview regularly
  667. # [15:07] * Joins: lazni1 (~lazni@118.71.41.35)
  668. # [15:07] * Quits: lazni (~lazni@118.71.41.35) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  669. # [15:10] * peslalunch is now known as pesla
  670. # [15:10] * Joins: Utkarsh (Utkarsh@117.96.38.186)
  671. # [15:15] * Joins: miketaylr (~miketaylr@38.117.156.163)
  672. # [15:16] * Joins: BlurstOfTimes (~blurstoft@168.203.117.66)
  673. # [15:17] * Quits: Utkarsh (Utkarsh@117.96.38.186) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  674. # [15:28] * Joins: Heimidal (~heimidal@adsl-144-156-78.rmo.bellsouth.net)
  675. # [15:28] * Quits: Heimidal (~heimidal@adsl-144-156-78.rmo.bellsouth.net) (Changing host)
  676. # [15:28] * Joins: Heimidal (~heimidal@unaffiliated/heimidal)
  677. # [15:32] * Joins: tametick (~chatzilla@chello084114134061.3.15.vie.surfer.at)
  678. # [15:33] * Quits: zcorpan (~zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  679. # [15:33] * Joins: zcorpan (~zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  680. # [15:35] * Quits: zcorpan (~zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  681. # [15:35] * Quits: workmad3 (~workmad3@188-222-158-93.zone13.bethere.co.uk) (Remote host closed the connection)
  682. # [15:35] * Joins: zcorpan (~zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  683. # [15:35] * Parts: zcorpan (~zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  684. # [15:37] * Joins: sbublava (~stephan@77.116.217.42.wireless.dyn.drei.com)
  685. # [15:44] <gsnedders> Hixie: yt?
  686. # [15:47] * Joins: pmuellr (~pmuellr@nat/ibm/x-odqhbginijkugmbd)
  687. # [16:10] * Joins: krijn (~krijnhoet@g179009.upc-g.chello.nl)
  688. # [16:17] * Joins: dglazkov (~dglazkov@c-67-188-0-62.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  689. # [16:32] * Quits: eighty4 (~eighty4@h-112-7.A163.corp.bahnhof.se) (Remote host closed the connection)
  690. # [16:46] * Quits: daedb (~daed@h11n1fls34o986.telia.com) (Remote host closed the connection)
  691. # [16:50] * Quits: payman (~payman@pat.se.opera.com) (Quit: Leaving)
  692. # [16:51] * Joins: Rik` (~Rik`@pha75-2-81-57-187-57.fbx.proxad.net)
  693. # [16:51] * Quits: krijn (~krijnhoet@g179009.upc-g.chello.nl) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  694. # [16:52] * Joins: krijn (~krijnhoet@g179009.upc-g.chello.nl)
  695. # [16:54] * Quits: dglazkov (~dglazkov@c-67-188-0-62.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Quit: dglazkov)
  696. # [16:54] * Quits: Rik`_ (~Rik`@pha75-2-81-57-187-57.fbx.proxad.net) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  697. # [16:54] * Joins: workmad3 (~workmad3@cpc3-bagu10-0-0-cust651.1-3.cable.virginmedia.com)
  698. # [16:56] * Quits: Heimidal (~heimidal@unaffiliated/heimidal) (Remote host closed the connection)
  699. # [17:01] * Joins: Heimidal (~heimidal@unaffiliated/heimidal)
  700. # [17:03] * Quits: Maurice (~ano@a80-101-46-164.adsl.xs4all.nl) (Quit: Disconnected...)
  701. # [17:07] * Quits: boblet (~boblet@p1072-ipbf36osakakita.osaka.ocn.ne.jp) (Quit: boblet)
  702. # [17:14] <hsivonen> ok, so now Opera has Theora support, too. now if xiph released a thusnelda version of xiphqt, I could write a tutorial without hand-waving about future software
  703. # [17:19] * Quits: wycats (~yehudakat@c-69-181-212-215.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Quit: wycats)
  704. # [17:21] * Quits: svl (~chatzilla@a194-109-2-65.dmn.xs4all.nl) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky!)
  705. # [17:22] * Quits: myakura (~myakura@p3213-ipbf4202marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp) (Quit: Leaving...)
  706. # [17:27] <TabAtkins> Argh, why would you use script and abspos to simulate fixpos? Pretty sure everyone supports it.
  707. # [17:33] * Quits: taf2 (~taf2@173-13-232-33-WashingtonDC.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  708. # [17:35] * Joins: dglazkov (~dglazkov@nat/google/x-roqialezshpoofif)
  709. # [17:35] <miketaylr> TabAtkins: 'cept for ie6, yes
  710. # [17:40] * Quits: mpt (~mpt@canonical/mpt) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  711. # [17:43] * Joins: mpt (~mpt@canonical/mpt)
  712. # [17:43] <TabAtkins> miketaylr: Man, seriously? I always forget what IE6 doesn't support, dammit. >_<
  713. # [17:44] <TabAtkins> Lucky me I'm allowed to ignore it.
  714. # [17:44] <miketaylr> me too :D
  715. # [17:44] <miketaylr> this guy sometimes helps, http://a.deveria.com/caniuse/#feat=css-fixed
  716. # [17:45] <TabAtkins> Ah, right. I like that page.
  717. # [17:48] * Joins: krijn_ (~krijnhoet@g179009.upc-g.chello.nl)
  718. # [17:51] * Quits: krijn (~krijnhoet@g179009.upc-g.chello.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  719. # [17:51] * krijn_ is now known as krijn
  720. # [17:51] * Quits: lazni1 (~lazni@118.71.41.35) (Quit: Leaving.)
  721. # [17:53] * Quits: JonathanNeal (~JonathanN@99-59-124-67.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
  722. # [18:02] <annevk> sad that Apple is not using patents just for defense
  723. # [18:03] <jgraham> sad that the BBC is proposing to close down 6Music
  724. # [18:03] <jgraham> OK, that might just be me
  725. # [18:03] <jgraham> But I just found out and am devestated
  726. # [18:03] <Philip`> It wouldn't be until the end of 2011, apparently
  727. # [18:04] <jgraham> That doesn't help much if they do in fact do it
  728. # [18:05] <jgraham> It only means there is a little time to try to stop them
  729. # [18:05] <Philip`> It also means you can spend the next two years listening to it
  730. # [18:05] * jgraham is confused by the whole thing, like how they propose to make more money abroad whilst simultaneously cancelling their most popular shows abroad like Top Gear
  731. # [18:06] <Philip`> You could even save the two years' output to disk, and play it on loop for the rest of forever
  732. # [18:06] <annevk> they are cancelling Top Gear?
  733. # [18:06] <annevk> aaah
  734. # [18:06] <Philip`> since you'll have forgotten about the earlier shows later on
  735. # [18:06] <annevk> whenever I see it that show is fun
  736. # [18:06] * Philip` hadn't heard that about Top Gear
  737. # [18:06] <Philip`> I'd heard they were planning to sell the Top Gear magazine, but that's quite different
  738. # [18:06] <jgraham> Philip`: It just means I will spend two years being upset at the stupidity of whoever thinks that UK Commerical radio is an acceptable alternative
  739. # [18:07] <jgraham> Oh maybe I got the wrong idea about Top Gear
  740. # [18:07] <jgraham> I was still in shock by that part of the article
  741. # [18:07] * annevk listens to Norwegian radio now and then nowadays
  742. # [18:07] * jgraham has not listened to much Swedish radio, but it has always been utterly dreadful
  743. # [18:08] <annevk> oh yes
  744. # [18:08] <annevk> my HD arrived
  745. # [18:09] <annevk> time to power down and start over I guess
  746. # [18:10] * Parts: annevk (~annevk@5355737B.cable.casema.nl)
  747. # [18:10] <jgraham> (I guess I don't have very Swedish taste in music)
  748. # [18:14] * Quits: GarethAdams|Home (~GarethAda@pdpc/supporter/active/GarethAdams) (Quit: GarethAdams|Home)
  749. # [18:15] <AryehGregor> Could I file a bug with the W3C validator team asking them that if they find a page using a strict doctype is invalid, that they check it against HTML5 and report it as valid HTML5 if it is?
  750. # [18:15] <AryehGregor> That would make MediaWiki's switch to HTML5 significantly smoother.
  751. # [18:16] <AryehGregor> Does anyone know who I could talk to about it?
  752. # [18:16] * Quits: MikeSmith (~MikeSmith@EM114-48-7-186.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  753. # [18:18] * Joins: JonathanNeal (~JonathanN@rrcs-76-79-114-213.west.biz.rr.com)
  754. # [18:21] * Joins: MikeSmith (~MikeSmith@EM114-48-20-217.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  755. # [18:24] * Joins: daedb (~daed@h11n1fls34o986.telia.com)
  756. # [18:27] * Joins: ap (~ap@17.246.19.5)
  757. # [18:27] <JonathanNeal> Is <nav role="navigation"> completely unnecessary or good accessibility practice?
  758. # [18:29] * Joins: ttepasse (~ttepasse@ip-95-222-120-117.unitymediagroup.de)
  759. # [18:30] <AryehGregor> JonathanNeal, completely unnecessary.
  760. # [18:31] <JonathanNeal> Is the role attribute alltogether unnecessary, or can it be used for good accessibility practice?
  761. # [18:33] <paul_irish> JonathanNeal: peep these two sections: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#annotations-for-assistive-technology-products-(aria) and http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/
  762. # [18:33] <AryehGregor> If it were altogether unnecessary, would it have been added to the spec?
  763. # [18:34] <workmad3> in that case, I'd say completely unnecessary as it's redundant... you're in a navigation element, so repeating that the navigation element is used for navigation is redundant
  764. # [18:34] <workmad3> but you can put more useful roles in
  765. # [18:34] <AryehGregor> <nav> is defined to have a default role of "navigation".
  766. # [18:34] <workmad3> heh :) there we go
  767. # [18:34] * workmad3 should really look at aria a bit more)
  768. # [18:35] <AryehGregor> At least, I assume it is.
  769. # [18:35] <JonathanNeal> I hate how these pages hang in Firefox.
  770. # [18:35] <AryehGregor> Yep.
  771. # [18:35] <JonathanNeal> I have to wait until Firefox is done doing whatever, and then open them in Chrome.
  772. # [18:35] <AryehGregor> JonathanNeal, you can add "multipage/" before the "#" and it will load fine, even with a section anchor.
  773. # [18:35] <AryehGregor> I think it's fixed in Firefox 3.7, anyway.
  774. # [18:35] <workmad3> ho hum... waiting for FF to sort itself
  775. # [18:36] <JonathanNeal> Well, it works in Chrome just fine.
  776. # [18:37] <JonathanNeal> Oh my, so header is banner and hgroup is header?
  777. # [18:38] * Quits: Phae (~phaeness@gateb.thls.bbc.co.uk)
  778. # [18:38] <JonathanNeal> header element -> No role, if specified, role must be banner ... and then ... hgroup element -> heading role
  779. # [18:46] * Quits: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  780. # [18:47] * Joins: gavin_ (~gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  781. # [18:49] <TabAtkins> JonathanNeal: banner is a page-unique role, so they can't just apply it to all <header>s by default (though we tried to at first). That's why <header> has no default role.
  782. # [18:49] * Quits: ttepasse (~ttepasse@ip-95-222-120-117.unitymediagroup.de) (Read error: Connection timed out)
  783. # [18:49] * Quits: krijn (~krijnhoet@g179009.upc-g.chello.nl) (Quit: krijn)
  784. # [18:49] * Quits: pesla (~retep@procurios.xs4all.nl) (Quit: ( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.21 :: www.esnation.com ))
  785. # [18:49] <JonathanNeal> I'm aware, I just figured that <header> would be "heading" and <hgroup> would be "banner"
  786. # [18:49] * Joins: ttepasse (~ttepasse@ip-95-222-120-117.unitymediagroup.de)
  787. # [18:49] <JonathanNeal> Since usually the banner does not contain the navigation.
  788. # [18:50] <JonathanNeal> And usually the heading does.
  789. # [18:50] <AryehGregor> MikeSmith, do you know anyone I could contact on the W3C validator team to suggest that if a document has an obsolete but conforming doctype, and fails parsing under that doctype, the W3C validator should try parsing as HTML5 and declare it valid if it's valid HTML5?
  790. # [18:50] <AryehGregor> Otherwise Wikipedia (and all other MediaWikis) will look like invalid XHTML 1 Strict, which is kind of a pain for evangelism.
  791. # [18:51] <AryehGregor> (well, all other MediaWikis by default, unless they disable well-formed XML)
  792. # [18:57] * Quits: sbublava (~stephan@77.116.217.42.wireless.dyn.drei.com) (Quit: sbublava)
  793. # [18:59] * Joins: KevinMarks (~KevinMark@157.22.22.46)
  794. # [19:05] * Quits: riven (~riven@53518387.cable.casema.nl) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  795. # [19:05] * Joins: riven (~riven@53518387.cable.casema.nl)
  796. # [19:08] <TabAtkins> JonathanNeal: Why did you think that? Did you think that <h1-6> were "banner" instead of "heading"?
  797. # [19:09] * Joins: svl (~me@ip565744a7.direct-adsl.nl)
  798. # [19:10] <TabAtkins> That is to say, is it the aria names that were confusing you, or the HTML names?
  799. # [19:11] * Joins: wycats (~yehudakat@enginey-9.border1.sfo002.pnap.net)
  800. # [19:11] * Joins: dave_levin (~dave_levi@nat/google/x-rpghyhpmtjaulpcn)
  801. # [19:12] <JonathanNeal> It was the combination of <header> being "banner" and <hgroup> being "heading" but it makes sense with the understanding of H1
  802. # [19:13] * Joins: eighty4 (~eighty4@h-60-214.A163.priv.bahnhof.se)
  803. # [19:14] <TabAtkins> Gotcha.
  804. # [19:17] <JonathanNeal> Also, I was suprised to have a <nav> inside a role="banner"
  805. # [19:19] <TabAtkins> So the name for that ARIA role seems unintuitive for you?
  806. # [19:21] * Joins: scherkus (~scherkus@74.125.59.1)
  807. # [19:22] <JonathanNeal> No, I think I can adjust my meaning of banner, which isn't specific.
  808. # [19:22] <JonathanNeal> A banner can include navigation.
  809. # [19:22] <JonathanNeal> I'm just bringing it forward as I processed it.
  810. # [19:23] <TabAtkins> Yeah, but your earlier understanding of the word didn't match up. I'm just narrowing down where the confusion originated. ^_^
  811. # [19:29] * Quits: othermaciej (~mjs@c-69-181-42-237.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Quit: othermaciej)
  812. # [19:32] * Joins: scherkus_ (~scherkus@74.125.59.1)
  813. # [19:32] * Quits: workmad3 (~workmad3@cpc3-bagu10-0-0-cust651.1-3.cable.virginmedia.com) (Remote host closed the connection)
  814. # [19:36] * Quits: scherkus (~scherkus@74.125.59.1) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  815. # [19:37] * Quits: Lachy (~Lachlan@pat.se.opera.com) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  816. # [19:39] * Quits: roc (~roc@121-72-172-168.dsl.telstraclear.net) (Quit: roc)
  817. # [19:42] * Joins: roc (~roc@121-72-172-168.dsl.telstraclear.net)
  818. # [19:43] * Joins: drunknbass_work (~aaron@pool-71-106-110-90.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net)
  819. # [19:44] * Quits: mat_t (~mattomasz@91.189.88.12) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  820. # [19:51] * Joins: annevk (~annevk@5355737B.cable.casema.nl)
  821. # [19:51] <annevk> installed
  822. # [19:51] <annevk> that took ages
  823. # [19:51] <annevk> for some reason the USB stick was broken after all so I had to create a new one which was kind of tricky
  824. # [19:53] * Joins: htcn (~idolm@dyn-xdsl-83-150-113-126.nebulazone.fi)
  825. # [19:53] <htcn> when you create a Pattern in a canvas context, can you offset it
  826. # [19:53] <htcn> or just center it
  827. # [19:54] <htcn> I used a pattern for drawing a hue/saturation/brightness colorwheel's hue circle
  828. # [19:55] <JonathanNeal> Would anyone be willing to look at the source of http://sandbox.thewikies.com/html5-layout/ and share their thoughts on the notes I've included?
  829. # [19:59] <roc> annevk: "sad that Apple is not using patents just for defense" --- what was that about?
  830. # [20:01] <annevk> roc, according to daringfireball they're attacking HTC
  831. # [20:01] <TabAtkins> JonathanNeal: What's the "Zen" business sprinkled throughout your notes?
  832. # [20:03] <TabAtkins> Oh, I see. For one of the display modes.
  833. # [20:03] <roc> ta
  834. # [20:06] * Joins: jwalden (~waldo@nat/mozilla/x-szecabqdjqnqwctz)
  835. # [20:07] * Quits: jwalden (~waldo@nat/mozilla/x-szecabqdjqnqwctz) (Client Quit)
  836. # [20:07] * Joins: jwalden (~waldo@nat/mozilla/x-iipxtpnfmklptejo)
  837. # [20:07] * Joins: Lachy (~Lachlan@london.perfect-privacy.com)
  838. # [20:07] * Joins: dbaron (~dbaron@nat/mozilla/x-rdgeholdxitzavir)
  839. # [20:07] <JonathanNeal> Zen, yea it's not entirely useful, but I kept it so I could mark meaningful classnames used throughout the document versus (structural classnames).
  840. # [20:09] * Quits: zalan (~zalan@catv-89-135-108-81.catv.broadband.hu)
  841. # [20:09] <roc> annevk: it looks like they're suing over mostly software patents :-(
  842. # [20:13] * Quits: mhausenblas (~mhausenbl@wg1-nat.fwgal01.deri.ie) (Quit: mhausenblas)
  843. # [20:13] <paul_irish> JonathanNeal: looks good. nice to have the implied role's in there
  844. # [20:14] <JonathanNeal> paul_irish, thanks, I'll work on a better name than "Zen", but something that implies to us "this is meaningful markup"
  845. # [20:16] <AryehGregor> Yes, well, everyone sensible always knew Apple was evil.
  846. # [20:17] * Joins: franksalim (~frank@adsl-75-61-84-181.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net)
  847. # [20:18] <annevk> according to gruber it's the first attack they've made
  848. # [20:18] <annevk> i kind of hoped they'd never do that
  849. # [20:19] <annevk> guess I'm going to consider switching away from apple hardware entirely
  850. # [20:19] * AryehGregor has never owned an Apple product, and doesn't ever plan to.
  851. # [20:24] * Joins: othermaciej (~mjs@2620:0:1b00:1191:21f:f3ff:fe4e:bf33)
  852. # [20:25] * Quits: othermaciej (~mjs@2620:0:1b00:1191:21f:f3ff:fe4e:bf33) (Remote host closed the connection)
  853. # [20:26] * Joins: othermaciej (~mjs@2620:0:1b00:1191:21f:f3ff:fe4e:bf33)
  854. # [20:30] * Joins: sicking (~chatzilla@nat/mozilla/x-cbcpnqotbfcbmopu)
  855. # [20:30] * Quits: aroben (~aroben@unaffiliated/aroben) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  856. # [20:31] * Joins: aroben (~aroben@unaffiliated/aroben)
  857. # [20:34] * Joins: cpearce (~cpearce@203-97-204-82.dsl.clear.net.nz)
  858. # [20:36] <JonathanNeal> I also think I could remove <nav class="portlet-toolbar"><ul ... /></nav> for <menu class="portlet-toolbar"><ul ... /></nav> what do you guys think?
  859. # [20:37] * Joins: gratz|home (~gratz@cpc3-brig15-2-0-cust237.3-3.cable.virginmedia.com)
  860. # [20:42] <roc> the problem is that you can only debug Mac bugs on Apple hardware, because you can't virtualize Mac OS (because Apple is evil)
  861. # [20:45] <annevk> according to markp soon everything will be iPhone OS'd so that shouldn't be an issue
  862. # [20:52] <roc> why do people on www-font care about better tools for creating EOT fonts
  863. # [20:54] <Philip`> Because they want to make sites that look the same in IE as in other browsers
  864. # [20:54] * Quits: franksalim (~frank@adsl-75-61-84-181.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net) (Quit: Ex-Chat)
  865. # [20:54] <TabAtkins> Because (1) if we want to use @font-face widely, EOT is still necessary, and (2) CWT, one of the deliverables for FontWG, is basically EOT.
  866. # [20:55] <annevk> we're having a Font WG after all? oh god
  867. # [20:55] <othermaciej> Is CWT still in the Font WG deliverables?
  868. # [20:55] <TabAtkins> Just to define WOFF and CWT, and get tests for font-face.
  869. # [20:55] <annevk> I'm very much opposed to all this
  870. # [20:56] <TabAtkins> annevk: You just hate all the non-TTF formats. ^_^
  871. # [20:56] <othermaciej> Apple is not enthusiastic about implementing random new font formats, but with Mozilla backing the Fonts WG and WOFF there is not much point trying to oppose it
  872. # [20:59] <roc> we're not backing CWT
  873. # [20:59] <TabAtkins> Hrm, having trouble finding the recent email about the proposed charter.
  874. # [20:59] <roc> I'm not even sure we're backing the Fonts WG
  875. # [21:00] <Philip`> http://www.w3.org/2009/08/WebFonts/charter says just WOFF
  876. # [21:01] * Joins: wutwutwut (~d99b2ab7@gateway/web/freenode/x-cheqvripcovwmoio)
  877. # [21:01] * Parts: htcn (~idolm@dyn-xdsl-83-150-113-126.nebulazone.fi)
  878. # [21:02] <TabAtkins> Ah damn, that did get taken out, didn't it.
  879. # [21:02] <TabAtkins> ;_;
  880. # [21:02] <roc> you say that like it's a bad thing
  881. # [21:03] <TabAtkins> Everyone has a stupid kneejerk reaction to CWT just because it's an EOT version. It's just a custom header on top of a TTF file!
  882. # [21:03] <JonathanNeal> http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/whatwg.org
  883. # [21:03] <JonathanNeal> "It's not just you! http://whatwg.org looks down from here."
  884. # [21:03] <annevk> TabAtkins, and for a reason
  885. # [21:04] <TabAtkins> annevk: Reason being?
  886. # [21:04] <annevk> TabAtkins, adding complexity and obfuscation to TTF just for poltical reasons is silly
  887. # [21:04] * Quits: wutwutwut (~d99b2ab7@gateway/web/freenode/x-cheqvripcovwmoio) (Client Quit)
  888. # [21:04] <TabAtkins> Well, no, it's for compat reasons. CWT is usable in IE6+. It's a useful variant of TTF.
  889. # [21:05] <TabAtkins> It happens to also fulfill the "light obfuscation" thing that some vendors want, but that's not its reason for existing.
  890. # [21:05] <AryehGregor> What ever happened to the same-origin thing?
  891. # [21:06] <TabAtkins> Fonts are supposed to be same-origin only, modulated by CORS.
  892. # [21:06] <roc> CWT is useless because to enforce the same-origin stuff that font vendors want, you have to use Referer checking
  893. # [21:06] <AryehGregor> When I left www-font, the prevailing objection was that either you made the root string blank and IE would serve it from any domain, or you didn't and other browsers would ignore root strings of existing files, which is also bad.
  894. # [21:06] <annevk> I was talking about WOFF
  895. # [21:06] <annevk> also, I'm opposed to abusing CORS as I previously explained
  896. # [21:06] <AryehGregor> Well, and also if you used the root string, people would have to actually maintain it to get it to work with IE, but I guess that's no worse than just using EOT.
  897. # [21:07] <annevk> CWT seems even more silly
  898. # [21:07] <TabAtkins> roc: It's exactly equivalent in restriction to the other formats; the same level of (non)restriction is present if you server TTF or WOFF.
  899. # [21:07] <AryehGregor> My position was always that if there was any solution that allowed one font file to be served to everyone, take it, however hacky.
  900. # [21:08] <TabAtkins> AryehGregor: Exactly, though CWT is at least minimally hacky. You don't even have a rootstring. (Not even a rootstring hidden in padding, in the current proposed version.)
  901. # [21:08] <roc> TabAtkins: not so. we can add convenient same-origin restrictions to TTF and WOFF (and have, in Firefox). that is not an option when you serve CWT to IE.
  902. # [21:08] <AryehGregor> TabAtkins, then IE just accepts it from any domain?
  903. # [21:09] <AryehGregor> But we figure it's not such a big deal because it will fail in Firefox, so people won't be enthusiastic to do that?
  904. # [21:09] <TabAtkins> roc: That's only a problem if people are okay with their fonts *only* working in legacy IE.
  905. # [21:09] <TabAtkins> AryehGregor: Yeah.
  906. # [21:09] <AryehGregor> Seems reasonable enough to me.
  907. # [21:09] * Joins: workmad3 (~workmad3@cpc3-bagu10-0-0-cust651.1-3.cable.virginmedia.com)
  908. # [21:09] <AryehGregor> Although there are other problems with IE, IIRC, like not supporting italic/bold fonts easily? I got out of this a long time ago.
  909. # [21:10] <AryehGregor> Glad to hear that a solution was reached that's acceptable to both Mozilla and MS.
  910. # [21:10] <roc> If a font license requires the author to protect the font from cross-origin access, and the author doesn't but "it's OK because only IE can access the font cross-origin", how many corporate legal departments would be OK with that?
  911. # [21:10] <AryehGregor> Now if only we could solve the "page doesn't render while font downloads" problem.
  912. # [21:10] <TabAtkins> Legacy IEs have buggy @font-face support, but you can work around it.
  913. # [21:10] * Joins: zcorpan (~zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  914. # [21:10] <zcorpan> there's no event when 'buffered' changes because cached data has been thrown away
  915. # [21:11] <zcorpan> so it's hard to know when to update the UI
  916. # [21:11] <AryehGregor> roc, do any foundries state things exactly that way? Or do they say exactly what technologies they permit?
  917. # [21:11] <TabAtkins> roc: Any website which leeches your font won't work in a large percentage of browsers.
  918. # [21:11] <TabAtkins> It's just not a good deal.
  919. # [21:11] <AryehGregor> Anyway, has anyone thought about progressive rendering for fonts?
  920. # [21:11] <zcorpan> should we fire 'progress' in that case?
  921. # [21:11] <AryehGregor> Like putting all the ASCII characters in the front and ensuring that the browser can render those right away? Is this impossible with TTF?
  922. # [21:11] <AryehGregor> I guess the Chinese are out of luck regardless. :)
  923. # [21:11] <TabAtkins> AryehGregor: You can get mild progressive rendering by ordering the tables correctly. I think FF already does that somewhat?
  924. # [21:12] <AryehGregor> It still has FOUC-like effects.
  925. # [21:12] <AryehGregor> Unless you use heavy subsetting, maybe?
  926. # [21:12] <TabAtkins> WOFF organizes the font in such a way as to present some layout information immediately.
  927. # [21:12] * Quits: Lachy (~Lachlan@london.perfect-privacy.com) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  928. # [21:12] <AryehGregor> How big is a font with only basic Latin, a few kilobytes? If it fits in a single TCP window . . .
  929. # [21:12] <roc> AryehGregor: I believe that's how it works (or rather, is going to work). I poked and prodded the font vendors who supported CWT/EOT to try to get specific details, they were not cooperative
  930. # [21:13] <AryehGregor> roc, maybe if you were a customer they'd be more willing to explain. :)
  931. # [21:13] <TabAtkins> They're still too tied up in their legal department wranglings. >_<
  932. # [21:13] <roc> TabAtkins: I understand that, but ignoring font licensing requirements because "the font vendor isn't going to care in practice" isn't going to be acceptable to lawyers in general
  933. # [21:14] <AryehGregor> No, but if they don't mind in principle, and enough customers ask them about it, they'll tell their legal department to allow it explicitly.
  934. # [21:14] <TabAtkins> roc: We'd need details on exactly what they're trying to prevent, though. If it's generic enough, then just allowing your font to be downloaded with wget may be enough to violate the license.
  935. # [21:14] <roc> in theory the font vendors could carve out an exception in their licenses, but my suggestive prodding failed to elicit such a plan
  936. # [21:14] <AryehGregor> One Mozilla developer asking them, however awesome he is, is probably not enough to get them to ask a lawyer to look at it. :)
  937. # [21:15] <AryehGregor> But if a bunch of customers ask, or one large customer, that would be a different story.
  938. # [21:15] <roc> what if the answer to the question might affect Mozilla's support for their font format?
  939. # [21:15] <TabAtkins> I should prod them too.
  940. # [21:16] <TabAtkins> roc: Well, since their non-answer's effect seems to be "Mozilla wont' support it", they don't have much to lose. ^_^
  941. # [21:16] <roc> sure
  942. # [21:16] <roc> good luck
  943. # [21:16] <AryehGregor> roc, then you're deadlocked. This is what fora like a Fonts WG are supposed to prevent. :)
  944. # [21:16] <roc> we're not deadlocked
  945. # [21:16] <paul_irish> what's the prodding for? i have a few good contacts.
  946. # [21:17] <roc> so have I
  947. # [21:17] * aroben is now known as aroben|lunch
  948. # [21:17] <AryehGregor> paul_irish, would EOT with no root strings be okay, if non-IE browsers implemented it with cross-origin restrictions?
  949. # [21:17] * Joins: Lachy (~Lachlan@london.perfect-privacy.com)
  950. # [21:17] <roc> they could change the landscape by just announcing that they will license CWT fonts in a way that lets you deploy them on IE without any cross-origin protection
  951. # [21:17] <TabAtkins> paul_irish: Seeing if it would be acceeptable to font foundries for a website to serve CWT, which will be same-origin protected on modern browsers but not on legacy IEs.
  952. # [21:17] <roc> I asked them to make such an announcement
  953. # [21:17] <roc> they didn't do so
  954. # [21:17] <roc> <shrug>
  955. # [21:18] <paul_irish> didnt FontFont just announce their licensing their work for CWT and woff only?
  956. # [21:18] <zcorpan> http://simon.html5.org/temp/2d0zbqtzv.html - not finished, but feedback welcome (i'll read the logs)
  957. # [21:19] <paul_irish> and ascender, of course, is behind CWT.. i havent seen much foundry-based opposition to it
  958. # [21:20] <AryehGregor> "Opera requires that your video file is served as video/ogg for it to play." Why?
  959. # [21:20] <zcorpan> that's not entirely accurate; we also accept application/ogg and audio/ogg and audio/wav etc
  960. # [21:20] <zcorpan> but text/plain and text/html etc are rejected
  961. # [21:20] <zcorpan> because the spec says so
  962. # [21:21] <AryehGregor> Oh, feh.
  963. # [21:21] <AryehGregor> Why does the spec say so? These aren't script, are there security problems?
  964. # [21:22] <AryehGregor> Apache seems to serve application/ogg by default for Ogg, or at least a rule in /etc/apache2/magic seems to say so.
  965. # [21:22] <AryehGregor> Still not sure why this is necessary.
  966. # [21:23] <zcorpan> it's just to avoid mislabeled content
  967. # [21:23] <AryehGregor> Which will fail anyway when you feed it to GStreamer, no?
  968. # [21:24] <AryehGregor> The server might mislabel, the video player will know for sure whether it can play the file.
  969. # [21:24] <AryehGregor> Server-set MIME types should be treated as hints of intent, not an actual description of what the content is, because how should the server know that? But maybe there's a good reason here.
  970. # [21:25] <zcorpan> sure, but if we play text/plain videos, then we need to sniff for video for text/plain if we want to be able to play mislabeled videos when loaded directly
  971. # [21:25] <zcorpan> plus, we want to reject video/mp4 if we can't play mpeg-4
  972. # [21:25] <AryehGregor> Well, I assume you already do other types of sniffing there anyway, so why not?
  973. # [21:26] <zcorpan> so it's not much effort to also reject text/plain
  974. # [21:26] <zcorpan> because we don't know what gstreamer supports so we don't know what to sniff for
  975. # [21:26] * AryehGregor doesn't get what the benefit is to users or authors that outweighs the annoyance of authors potentially having to configure their servers.
  976. # [21:26] <AryehGregor> So let GStreamer sniff. It presumably returns an error graciously if it can't play it, right?
  977. # [21:26] * Quits: ttepasse (~ttepasse@ip-95-222-120-117.unitymediagroup.de) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  978. # [21:27] <AryehGregor> GStreamer is the only part of the system that knows for sure what can be played.
  979. # [21:27] * Joins: ttepasse (~ttepasse@ip-95-222-120-117.unitymediagroup.de)
  980. # [21:27] <AryehGregor> Once you've already received the HTTP headers, you've received the start of the content too, so just feed that to GStreamer and that will be a lot more reliable than guessing based on header.
  981. # [21:27] <AryehGregor> Of course, it makes sense to sniff based on MIME type in the HTML, because that way you can avoid unnecessary requests.
  982. # [21:32] <AryehGregor> zcorpan, you should mention that old browsers may return "no" from canPlayType(). Your examples should be updated to reflect that too.
  983. # [21:34] * Quits: maikmerten (~merten@dialbs-213-023-033-115.static.arcor-ip.net) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  984. # [21:35] <zcorpan> AryehGregor: old video-supporting browsers return bogus results for canPlayType anyway, iirc
  985. # [21:36] * Joins: maikmerten (~merten@dialbs-213-023-033-115.static.arcor-ip.net)
  986. # [21:39] <zcorpan> added a note
  987. # [21:39] <roc> Safari 3
  988. # [21:47] * asmodai eyes Google Docs...
  989. # [21:47] <asmodai> Am I the only one for which their spreadsheet is acting weird on FF 3.6?
  990. # [21:50] * Quits: roc (~roc@121-72-172-168.dsl.telstraclear.net) (Quit: roc)
  991. # [22:03] <zcorpan> nn
  992. # [22:03] * Quits: zcorpan (~zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com) (Quit: zcorpan)
  993. # [22:06] * Joins: roc (~roc@203-97-204-82.dsl.clear.net.nz)
  994. # [22:09] * aroben|lunch is now known as aroben
  995. # [22:13] * Quits: pmuellr (~pmuellr@nat/ibm/x-odqhbginijkugmbd) (Quit: pmuellr)
  996. # [22:14] <hober> hsivonen: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/03/02/how-ie8-determines-document-mode.aspx
  997. # [22:15] <hober> I think http://ieblog.members.winisp.net/images/MarcSil_IE8_Document_Mode_2.png looks even more complicated than http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ie8-mode.png
  998. # [22:17] * Quits: maikmerten (~merten@dialbs-213-023-033-115.static.arcor-ip.net) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  999. # [22:17] * Quits: ROBOd (~robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro)
  1000. # [22:26] * Quits: svl (~me@ip565744a7.direct-adsl.nl) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  1001. # [22:26] * mpilgrim catches up on the font format discussion
  1002. # [22:27] <mpilgrim> yeah... this isn't doing much to change my opinion of the font foundries
  1003. # [22:27] <JonathanNeal> I'm not sure the context for <menu type="toolbar"> and <menu type="context menu"> after reading the docs. I have visible buttons in the upper-righthand area of an application, so for the visible buttons I used <menu type="toolbar">, and then for the drop down menus I used <menu type="context menu">
  1004. # [22:27] <JonathanNeal> Does that sound right?
  1005. # [22:27] <asmodai> mpilgrim: Obssessive people? :)
  1006. # [22:28] <TabAtkins> JonathanNeal: I think context menu <menu>s are intended only for actual context menus; that is, right-click menus.
  1007. # [22:29] <JonathanNeal> I wasn't sure if context could be triggered by left clicking an icon.
  1008. # [22:29] * Quits: Lachy (~Lachlan@london.perfect-privacy.com) (Quit: Leaving)
  1009. # [22:31] <TabAtkins> Well, that's supposed to be handled by the UA.
  1010. # [22:32] <JonathanNeal> Sure, well in that case, I will leave it blank for the "menu" role.
  1011. # [22:32] <TabAtkins> Ideally, the UA exposes the commands in a UA-specific manner when the user asks for a context menu.
  1012. # [22:32] <TabAtkins> Yeah.
  1013. # [22:32] * TabAtkins should put together a toy impl of that tonight.
  1014. # [22:35] <MikeSmith> AryehGregor: about the validator question you asked, the place to discuss that would be on the public-qa-dev list or www-validator list
  1015. # [22:36] <MikeSmith> there really is not currently much of a team working actively on maintaining the existing validator
  1016. # [22:36] <MikeSmith> it mostly one guy, Ville Skyttä
  1017. # [22:37] <JonathanNeal> Thanks TabAtkins, you can see how I implemented it @ http://sandbox.thewikies.com/html5-layout/ (read source code on line 247+ for documentation)
  1018. # [22:37] <JonathanNeal> It's cross browser too.
  1019. # [22:38] <Philip`> hober: Ooh, nice that they're documenting it in some actual detail now
  1020. # [22:38] <MikeSmith> AryehGregor: what you suggest sounds like something that could really be a feature of validator.nu itself
  1021. # [22:39] <Philip`> (Still seem to be entirely missing the details about how they determine the modes for doctypes, though)
  1022. # [22:45] * Quits: othermaciej (~mjs@2620:0:1b00:1191:21f:f3ff:fe4e:bf33) (Remote host closed the connection)
  1023. # [22:45] * Joins: othermaciej (~mjs@2620:0:1b00:1191:21f:f3ff:fe4e:bf33)
  1024. # [22:50] * Quits: eighty4 (~eighty4@h-60-214.A163.priv.bahnhof.se) (Remote host closed the connection)
  1025. # [22:50] * Quits: paul_irish (~paul_iris@c-71-192-163-128.hsd1.nh.comcast.net)
  1026. # [22:50] * Joins: paul_irish (~paul_iris@c-71-192-163-128.hsd1.nh.comcast.net)
  1027. # [22:52] <roc> my opinion of the font vendors ("foundries" implies an unwarranted special status IMHO) is pretty low too. However I think it's worth making a small compromise to get interoperable Web fonts more widely accepted, faster. WOFF is so simple, it's a very small compromise indeed from my point of view.
  1028. # [22:54] <TabAtkins> Sigh. "I'd like light ranch dressing, please." "Ok, ranch dressing." "LIGHT ranch." "Ok, here you go, italian dressing."
  1029. # [23:02] * Quits: miketaylr (~miketaylr@38.117.156.163) (Remote host closed the connection)
  1030. # [23:04] * Joins: othermaciej_ (~mjs@17.246.17.155)
  1031. # [23:04] * Joins: Lachy (~Lachlan@london.perfect-privacy.com)
  1032. # [23:07] * Quits: othermaciej (~mjs@2620:0:1b00:1191:21f:f3ff:fe4e:bf33) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  1033. # [23:07] * othermaciej_ is now known as othermaciej
  1034. # [23:15] <mpilgrim> i'm just waiting for the first firefox extension that notices embedded WOFF fonts, automatically converts them to TTF, installs them in your local font directory, and puts up a toaster-style notification saying "Congratulations, your font library just got expanded!" Preferably with an icon of an "R" wearing a pirate patch.
  1035. # [23:16] <TabAtkins> Why the R?
  1036. # [23:17] <roc> sure
  1037. # [23:17] <roc> perhaps Linux systems will get native support for WOFF too
  1038. # [23:17] <mpilgrim> wouldn't have to be an "R". could be an "A". i guess the concept of "typography" is used iconified using an "A", isn't it?
  1039. # [23:17] <roc> doesn't matter
  1040. # [23:17] * Quits: workmad3 (~workmad3@cpc3-bagu10-0-0-cust651.1-3.cable.virginmedia.com) (Remote host closed the connection)
  1041. # [23:17] <TabAtkins> Ah, got it.
  1042. # [23:17] <mpilgrim> but an "R" with a pirate patch would probably look cooler
  1043. # [23:18] <mpilgrim> anyway, the entire thing is an exercise in making copying bits less convenient
  1044. # [23:18] <mpilgrim> that never ends well, regardless of good intentions
  1045. # [23:18] <TabAtkins> Well, WOFF actually comes with some nice benefits over TTF.
  1046. # [23:18] <TabAtkins> CWT doesn't have any direct benefits over TTF, but it good simply because of increased compat.
  1047. # [23:19] <mpilgrim> does one of them include "native support on every major computing platform on the planet"?
  1048. # [23:19] <TabAtkins> No?
  1049. # [23:19] <roc> once you unwrap and gunzip, yes
  1050. # [23:19] <TabAtkins> Well, yes.
  1051. # [23:19] <mpilgrim> i serve my embedded TTF fonts gzipped already
  1052. # [23:21] <roc> WOFF reorders the tables and compresses them independently, which could be helpful if you want to analyze just the CMAP
  1053. # [23:23] <mpilgrim> could i not do that with a TTF file directly? (non-rhetorical question)
  1054. # [23:24] * Joins: nessy (~Adium@124-168-170-167.dyn.iinet.net.au)
  1055. # [23:26] <roc> you could reorder the tables and gzip the whole thing. Then the browser could read the CMAP quicker, but when you wanted the other tables you'd have to re-uncompress the whole file from scratch, unless you saved the gzip state. It's considerably more complex.
  1056. # [23:27] <TabAtkins> Sigh. Why do tables have to act so weird? Specifically with respect to floating and positioned descendants.
  1057. # [23:29] <mpilgrim> thanks, roc
  1058. # [23:30] <mpilgrim> and how does this all help the font vendors in their quest to make bits less copyable?
  1059. # [23:30] <mpilgrim> i.e. why are they behind such a format?
  1060. # [23:30] <roc> simply that you cannot download a WOFF font and drop it in your Fonts folder and have it work
  1061. # [23:30] <roc> that's all
  1062. # [23:30] <TabAtkins> It's a "garden fence", for now.
  1063. # [23:30] <roc> well
  1064. # [23:31] <roc> I guess there's also the fact that the only browser that implements WOFF today has a default same-origin restriction, so it's easy for authors to comply with font licenses that require them to protect fonts from cross-site linkage. But strictly speaking that's an author benefit.
  1065. # [23:34] <TabAtkins> So, roc, am I restating your objection to CWT correctly if I say that it's *too* interoperable; eg, the problem is that it works in browsers that don't have same-origin restrictions?
  1066. # [23:35] <roc> I wouldn't put it that way
  1067. # [23:36] <roc> I'd say that IE has origin restrictions for fonts, but CWT forbids you from using them
  1068. # [23:37] <TabAtkins> I'd say that's at least as biased a phrasing as what I provided. ^_^
  1069. # [23:37] <roc> definitely :-)
  1070. # [23:38] <TabAtkins> It also makes it seem like everything would be better if only CWT allowed you to use IE's origin-restriction mechanism, but in fact allowing that mechanism was one of your objections to the earlier CWT draft, iirc.
  1071. # [23:39] <roc> IIRC I have not objected to having CWT say that the header is opaque and hence may contain data that IE would interpret as a rootstring
  1072. # [23:39] <TabAtkins> All right, I may be risremembering. I know that several people *did* object to precisely that.
  1073. # [23:39] <roc> yes
  1074. # [23:40] <roc> I may be misremembering too
  1075. # [23:40] * TabAtkins doesn't want to comb through his archives to find the answer.
  1076. # [23:40] <roc> such an approach has some problems, like the fact that different browsers using different access control policies would be suboptimal
  1077. # [23:40] <TabAtkins> Indeed.
  1078. # [23:41] * Philip` wonders if anyone happened to notice that Microsoft removed the 5000-byte name string limit (which broke lots of fonts that embed the Open Font License) in a security update recently
  1079. # [23:41] <TabAtkins> Ooh, I didn't. Good to know.
  1080. # [23:41] <TabAtkins> Augh, god, SHODAN keeps scaring me.
  1081. # [23:42] <TabAtkins> I have her flashing for a fraction of a second every few minutes on the GLaDOS system at work.
  1082. # [23:47] * Joins: rauchg (~rauchg@75.101.111.130)
  1083. # [23:50] * Joins: boblet (~boblet@p1072-ipbf36osakakita.osaka.ocn.ne.jp)
  1084. # [23:52] * TabAtkins is pissed that he has to wrap the contents of a <td> in a <div height:100%> just to provide a positioning root.
  1085. # Session Close: Wed Mar 03 00:00:00 2010

The end :)