/irc-logs / w3c / #xhtml / 2007-04-13 / end

Options:

  1. # **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Thu Apr 12 05:39:36 2007
  2. #
  3. # Apr 12 05:39:36 * Now talking on #xhtml
  4. # Apr 12 05:39:36 * Topic for #xhtml is: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Apr/0004
  5. # Apr 12 05:39:36 * Topic for #xhtml set by Steven at Thu Apr 12 00:01:18 2007
  6. # Apr 12 06:43:01 * Steven has quit (Ping timeout)
  7. # Apr 12 12:11:15 * Topic for #xhtml is: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Apr/0004
  8. # Apr 12 12:11:15 * Topic for #xhtml set by Steven at Thu Apr 12 00:01:18 2007
  9. # Apr 12 17:48:00 * Steven (Steven_@128.30.52.30) has joined #xhtml
  10. # Apr 12 17:52:35 <Lachy> hey Steven
  11. # Apr 12 17:52:52 <Steven> Hi there
  12. # Apr 12 17:53:11 <Steven> Lachlan
  13. # Apr 12 17:53:18 <Lachy> just wondering if this issue was discussed during your telcon and what the resolution was http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-html-wg/2007AprJun/0002.html
  14. # Apr 12 17:53:28 * Steven looks
  15. # Apr 12 17:53:51 <Lachy> I couldn't find the minutes
  16. # Apr 12 17:56:40 <Lachy> and also, it was stated here that XHTML2 will be using the XHTML1 namespace. I'm wondering if that decision has been reversed and XHTML2 will continue to use its own ns http://www.w3.org/mid/200609120801.k8C81Pm1023273@htmlwg.mn.aptest.com
  17. # Apr 12 17:57:40 <Steven> Unfortunately we ran out of time just before that agtenda item: http://www.w3.org/2007/04/11-xhtml-minutes.html
  18. # Apr 12 17:57:45 <Steven> sorry about that
  19. # Apr 12 17:58:03 <Steven> It will be top of the agenda next week
  20. # Apr 12 17:58:49 <Lachy> sweet. btw, now that the XHTML WG is a public group, will the minutes from telcons be made public also?
  21. # Apr 12 17:59:04 <Lachy> at least, from future telcons
  22. # Apr 12 17:59:11 <Steven> yes; you can see those minutes can't you :-)
  23. # Apr 12 17:59:25 <Lachy> I'm an invited expert, so I could see them anyway
  24. # Apr 12 17:59:29 <Steven> aha
  25. # Apr 12 17:59:35 <Steven> which group are you an IE on?
  26. # Apr 12 17:59:52 * markbirbeck has quit (Quit: markbirbeck)
  27. # Apr 12 18:00:19 <Lachy> yeah, they seem to be public, I just checked in a browser that I'm not logged into w3.org
  28. # Apr 12 18:00:32 <Lachy> I'm in Web API, WAF and the other HTMLWG
  29. # Apr 12 18:01:29 <Steven> ok
  30. # Apr 12 18:02:34 <Lachy> do you have an answer about the namespace issue?
  31. # Apr 12 18:03:07 <Steven> sorry, on a teleconference at the moment
  32. # Apr 12 18:03:12 <Steven> Back later
  33. # Apr 12 18:03:13 <Lachy> ah, ok
  34. #
  35. # Apr 12 18:25:09 * Now talking on #xhtml
  36. # Apr 12 18:25:09 * Topic for #xhtml is: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Apr/0004
  37. # Apr 12 18:25:09 * Topic for #xhtml set by Steven at Thu Apr 12 00:01:18 2007
  38. # Apr 12 19:08:53 * sbuluf (dakdp@200.49.140.181) has joined #xhtml
  39. # Apr 12 20:54:07 * sbuluf has quit (Ping timeout)
  40. #
  41. # Apr 12 21:14:35 * Now talking on #xhtml
  42. # Apr 12 21:14:35 * Topic for #xhtml is: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Apr/0004
  43. # Apr 12 21:14:35 * Topic for #xhtml set by Steven at Thu Apr 12 00:01:18 2007
  44. # Apr 12 21:16:16 * Lachy has quit (Ping timeout)
  45. # Apr 12 21:43:21 * markbirbeck (markbirbec@195.40.123.90) has joined #xhtml
  46. # Apr 13 00:30:27 * ShaneM (ShaneM@208.42.66.13) has joined #xhtml
  47. # Apr 13 00:35:11 * ShaneM has quit (Ping timeout)
  48. # Apr 13 00:55:16 * ShaneM (ShaneM@208.42.66.13) has joined #xhtml
  49. # Apr 13 00:56:33 * You are now known as Lachy
  50. # Apr 13 00:58:47 * ShaneM has quit (Connection reset by peer)
  51. # Apr 13 03:09:12 * ShaneM (ShaneM@208.42.66.13) has joined #xhtml
  52. # Apr 13 03:38:10 * markbirbeck has quit (Quit: markbirbeck)
  53. # Apr 13 07:05:24 * Steven has quit (Ping timeout)
  54. # Apr 13 08:04:59 * ShaneM has quit (Ping timeout)
  55. # Apr 13 09:52:23 * sbuluf (kzxdkz@200.49.140.77) has joined #xhtml
  56. # Apr 13 09:56:44 <sbuluf> hi, lachy
  57. # Apr 13 09:56:53 <sbuluf> from the minutes...
  58. # Apr 13 09:56:56 <sbuluf> Remember that you should only send mail to the public-xhtml2 mailing list. The old working group mailing list is deprecated.
  59. # Apr 13 09:56:56 <sbuluf> This mailing list is viewable by the public, but only working group members can join the mailing list.
  60. # Apr 13 09:59:50 <Lachy> sbuluf, which mail are you talking about? The ones that were sent before public-xhtml2 existed or the one in response to a thread on www-html?
  61. # Apr 13 10:02:41 <sbuluf> lachy, i was just quoting the minutes of the xhtml group
  62. # Apr 13 10:02:56 <sbuluf> those two lines above are theirs, not mine
  63. # Apr 13 10:03:23 <sbuluf> i just pasted cause you mentioned this group was now open, if i remember correctly
  64. # Apr 13 10:03:47 <sbuluf> but apparently...is just open to be seen, not to be touched
  65. # Apr 13 10:10:21 <Lachy> anyone can join the XHTML2 WG if they wish
  66. # Apr 13 10:13:11 <sbuluf> right. but you have to pay. you can not contribute if not, apparently.
  67. # Apr 13 10:44:21 * ShaneM (ShaneM@71.220.92.5) has joined #xhtml
  68. # Apr 13 13:00:48 <Lachy> sbuluf, that's not true. Anyone can join the XHTML2WG as a public invited expert, just like anyone can join the HTMLWG.
  69. # Apr 13 13:02:03 <Lachy> sbuluf, see http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/32107/instructions
  70. # Apr 13 13:06:26 <sbuluf> lachy, i see, thanks
  71. # Apr 13 13:06:47 <ShaneM> yah - cmon in. its a fun group.
  72. # Apr 13 13:11:19 <Lachy> ShaneM, it's fun to watch you guys play around with XHTML2, but I don't think it's worth joining the group
  73. # Apr 13 13:15:49 <ShaneM> ouch
  74. # Apr 13 13:20:17 <Lachy> ShaneM, personally, it's because I'm a web developer and I'm interested in technologies that are actually going to be implemented by major browsers, not those that are limited to intranets and "walled gardens"
  75. # Apr 13 13:21:27 <ShaneM> obviously we think these technologies are superior and will be implemented, but you are of course entitled to your opinion
  76. # Apr 13 13:21:53 <Lachy> IE, Mozilla, Opera and Safari have already stated that they will not be implementing XHTML2.
  77. # Apr 13 13:22:19 <ShaneM> ok
  78. # Apr 13 13:22:26 <Lachy> which UAs do you believe will implement XHTML2?
  79. # Apr 13 13:23:02 <Lachy> or what is the target audience for XHTML2?
  80. # Apr 13 13:23:02 <ShaneM> all of those. either directly or indirectly. we can support xhtml2 in all of those today I am pretty sure. there are working prototypes already.
  81. # Apr 13 13:23:15 <ShaneM> and the web development community is definitely the target audience.
  82. # Apr 13 13:24:29 <Lachy> and to do so, they make use of proprietary extensions to implement some features and/or transform the document into HTML
  83. # Apr 13 13:25:01 <ShaneM> ok
  84. # Apr 13 13:26:00 <Lachy> what is your opinon of HTML5?
  85. # Apr 13 13:26:24 <ShaneM> there's a lot of philosophy here. the semantic web vision needs the rich expressive capabilities of xhtml 2 (or xhtml 1.1 + rdfa... see http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts/xhtml-rdfa )
  86. # Apr 13 13:26:33 <ShaneM> my opinion? rather not go there.
  87. # Apr 13 13:27:57 <Lachy> why not? Don't worry about offending me or anyone else, I'm interested in what people think, regardless of whether I agree or not
  88. # Apr 13 13:30:18 <sbuluf> lachy said this group was going public. that surprised me, i thought this group was always public. i read the minutes, and said only members could post to the list. you could say we were checking the policy when you arrived, out of curiosity.
  89. # Apr 13 13:30:52 <ShaneM> its public but you have to be a groupp member to participate / post
  90. # Apr 13 13:30:59 <ShaneM> on th emailing list.... same as the html wg
  91. # Apr 13 13:31:12 <sbuluf> lachy is pro html5, as you probably guessed. i'm not, i'm something different.
  92. # Apr 13 13:32:40 <Lachy> actually, unless they've changed it, anyone can post to public-html but only participants who've agreed to the patent policy, etc. can subscribe
  93. # Apr 13 13:32:49 <Lachy> I assume it's the same for the xhtml2 list
  94. # Apr 13 13:34:02 <ShaneM> well... I dont know how to test your theory.
  95. # Apr 13 13:34:25 <Lachy> I could try posting to it, but I have nothing useful to say on the list yet
  96. # Apr 13 13:34:42 <ShaneM> ive been migrating all the publication activities to be public over the last couple of weeks.
  97. # Apr 13 13:34:45 <ShaneM> pain in the butt
  98. # Apr 13 13:35:41 <sbuluf> move page, list, irc channel, etc etc, right? if so, i don't envy you.
  99. # Apr 13 13:35:43 <Lachy> sbuluf, if you're not pro-html5, what are you?
  100. # Apr 13 13:36:19 <Lachy> ShaneM, what's the difference between this channel and #html? Is that the old, member only channel?
  101. # Apr 13 13:36:19 <ShaneM> we have 10 documents in active development with a rich publication management environment.... that all had to be switched over too
  102. # Apr 13 13:36:44 <ShaneM> Lachy: we have been told to start using this channel.... there is no difference really.
  103. # Apr 13 13:37:00 <Lachy> ok, so #html will be discontinued then?
  104. # Apr 13 13:37:16 <ShaneM> guess so
  105. # Apr 13 13:37:44 <Lachy> ok, I won't bother hanging out in that one then. Is this channel going to be logged?
  106. # Apr 13 13:37:56 <ShaneM> no
  107. # Apr 13 13:38:01 <Lachy> why not?
  108. # Apr 13 13:38:03 <sbuluf> lachy, i want to replace html altogether. xhtml is way closer to what i'd look for, but still not close enough. on top, like you, i have doubts it will ever happen.
  109. # Apr 13 13:39:05 <Lachy> HTML is here to stay forever, it's not going anywhere. It's better to improve what we have, than try to forget about the billions of pages in existence today and invent something new
  110. # Apr 13 13:39:49 <ShaneM> its nice that the new working groups marketing is working
  111. # Apr 13 13:39:59 <Lachy> what marketing?
  112. # Apr 13 13:40:18 <Lachy> which WG are you referring to?
  113. # Apr 13 13:40:36 <ShaneM> all the blogging, public letters, etc. that convinced someone like you they are right and HTML is here forever so we should keep evolving it. kills me
  114. # Apr 13 13:40:59 <ShaneM> whatwg
  115. # Apr 13 13:41:18 <sbuluf> lachy, i can not agree, unfortunately. i think someone should really try to do things right, all the way to semweb functionality and all. imho, html5 = perpetuation of errors. ever increasing complexity.
  116. # Apr 13 13:41:20 <Lachy> do you honestly think there is a chance of leaving HTML behind? What kind of time frame would you put on replacing the entire web?
  117. # Apr 13 13:42:05 <ShaneM> you dont hae to leave it behind.
  118. # Apr 13 13:42:30 <Lachy> but that's exactly what you guys did before the WHATWG picked it up again
  119. # Apr 13 13:43:07 <sbuluf> lachy, if you are asking me: chances are very little. *even* knowing that, however, i think is better to try. and yes, as shane says, html can keep there. we just need a better system. if then some people see it as superior...well, perhaps they would start changing to the new.
  120. # Apr 13 13:43:20 <ShaneM> not quite... we were waiting for those people to support the recommendation that was already out there, which, for the record, they STILL do not do.
  121. # Apr 13 13:43:59 <Lachy> HTML4.01? It is *impossible* to implement in the real world
  122. # Apr 13 13:44:18 <ShaneM> dont be ridiculous.
  123. # Apr 13 13:44:56 <Lachy> what? Do you honestly think that it's possible to implement HTML4 with SGML parsing and everything exactly as defined, without significantly breaking the web?
  124. # Apr 13 13:45:09 <ShaneM> of course.
  125. # Apr 13 13:45:29 <Lachy> and I suppose you have evidence to support that?
  126. # Apr 13 13:45:48 <ShaneM> well - first of all, it doesn't require SGML parsing. and implementing the acttual markup language.
  127. # Apr 13 13:45:57 <ShaneM> c'mon. no reason that has not been done
  128. # Apr 13 13:46:23 <Lachy> HTML4 is defined as an application of SGML, so yes it does require SGML parsing to be fully conforming
  129. # Apr 13 13:46:49 <Lachy> but if you think it doesn't, then where are the parsing requiremenets defined?
  130. # Apr 13 13:50:01 <ShaneM> SGML defines parsing requirements. appendix B lists features that were not commonly implemented.
  131. # Apr 13 13:51:49 <Lachy> right, but you just said "it doesn't require SGML parsing". Also, appendinx B is non-normantive and listing features as unimplemented doesn't actually define what to do when they're encountered
  132. # Apr 13 13:52:29 <ShaneM> but you could leave that aside.... I find the argument spurious. not supporing obscure SGML features is not on the same level as not supporting, for example, optgroup. give me a break
  133. # Apr 13 13:53:58 <Lachy> so the vocabularly can and is somewhat supported by most browsers (they all support optgroup, AFAIK), but the actual parsing requirements aren't compatible with the web
  134. # Apr 13 13:55:24 <ShaneM> in what way are they not compatible with the web? do you think that there are parsing requirements in SGML that would invalidate the web? and if so..... and if those documents claim to be HTML 4.01.... oh well.
  135. # Apr 13 13:55:45 <ShaneM> seriously. if your document is invalid... its not HTML. I dont know what it is, but it is NOT HTML. by definition
  136. # Apr 13 13:56:23 <Lachy> yes, here's some examples of markup that is widely used in the real world, and would break pages if it were implemnted according to SGML
  137. # Apr 13 13:57:02 <Lachy> <a href=http://example.org>link</a> (note: no quotes around attribute value that contains "/")
  138. # Apr 13 13:57:14 <Lachy> <br/> (equivalent to <br>&gt;)
  139. # Apr 13 13:57:36 <Lachy> <b>bold<i>bold italic</b>italic</i>
  140. # Apr 13 13:58:21 * Lachy is looking up some more examples...
  141. # Apr 13 13:58:24 <ShaneM> and why, oh why, do I want any of those things to be treated as valid by any user agent I use?
  142. # Apr 13 13:58:29 <ShaneM> they are nonsense, and illegal
  143. # Apr 13 13:59:01 <Lachy> yes, but they are widely used on the web. And if browsers handled them according to SGML rules, those pages (many millions of them) would break
  144. # Apr 13 13:59:02 <ShaneM> stop the maddness
  145. # Apr 13 13:59:48 <ShaneM> better they break and get put than my user agent guesses what they meant and guesses wrong.
  146. # Apr 13 13:59:59 <ShaneM> s/put/fixed/
  147. # Apr 13 14:01:20 <ShaneM> perpetuating this tag soup nonsense is just going to continue to encourage people to do dumb things.
  148. # Apr 13 14:01:25 <Lachy> one more example <a href="foo.cgi?foo=bar&lang=en">...</a> (note: &lang; is an entity reference in HTML)
  149. # Apr 13 14:01:44 <ShaneM> there's a reason you can't buy fireworks in minnesota any longer. people blew their fingers off.
  150. # Apr 13 14:02:16 <Lachy> better for who? Users? Developers? Someone else?
  151. # Apr 13 14:02:30 <ShaneM> a fine example. and invalid. W3C validator would tell anyone to fix that. and they should. and yes, that's dogmatic.
  152. # Apr 13 14:03:00 <ShaneM> better for everyone. as a developer, I know that my stuff is valid. and I know that valid stuff will be treated the same why everywhere, 'cause no one has to guess what I meant.
  153. # Apr 13 14:03:29 <Lachy> how would you like it if your browser was upgraded to use SGML parsing and a site you visited regularly that worked fine in your old browser no longer worked in the new version because of all the incompatibiliteis?
  154. # Apr 13 14:04:47 <ShaneM> well, first of all - that would never happen and we all know it. but me personally - wouldn't bother me that much. I would prefer it if my user agent warned me instead of just failing the page outright, but... I would get over it.
  155. # Apr 13 14:05:00 <ShaneM> and if it were a service I was paying for, i would be screaming at them. like my bank
  156. # Apr 13 14:05:44 <Lachy> but now think like an average user who has no idea about what HTML is, they just want to use their banking site in their browser without any hassel
  157. # Apr 13 14:06:23 <ShaneM> turn it around... I am a bank. and I want my site to work right on every user's screen. I am testing my site as i develop it, 'cause I am not stupid.
  158. # Apr 13 14:06:30 <Lachy> most users would turn around and blame the browser. The would either continue using the old version that worked for them or switch to a competitior
  159. # Apr 13 14:06:32 <ShaneM> if there is stuff hat is invalid, it won't work.
  160. # Apr 13 14:06:43 <ShaneM> so I, as the bank, would fix it.
  161. # Apr 13 14:07:09 <ShaneM> in reality, what we in the XHTML working group did was draw a line in the sand.
  162. # Apr 13 14:07:09 <Lachy> you're speaking of an ideal world where all developers do that. Think about the real world for a change where that simply doesn't happen everywhere
  163. # Apr 13 14:07:44 <Lachy> and then you crossed back over that line in the sand when you said XHTML as text/html is ok
  164. # Apr 13 14:07:46 <ShaneM> we said use XML. clear parsing model. declare your document with the right media type and doctype. browsers, when you see that use your XML parser. invaliddocuments need not apply.
  165. # Apr 13 14:07:54 <ShaneM> and of course, we were soundly ignored
  166. # Apr 13 14:08:13 <ShaneM> well - we only did that because microsft insisted, fwiw
  167. # Apr 13 14:08:50 <Lachy> really? Is there evidence for that somewhere in the mailing list archives or something?
  168. # Apr 13 14:09:10 <ShaneM> if there is, it would be member only and private. sorry. shouldn't have said anytning.
  169. # Apr 13 14:09:19 <Lachy> it's ok, I have member access
  170. # Apr 13 14:09:41 <ShaneM> yes, of course its in the history. dont know where. doesn't really matter.
  171. # Apr 13 14:10:01 <ShaneM> and I disaree that it is an ieal world. all you need to do is break the cycle.
  172. # Apr 13 14:10:07 <ShaneM> for example:
  173. # Apr 13 14:10:19 <ShaneM> we say there is a new doctype.... HTML 4.02. it has this FPI
  174. # Apr 13 14:10:55 <ShaneM> user agents, when you see documents that use that doctype, you MUST use SGML parsing rules and you MUST report errors. (this isn't going to happen, its an example).
  175. # Apr 13 14:11:18 <ShaneM> then, as people started writing content ysing that DOCTYPE... it would perforce be valid and therefore protable content
  176. # Apr 13 14:11:43 <Lachy> that would require all browsers to ship with full support for SGML parsing and to correctly trigger it on that and all future DOCTYPEs before HTML4.02 became widely used by developers
  177. # Apr 13 14:11:59 <ShaneM> okay.
  178. # Apr 13 14:12:03 <Lachy> it would also requrie most users and developers to have upgraded their browsers first
  179. # Apr 13 14:12:21 <ShaneM> okay
  180. # Apr 13 14:12:48 <Lachy> look at XHTML. Developers all over are using it every day, even though it's not as widely deployed for the majority of users
  181. # Apr 13 14:12:51 <ShaneM> how is that any different than any other seachange? like html5
  182. # Apr 13 14:13:04 <Lachy> HTML5 intends to remain compatible with the web
  183. # Apr 13 14:13:33 <ShaneM> yeah right. pull the other one. if you are adding elements or attributes or changing content models.... you are not compatibl with existing browsers. by definition
  184. # Apr 13 14:13:48 <Lachy> it is defining how to handle todays content and future HTML5, 6, 7, etc. content
  185. # Apr 13 14:14:17 <Lachy> content models are only changed where such changes are compatible with existing browsers.
  186. # Apr 13 14:14:34 <ShaneM> the irony is that we started taht ages ago with xhtml m12n and its compatibility rules.... what if you held a standard and nobody came?
  187. # Apr 13 14:14:52 <Lachy> e.g. we can't change the content model of <table> because that would break existing UAs.
  188. # Apr 13 14:15:22 <Lachy> we also can't allow <ul> in <p>, for instance, in text/html because that would also break compat
  189. # Apr 13 14:16:03 <Lachy> but we can introduce new elements and attributes and we can change content models where parsing wouldn't be broken in incompatible ways
  190. # Apr 13 14:16:08 <ShaneM> so the definition of forward evolution is "will it still work in IE4" ? that's insane
  191. # Apr 13 14:16:26 <Lachy> it will degrade gracefully
  192. # Apr 13 14:16:41 <ShaneM> I wish you luck.
  193. # Apr 13 14:16:46 <Lachy> thank you.
  194. # Apr 13 14:16:55 <Lachy> we are succeeding, fwiw
  195. # Apr 13 14:17:04 <ShaneM> too early to tell
  196. # Apr 13 14:17:35 <Lachy> do you honestly think HTML5 will fail?
  197. # Apr 13 14:18:05 <ShaneM> yes. I think the w3c proces will cause some change that hickson wont like and the whole thing will go to shit.
  198. # Apr 13 14:18:36 <sbuluf> i think the deciding moment is now
  199. # Apr 13 14:18:48 <sbuluf> more particularly, the chris wilson message
  200. # Apr 13 14:18:56 <Lachy> and you think XHTML2 and XForms have a much greater chance of success, even though they've been widely rejected?
  201. # Apr 13 14:19:35 <ShaneM> I dont follow the html working group at all, so i dont know anything about a chris wilson message.
  202. # Apr 13 14:19:38 <Lachy> Chris Willson needs to wake up, nothing he wrote made a lot of sense
  203. # Apr 13 14:19:52 <ShaneM> chris is the chair. i hope he is making sense
  204. # Apr 13 14:20:08 <Lachy> not in his recent essay on public-html
  205. # Apr 13 14:20:37 <sbuluf> shanem, if you want to see the thing in a nutshell: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0612.html
  206. # Apr 13 14:20:38 <Lachy> his arguments for versioning are anti-competitive and not foward-thinking
  207. # Apr 13 14:21:15 <ShaneM> as to xhtml2 - its a vision thing. there isn't anytnig in there earthshattering. it would be nice if IE would accept content using media type xhtml+xml, but other than that... yes, I think it will succeed
  208. # Apr 13 14:21:16 <Lachy> actually, what he's really asking for is browser sniffing, and there's no way in hell that is going to happen again
  209. # Apr 13 14:21:25 <sbuluf> imho, thats whatwg vs microsoft. the true clash.
  210. # Apr 13 14:22:12 <ShaneM> versioning is critical to success.... but i know there are people like hixie who disagree
  211. # Apr 13 14:22:14 <Lachy> 3 major browser vendors strongly disagree with MS, it's MS that needs to really think about what they are saying
  212. # Apr 13 14:22:42 <Lachy> and what would happen to HTML if they went through witth their misguided plans
  213. # Apr 13 14:22:56 <ShaneM> opera and apple are not major vendors... sorry. I value their input, but they are also-rans.
  214. # Apr 13 14:23:31 <Lachy> what does "they are also-rans" mean?
  215. # Apr 13 14:23:50 <ShaneM> they were in the race, they ran too - they didn't win. they "also ran"
  216. # Apr 13 14:24:16 <Lachy> do you consider mozilla a major vendor?
  217. # Apr 13 14:24:21 <ShaneM> yes
  218. # Apr 13 14:24:56 <Lachy> what stats are you basing your opinion on and what percentage do you draw the line?
  219. # Apr 13 14:25:52 <Lachy> please don't tell me this is another case where you clearly haven't done your research
  220. # Apr 13 14:27:33 <ShaneM> its not about percentages.. but if it were, market penetration would say IE and Firefox +Netscape far outdistance opera
  221. # Apr 13 14:28:06 <ShaneM> and safari... well. I mean, its on every mac, but everyone I know, including all our mac using customers, install and ues firefox 'cause it just works better.
  222. # Apr 13 14:29:02 <Lachy> IE has roughly 85%, Mozilla has roughtly 10%
  223. # Apr 13 14:29:31 <Lachy> Opera and Safari make up most of the remaining 5%
  224. # Apr 13 14:29:33 <ShaneM> if we were talking about percentages.... the openwave WML/XHTML Mobile Profile platform would outdistance all of those other browsers.
  225. # Apr 13 14:29:44 <ShaneM> hundreds of millions of platforms. that no one uses.
  226. # Apr 13 14:29:45 <sbuluf> hence, whatever microsoft wants, happens. and if they do not want something, it does not happen. all the rest is academic, including the whole w3c
  227. # Apr 13 14:30:40 <Lachy> Microsofts monopoly is certainly a major problem, but it's not a show stopper
  228. # Apr 13 14:30:48 <ShaneM> sbuluf: that's a little harsh. remember that much of the web isn't about user agents, but about data exchange. semantic web stuff.
  229. # Apr 13 14:31:06 <sbuluf> sno? you think the html wg would go anywhere they do not want?
  230. # Apr 13 14:31:25 <ShaneM> well - the last html wg did lots of times
  231. # Apr 13 14:31:36 <ShaneM> but chris wasn't the chair
  232. # Apr 13 14:31:59 <sbuluf> excuse me. may i run my version of events? the whole thing, i mean. i reckon you might find it interesting.
  233. # Apr 13 14:32:18 <ShaneM> go for it.
  234. # Apr 13 14:32:23 <sbuluf> (lachy?
  235. # Apr 13 14:32:30 <Lachy> sure
  236. # Apr 13 14:32:45 <sbuluf> thank you both, i'll be as brief as possible
  237. # Apr 13 14:32:52 <sbuluf> the web is anarchy
  238. # Apr 13 14:32:58 <sbuluf> nobdy rules
  239. # Apr 13 14:33:13 <sbuluf> more particularly, nobody can enforce any standard. whatsoever. period
  240. # Apr 13 14:33:49 <sbuluf> hence, w3c "standards by consensus" is the closest thing we can have
  241. # Apr 13 14:34:22 <sbuluf> many people think somebody rules, but that's false, we have just w3c and other standard bodies
  242. # Apr 13 14:35:01 <sbuluf> and w3c "consensus" is basically consensus among those who pay w3c bills. mostly, corporations
  243. # Apr 13 14:35:28 <sbuluf> within that context, tim berners lee aims for clarity, when he can
  244. # Apr 13 14:35:51 <sbuluf> for instance, the whole migration to xml, xhtml, and eventually, semantic web
  245. # Apr 13 14:36:10 <sbuluf> error perpetuation is sheer madness, on the long run
  246. # Apr 13 14:36:32 <sbuluf> but again, w3c does not really rule
  247. # Apr 13 14:36:50 <sbuluf> if microsoft wants or does not want something, they de facto rule
  248. # Apr 13 14:37:01 <sbuluf> it happened before with html
  249. # Apr 13 14:37:12 <sbuluf> and is happening now again, exactly as before
  250. # Apr 13 14:37:23 <sbuluf> correct till now?
  251. # Apr 13 14:37:48 <ShaneM> you are not wrong
  252. # Apr 13 14:38:30 <sbuluf> lachy, you probably do not agree with the need to break back compat at some time or other, i assume
  253. # Apr 13 14:38:42 <Lachy> of course not
  254. # Apr 13 14:38:46 <sbuluf> (which xhtml 2 was abound to do)
  255. # Apr 13 14:38:59 <sbuluf> i see. and that is the major split we have today
  256. # Apr 13 14:39:12 <sbuluf> that's why we have html5 and xhtml2
  257. # Apr 13 14:39:33 <sbuluf> now...what about tim berners lee?
  258. # Apr 13 14:40:06 <sbuluf> he obviously want to break backwards compatibility. he knows is better and needs to be done if we will ever have a better woirld
  259. # Apr 13 14:40:34 <sbuluf> hence, he impulses xml, xhtml, and xhtml2
  260. # Apr 13 14:40:42 <sbuluf> but
  261. # Apr 13 14:40:50 <sbuluf> it apparently will never happen
  262. # Apr 13 14:40:57 <sbuluf> cause microsoft does not want it
  263. # Apr 13 14:41:31 <sbuluf> he has some pull, and a bit of power, so he still tries, for years, but microsoft does not give ground
  264. # Apr 13 14:41:48 <sbuluf> finally, he gives in...to html5
  265. # Apr 13 14:42:08 <sbuluf> his post justifying it, is totally ridiculous
  266. # Apr 13 14:42:16 <ShaneM> roger that
  267. # Apr 13 14:42:24 <sbuluf> "to add quotes around attributes was too difficult"
  268. # Apr 13 14:42:35 <sbuluf> nobody here believes that, right?
  269. # Apr 13 14:43:01 <sbuluf> so, if the justification he gave was risible
  270. # Apr 13 14:43:13 <sbuluf> we would need to ask ourselves...why did he do it?
  271. # Apr 13 14:43:36 <sbuluf> one answer: as long as someone requests working groups, he gets checks
  272. # Apr 13 14:43:40 <ShaneM> simple - 'cause if he did not let them in they were going to do it anyway outside of the w3c.
  273. # Apr 13 14:43:51 <sbuluf> shanem, exactly
  274. # Apr 13 14:43:59 <ShaneM> this way there is a measure of control.
  275. # Apr 13 14:44:07 <sbuluf> exactly again
  276. # Apr 13 14:44:14 <sbuluf> andf what did he request?
  277. # Apr 13 14:44:26 <sbuluf> (using the little power he had)
  278. # Apr 13 14:44:50 <ShaneM> he has immense power - no document can be published withouth his approval
  279. # Apr 13 14:45:14 <sbuluf> microsft has a lot more power
  280. # Apr 13 14:45:38 <ShaneM> so - what did he request?
  281. # Apr 13 14:45:41 <sbuluf> timbl could spit specs till kingdom come, and if micxrosoft refused, they would not happen.
  282. # Apr 13 14:45:50 <sbuluf> and microsoft refused
  283. # Apr 13 14:46:05 <sbuluf> i think he wants to use the new html wg
  284. # Apr 13 14:46:23 <sbuluf> so that they fix all already existing web content
  285. # Apr 13 14:46:37 <sbuluf> so he can use it in the xhtml way
  286. # Apr 13 14:46:56 <sbuluf> so he asked for two versions, one html, and one xhtml
  287. # Apr 13 14:47:14 <sbuluf> that way, if html5 triumphs
  288. # Apr 13 14:47:18 <ShaneM> I think you give him too much credit. he's not that clever. really he's not. oh - you mean the "XML serialization" of the new HTML?
  289. # Apr 13 14:47:26 <sbuluf> he will have a copy of the whole web, in xhtml
  290. # Apr 13 14:47:35 <sbuluf> yes
  291. # Apr 13 14:47:46 <ShaneM> no... the XML serialization is NOT XHTML. no idea what it is.
  292. # Apr 13 14:48:05 <sbuluf> the point being that as long as it is xml, it can be processed in the xml way
  293. # Apr 13 14:48:30 <ShaneM> I suppose...
  294. # Apr 13 14:49:12 <Lachy> the XML serialisation of HTML5 is XHTML!
  295. # Apr 13 14:49:48 <sbuluf> if he can provide a new funcionality (semantic web, etc), that is obviously better, i reckon he assumes people will favor it, and keep using just the xml version
  296. # Apr 13 14:50:07 <sbuluf> so, in a way, he is using the html wg as a big tidy
  297. # Apr 13 14:50:08 <ShaneM> Lachy: I dont think so. the XHTML Working Group owns the XHTML specs.
  298. # Apr 13 14:50:31 <Lachy> The XHTML2WG should hand over everything in the XHTML 1.x namespace to the HTMLWG
  299. # Apr 13 14:51:02 <ShaneM> Lachy: well - that's not gonna happen. the charter of the xhtml2 wg is clear.
  300. # Apr 13 14:51:03 <Lachy> except, we don't want any of the profile stuff, you can toss those out
  301. # Apr 13 14:51:50 <Lachy> actually, XHTML5 is going to make everything you have in the XHTML 1.x namespace obsolete, so it doesn't really matter that much
  302. # Apr 13 14:51:58 <sbuluf> ok, shanem, we get toe scenarios: 1) timbl is not smart. if so...then he just dropped xhtml. it will have zero chance, imho. 2) he wants to use the html wg as a tagsoup fixer
  303. # Apr 13 14:52:13 <sbuluf> s/tow/two/
  304. # Apr 13 14:53:36 <sbuluf> proof of timbl dropping xhtml would be that in all these years, microsoft refused to do implement it. and that he just gave green light to another group which has microsoft as chair, plus all the other browser makers as members
  305. # Apr 13 14:53:44 <ShaneM> Lachy: fwiw, it wont be called xhtml5 i dont think. that would be pretty inappropriate and confusing
  306. # Apr 13 14:54:03 <Lachy> the name is already widely used. What would you suggest instead?
  307. # Apr 13 14:54:55 <Lachy> keep in mind that "XML Serialisation of HTML 5" is just a little too long
  308. # Apr 13 14:54:57 <ShaneM> anything withouth XHTML in the name. the xhtml family has clear conformance rules. and that name will never make it through w3c balloting, nor past the w3c comms team. like I said, too confusing.
  309. # Apr 13 14:55:03 <sbuluf> (i could go on with more topics, but i do not want to abuse. what do you people think of that anlysis?)
  310. # Apr 13 14:55:28 <ShaneM> sbuluf: you are not wrong. interesting take on timbl's motivations
  311. # Apr 13 14:56:13 <ShaneM> btw, love chris wilson's mail. thanks for showing it o me
  312. # Apr 13 14:56:41 <sbuluf> shanem, you might want to check exactly what timbl asked for. the html wg charter, to be precise. in that light.
  313. # Apr 13 14:58:01 <sbuluf> shanem, lachy, the story continues: when timbl gave up, the whatwg thought "we won" and "we will be able to do all we wanted". but....microsoft got the chair. and chris wilson wants things that whatwg did not want.
  314. # Apr 13 14:58:20 <sbuluf> (as you can see in that mail, which, imho, is the crux)
  315. # Apr 13 14:58:24 <ShaneM> and so does many w3c members
  316. # Apr 13 14:58:44 <ShaneM> note that w3c members have to vote on any recommendation.... big balloting ahead
  317. # Apr 13 14:59:41 <Lachy> if the HTMLWG doesn't accept the WHATWG's work and the HTMLWG tries to produce a spec that is incompatible with the WHATWG, the HTMLWG spec will be irrelevant to the real world. But hopefully, that won't happen and we will produce a single spec
  318. # Apr 13 14:59:50 <sbuluf> if xml people get crazy at whatwg people cause they perpetuate all errors, forever...microsoft is even worst. and i think whatwg is finding that out at the moment
  319. # Apr 13 15:00:54 <ShaneM> gonna be interesting. glad I am not sucked into it
  320. # Apr 13 15:01:06 <sbuluf> lachy: "microsoft is to whatwg as whatwg is to xhtml2" <--what do you think of this statement?
  321. # Apr 13 15:01:41 <Lachy> MS is not opposed to the WHATWG like the WHATWG is opposed to XHTML2, so that's not ture
  322. # Apr 13 15:01:44 <Lachy> *true
  323. # Apr 13 15:02:10 <sbuluf> lachy, not opposed...but they want even more bugs to be perpetuated: their own set.
  324. # Apr 13 15:03:12 <sbuluf> whatwg wants all current web errors to be perpetuated. but microsoft, *on top* want their own set of bugs, implementation errors, etc, to be perpetuated as well, i mean, apparently
  325. # Apr 13 15:03:17 <ShaneM> whatwg wants to codify what happens when you do things wrong on the web. XHTML refuses to do this. XHTML says.... let me find it.
  326. # Apr 13 15:03:40 <Lachy> the reality is that we do need to define browser bugs as they are currently, but what MS wants to do is to leave an undocumented set of bugs in IE and require authors to opt-in to the newer, less buggy rendering
  327. # Apr 13 15:03:59 <sbuluf> xhtml is strict, does not want errors. whatwg wants just web errors. and microsoft wants web errors, plus their own errors.
  328. # Apr 13 15:04:09 <Lachy> XHTML is mostly silent on the issue of error handling
  329. # Apr 13 15:04:45 <Lachy> beyond the draconian handling of XML (which isn't actually compatible with a large portion of the web these days), XHTML1.x defines no error handling
  330. # Apr 13 15:04:46 <ShaneM> Lachy: well... since I wrote all of the error handling text there is in XHTML... its not that we are silent, its more aggressive than that
  331. # Apr 13 15:05:09 <Lachy> ok, then show me
  332. # Apr 13 15:05:16 <ShaneM> trying to find it
  333. # Apr 13 15:05:49 <sbuluf> meantime, can i say how this whole battle could be fixed way better (imho, of course)?
  334. # Apr 13 15:06:01 <Lachy> sbuluf, how?
  335. # Apr 13 15:06:39 <sbuluf> xhtml is strict, does not want errors. whatwg wants errors...cause they think they are unavoidable. but...why is that?
  336. # Apr 13 15:06:51 <sbuluf> because, up to today, we hand code
  337. # Apr 13 15:07:13 <sbuluf> if we hand code, then *of course* we will always have errors
  338. # Apr 13 15:07:18 <Lachy> because the WHATWG did research to show that a significant portion of the web is filled with errors and there needs to be intereoperability between browsers in how they handle those errors
  339. # Apr 13 15:07:34 <Lachy> the errors aren't going anywhere, but the browsers are forced to be compatible with them
  340. # Apr 13 15:08:01 <sbuluf> lachy, may i a little bit more?
  341. # Apr 13 15:08:14 <Lachy> hand coding is not the cause of errors, it is author incompetence and poorly built WYSIWYG authoring tools that generate rubbish
  342. # Apr 13 15:08:46 <sbuluf> we have two problems: old content, and new content
  343. # Apr 13 15:08:47 <Lachy> sbuluf, only if what you have to say is sensible
  344. # Apr 13 15:09:01 <sbuluf> let's focus on new content for a sec
  345. # Apr 13 15:09:19 <sbuluf> if we hand code it, we will have errors, of course
  346. # Apr 13 15:09:36 <Lachy> what evidence are you basing that statement on?
  347. # Apr 13 15:09:39 <sbuluf> if we use WYSIYG editors *that exist today* we will have errors as well
  348. # Apr 13 15:09:43 <Lachy> handcoding != errors in code
  349. # Apr 13 15:10:10 <sbuluf> what we need, instead, is WYMIWYG editors that output perfect code
  350. # Apr 13 15:10:35 <Lachy> such editors are going to take a long time to come out
  351. # Apr 13 15:10:43 <sbuluf> lachy, well...if we can code wityh no errors, then why is avaryone pushing for error handling?
  352. # Apr 13 15:10:51 <ShaneM> disagree. what we need is user agents that refuse to accept broken code.
  353. # Apr 13 15:11:05 <Lachy> ShaneM, that is incompatible with the real world!
  354. # Apr 13 15:11:25 <Lachy> idealism doesn't change reality
  355. # Apr 13 15:11:29 <sbuluf> we need both strict editors, and strict UA's
  356. # Apr 13 15:11:47 <sbuluf> but we can not have strict UA's unless we provide strict editors
  357. # Apr 13 15:11:48 <ShaneM> so? change the world. seriously. new doctype. when I use the new doctype then the user agent rejects broken stuff.
  358. # Apr 13 15:12:23 <ShaneM> its basically a refinement of what chris is saying in his mail. use the switch to turn on strict mode.
  359. # Apr 13 15:12:27 <sbuluf> shanem, i have no problems with breaking compatibility totally, myself, if needed
  360. # Apr 13 15:13:04 <Lachy> That would not be feasible in the real world because new content will be developed while old browsers are still in use and users would just switch to a much more forgiving/older/less obtrusive browser
  361. # Apr 13 15:13:20 <sbuluf> but...was xhtml, even xhtml2, thought with WYMIWYG editability in mind? no
  362. # Apr 13 15:13:45 <ShaneM> yes, absolutely it was. tools are an essential part of our success strategy for xhml 2.
  363. # Apr 13 15:14:18 <sbuluf> shanem, show me the screenshots, please. it would be really good news, but i don't believe it is the case
  364. # Apr 13 15:14:31 <sbuluf> please prove me wrong. please.
  365. # Apr 13 15:14:35 <ShaneM> I didn't say we were developing the tools. we were designing with them in mind.
  366. # Apr 13 15:14:49 <sbuluf> show me some UI screenshot, please.
  367. # Apr 13 15:14:53 <sbuluf> even a fake one.
  368. # Apr 13 15:15:00 <Lachy> XHTML2 wasn't developed with reality in mind
  369. # Apr 13 15:15:12 <ShaneM> I think we are going to need to agree to disagree.
  370. # Apr 13 15:16:02 <sbuluf> unless i'm onto something, then to break or not to break compat, is the unsurmontable divide between the two wg's
  371. # Apr 13 15:16:39 <sbuluf> (or unless i'm right about timbl's motives)
  372. # Apr 13 15:16:43 <ShaneM> no - that's right. the xhtml 2 working group is not capricously breaking compatibility.
  373. # Apr 13 15:17:05 <ShaneM> but we have no prohibition against it
  374. # Apr 13 15:17:11 <sbuluf> exactly
  375. # Apr 13 15:17:22 <sbuluf> and the other wg would never agree with it
  376. # Apr 13 15:17:32 <sbuluf> hence, the divide is unsormountable
  377. # Apr 13 15:17:45 <ShaneM> and that's okay. they are different with different goals
  378. # Apr 13 15:17:46 <sbuluf> (you would never agree to the opposite either)
  379. # Apr 13 15:17:52 <ShaneM> and different media types
  380. # Apr 13 15:17:56 <sbuluf> that's fine, yes
  381. # Apr 13 15:18:32 <ShaneM> good lord it is late. I have a meeting in 5 hours. gotta get some sleep
  382. # Apr 13 15:18:40 <sbuluf> night, shanem
  383. # Apr 13 15:18:53 <ShaneM> thanks for your insights
  384. # Apr 13 15:19:09 <sbuluf> thank you, we might keep at it some other time =P
  385. # Apr 13 15:19:48 <Lachy> did you find that link ShaneM ?
  386. # Apr 13 15:19:58 <Lachy> the XHTML error handling you were going to show me?
  387. # Apr 13 15:20:09 <ShaneM> Lachy: I can't find the text I was looking for about document conformance. sorry. its not really about error handling.
  388. # Apr 13 15:20:42 <ShaneM> the text said, in effect, that xhtml defines behaviior in the presence of correct data. and does NOT define behaior int he presence of incorrect usage.
  389. # Apr 13 15:20:44 <Lachy> ok, but if you find it later, show me
  390. # Apr 13 15:21:01 <Lachy> exactly, so it doesn't define error handling at all
  391. # Apr 13 15:21:28 <ShaneM> but agressively. like - it wasn't an accident.
  392. # Apr 13 15:21:29 <Lachy> it ignores the fact that authors make errors and browsers will be forced to handle those errors in one way or another
  393. # Apr 13 15:22:20 <sbuluf> (with perfect editors, they would not make errors...right or wrong?)
  394. # Apr 13 15:22:36 <ShaneM> wrong probably. no such thing as a perfect editor
  395. # Apr 13 15:22:50 <ShaneM> but an editor that validated content.... would at least warn you
  396. # Apr 13 15:22:52 <sbuluf> we could discuss ideas. but shanem has to sleep
  397. # Apr 13 15:22:57 <sbuluf> next time, perhaps.
  398. # Apr 13 15:22:59 <ShaneM> yeah... gotta go. thanks again
  399. # Apr 13 15:23:04 <sbuluf> thank you
  400. # Apr 13 15:23:09 <Lachy> bye
  401. # Apr 13 15:23:55 <ShaneM> there is this text in xhtml2: Note that this specification does not generally specify the behavior of conforming implementations when presented with non-conforming documents. This is either defined by an underlying specification (e.g., [XML]) or left to the implementor.
  402. # Apr 13 15:24:00 <ShaneM> end of section 3.2
  403. # Apr 13 15:24:06 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-xhtml2-20070402/conformance.html#s_conform
  404. # Apr 13 15:24:26 <ShaneM> night
  405. # Apr 13 15:24:38 <sbuluf> night.
  406. #
  407. # Session Start: Fri Apr 13 10:32:45 2007
  408. # Session Ident: #xhtml
  409. # [10:34] <krijnh> I think it's running
  410. # [10:34] <Lachy> yep
  411. # [10:34] <krijnh> Pretty impressive how flexible my own crappy PHP thingy is </pat-on-the-back>
  412. # [10:35] <sbuluf> hehe
  413. # [10:35] * Lachy changes topic to 'Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Apr/0004 - http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ (logged)'
  414. # [10:35] <krijnh> 6665
  415. # [10:35] <Lachy> thanks krijnh
  416. # [10:35] <krijnh> Np :)
  417. # [10:38] * Joins: krijnh2 (krijnhoetm@213.84.148.98)
  418. # [10:39] * Parts: krijnh2 (krijnhoetm@213.84.148.98)
  419. # [10:41] * Joins: htmlr (htmlr@203.206.237.84)
  420. # [10:42] * Parts: htmlr (htmlr@203.206.237.84)
  421. # [10:46] <krijnh> Lachy: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/xhtml/latest/
  422. # [10:58] * Joins: Steven (Steven_@128.30.52.30)
  423. # [12:43] * Quits: sbuluf (kzxdkz@200.49.140.77) (Ping timeout)
  424. # [14:15] * Quits: ShaneM (ShaneM@71.220.92.5) (Ping timeout)
  425. # [15:40] * Quits: Steven (Steven_@128.30.52.30) (Ping timeout)
  426. # [17:16] * Joins: ShaneM (ShaneM@208.42.66.13)
  427. # [23:20] * Disconnected
  428. # [23:20] * Attempting to rejoin channel #xhtml
  429. # [23:25] * Attempting to rejoin channel #xhtml
  430. # [23:25] * Rejoined channel #xhtml
  431. # [23:25] * Topic is 'Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Apr/0004 - http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ (logged)'
  432. # [23:25] * Set by Lachy on Fri Apr 13 10:38:42
  433. # Session Close: Sat Apr 14 00:00:00 2007

The end :)