/irc-logs / w3c / #css / 2011-12-06 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Tue Dec 06 00:00:00 2011
  2. # Session Ident: #css
  3. # [00:02] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58)
  4. # [00:25] <tantek> fantasai, I just now noticed that the you apparently removed the Charter section from the planning page on the wiki without leaving a forwarding link for where it went. Did it go somewhere else? Was there a good reason to remove it? http://wiki.csswg.org/planning?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1313342418&rev2%5B1%5D=1317832854&difftype=sidebyside
  5. # [00:30] <tantek> I just wanted to find out before I reverted that and/or added a specific page for charter discussions. I think it's useful to have on the wiki.
  6. # [00:45] * Quits: tantek_ (tantek@63.245.220.240) (Quit: tantek_)
  7. # [01:21] * Joins: jdaggett_ (jdaggett@202.221.217.73)
  8. # [01:22] * Joins: tantek_ (tantek@63.245.220.240)
  9. # [01:30] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@211.177.245.3) (Quit: MikeSmith)
  10. # [02:15] * Quits: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@72.14.229.81) (Ping timeout)
  11. # [02:19] * Quits: tantek_ (tantek@63.245.220.240) (Ping timeout)
  12. # [02:20] * Joins: tantek_ (tantek@63.245.220.240)
  13. # [02:36] * Joins: arronei_ (arronei@131.107.0.113)
  14. # [02:36] * Quits: arronei (arronei@131.107.0.111) (Ping timeout)
  15. # [03:07] * Joins: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@206.80.17.29)
  16. # [03:10] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.240) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  17. # [03:12] * Quits: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@206.80.17.29) (Ping timeout)
  18. # [03:12] * Quits: stearns (anonymous@192.150.22.5) (Ping timeout)
  19. # [03:21] * Quits: tantek (tantek@63.245.220.240) (Quit: tantek)
  20. # [03:21] * tantek_ is now known as tantek
  21. # [03:21] * Joins: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@208.54.5.251)
  22. # [03:23] * Quits: tantek (tantek@63.245.220.240) (Quit: tantek)
  23. # [03:26] * Quits: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@208.54.5.251) (Ping timeout)
  24. # [03:26] * Joins: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@208.54.5.251)
  25. # [03:34] * Quits: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@208.54.5.251) (Ping timeout)
  26. # [03:38] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@173.228.28.129)
  27. # [03:42] * Joins: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@208.54.5.251)
  28. # [03:46] * Joins: TabAtkin1_ (tabatkins@206.80.17.29)
  29. # [03:46] * Quits: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@208.54.5.251) (Ping timeout)
  30. # [04:28] * Quits: TabAtkin1_ (tabatkins@206.80.17.29) (Ping timeout)
  31. # [04:31] * Joins: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@208.54.5.251)
  32. # [04:36] * Quits: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@208.54.5.251) (Ping timeout)
  33. # [04:39] * Joins: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@206.80.17.29)
  34. # [05:02] * Quits: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@206.80.17.29) (Ping timeout)
  35. # [05:12] * Joins: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@206.80.17.29)
  36. # [05:45] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@210.206.248.208)
  37. # [05:57] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@210.206.248.208) (Ping timeout)
  38. # [06:04] * Quits: TabAtkins_ (tabatkins@206.80.17.29) (Ping timeout)
  39. # [06:11] * Joins: tantek (tantek@66.87.0.248)
  40. # [06:19] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@211.210.76.2)
  41. # [06:22] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@211.210.76.2) (Ping timeout)
  42. # [06:30] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@211.210.76.2)
  43. # [06:33] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@211.210.76.2) (Ping timeout)
  44. # [06:45] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@173.228.28.129) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  45. # [07:03] * Joins: stearns (anonymous@50.132.63.33)
  46. # [07:04] * Quits: tantek (tantek@66.87.0.248) (Quit: tantek)
  47. # [08:09] * Joins: tantek (tantek@70.36.139.219)
  48. # [08:43] * Joins: florianr (florianr@213.236.208.22)
  49. # [08:45] * Joins: tantek_ (tantek@70.36.139.219)
  50. # [09:57] * Quits: jdaggett_ (jdaggett@202.221.217.73) (Quit: jdaggett_)
  51. # [09:57] * Quits: tantek_ (tantek@70.36.139.219) (Quit: tantek_)
  52. # [10:24] * Quits: tantek (tantek@70.36.139.219) (Quit: tantek)
  53. # [11:30] * Quits: jdaggett (jdaggett@180.235.9.33) (Quit: jdaggett)
  54. # [15:05] * Joins: miketaylr (miketaylr@206.217.92.186)
  55. # [15:33] * Joins: drublic (drublic@95.115.55.40)
  56. # [15:51] * Quits: florianr (florianr@213.236.208.22) (Quit: Leaving.)
  57. # [16:04] * Joins: ChrisL (ChrisL@128.30.52.169)
  58. # [17:46] * Quits: ChrisL (ChrisL@128.30.52.169) (Ping timeout)
  59. # [17:59] * Joins: tantek (tantek@70.36.139.219)
  60. # [18:03] * Quits: stearns (anonymous@50.132.63.33) (Quit: stearns)
  61. # [18:13] * Joins: Ms2ger (Ms2ger@91.181.55.40)
  62. # [18:36] * Joins: mitzpettel (mitz@17.212.152.189)
  63. # [18:37] * Quits: mitzpettel (mitz@17.212.152.189) (Quit: mitzpettel)
  64. # [18:52] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58) (Quit: Freedom - to walk free and own no superior.)
  65. # [18:52] * Quits: Ms2ger (Ms2ger@91.181.55.40) (Ping timeout)
  66. # [19:03] * Joins: stearns (anonymous@192.150.22.5)
  67. # [19:09] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@159.63.23.38)
  68. # [19:22] * Joins: Ms2ger (Ms2ger@91.181.55.40)
  69. # [19:25] * Quits: tantek (tantek@70.36.139.219) (Quit: tantek)
  70. # [20:00] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@159.63.23.38) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  71. # [20:01] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@159.63.23.38)
  72. # [20:09] * Joins: tantek_ (tantek@159.63.23.38)
  73. # [20:16] * Quits: drublic (drublic@95.115.55.40) (Client exited)
  74. # [20:19] * Quits: brianman (brianman@131.107.0.84) (Ping timeout)
  75. # [20:20] * Joins: brianman (brianman@131.107.0.113)
  76. # [20:34] * Joins: ksweeney (ksweeney@63.119.10.10)
  77. # [20:34] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@159.63.23.38) (Connection reset by peer)
  78. # [20:37] * Quits: tantek_ (tantek@159.63.23.38) (Quit: tantek_)
  79. # [20:38] * Joins: tantek_ (tantek@159.63.23.38)
  80. # [20:39] * Quits: tantek_ (tantek@159.63.23.38) (Quit: tantek_)
  81. # [20:39] * Joins: tantek_ (tantek@159.63.23.38)
  82. # [20:48] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@159.63.23.38)
  83. # [20:48] * Quits: plinss (plinss@98.176.133.137) (Quit: plinss)
  84. # [20:52] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58)
  85. # [21:05] * Joins: tantek (tantek@159.63.23.38)
  86. # [21:09] <fantasai> tantek: I removed the notes because they're irrelevant now and was cluttering up the planning index
  87. # [21:10] <fantasai> tantek: although I suppose we could link to them if they're on a separate page
  88. # [21:10] <fantasai> tantek: as an archive
  89. # [21:11] <fantasai> tantek: Assuming the notes were incorporated into the charter, I don't think we need them. The link to charter-2008 seems useful though
  90. # [21:11] <fantasai> tantek: ideally we'd have another one for charter-2010, but too late now
  91. # [21:12] <fantasai> tantek: wrt LC vs WD for css3-ui
  92. # [21:12] <fantasai> tantek: You can request LC at the telecon this week, but you won't get it because you haven't given the WG time to review your draft and verify that there are indeed no more issues to come from the WG
  93. # [21:12] <fantasai> tantek: You'll them miss the moratorium
  94. # [21:13] <fantasai> tantek: and publish, at best, in early January
  95. # [21:13] <fantasai> tantek: at which point you have for the first time notified people who aren't on www-style
  96. # [21:13] <fantasai> tantek: That the draft has been actively edited and has changed since 2004
  97. # [21:14] <fantasai> tantek: Chances are that you will get issues reported from this broader audience
  98. # [21:15] <fantasai> tantek: And therefore it is reasonably likely that you'll need to issue multiple LCs
  99. # [21:15] <fantasai> tantek: and deal with the associated issue-tracking and DoC-writing, etc.
  100. # [21:15] <tantek_> this is why I was asking about deadlines to publish - so apparently, my question was not answered (if all the dependencies you point out are actually there)
  101. # [21:15] <fantasai> tantek: Alternatively, you can take my advice, and issue a WD
  102. # [21:15] <tantek_> I don't expect a need for multiple LCs
  103. # [21:15] <tantek_> at least not sequentially
  104. # [21:15] <tantek_> based on past experience
  105. # [21:15] <fantasai> tantek: The WG will be less likely to hold up a WD publication in order to review it before publication
  106. # [21:16] <fantasai> tantek: so you have a chance to get it out this year
  107. # [21:16] <tantek_> why would the WG hold up publication of a LC of a previous CR?
  108. # [21:16] <tantek_> I think you're using too much fear-based thinking
  109. # [21:16] <brianman> @fantasai: The http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/ link points to a WD (same as the TR link?). Is that intentional?
  110. # [21:16] <fantasai> tantek: Once it's published, you can tell people about your updates and request that broader feedback
  111. # [21:16] <fantasai> tantek: and deal with that before going through the formal LC process
  112. # [21:17] <tantek_> nah I prefer fewer steps
  113. # [21:17] <tantek_> motivated again by editor-time efficiency
  114. # [21:17] <fantasai> tantek: Because you haven't finished your edits and asked the WG to review the resulting draft with the expectation that it will go to LC
  115. # [21:17] <tantek_> which is *the* limiting/bottleneck resource in the CSSWG
  116. # [21:18] <tantek_> reread what I said above - it's an edit of a CR, not a new WD
  117. # [21:18] <fantasai> tantek: It's not an edit of a CR, because you're adding text-overflow
  118. # [21:18] <tantek_> that's why it's going back to LC instead of just being another CR
  119. # [21:18] <fantasai> tantek: text-overflow's CR status was revoked, along with everything else in CSS3 Text, for being vastly underdefined.
  120. # [21:18] <tantek_> no need to overdo it
  121. # [21:19] <tantek_> if as you predict the WG acts in an obstructionist manner I will make that public on www-style so all the folks ranting about prefixes and how slow it is that drafts move forward can have their say on that
  122. # [21:19] <fantasai> LC doesn't mean the editor has reviewed the draft and believes there are no more issues
  123. # [21:20] <fantasai> LC means the WG has reviewed the draft and believes there are no more issues
  124. # [21:20] <fantasai> given you haven't yet notified the WG that you've finished your edits and are ready for review
  125. # [21:20] <tantek_> we should use a meaning for LC that best provides with efficient movement of spec progress
  126. # [21:20] <fantasai> I think it's unreasonable to expect them to resolve that they've reviewed the draft and believe there are no more issues
  127. # [21:20] <tantek_> I'm done using literal definitions per the process
  128. # [21:20] <tantek_> it's already widely acknowledge that W3C process is broken
  129. # [21:21] <tantek_> so I'm ok with modifying it by example
  130. # [21:21] <tantek_> it's not unreasonable - the changes are quite small
  131. # [21:21] <tantek_> and those who care about it have been reviewing the editor's draft
  132. # [21:21] <fantasai> adding text-overflow is not small
  133. # [21:21] <tantek_> see above about those who care
  134. # [21:21] <fantasai> anyway, suit yourself
  135. # [21:21] <tantek_> re: charter - you're right about cluttering up the index page but wish you could have at least moved the content to another page. I can create a new page for charter notes then.
  136. # [21:22] <fantasai> tantek: I don't think notes on errors in the charter that were fixed really need to be archived
  137. # [21:22] <fantasai> tantek: there isn't really any useful information in those notes, which is why I just removed them
  138. # [21:22] <tantek_> fantasai - based on the outcry in www-style, you should be advocating for *faster* progress of our specs, rather than blind obedience to process.
  139. # [21:22] <tantek_> we represent the community, not the w3c process
  140. # [21:22] * Joins: drublic (drublic@95.115.55.40)
  141. # [21:23] <tantek_> re: charter - that's fine, that's your opinion. I thought it was useful information so I'll recreate it.
  142. # [21:24] * brianman nudges fantasai.
  143. # [21:24] <fantasai> brianman: Sorry, yeah, I need to revert the WD regalia
  144. # [21:24] <brianman> ah k
  145. # [21:24] <fantasai> brianman: I prepped it for the WD publication
  146. # [21:24] <brianman> The content should be the same though, for now. yes?
  147. # [21:24] <fantasai> yes
  148. # [21:24] <brianman> k
  149. # [21:25] <tantek> fantasai - on another topic, are we still on for meeting tomorrow to discuss draft template?
  150. # [21:25] <brianman> k, i'll try to re-review it sometime this week
  151. # [21:25] <fantasai> tantek: I believe so
  152. # [21:25] * Joins: plinss (plinss@192.6.114.30)
  153. # [21:25] <tantek> do you have any specific URLs we should review beforehand?
  154. # [21:25] <fantasai> tantek: someone ranted on spec-prod about that, btw, we should probably look those points over
  155. # [21:25] * fantasai digs that up
  156. # [21:25] <tantek> ok, perhaps send the URLs to me and Vincent right?
  157. # [21:26] <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2011OctDec/0084.html
  158. # [21:26] <fantasai> Vincent's on spec-prod, so he's got it :)
  159. # [21:32] * fantasai updated the table at http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/
  160. # [21:34] <tantek_> fantasai - yes!
  161. # [21:34] <fantasai> ?
  162. # [21:34] <tantek_> that email gets to the heart of the issue that I've been raising with the spec template
  163. # [21:34] <tantek_> the styling is not the biggest problem
  164. # [21:34] <tantek_> the content, ordering, prioritization etc
  165. # [21:34] <fantasai> yeah, no, we've got lots of problems :)
  166. # [21:35] <tantek_> As someone who adopted the "W3C format" for specs into other specs, e.g. microformats, I've both heard lots of this feedback already (years ago), and done some amount of iteration on it
  167. # [21:35] <tantek_> It's not "done" nor "perfect" by any measure, however, I've been putting a lot of that evolution into perhaps the most popular microformats spec (since it gets the most viewing and thus is a good candidate for rapid iteration/evolution)
  168. # [21:36] <tantek_> http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard
  169. # [21:36] <tantek_> I'm still working on applying feedback and iterating hCard, however what you see there is already *heavily* iterated based on such feedback from its origins as a more W3C-like looking draft.
  170. # [21:38] * Quits: drublic (drublic@95.115.55.40) (Client exited)
  171. # [21:38] <fantasai> tantek: Can you create a summary of that feedback for tomorrow? That way we can understand not what you changed, but why you changed it.
  172. # [21:38] <tantek> no chance
  173. # [21:38] <tantek> it's been a work in progress over years
  174. # [21:39] <tantek> I'm happy to go over the differences in person and explain reasoning for each difference
  175. # [21:39] <fantasai> tantek: yeah, that's fine
  176. # [21:39] * Joins: drublic (drublic@95.115.55.40)
  177. # [21:40] <tantek> I want us to consider *drastic* changes to the template
  178. # [21:40] <tantek> stuff that would make W3C process/docs traditionalists nervous/uncomfortable
  179. # [21:40] <fantasai> tantek: One issue that was raised in response to that post was that W3C specs are often printed. So while we should optimize better for hyperlinking, we can't entirely leave out some of the things that would otherwise be unnecessary to include.
  180. # [21:41] <tantek> sure, but we can always punt the stuff that bureaucrats want to the end of the document.
  181. # [21:41] <fantasai> definitely
  182. # [21:41] <fantasai> I'm looking forward to that
  183. # [21:41] <tantek> that's the approach that I took with hCard
  184. # [21:42] <tantek> there was universal complaints about all the preamble
  185. # [21:42] <tantek> W3C specs are *filled* with eye-glazing preamble
  186. # [21:42] <fantasai> http://epub-revision.googlecode.com/svn-history/trunk/build/30/spec/epub30-contentdocs.html
  187. # [21:42] <fantasai> IDPF does a much better job
  188. # [21:42] <tantek> not much actually
  189. # [21:43] <tantek> on my 11" Macbook I don't even see the editors without scrolling
  190. # [21:43] <tantek> huge waste of top space
  191. # [21:43] <tantek> standards bodies as a whole have very poorly design spec templates for usability
  192. # [21:43] <fantasai> but it doesn't have a huge long SOTD :)
  193. # [21:43] <tantek> there's lots of sources of huge long boring preamble
  194. # [21:44] * fantasai thinks this alone is a huge improvement
  195. # [21:44] <tantek> nah, minor
  196. # [21:44] <tantek> until you get "real content" up to the top, you fail
  197. # [21:44] <tantek> we need to aggressively push all the detailed preamble / status / etc. crap to end of document
  198. # [21:44] <tantek> and just hyperlink to it
  199. # [21:45] <tantek> someone arriving at the spec should be able to *use it* first, and if they care look at meta-details much much later
  200. # [21:45] <tantek> btw where's the current spec template draft?
  201. # [21:46] <tantek> just making sure I'm looking at the right thing
  202. # [21:46] <fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-module/
  203. # [21:47] <fantasai> I kept Module Interactions and Values at the top because, unless you're very familiar with CSS specs, you need to know those to set the context for understanding the rest of the spec
  204. # [21:47] <fantasai> But other than that, I put all the CSSWG-specific stuff to the bottom
  205. # [21:48] <Ms2ger> Does it need to be that narrow?
  206. # [21:48] <fantasai> Ms2ger: the stylesheet? No, that's just experimental
  207. # [21:48] <tantek> hmm - I would still punt all the interactions/dependencies stuff until *after* all the feature definitions - even for the people who are not "very familiar with CSS specs"
  208. # [21:48] <tantek> I disagree with your assessment of "you need to know those to set the context for understanding the rest of the spec"
  209. # [21:49] <tantek> most devs just want to know the properties and values in this spec and see examples
  210. # [21:49] <fantasai> tantek: If you don't understand our value syntax, the propdef boxes won't make sense
  211. # [21:49] <tantek> (with exceptions for things like selectors, media queries obv, values & units obv)
  212. # [21:49] <tantek> disagreed - they're fairly self-evident
  213. # [21:49] <fantasai> tantek: oh, really?
  214. # [21:49] <fantasai> foo || bar
  215. # [21:49] <fantasai> meaning foo or bar or both in either order
  216. # [21:49] <tantek> developers figure them out from examples
  217. # [21:49] <fantasai> is obvious?
  218. # [21:49] <stearns> disagree with self-evident, from my experience
  219. # [21:49] <tantek> is made obvious with use of good examples
  220. # [21:50] <tantek> that's the key
  221. # [21:50] <fantasai> no
  222. # [21:50] <tantek> good examples are far more important than any additional explanation of arcane syntax
  223. # [21:50] <tantek> if it looks cryptic, developers skip it
  224. # [21:50] <tantek> until they see something apparently useful
  225. # [21:50] <fantasai> you and I have been staring at CSS specs for over a decade
  226. # [21:50] <tantek> people skim this stuff
  227. # [21:50] <Ms2ger> foo || bar definitely looks cryptic
  228. # [21:50] <tantek> Ms2ger - exactly
  229. # [21:50] <tantek> thanks for making my point
  230. # [21:50] <fantasai> people new to this haven't
  231. # [21:50] <Ms2ger> Especially so if there's no link that explains it
  232. # [21:51] <Ms2ger> But that was fixed, I believe?
  233. # [21:52] <fantasai> if you throw a CSS spec to a developer and say "implement that", having a little context at the top helps them get oriented
  234. # [21:52] <fantasai> for the people who don't read bottom to top, skipping a couple paragraphs doesn't hurt much
  235. # [21:52] <fantasai> the intro is still at the top
  236. # [21:52] <fantasai> and those who will scan, will scann
  237. # [21:53] <fantasai> Ms2ger: I believe so, yes
  238. # [21:54] <tantek_> I think we should prefer web devs over browser devs
  239. # [21:54] <tantek_> I'll say that now
  240. # [21:54] <fantasai> I think even web devs who choose to read top to bottom
  241. # [21:54] <tantek_> in terms of spec content, formatting, ordering etc.
  242. # [21:54] <fantasai> rather than scanning
  243. # [21:55] <fantasai> will benefit from having some context set up front for what they're looking at
  244. # [21:55] <fantasai> not everybody knows how CSS specs are organized
  245. # [21:55] <tantek_> nah - most web devs just want to jump straight to examples they can copy/paste
  246. # [21:55] <fantasai> right, and they will jump to those examples
  247. # [21:55] <tantek_> fantasai - that's the point, you shouldn't need to know how CSS specs are organized
  248. # [21:55] <tantek_> a good design works without having to know that kind of thing
  249. # [21:55] <fantasai> to use it cursorily, yeah
  250. # [21:56] <fantasai> but if you want to dig in, the document should make sense read from top to bottom
  251. # [21:56] <fantasai> if you actually *read* the spec, instead of jumping around it, it should make sense
  252. # [21:56] <fantasai> and the things you need to know to understand later sections should be further up
  253. # [21:56] <tantek_> the "if you want to dig in" is solve through progressive disclosure
  254. # [21:57] <tantek_> rather than loading a bunch of context hoo-ha upfront
  255. # [21:57] <fantasai> Every technical book I've read has an Introduction that starts by explaining what they're talking about and giving and overview
  256. # [21:57] <tantek_> not the good ones
  257. # [21:57] <fantasai> and ending with document conventions and other context you need to know to make sense of the book
  258. # [21:58] <tantek_> and most folks skip such intros
  259. # [21:58] <tantek_> using the ToC
  260. # [21:58] <tantek_> they go straight to chapters of features
  261. # [21:58] <fantasai> I don't see a reason to deviate from that
  262. # [21:58] <tantek_> harder to do such skipping on a non-paged medium like the web
  263. # [21:58] <fantasai> how do you know?
  264. # [21:58] <fantasai> have you done a study of whether people read intros to O'Reilly books?
  265. # [21:59] <tantek_> having to scroll past a bunch of boring intro hoo-ha is a barrier to usability / understability
  266. # [21:59] <tantek_> fantasai - what's the last O'Reilly book that you read the intro to and cared?
  267. # [21:59] <tantek_> that's a classic example
  268. # [21:59] <tantek_> and don't forget - printed books like that have different motivations
  269. # [21:59] <tantek_> page count etc.
  270. # [21:59] <tantek_> shelf space width
  271. # [21:59] <tantek_> spine width
  272. # [21:59] <tantek_> so there's a lot more, ahem, filler
  273. # [21:59] <fantasai> pretty much any technical book I've read to something I was totally new to
  274. # [21:59] <fantasai> I've read the intro
  275. # [22:00] <fantasai> if it's something I know a bit about, I'll skip around, but not if I don't know anything about it
  276. # [22:00] <tantek_> so, CSS is not something totally new to web devs
  277. # [22:00] <tantek_> ergo, your analogy doesn't apply per your own reasoning
  278. # [22:00] <fantasai> so they'll skip around
  279. # [22:00] <tantek_> so let's minimize the noise density
  280. # [22:00] <tantek_> so they have less crap to wade through
  281. # [22:00] <fantasai> sure, as long as the result is coherent to the people who *don't* skip around
  282. # [22:00] <tantek_> we can put all the bureaucratic crap at the end
  283. # [22:00] <tantek_> for the few who care
  284. # [22:00] <fantasai> sure
  285. # [22:01] <tantek_> let's optimize for the many (web devs), not the few (w3c process types)
  286. # [22:01] <fantasai> defining value syntax is not bureaucratic crap, it's technical
  287. # [22:01] <fantasai> no bureaucracy is imposing it on us
  288. # [22:01] <fantasai> it's not about lawyers or process or anything
  289. # [22:01] <fantasai> it's about understanding the spec
  290. # [22:02] <tantek_> much of w3c spec template comes from w3c bureaucracy
  291. # [22:02] <tantek_> so yes, it has been imposed
  292. # [22:02] <tantek_> but I agree, we should act like it isn't
  293. # [22:02] <tantek_> and do the best we can
  294. # [22:02] <tantek_> independent of any bureaucratic requirements
  295. # [22:02] <fantasai> those sections aren't in the w3c template
  296. # [22:02] <tantek_> the entire header is a mess
  297. # [22:02] <tantek_> various versions, links etc.
  298. # [22:03] <tantek_> huge amounts of vertical space for editor/authorship
  299. # [22:03] <tantek_> it's *horrible*
  300. # [22:06] <fantasai> yeah, yeah, and our job is to fix all that
  301. # [22:06] <fantasai> the bureaucratic part
  302. # [22:26] * Quits: drublic (drublic@95.115.55.40) (Client exited)
  303. # [22:30] <tantek> fantasai - another URL to review for the meeting: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/How_to_write_a_spec
  304. # [22:41] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58) (Quit: Freedom - to walk free and own no superior.)
  305. # [23:07] * Quits: miketaylr (miketaylr@206.217.92.186) (Ping timeout)
  306. # [23:43] * Quits: Ms2ger (Ms2ger@91.181.55.40) (Quit: nn)
  307. # [23:46] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@159.63.23.38) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  308. # [23:46] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@159.63.23.38)
  309. # Session Close: Wed Dec 07 00:00:00 2011

The end :)