/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2007-04-01 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Sun Apr 01 00:00:00 2007
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [01:12] * Parts: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  4. # [01:28] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254)
  5. # [01:36] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  6. # [01:41] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  7. # [02:22] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  8. # [02:56] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254)
  9. # [03:43] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  10. # [03:48] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  11. # [03:56] * Joins: Grauw (ask@202.71.92.74)
  12. # [04:13] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@210.84.40.143) (Connection reset by peer)
  13. # [04:13] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@210.84.40.143)
  14. # [04:33] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@210.84.40.143) (Connection reset by peer)
  15. # [04:33] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@210.84.40.143)
  16. # [04:59] * Quits: marcos (chatzilla@203.206.31.102) (Ping timeout)
  17. # [05:05] * Joins: h3h (bfults@70.95.237.98)
  18. # [05:14] * Joins: marcos___ (chatzilla@203.206.31.102)
  19. # [05:14] * marcos___ is now known as marcos
  20. # [05:51] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  21. # [05:56] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  22. # [06:18] * Joins: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235)
  23. # [07:36] * Quits: h3h (bfults@70.95.237.98) (Quit: h3h)
  24. # [07:50] * Quits: st (st@62.234.155.214) (Quit: st)
  25. # [07:59] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  26. # [08:04] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  27. # [09:23] * Quits: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86) (Ping timeout)
  28. # [09:28] * Joins: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86)
  29. # [09:56] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154)
  30. # [10:07] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  31. # [10:12] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  32. # [11:30] * Joins: anne (annevk@86.90.70.28)
  33. # [11:30] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254) (Quit: Leaving)
  34. # [11:58] * Joins: erik (erik@131.155.212.31)
  35. # [12:02] <anne> hmm, we should prolly have montly archives as opposed to quarterly(sp?)
  36. # [12:06] <Grauw> wow, no new mail since this morning when I last read public-html :)
  37. # [12:07] <anne> if we keep getting 800 e-mails each three weeks that would make about 3000 each quarter
  38. # [12:08] <Grauw> yeah, I agree. you should send a mail to Dan...
  39. # [12:08] <Lachy> if we keep getting 800+ emails every 3 weeks, it's going to be far too much to keep up with
  40. # [12:08] <anne> per http://cgi.w3.org/member-bin/MailingListQuery.pl?queryList=public-html it's Karl who should be contacted...
  41. # [12:09] <Grauw> Karl then :)
  42. # [12:09] <Grauw> Lachy: it is better this week than last week
  43. # [12:10] <anne> done
  44. # [12:10] <Grauw> and I hope the +1-thing sticks, those mails are usually quick to read
  45. # [12:11] <anne> it seems those are better not e-mailed
  46. # [12:12] <Grauw> I think there is merit in seeing how many people agree
  47. # [12:12] <Grauw> if there's one really good post in favour of something, and 10 bad posts with counter-arguments, the good one will kinda drown in the bad ones, seemingly having no support
  48. # [12:12] <Lachy> Grauw, not all the time.
  49. # [12:12] <anne> I think there's more merit in making descisions based on actual arguments than majority vote
  50. # [12:13] <Grauw> it’s not about voting, it’s rather about indicating that you agree with someone’s point and would like an answer
  51. # [12:13] <Lachy> +1s should be limited in their use, if ever. E-mails that say nothing more than +1 are mostly useless
  52. # [12:13] <Grauw> If you don't have +1's, people will write text instead re-iterating what has already been said
  53. # [12:14] <anne> Everyone should get an answer to their question, regardless of whether a person agrees or disagrees...
  54. # [12:14] <Lachy> but there's no need to repeat what has already been said. +1s are ok when they're part of a much more substantial reply, but not as the only thing said
  55. # [12:14] <Grauw> I think they are.
  56. # [12:15] <anne> +1 to Lachy
  57. # [12:15] <Grauw> Indicating support for a mail that’s written is useful, I think, as an indicator that other people back up that post.
  58. # [12:16] <Grauw> why is it a problem, btw?
  59. # [12:16] <Grauw> once you get over the fact that you're receiving a mail with a very short body
  60. # [12:16] <anne> Because e-mails containing nothing are annoying
  61. # [12:17] <anne> If you have nothing to add just shut up and raise your own points if you feel the other guy is unfairly dismissed in some follow-up
  62. # [12:17] <Grauw> *shrugs* normally I would agree, but with +1s I think they serve a purpose and prevent emails with more body that would be even more annoying.
  63. # [12:18] <anne> It's not clear to me how they prevent that...
  64. # [12:18] * Quits: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235) (Ping timeout)
  65. # [12:19] <Grauw> as I said, I think instead of just +1 people would still post their mail, but textually stating their agreement and reiterating what has already been said.
  66. # [12:20] <anne> has that been proven in some way?
  67. # [12:20] <mjs> +1's have mostly vanity value
  68. # [12:20] <anne> I haven't seen that happening to often...
  69. # [12:20] <Grauw> mjs, I could agree with that, yes
  70. # [12:20] <mjs> they imply you are important enough that just the fact that you agree matters
  71. # [12:20] <Grauw> oh, not with that :)
  72. # [12:20] <mjs> I say this despite having posted one myself
  73. # [12:21] <Grauw> I'd say indicating agreement is a common thing to do in a discussion. I mean just listen to people saying hm and yes and nodding :)
  74. # [12:22] <mjs> email is a different medium from conversation
  75. # [12:22] <Grauw> +1 is kind of translating that to electronic mail, from my perspective
  76. # [12:23] <Grauw> and for the original poster it's good to know that people agree with him and he's not argueing for nothing
  77. # [12:23] <mjs> if Einstein mails you a paper letter explaining Special Relativity, you would not write him a letter back that says "+1"
  78. # [12:23] <Grauw> email is a different medium from paper letters
  79. # [12:23] <Grauw> I mean, heh, same bullocks argument then :)
  80. # [12:24] <Grauw> by the way, if he did, writing a note back would be polite I think ;p
  81. # [12:27] <anne> I think e-mail is far close to paper letters than conversation is to e-mail
  82. # [12:28] <anne> F2F conversation*
  83. # [12:28] <Grauw> it's like smileys are pretty much a necessary thing in various text-only conversation in order to prevent people from taking things the wrong way
  84. # [12:28] <anne> F2F conversation is prolly more like IRC / IM
  85. # [12:28] <Grauw> although I would say +1s aren't as necessary as smileys :)
  86. # [12:28] <Grauw> yet would you argue that smileys aren't necessary in email? it's a similar case
  87. # [12:29] <Lachy> it's rare to see a smiley sent on its own, as you would a +1
  88. # [12:29] <Grauw> (tho' writing a mail just containing :) would be kinda lame ;p)
  89. # [12:29] <Lachy> and what makes writing an e-mail containing only a +1 not lame?
  90. # [12:30] <Grauw> because indicating agreement is perhaps a little more relevant to the discussion than indicating amusement
  91. # [12:30] <anne> how is it relevant?
  92. # [12:30] <Grauw> but I suppose you have a point
  93. # [12:31] <Grauw> as I said, the original author does not have any idea how well-received his mail is
  94. # [12:31] <Grauw> there's a number of good mails without any replies
  95. # [12:31] <mjs> indicating agreement might be valuable if you are an unusually noted authority or have some special power or influence, otherwise, it's only valuable to actually add something to the conversation
  96. # [12:31] <mjs> like a new argument, different perspective, etc
  97. # [12:31] <Grauw> and another number of good mails with a couple of replies that only give arguments against, though I would say the original poster got it right
  98. # [12:31] <mjs> it's harder to do that when agreeing than when disagreeing, granted
  99. # [12:32] <Grauw> mjs: it's just that when I post something, sometimes I could use a +1 to remind my why I bother :)
  100. # [12:32] <Grauw> *me
  101. # [12:32] <anne> if the argument is that an argument might get lost then the person who makes the descision should do a better job
  102. # [12:32] <Grauw> if I get a half-dozen replies that disagree
  103. # [12:32] <anne> and if an argument doesn't seem to be taken into account you just reraise it
  104. # [12:33] <anne> at that point, not before by saying +1
  105. # [12:33] <Grauw> anne, so what about it indicating to the original poster that he has support in his question/proposal/objection? isn't that valueable?
  106. # [12:34] <anne> I don't see how
  107. # [12:34] <Lachy> Grauw, if you get so many disagreements and no further support from people responding to those disagreements
  108. # [12:34] <anne> you could e-mail him a private e-mail though, I suppose
  109. # [12:34] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  110. # [12:34] <mjs> decisions should be about reasoned arguments, not popularity
  111. # [12:34] <anne> indeed
  112. # [12:34] <Grauw> anne, I suppose that makes sense
  113. # [12:34] <Grauw> well I don't think you couldn't say popularity doesn't matter at all
  114. # [12:35] <anne> In the Atom WG descisions were made based on popularity...
  115. # [12:35] <mjs> if you see a lot of opposition to the idea, come up with new arguments in support of it, don't just say +1
  116. # [12:35] <anne> Actually, in most WGs
  117. # [12:35] <Grauw> I mean, why else would there be a vote mechanism...
  118. # [12:35] * anne isn't sure that works well
  119. # [12:35] <mjs> votes are for when discussion fails to achieve a rough consensus
  120. # [12:35] <Grauw> anyway, I suppose you have a point
  121. # [12:35] <Lachy> Grauw, just take a look at all the discussions that have taken place on whatwg and other mailing lists that seem to do just fine without a significnat number of +1s
  122. # [12:35] <Grauw> I will refrain from just posting +1s
  123. # [12:35] <mjs> that doesn't mean voting is the first option to go to
  124. # [12:36] <Grauw> instead when I feel like writing a +1, I will think for 5 minutes to bring something new to the discussion :)
  125. # [12:36] <Grauw> Lachy: the process by which the WHATWG works is kind of unclear to me
  126. # [12:36] <Lachy> what's unclear about it?
  127. # [12:37] <Grauw> from what I can tell, people can discuss all they want, but the editor decides it
  128. # [12:37] <Lachy> people discuss and debate issues on the mailing list, Hixie decides what the specs should say and responds. The process works iteratively until most people are happy
  129. # [12:38] <Grauw> especially if he expresses a strong opinion on a certain matter, it seems kinda useless to argue with people other than the editor, because he's the one that matters
  130. # [12:38] <anne> why?
  131. # [12:38] <Grauw> so how do you know 'most' people are happy? :)
  132. # [12:38] <Grauw> don't answer that
  133. # [12:38] <Lachy> the editor has to take all arguments into account from all sides
  134. # [12:39] <anne> (arguing with other people might give both parties more insights, etc.)
  135. # [12:39] <mjs> you know 'most' people are happy when there is lack of sustained objection
  136. # [12:40] <mjs> Hixie has changed his mind on many points without arguments necessarily being directed at him
  137. # [12:40] <mjs> for instance, making html-compatible xhtml be conforming html
  138. # [12:41] <Grauw> that's very nice
  139. # [12:41] <mjs> I don't think that was in any way his personal preference
  140. # [12:41] <mjs> and I don't think anyone said "you suck"
  141. # [12:41] <mjs> but he read the discussion about it
  142. # [12:41] <Lachy> it wasn't, it was based on the reality of widely deployed systems using XHTML syntax in HTML
  143. # [12:42] <Lachy> not my personal preference either, but I accept the decision
  144. # [12:43] <Grauw> I'm not doubting the Hixie's integrity
  145. # [12:43] <Grauw> *s/the//
  146. # [12:45] <Lachy> does anyone think it would be valuable to write up some email contribution guidlines for this mailing list, that covers thinks like +1s, not responding to pointless threads with pointless argumetns, etc.?
  147. # [12:45] <Grauw> yes
  148. # [12:45] <Grauw> wiki, even
  149. # [12:46] <Grauw> so that it can be referenced, easily
  150. # [12:46] <Grauw> my assumption that sole +1s were ok was based on Dan’s mail which said that, although it indicated a preference for ‘+1, and...’ mails
  151. # [12:46] <Lachy> normally, I wouldn't think it's necessary, but since public-html seems to have a lot of newbies
  152. # [12:47] <Grauw> I think the rules differ per list
  153. # [12:47] <Grauw> it doesn’t have much to do with being new to mailinglists or not
  154. # [12:47] <Lachy> they generally don't differ too much between technical discussion lists like this
  155. # [13:00] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154) (Client exited)
  156. # [13:00] * Joins: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235)
  157. # [13:07] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  158. # [13:09] * Quits: erik (erik@131.155.212.31) (Quit: Bye bye)
  159. # [13:19] * Quits: marcos (chatzilla@203.206.31.102) (Quit: Chatzilla 0.9.77 [Firefox 2.0.0.2/2007021917])
  160. # [13:26] * Quits: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235) (Ping timeout)
  161. # [14:42] * Joins: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235)
  162. # [15:41] * Parts: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  163. # [15:42] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Quit: http://eric.daspet.name/ et l'édition 2007 de http://www.paris-web.fr/ )
  164. # [16:24] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@210.84.40.143) (Quit: Leaving)
  165. # [16:30] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@210.84.40.143)
  166. # [16:38] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30)
  167. # [16:50] * Quits: Grauw (ask@202.71.92.74) (Quit: Buhbye!)
  168. # [17:18] <Lachy> http://www.w3.org/mid/460FBFDA.70502@aptest.com
  169. # [17:19] <Lachy> hsivonen, that has some rebuttals to your arguments against versioning
  170. # [17:29] * Quits: anne (annevk@86.90.70.28) (Ping timeout)
  171. # [17:33] <Dashiva> Doesn't seem to bark up quite the right tree to me...
  172. # [17:34] <Dashiva> Talking about modularization and xhtml-* already requires namespaces, one namespace per thing you want
  173. # [17:39] * Joins: st (st@62.234.155.214)
  174. # [17:43] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154)
  175. # [17:46] * Joins: h3h (bfults@70.95.237.98)
  176. # [18:12] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  177. # [18:37] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Ping timeout)
  178. # [19:21] * Joins: anne (annevk@83.82.206.111)
  179. # [19:24] <anne> Mallory, don't you want to work on the next used version of HTML?
  180. # [19:26] * Quits: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235) (Quit: See you...)
  181. # [19:28] <anne> It also seems to me that the people arguing against default rendering requirements obviously don't work for browser vendors... Unfortunately interoperability on default rendering is important...
  182. # [19:30] <Dashiva> indeed
  183. # [19:30] <Dashiva> Far too often it ends up with * { margin: 0; padding: 0; } because the author is tired of different browsers disagreeing
  184. # [19:33] <Hixie> happy mailman mailing list membership reminder day
  185. # [19:34] * Dashiva turned off those
  186. # [19:36] * anne replied to the thread
  187. # [19:36] * anne doesn't like the cross-list nonsense at all
  188. # [19:46] <Dashiva> I expect people who are against reply-to modification would rejoice at the cross-posting, though :)
  189. # [19:48] <Mallory> Uh ?
  190. # [19:48] <Mallory> anne: What do you mean ?
  191. # [19:50] <anne> That I don't see much point in just participating in the W3C HTML WG atm
  192. # [19:51] <Mallory> I would like to, but it seems I'm not enough qualified.
  193. # [19:52] * anne isn't sure what Mallory means now :)
  194. # [19:52] <Mallory> I only understand about 5% of mailing-list messages.
  195. # [19:52] * Hixie doesn't really care what list gets e-mailed or whether he's cc'ed since gmail filters out duplicates before sending the e-mails on to his dreamhost account
  196. # [19:53] <Hixie> and since i care about feedback wherever it comes from...
  197. # [19:56] <anne> Mallory, I think I mixed you up with someone else, my apologies
  198. # [19:56] <Mallory> No problem, by the way, I've posted twice, and never seen one of my messages.
  199. # [19:56] <anne> Mallory, you sure you joined the WG?
  200. # [19:57] <anne> you did
  201. # [19:57] <anne> nm
  202. # [19:57] <Mallory> Maybe I can't see my own posts.
  203. # [19:58] <anne> I don't see them in the archive either
  204. # [19:58] <anne> did you e-mail them towards public-html@w3.org ?
  205. # [19:58] <anne> also, did you grant the W3C the right to archive your posts and such?
  206. # [19:59] <anne> I think the first time you make a post you have to enter some information in a form on a page to grant them those rights
  207. # [19:59] <Mallory> Ah
  208. # [20:01] <anne> you could e-mail www-archive with subject "test" to try it out
  209. # [20:01] <anne> and see if it shows up here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Apr/
  210. # [20:01] <anne> or you get some kind of e-mail back asing you to sign something
  211. # [20:02] <Mallory> I'll try that.
  212. # [20:05] <Mallory> Thanks anne.
  213. # [20:12] <anne> it worked?
  214. # [20:12] * anne doesn't see the e-mail
  215. # [20:13] <Mallory> I don't see it either, but I received an email asking me to fill an form.
  216. # [20:14] <anne> and you did?
  217. # [20:14] <Mallory> I did.
  218. # [20:14] <anne> i suppose it might take some after that
  219. # [20:14] <anne> take some time*
  220. # [20:33] * Quits: h3h (bfults@70.95.237.98) (Quit: h3h)
  221. # [20:45] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  222. # [21:32] * Quits: anne (annevk@83.82.206.111) (Ping timeout)
  223. # [21:36] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@71.198.189.81)
  224. # [21:52] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  225. # [22:03] * Quits: Yudai (Yudai@59.147.29.149) (Quit: SIGTERM received; exit)
  226. # [22:03] * Joins: Yudai (Yudai@59.147.29.149)
  227. # [22:03] <Yudai> $B$F$9$H(B
  228. # [22:03] <Yudai> $BF|K\8l(B
  229. # [22:03] <Yudai> opps
  230. # [22:04] <Yudai> missed
  231. # [22:04] <Dashiva> That looks like some fancy shift charset
  232. # [22:05] * Quits: Yudai (Yudai@59.147.29.149) (Quit: SIGTERM received; exit)
  233. # [22:09] <hsivonen> Lachy: I much prefer Jirka Kosek's reasons over Shane McCarron's. (McCarron seems to see M12N as a good thing and HTML5 as lacking legitimity)
  234. # [22:30] <hsivonen> Lachy: also, he starts with "The argument at [1] seems to be that versioning is bad because some
  235. # [22:30] <hsivonen> careless user agent manufacturers have done it wrong?"
  236. # [22:30] <hsivonen> I don't think UA vendors have done versioning wrong
  237. # [22:31] <hsivonen> except ideally, we wouldn't have the quirks mode, but I wouldn't blame the vendors
  238. # [22:53] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@71.198.189.81) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  239. # [23:01] * Quits: st (st@62.234.155.214) (Quit: st)
  240. # [23:03] * Joins: h3h (bfults@70.95.237.98)
  241. # [23:29] <hsivonen> can someone explain me why XHTML Print exists?
  242. # [23:30] <hsivonen> HP is obviously involved. why do they want it?
  243. # [23:31] <Hixie> they make printers with built in html+css uas
  244. # [23:31] <Hixie> you bluetooth the printer a uri, it renders the page and prints it
  245. # [23:31] <Hixie> i'm not sure what the use case is
  246. # [23:31] <Hixie> nor why the printers need standardised profiles
  247. # [23:32] <hsivonen> Hixie: why on earth do they want to drive a printer with a format the has the complexity of CSS and does not encode final-form geometry
  248. # [23:33] <hsivonen> I understand why someone would run Prince on a server but put a PostScript RIP on the printer
  249. # [23:33] * Joins: Yudai (Yudai@59.147.29.149)
  250. # [23:34] <Yudai> yes, that's SHIFT_JIS
  251. # [23:34] <hsivonen> oh. you sent an URI to the printer? how would the provider of the content identified by the URI know in advance that a print profile is wanted?
  252. # [23:34] <hsivonen> I thought it was for POST:ing a generated doc from a mobile device
  253. # [23:34] <hsivonen> POSTing
  254. # [23:34] * Parts: Yudai (Yudai@59.147.29.149) (See you...)
  255. # [23:34] * Joins: Yudai (Yudai@59.147.29.149)
  256. # [23:36] <Yudai> oops, my connection had been broken...
  257. # [23:36] <hsivonen> with arguments of the form "we need to do foo because XHTML MP / XHTML Print exists" the problem I have is that I am not convinced that XHTML MP and XHTML Print aren't design bugs, but with Print I don't know if I'm the one lacking clue
  258. # [23:57] * Joins: chaals (chaals@82.32.5.17)
  259. # Session Close: Mon Apr 02 00:00:00 2007

The end :)