/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2007-04-03 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Tue Apr 03 00:00:00 2007
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:00] <chrisheilmann> well, let's send some mails out and I will go full throttle after Highland Fling
  4. # [00:04] <DanC> chrisheilmann, do you know paul hammond, also of Yahoo UK? I met him in Austin at SXSW. He said he's also interested in joining the HTML WG
  5. # [00:05] <chrisheilmann> yeah he moved to SF lately
  6. # [00:05] <chrisheilmann> nice chap
  7. # [00:05] <kingryan> DanC: I know paul, too
  8. # [00:05] <DanC> moved to SF? so the business card I got is already stale. :-/
  9. # [00:07] <chrisheilmann> emails stay the same
  10. # [00:08] <DanC> sure
  11. # [00:08] <chrisheilmann> I still got the uk- one on my cards aswell, although we should not have those any longer
  12. # [00:09] <chrisheilmann> but I got cards left and no need to throw them out
  13. # [00:10] * Quits: h3h (bfults@66.162.32.234) (Client exited)
  14. # [00:10] * Joins: h3h (bfults@66.162.32.234)
  15. # [00:12] <anne> Hixie, is there a lot of content that uses <q>?
  16. # [00:12] <Hixie> more than <dfn>
  17. # [00:12] * anne wonders if we can just change the UAs that render the quotes and not do the complex CSS trickery
  18. # [00:12] <Hixie> more than <ins> and <del>, more than <var>, more than <kbd>
  19. # [00:13] <Hixie> more than VML
  20. # [00:13] <chrisheilmann> well, q is a human communication device, var and kbd somehow became moot when we exceeded the realm of technical documentation
  21. # [00:13] <Hixie> and far mroe than <ruby>
  22. # [00:14] <Hixie> (about ten times more than <ruby>)
  23. # [00:15] <anne> and <ruby> is supported in Internet Explorer
  24. # [00:15] <anne> interesting
  25. # [00:15] <anne> (so is VML, of course)
  26. # [00:15] * Hixie mumbles something about people who propose "depracating" things
  27. # [00:16] <Hixie> deprecating is like adding a pref in software. it means we were too scared to actually take action.
  28. # [00:16] <anne> that could be another guideline: "RemoveOrImprove"
  29. # [00:16] <anne> (which would be specific to the authoring side of things)
  30. # [00:16] <mjs> deprecating is like an even weaker version of removing from document conformance but requiring UA support
  31. # [00:17] <anne> as the implementor side of thing would be: "HaveToSupportItAll"
  32. # [00:17] <anne> s/thing/things/
  33. # [00:17] <chrisheilmann> is there a plan for something like <reset>
  34. # [00:17] <Hixie> ok people need to stop with the obsession with CamelCasingWords
  35. # [00:17] <Hixie> we have spaces in the english language FOR A REASON
  36. # [00:17] <mjs> but WikiSyntax allows AutomaticLinking
  37. # [00:17] * anne WasFollowingTheWikiConvention
  38. # [00:18] <Hixie> WikiSyntax is AnnoyingToRead
  39. # [00:18] <chrisheilmann> When you offer badges and other syndication means it is really tough to make them work without inheriting a lot of styling from the main document. This is why a lot of publishers go the IFRAME route
  40. # [00:18] <marcos__> yeah, why can't people write stuff normally, it still works fine!
  41. # [00:18] <anne> chrisheilmann, what would it do?
  42. # [00:18] <mjs> what is <reset>?
  43. # [00:19] * anne recalls some discussion about an element called <reset> in which within CSS would not be automatically applied or something
  44. # [00:20] <kingryan> there was discussion about @sandbox for scripts, too, I think
  45. # [00:20] <anne> -> <iframe> :)
  46. # [00:20] <mjs> I have a sandbox proposal to dig up
  47. # [00:21] <mjs> <reset> could be achieved by setting every CSS property to "initial" on it
  48. # [00:21] <Philip> Could you just combine <style scoped> with one of those "CSS zappers"?
  49. # [00:21] <mjs> (assuming the goal is to return to UA defaults)
  50. # [00:21] <mjs> (actually that wouldn't return to UA defaults, nevermind)
  51. # [00:22] * anne has suggested "default" long ago on www-style
  52. # [00:22] <mjs> would "default" only account for the UA stylesheet or also the user stylesheet?
  53. # [00:22] * Quits: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132) (Ping timeout)
  54. # [00:23] <DanC> fyi, http://esw.w3.org/topic/WikiNames_vs._Normal_Titles
  55. # [00:23] <anne> well "ua" -> "author" -> "user"
  56. # [00:23] <anne> so if the author sets it to default the user could override that
  57. # [00:23] * Quits: heycam (cam@203.214.79.176) (Ping timeout)
  58. # [00:24] <chrisheilmann> cool. so there is work in progress
  59. # [00:24] <chrisheilmann> valid google ads ahoy
  60. # [00:25] <mjs> anne: isn't the cascade order ua -> user -> author?
  61. # [00:25] <anne> mjs, nope
  62. # [00:25] <anne> it's "ua" -> author -> user -> author !important -> user !important
  63. # [00:25] * Joins: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132)
  64. # [00:26] <mjs> anne: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#cascading-order disagrees
  65. # [00:27] * anne is being silly
  66. # [00:27] <chrisheilmann> Did anyone ever really create a user stylesheet?
  67. # [00:27] <anne> my idea was that "default" would default to what the initial style of the UA was
  68. # [00:27] * anne hasn't
  69. # [00:28] <marcos__> The model that anne put forward is discussed in http://people.opera.com/howcome/2006/phd/... i think
  70. # [00:29] <marcos__> very good read, for anyone who has not read it :)
  71. # [00:29] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30)
  72. # [00:29] <mjs> chrisheilmann: people complain when we break them, so I assume yes
  73. # [00:31] <marcos__> <q>There are three possible origins in CSS: author, user and browser. By default, author declarations win over user declarations, and user declarations win over browser declarations. However, declarations may also be marked as !important and thereby win over other declarations. In the (somewhat contrived) example below, the first declaration will win over the second one due to being marked...
  74. # [00:31] <marcos__> ...as !important:</q>
  75. # [00:31] <chrisheilmann> mjs well, people who complain are normally the vocal minority that don't really need them though. Bit like the herd of "accessibility experts" who know what "every blind user" needs.
  76. # [00:32] <mjs> chrisheilmann: don't get me wrong, I think user stylesheets are a marginal feature, but if we dropped them there would be outcry
  77. # [00:33] <mjs> marcos__: CSS 2.1 spec says the same thing, but in more normative language
  78. # [00:33] <marcos__> fair enough
  79. # [00:35] <anne> the design principles don't seem to mention versioning btw
  80. # [00:35] <chrisheilmann> bedtime, still on singapore mode...
  81. # [00:35] * Quits: chrisheilmann (on@82.69.25.35) (Quit: chrisheilmann)
  82. # [00:36] <anne> "Fix rather than deprecate"
  83. # [00:37] <anne> "New stuff doesn't solve old problems"
  84. # [00:37] <kingryan> "deprecating a feature doesn't make it ignorable"
  85. # [00:43] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  86. # [00:44] <mjs> anne: I didn't mention versioning yet - feel free to do so yourself (probably in disputed section for now) but I plan to update tonight
  87. # [00:45] <anne> in that case, I'll plan to go to bed :)
  88. # [00:45] <mjs> I was gonna put possible opposing versions for the disputed ones
  89. # [00:46] <Hixie> opposing version syntax
  90. # [00:46] <Hixie> not version
  91. # [00:46] <Hixie> :-)
  92. # [00:47] <mjs> not what I meant
  93. # [00:47] <anne> I think mjs meant different alternatives
  94. # [00:47] <anne> unless you're making a late fools day joke
  95. # [00:47] <mjs> I meant that I'd have, for instance, "NoVersionSyntax vs ExpressVersions" or something like that
  96. # [00:47] <mjs> instead of just "NoVersionSyntax"
  97. # [00:48] <mjs> and put whatever arguments have been given for both sides
  98. # [00:48] <mjs> rather than just describing only my preferred outcome
  99. # [00:48] <anne> and then decide by majority vote!
  100. # [00:48] <Hixie> aah
  101. # [00:48] <Hixie> yeah that makes sense
  102. # [00:48] <Hixie> sorry, i assumed opposing versions meant something else :-)
  103. # [00:49] <mjs> yes, I can see why, in context
  104. # [00:49] * anne realizes he didn't mean the same as hsivonen
  105. # [00:49] * anne hopes it still makes sense
  106. # [00:50] <Hixie> DanC: fwiw when the design principles were written we specifically avoided the term "backwards compatible" because it means so many things to so many people
  107. # [00:50] <Hixie> DanC: and "forwards compatible" means something else again to many people
  108. # [00:50] <DanC> hmm... only half the term was avoided; "Compatibility" is right at the top
  109. # [00:51] <DanC> "Don't Break The Web" is too jingoistic for me
  110. # [00:52] <Hixie> e.g. i would call all of "Don't Break The Web", "Degrade Gracefully", and "Evolution Not Revolution" as backwards-compatibility, and I would call "Well-Defined Behavior" and "Handle Errors" as forwards-compatibility
  111. # [00:52] <Hixie> roughly speaking
  112. # [00:52] <DanC> sounds interesting
  113. # [00:52] <Hixie> html doesn't really have a good forwards-compatibility story (unlike, e.g., css)
  114. # [00:53] <DanC> for the text currently under "Don't Break The Web", I'd summarize it as "honor existing content"
  115. # [00:53] <Hixie> (though i guess a lot of the work in whatwg html5 addresses that)
  116. # [00:53] * Hixie will let the others argue over what to call the principles, so long as the descriptions are accurate :-)
  117. # [00:57] <DanC> what does joe-on-the-street call it? a web browser? Internet explorer? the internet?
  118. # [00:57] <DanC> about 216,000,000 for "internet explorer".
  119. # [00:57] <DanC> about 115,000,000 for "web browser"
  120. # [00:58] <DanC> about 221,000,000 for firefox
  121. # [00:58] <DanC> about 85,100,000 for firefox "internet explorer".
  122. # [00:59] <DanC> about 3,560,000 for firefox "internet explorer" opera
  123. # [00:59] <kingryan> DanC: using web searches is not a good proxy for joe-on-the-street
  124. # [00:59] <anne> about 587,000 for "firefox internet explorer"
  125. # [00:59] <DanC> kingryan, what is?
  126. # [00:59] * anne -> bed
  127. # [00:59] <DanC> about 3,560,000 for firefox "internet explorer" opera.
  128. # [01:00] <kingryan> joe-on-the-street is probably not a web author and if so, his contribution to the web is overwhelmed by us, the geeks
  129. # [01:00] <marcos__> cya anne
  130. # [01:00] <DanC> and the magazine reviews seem to call them browsers
  131. # [01:00] <kingryan> DanC: I don't have a better suggestion, I'm just criticizing :D
  132. # [01:00] <DanC> ok, rephrase: what does the reader of our design principles call them?
  133. # [01:00] <kingryan> I'd guess "web browser"
  134. # [01:01] <marcos__> around these here parts we call 'em "browsers"
  135. # [01:01] <DanC> abbreviation to just "browser" seems common
  136. # [01:01] * kingryan -> coffee
  137. # [01:02] <DanC> hmm... include nvu and company in a footnote? or consider authoring tools separately?
  138. # [01:02] * Quits: anne (annevk@81.68.67.12) (Ping timeout)
  139. # [01:03] <DanC> I prefer to phrase things positively. "Keep it simple" rather than "Avoid Needless Complexity"
  140. # [01:04] <DanC> ding! family time
  141. # [01:05] * DanC is away: family time
  142. # [01:06] <Dashiva> Keep it simple is weaker, though. It doesn't allow for needful complexity :)
  143. # [01:08] <mjs> DanC: "Don't Break the Web" is pretty deliberately jingoistic, since there is less risk of people taking it too seriously than of people taking it not seriously enough
  144. # [01:08] <mjs> Hixie: ignoring unknown attributes and treating unknown elements as inlines is a surprisingly decent "forward compatibility" story (and yes, I agree the term sucks)
  145. # [01:10] <mjs> Hixie: "degrade gracefully" could be thought of as creating forward compatibility for HTML4
  146. # [01:10] <mjs> Hixie: but yeah, I avoided both those terms on purpose
  147. # [01:10] <Hixie> mjs: yeah, you can kind of fake forwards-compatibility in HTML without if you're careful, but it's not baked-in by design like with CSS.
  148. # [01:10] <mjs> DanC: I like phrasing things positively too, though I'm not sure "Keep It Simple" is as clear and precise as "Avoid Needless Complexity", it would have to be "Keep It As Simple As Possible But No Simpler"
  149. # [01:11] <mjs> Hixie: well, CSS is only forwards-compatible if you use newer properties in a way that won't render your content useless in UAs that only know the old properties
  150. # [01:13] * Joins: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84)
  151. # [01:16] <Hixie> mjs: it's forward compatible in that you can add entire new syntactic features and know exactly how all old UAs will handle them.
  152. # [01:17] * Joins: sbuluf (ulsh@200.49.140.119)
  153. # [01:18] <mjs> Hixie: I think to the degree it is better than HTML on that, it's due to handling of vendor extensions, rather than handling of unknown syntax
  154. # [01:19] * Parts: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  155. # [01:20] <Hixie> mjs: that too
  156. # [01:29] * Quits: marcos__ (chatzilla@203.206.31.102) (Ping timeout)
  157. # [01:57] * Joins: kemp (kemp@209.153.128.248)
  158. # [01:58] * Joins: marcos__ (chatzilla@203.206.31.102)
  159. # [02:05] * Joins: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30)
  160. # [02:06] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.99.50) (Quit: mjs)
  161. # [02:08] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.99.50)
  162. # [02:18] * Joins: Lachy_ (chatzilla@220.245.91.147)
  163. # [02:35] <Lachy_> in the ~50 emails sent to public-html overnight, do any of them actually discuss anything worth reading?
  164. # [02:35] * Quits: h3h (bfults@66.162.32.234) (Quit: |)
  165. # [02:36] <mjs> depends on how much you like reading +1 and -1 over and over
  166. # [02:36] <Lachy_> I noticed a couple of those from Murray
  167. # [02:37] <mjs> also someone proposed an incompatible change and I told him he might be happier working on XHTML2
  168. # [02:37] <Hixie> i'm so glad that whatwg uses a process where the quality of the argument is all that matters, not the quantity
  169. # [02:37] <Lachy_> hehe, I just found that one
  170. # [02:43] <Lachy_> wow! 3 +1s one email :-)
  171. # [02:44] <kingryan> why not just say +3?
  172. # [02:49] <mjs> lol
  173. # [03:02] * Joins: sbuluf- (urao@200.49.140.208)
  174. # [03:02] * Quits: sbuluf (ulsh@200.49.140.119) (Ping timeout)
  175. # [03:24] <karl> kingryan: because there are namespaces for each +1
  176. # [03:24] * karl is running outside before to be hit by angry people ;)
  177. # [03:37] <kingryan> karl: of course, namespaces always make thing better
  178. # [03:37] * kingryan really runs outside
  179. # [03:37] * Quits: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.187.33) (Quit: kingryan)
  180. # [03:38] <Lachy_> by my count, we're up to +36 since the list began
  181. # [03:39] <Lachy_> (I didn't count the -1s though)
  182. # [03:41] * Quits: Philip (excors@80.177.163.133) (Quit: Philip)
  183. # [03:48] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.99.50) (Quit: mjs)
  184. # [04:30] * Joins: htmlr (htmlr@138.130.176.60)
  185. # [04:45] * Quits: htmlr (htmlr@138.130.176.60) (Quit: htmlr)
  186. # [04:46] * Joins: htmlr (htmlr@138.130.176.60)
  187. # [04:54] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.242) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  188. # [05:07] * Quits: htmlr (htmlr@138.130.176.60) (Connection reset by peer)
  189. # [05:07] * Joins: htmlr (htmlr@138.130.176.60)
  190. # [05:10] * Quits: htmlr (htmlr@138.130.176.60) (Ping timeout)
  191. # [05:15] * Joins: htmlr (htmlr@210.84.51.60)
  192. # [05:27] * Joins: mjs (mjs@66.245.248.74)
  193. # [05:43] * Quits: mjs (mjs@66.245.248.74) (Quit: mjs)
  194. # [05:45] * Joins: mjs (mjs@66.245.248.74)
  195. # [05:48] * Quits: mjs (mjs@66.245.248.74) (Ping timeout)
  196. # [06:02] * Quits: Lachy_ (chatzilla@220.245.91.147) (Quit: Chatzilla 0.9.77 [Firefox 2.0.0.3/2007030919])
  197. # [06:13] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
  198. # [06:19] <Hixie> i love everyone arguing over a feature which every browser vendor has alreeady said they won't implement
  199. # [06:19] <gavin> which?
  200. # [06:19] <mjs> src on everything?
  201. # [06:19] <Hixie> src="" everywhere
  202. # [06:19] <mjs> (hi gavin)
  203. # [06:19] <gavin> oh, heh
  204. # [06:19] <gavin> hi
  205. # [06:20] <mjs> Hixie: but if they just put it in a spec, the browsers will totally have to do it
  206. # [06:20] <mjs> we'll show those browser guys!
  207. # [06:20] <Hixie> uh huh
  208. # [06:22] * Joins: Lachy_ (chatzilla@58.105.240.232)
  209. # [06:45] * Joins: h3h (bfults@70.95.237.98)
  210. # [07:14] * Quits: jjb (jjb@66.234.47.245) (Quit: jjb)
  211. # [08:01] * Quits: h3h (bfults@70.95.237.98) (Quit: h3h)
  212. # [08:12] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.48.129)
  213. # [08:16] * Quits: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Leaving)
  214. # [08:21] * Joins: Zeros_ (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254)
  215. # [08:21] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.48.129) (Ping timeout)
  216. # [08:37] * Joins: st (st@62.234.155.214)
  217. # [08:48] <mjs> just updated http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples#preview
  218. # [08:48] <mjs> now I'm mining http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ for anything worth reiterating
  219. # [08:50] <mjs> so far the only ones that are relevant seem wrong
  220. # [09:00] <karl> mjs: what was the goal of Interoperability?
  221. # [09:00] <karl> Interoperability
  222. # [09:00] <karl> These principles exist to improve the chances of HTML implementations being truly interoperable.
  223. # [09:00] <mjs> karl: I grouped the principles into three larger categories
  224. # [09:01] <karl> ooooh
  225. # [09:01] <mjs> (not sure if that answers your question)
  226. # [09:01] <karl> I guess then my CSS is not convenient
  227. # [09:01] <karl> hmmm I should tweak it a bit
  228. # [09:01] <mjs> I'm not sure how to make it more clear in the wiki
  229. # [09:02] <karl> wait wait checking something ;)
  230. # [09:02] <karl> http://www.w3.org/2004/06/esw-wiki.css
  231. # [09:02] <karl> I'm using this CSS
  232. # [09:03] <karl> that I had done a while ago but it might need a bit of tweaking
  233. # [09:04] <mjs> coloring the different heading levels differently might help
  234. # [09:05] <mjs> the border styling doesn't seem to be applying (or do you mean just you personally are using that?)
  235. # [09:07] <karl> yes in MoinMoin you can set the stylesheet of your choice
  236. # [09:07] <karl> http://esw.w3.org/topic/UserPreferences
  237. # [09:09] * Quits: htmlr (htmlr@210.84.51.60) (Quit: htmlr)
  238. # [09:12] * Zeros_ is now known as Zeros
  239. # [09:12] <Zeros> In reguards to the "No Version Syntax vs Explicit Versioning" section; wouldn't the URI in the doctype imply version anyway?
  240. # [09:13] <Zeros> regards*
  241. # [09:13] <Hixie> there's no URI in the DOCTYPE for WHATWG's HTML5
  242. # [09:13] <Hixie> it's just "<!DOCTYPE HTML>" in HTML
  243. # [09:13] <Hixie> and in WHATWG's XHTML5 there's no DOCTYPE at all
  244. # [09:15] * Quits: st (st@62.234.155.214) (Quit: st)
  245. # [09:16] <Zeros> That doesn't seem very forward thinking, if in the future they change something with HTML6 the doctype would be useless for figuring out what the document is without parsing the entire DOM, and even then only if that change present
  246. # [09:16] <Zeros> Not that doctypes seem to be helping right now either...
  247. # [09:17] <Hixie> the idea is that you never change the spec in a backwards-incompatible way
  248. # [09:17] <Zeros> Hixie, That isn't backwards compatible either though, all HTML5 documents will render in quirks mode in IE
  249. # [09:17] <Hixie> so that you never need versioning syntax.
  250. # [09:17] <karl> Zeros: it has already been discussed on the list. Read the March archives
  251. # [09:17] <Hixie> <!DOCTYPE HTML> triggers standards mode in IE
  252. # [09:17] <Zeros> really?
  253. # [09:17] <Hixie> yup, that's why we picked it
  254. # [09:18] <Zeros> Well that was my major concern, cool then. :)
  255. # [09:18] <Hixie> it wasn't just a random selection, it was the shortest doctype that was both valid in XML and triggered standards mode
  256. # [09:18] <Hixie> <!DOCTYPEHTML> would have been even shorter but the space saved didn't seem worth the extra confusion
  257. # [09:18] <karl> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/thread.html#msg402
  258. # [09:19] <karl> and http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/DocTypes02
  259. # [09:20] <Zeros> Are we going to be discussing what features of WHATWG's HTML5 we'll be using?
  260. # [09:21] <Hixie> we're basically waiting for microsoft to join before doing anything as far as i can tell
  261. # [09:22] <Zeros> oh okay
  262. # [09:34] * karl wonders if he found a CSS bug
  263. # [09:34] <mjs> Hixie: would that trigger standards mode too?
  264. # [09:34] <karl> interesting same results in camino and safari
  265. # [09:35] * mjs wonders what is up with Microsoft, but understands that lawyer / exec review can be slow
  266. # [09:35] <Hixie> mjs: yeah, iirc
  267. # [09:35] <mjs> karl: what's the CSS bug?
  268. # [09:35] <karl> * {margin:0;
  269. # [09:35] <karl> padding: 0;
  270. # [09:35] <karl> border: none;}
  271. # [09:35] * Joins: htmlr (htmlr@210.84.51.60)
  272. # [09:36] <karl> in MoinMoin there is a lot of CSS
  273. # [09:36] <karl> then the one you defined in your UserPrefs
  274. # [09:36] <karl> is the last
  275. # [09:36] <karl> and then should have priority
  276. # [09:37] <karl> border: none; is not interpreted by Safari and Camino
  277. # [09:37] <karl> so border still applies
  278. # [09:37] <karl> instead of being none :/
  279. # [09:38] * Quits: Lachy_ (chatzilla@58.105.240.232) (Quit: Chatzilla 0.9.77 [Firefox 2.0.0.3/2007030919])
  280. # [09:38] <Hixie> look at the document inspector
  281. # [09:38] <Hixie> in safari or firefox
  282. # [09:38] <Hixie> to see what rule is applying
  283. # [09:38] <Hixie> you might have one with higher specificity
  284. # [09:38] <karl> except if I do h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { border:none;}
  285. # [09:38] * karl is looking for his firefox
  286. # [09:42] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  287. # [09:47] * karl will create a test case because it is nasty with MoinMoin markup
  288. # [09:48] <Zeros> Hmm, MS should document that <!DOCTYPE HTML> causes standards mode; their msdn article on it seems to imply it causes quirks: HTML (No Version Present) Off Off
  289. # [09:50] <hsivonen> Zeros: as usual, documented at http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/
  290. # [09:52] <Zeros> ah
  291. # [09:52] <hsivonen> Opera, Mozilla and Apple already link to my page. Why not Microsoft?
  292. # [09:53] <mjs> perhaps because there's no clearly stated intellectual property policy for your page
  293. # [09:53] <mjs> (j/k)
  294. # [09:55] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154)
  295. # [09:56] <hsivonen> mjs: btw, http://developer.apple.com/internet/webcontent/bestwebdev.html links to an old URI which will probably stop redirecting in a couple of months
  296. # [09:56] <hsivonen> (cool URIs don't change, but the university policies are not cool)
  297. # [09:58] * Quits: marcos (chatzilla@131.181.148.226) (Ping timeout)
  298. # [09:59] * karl has put the test here
  299. # [09:59] <karl> http://www.w3.org/2007/04/test-border-css/
  300. # [09:59] * Joins: marcos (chatzilla@131.181.148.226)
  301. # [09:59] <mjs> hsivonen: I'll make a note to ping our docs people
  302. # [09:59] <sbuluf-> what does exactly the design principles page list? is the design principles for this new html version? if so shouldn't it include some paragraph stating the sub-optimal solutions may be adopted due to the previous requisite that back compatibility be mantained?
  303. # [09:59] <Zeros> karl, * is less specific than h1
  304. # [10:00] <hsivonen> mjs: thanks
  305. # [10:00] <mjs> sbuluf-: it does list several compatibility-related principles
  306. # [10:01] <Zeros> Which is the reason * { margin: 0; padding: 0; } works to reset the defaults and let you set them elsewhere.
  307. # [10:01] <hsivonen> mjs: the old URL being http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/doctype.html
  308. # [10:01] <mjs> I just have to figure out who to send email to
  309. # [10:01] <karl> Zeros: but putting it in the second stylesheet I would have expected to cancel the previous ones
  310. # [10:02] <hsivonen> mjs: I already pinged the original ghost writer, but he no longer has control
  311. # [10:03] <mjs> karl: which stylesheet is in doesn't affect specificity
  312. # [10:03] <sbuluf-> mjs, but isn't the back compat item of a different order than the other principles? isn't it "a-priori" wrt the other ones? if so, should it not be put in a different footing?
  313. # [10:03] <mjs> in CSS, more specific rules take precedence, regardless of order
  314. # [10:03] <mjs> sbuluf-: well, first you have to clarify what "back compat" means
  315. # [10:04] <mjs> does it mean compatibility with the HTML4.01 spec? with what browsers actually implement? with what content authors actually do?
  316. # [10:04] * karl is looking for specificity order in the spec
  317. # [10:04] <mjs> karl: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#specificity
  318. # [10:04] <karl> thanks mjs
  319. # [10:05] <mjs> sbuluf-: we also need to recognize that nothing is absolute, because any time you give an HTML element special behavior, it could in theory break *some* content
  320. # [10:05] <mjs> sbuluf-: so while compatibility is very important, it is subject to a balancing test with all the other principles
  321. # [10:05] <mjs> sbuluf-: another example is security
  322. # [10:06] <mjs> if someone discovered that a certain HTML DOM API is an inherent security hole, it would be dropped, compatibility be damned
  323. # [10:06] <sbuluf-> mjs, i don't know exactly. but i understand that this working group did have some sort of back compat sine-qua-nono, a given, before even sitting to think about the new spec, right?
  324. # [10:06] <mjs> (I hope it would, anyway)
  325. # [10:06] <mjs> sbuluf-: compatibility is an important consideration, but like I said, it is a more complex issue than just saying "everything must be backwards compatible"
  326. # [10:07] <Zeros> heh, ActiveXObject()
  327. # [10:07] <mjs> that is why several different aspects of compatibility are expressed
  328. # [10:08] <karl> hmm and the !important doesn't change anything. damn
  329. # [10:08] <sbuluf-> mjs, right, and i'm no expert in them, but whatever they are, what i mean is...some requisites were previous to even sitting down to think how to shape the new spec, right? preconditions, so to speak, not open to even discussion ere, correct?
  330. # [10:08] <mjs> karl: oh, !important should have an effect, though not because of specificity
  331. # [10:09] <sbuluf-> mjs, if so, should not they be separated, stated as previous to even the start of the design. outside of any discussion, even?
  332. # [10:09] <sbuluf-> mjs, "off the table", so to speak?
  333. # [10:10] <mjs> sbuluf-: as an employee of a well-known browser vendor, I definitely understand the importance of compatibility, and indeed consider significant compat breakage non-negotiable
  334. # [10:10] <karl> * {border: none;} !important
  335. # [10:11] <mjs> sbuluf-: but I don't consider it more non-negotiable than, say, lack of security holes
  336. # [10:11] <Zeros> other way around karl * { border: none !important; }
  337. # [10:11] <mjs> karl: you want * {border: none !important; }
  338. # [10:11] <karl> doh!
  339. # [10:11] * karl needs coffee
  340. # [10:11] <mjs> sbuluf-: I'm not sure it is useful to make some kind of absolute priority ordering of principles, though I agree some are more important than others
  341. # [10:13] <karl> still doesn't work :) I will give up for today
  342. # [10:13] <karl> http://www.w3.org/2007/04/test-border-css/
  343. # [10:13] <sbuluf-> mjs, right, but if i understood correctly, the back compat issue had an explicit "off the table" status, i mean (while even if we all see security holes as unacceptable, this was not expolicitely decided even before design time started)
  344. # [10:14] <mjs> sbuluf-: I guess I don't know what you mean by "off the table"
  345. # [10:14] <sbuluf-> mjs, the result of a previous accord?
  346. # [10:14] <mjs> yes, it is the goal of many in the group to maintain compatibility
  347. # [10:14] <mjs> but no, it is not in the charter, or any formal agreement
  348. # [10:14] <mjs> or at least, no one told me
  349. # [10:15] <mjs> the charter is where pre-decided non-negotiable things would go
  350. # [10:15] <sbuluf-> mjs...isn't it? (i'd need to check the charter, for instance)
  351. # [10:15] <sbuluf-> right
  352. # [10:15] <mjs> you could take "incremental" to mean some sense of compatibility
  353. # [10:15] <mjs> but it's not obvious which senses apply or if any do
  354. # [10:15] * Joins: anne (annevk@81.68.67.12)
  355. # [10:16] <sbuluf-> mjs, i think it might be useful to clarify the issue, and to state it as in a different level, if that's the case, otherwise, people watching the list, might see it as negotiable, open to discussion
  356. # [10:18] * karl is trying to remember where Tantek put his null stylesheet
  357. # [10:19] <karl> http://tantek.com/log/2004/undohtml.css
  358. # [10:22] <mjs> sbuluf-: I think if the principles document is adopted in some more formal way (like group vote or publishing as W3C Note), that will be sufficient
  359. # [10:22] <mjs> sbuluf-: but your feedback is noted
  360. # [10:22] <sbuluf-> karl, if the back compat is totally off limits from the very start, should it not be clearly stated in te charter itself? (we seem to have doubts if it is, or at least about it's extent)
  361. # [10:23] <mjs> I think the only sense in which anything beyond the charter is non-negotiable is that it may make key members of the group quit
  362. # [10:24] <Zeros> sbuluf-, There may be some levels of compatibility people agree are okay to break.
  363. # [10:24] <Zeros> I think mjs made a comment in here earlier about proving an attribute was rarely used at all as a case by which to redefine it
  364. # [10:24] <karl> sbuluf-: back compatibility is not a universal principle, it is a goal. But I doubt you can be back compatible with every products or html versions.
  365. # [10:24] <mjs> people may be ok with removing HTML4 features that are in practice hardly ever used
  366. # [10:25] <karl> there will always be a case where it is not back compatible.
  367. # [10:27] <sbuluf-> i see. should the extent be clarified, however? does the "incremental" bit suffice? will people seeing the desing goals list assume the biggest part of back compat is open to discussion, if not?
  368. # [10:29] <mjs> I don't think people will assume that
  369. # [10:29] <mjs> the compatibility principles are stated first and some of them are stated quite strongly
  370. # [10:30] * Quits: sbuluf- (urao@200.49.140.208) (Ping timeout)
  371. # [10:30] <anne> I think breaking compat with HTML4 is ok. Breaking compat with the web is most likely not.
  372. # [10:31] * mjs is not entirely sure what sbuluf-'s point was
  373. # [10:33] <anne> oh, he's gone
  374. # [10:33] <anne> oh well
  375. # [10:34] <karl> I wish good luck to anne ;) about "Breaking compat with the web is most likely not." given the number of people having their own idea of what is the Web
  376. # [10:34] <Zeros> I think he/she wanted it stated more clearly just how much backwards compatibility was required and what was required to make a case for breaking it.
  377. # [10:34] <anne> karl, ok "Breaking compat with a popular web page in a popular web browser" or something
  378. # [10:34] <anne> s/popular web/web/
  379. # [10:36] <karl> :)))
  380. # [10:36] * karl will be at XTech
  381. # [10:36] * anne should be there too
  382. # [10:37] <karl> I have just read http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0124
  383. # [10:38] <karl> and I will be at the HTML in mail workshop, staff contact
  384. # [10:38] * Joins: sbuluf (fh@200.49.140.60)
  385. # [10:38] <mjs> I probably won't be there
  386. # [10:38] * jgraham will be at XTech
  387. # [10:38] <sbuluf> sorry, got disconnected
  388. # [10:39] <hsivonen> did someone already create a wiki page for XTech attendees or shall I?
  389. # [10:39] <karl> hsivonen: enjoy yourself :) please do
  390. # [10:40] <sbuluf> mjs, i thought all those principles were open to discussion, able to be voted, etc. if so...does it matter how strongly they were initially worded? were they the product of consensus, or just a list written by someone, open to edits?
  391. # [10:41] <mjs> sbuluf: they were developed collaboratively by a number of people (I did most of the typing but I did not come up with most of them)
  392. # [10:41] <mjs> sbuluf: I would guess at some point it might come to a vote or other official resolution
  393. # [10:42] <mjs> sbuluf: I think right now they are all open to discussion, but some are highly unlikely to be changed given the views of active members of the group
  394. # [10:42] <mjs> that's really all I would say about it
  395. # [10:42] <anne> And although they're open to discussion they do represent how the WHATWG has worked for almost three years now so there's some backing behind it.
  396. # [10:43] <sbuluf> mjs, right, i think if something is really off limits, it should be delimited, otherwise, there might be confussion (perhaps even clarified in the charter itself)
  397. # [10:44] <mjs> sbuluf: so far, no one has stepped up to oppose compatibility (except for sometimes claiming their small piece of compat breakage was not really compatibility breakage)
  398. # [10:44] <mjs> so I don't think this is a practical problem
  399. # [10:44] <mjs> I see no problem with discussion either
  400. # [10:45] <sbuluf> mjs...but does w3c? or was this settled even before the group started?
  401. # [10:45] <mjs> discussion is useful for clarification, even if it does not lead to change
  402. # [10:45] <mjs> I don't think there should be any off-limit discussion topics or sacred cows
  403. # [10:45] <mjs> sbuluf: does w3c what?
  404. # [10:46] <sbuluf> mjs, i'd agree, but i wondered about w3c decisions before the group even started
  405. # [10:46] <mjs> their public decisions are in the charter
  406. # [10:46] <mjs> if they have made any secret decisions, then those are irrelevant to the group as far as I'm concerned
  407. # [10:46] * Quits: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84) (Quit: bye)
  408. # [10:47] <sbuluf> mjs, i meant if w3c agreed to discuss everything, or some stuff was off limits to start with. and respect to the charter...well, perhaps it should be a bit more detailed/explicit, if something was off-limits?
  409. # [10:48] <anne> What would the point be exactly?
  410. # [10:48] <sbuluf> mjs, i tend to agree as well, but...we both looked at the charter, for instance, and the "incremental" bit does not seem too clear
  411. # [10:48] <mjs> sbuluf: you seem a little hung up on this concept of things being off limits
  412. # [10:48] <mjs> if the w3c chose not to put something in the charter, I assume they did not intend to impose it as a requirement
  413. # [10:49] <mjs> so it would have to be a Working Group decision to make it a requirement
  414. # [10:49] <mjs> and that's what the design principles document is about
  415. # [10:49] <mjs> guidelines that we would adopt for ourselves
  416. # [10:49] <sbuluf> mjs, right, i just was wondering if that was the case, however, since the charter is not apparently too specific about it
  417. # [10:50] <mjs> as I have said a number of times, the charter is the only requirement the w3c has imposed on the group
  418. # [10:50] <mjs> there are no secret hidden requirements
  419. # [10:50] <mjs> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html
  420. # [10:51] <sbuluf> mjs, do you consider it detailed, explict enough, however? (yes, i'm aware of the charter)
  421. # [10:51] <mjs> I don't think it is detailed enough
  422. # [10:51] <mjs> that's why I started the design principles document w/ others here
  423. # [10:51] <mjs> so the working group can fill in the gaps
  424. # [10:52] <anne> (Changing the charter at a late stage is hard.)
  425. # [10:53] <sbuluf> anne, i was asking myself if the back compat main aspect was explictely off limits even before the discussion begun. if so, perhaps it would be good to make it more detailed, explicit in the charter now, and not later.
  426. # [10:53] <sbuluf> mjs, i see, thanks.
  427. # [10:55] <anne> we're at a late stage now
  428. # [10:55] <anne> and nothing is off limits
  429. # [10:55] <anne> it's just unlikely that people will agree with proposals that break bac compat
  430. # [10:56] <sbuluf> i see
  431. # [11:07] <hsivonen> MoinMoin's way of displaying recently viewed pages in a way that is normally used for breadcrumbs is confusing
  432. # [11:20] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  433. # [11:39] * Quits: jgraham (jgraham@85.210.140.237) (Quit: Leaving)
  434. # [11:43] * Quits: sbuluf (fh@200.49.140.60) (Ping timeout)
  435. # [11:44] * Joins: xwpbipq (okq@200.49.140.60)
  436. # [11:51] <anne> My current estimate is 1350 e-mails for this month.
  437. # [11:51] <anne> at 45 messages a day... then again, April 3 isn't over
  438. # [11:53] <Lachy> well, assuming Chris finally joins the group in the next week or 2, I expect that there will be an increase in messages that would skew the results a little
  439. # [11:53] <Lachy> so I'd estimate it could get as high as 1,500
  440. # [11:56] * anne wonders why all the people who want new stuff don't just join the XHTML2 WG
  441. # [11:57] <Lachy> I wonder if anyone will join the XHTML2 WG.
  442. # [11:57] <Lachy> other than those who already are
  443. # [11:57] <Lachy> So, 0 messages on public-xhtml2 this month and only 12 last month
  444. # [11:59] <anne> I think they're still mostly using w3c-html-wg
  445. # [11:59] <Lachy> still, only 10 emails there this month
  446. # [11:59] <hsivonen> anne: perhaps because they want new stuff in browsers and don't believe in XHTML 2.0 getting implemented
  447. # [12:00] <hsivonen> anyway, I like hendry's take on the # of emails
  448. # [12:00] <anne> pointer?
  449. # [12:00] <hsivonen> he said that Debian Develpers have that many emails for breakfast
  450. # [12:00] <hsivonen> anne: his blog seems to be down
  451. # [12:00] * karl has changed his CSS in http://esw.w3.org/topic/UserPreferences to a new http://www.w3.org/2004/06/esw-wiki-2.css
  452. # [12:03] <karl> [18:03] <hsivonen> MoinMoin's way of displaying recently viewed pages in a way that is normally used for breadcrumbs is confusing
  453. # [12:03] <karl> you can deactivate it
  454. # [12:03] <karl> uncheck in your useprefs show page trail
  455. # [12:03] <Dashiva> I can deactivate moinmoin? :)
  456. # [12:04] <hsivonen> karl: ok. I still think the guillemet is a non-ideal separator for non-breadcrumbs
  457. # [12:05] <karl> it is done in the stylesheet or the theme I think
  458. # [12:05] <karl> yep it is done by CSS
  459. # [12:05] <karl> so you can change with your own CSS user
  460. # [12:06] <hsivonen> ok. thanks
  461. # [12:08] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Client exited)
  462. # [12:15] <hsivonen> anne: the blog is still down, but the pointer would be http://natalian.org/archives/2007/03/27/changelog/
  463. # [12:33] * Quits: xwpbipq (okq@200.49.140.60) (Quit: xwpbipq)
  464. # [13:01] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254) (Quit: Leaving)
  465. # [13:02] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  466. # [14:38] * Joins: heycam (cam@203.214.79.176)
  467. # [14:43] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@210.84.40.143) (Ping timeout)
  468. # [15:00] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@210.84.40.143)
  469. # [15:03] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@210.84.40.143) (Ping timeout)
  470. # [15:04] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@210.84.40.143)
  471. # [15:38] * anne wonders when cwilso will say something again
  472. # [15:53] * anne decides to just point to HTML5 whenever someone makes a claim that isn't true or a suggestion that's already addressed
  473. # [17:09] * RRSAgent excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed
  474. # [17:09] * Parts: RRSAgent (rrs-loggee@128.30.52.30)
  475. # [17:27] * Joins: h3h (bfults@66.162.32.234)
  476. # [17:31] <krijnh> What the..
  477. # [17:31] <krijnh> Am I responsible for logging now?
  478. # [17:38] <anne> yes
  479. # [17:38] <krijnh> Hmm, okay
  480. # [17:41] <krijnh> I think highlighting important lines features isn't really used too well :)
  481. # [17:41] <krijnh> And I have to leave my computer, cause I suck at typing atm
  482. # [17:53] * Joins: Philip (excors@80.177.163.133)
  483. # [17:57] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Quit: http://eric.daspet.name/ et l'édition 2007 de http://www.paris-web.fr/ )
  484. # [17:57] <DanC> oh... RRSAgent got bored...
  485. # [17:57] * Joins: RRSAgent (rrs-loggee@128.30.52.30)
  486. # [17:57] <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/04/03-html-wg-irc
  487. # [18:00] <Lachy> what the? How does a bot get bored?
  488. # [18:05] * Joins: tylerr (tylerr@66.195.32.2)
  489. # [18:06] <tylerr> Good day everyone.
  490. # [18:11] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@71.198.189.81)
  491. # [18:18] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.43.95)
  492. # [18:33] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
  493. # [18:39] * Joins: loic (bballizlif@90.29.252.98)
  494. # [18:42] * Joins: st (st@62.234.155.214)
  495. # [18:48] * Joins: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.187.33)
  496. # [19:00] * Parts: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  497. # [19:21] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  498. # [19:22] * Quits: htmlr (htmlr@210.84.51.60) (Quit: htmlr)
  499. # [19:47] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@71.198.189.81) (Ping timeout)
  500. # [20:01] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.242)
  501. # [20:02] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.43.95) (Ping timeout)
  502. # [20:30] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@130.243.79.10)
  503. # [20:40] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@130.243.79.10) (Ping timeout)
  504. # [20:58] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154) (Client exited)
  505. # [20:59] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154)
  506. # [21:03] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.98.91)
  507. # [21:07] <mjs> great, now in addition to time-wasting +1 messages we get messages praising the virtues of +1 messages
  508. # [21:11] <edas> please, don't initiate a thread about the nonsense of the messages praising the virtues of +1 messages
  509. # [21:11] <mjs> I wasn't gonna
  510. # [21:11] <edas> thx
  511. # [21:12] <edas> it is a shame we have more meta than content on this list
  512. # [21:13] <jmb> that'll continue until we get a co-chair, I suspect
  513. # [21:16] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  514. # [21:17] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.48.129)
  515. # [21:17] <tylerr> I'm awaiting the boom stick to sweep through the mailing list before I try and post anything. :-)
  516. # [21:18] <Zeros> boom stick?
  517. # [21:18] <tylerr> Big guns aka chairs/co-chairs.
  518. # [21:19] <Zeros> The MS folks finally showed up?
  519. # [21:19] <tylerr> In other words, I'm waiting till there's an established method of posting to the list, there are organized discussions that don't break off into sub-discussions, and we have some more order to the whole thing.
  520. # [21:20] <Zeros> I wonder how long it'll take to work through their bureaucracy
  521. # [21:20] <Zeros> tylerr, ah yes. Seems like we should be documenting each discussion on the wiki too.
  522. # [21:20] <Zeros> Are there rules for what should be added to the wiki?
  523. # [21:20] * tylerr nods. The relevant ones at least. :-)
  524. # [21:20] <tylerr> Daily snippets of what was taken away and such.
  525. # [21:21] <tylerr> I'd love to give my managers at work a weekly wrappup of the key take-aways from the list.
  526. # [21:22] <Zeros> Nice that they're interested
  527. # [21:23] * Parts: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.48.129) (Leaving)
  528. # [21:23] * Joins: Zeros_ (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254)
  529. # [21:23] <tylerr> Yeah, our company is looking to expand it's community involvement.
  530. # [21:24] <tylerr> We do a lot of behind the scenes work for people and haven't gotten involved in much front-facing things.
  531. # [21:24] <tylerr> Rather, things that promote our services, rather than our clients. :-)
  532. # [21:25] <tylerr> I'm trying to get us involved in more things, especially these important technical groups and conferences and such.
  533. # [21:25] <Hixie> hm, TV uses reverse polish notation
  534. # [21:25] <Hixie> so now we have +1s _and_ 1+s.
  535. # [21:27] <tylerr> Will that have to be standardized?
  536. # [21:28] <Zeros_> We should just use <plus-one/> ;)
  537. # [21:28] * Zeros_ is now known as Zeros
  538. # [21:29] <mjs> we need a Message Agreement Markup Language
  539. # [21:29] <mjs> MAML
  540. # [21:29] <tylerr> Har :-)
  541. # [21:31] <mjs> <unary-plus><one></unary-plus>
  542. # [21:31] <mjs> we can use GRRDL to express everyone's position as an RDF document and use the Semantic Web to automatically make decisions
  543. # [21:34] <tylerr> And on April 3rd, 2007, mjs creates Seed AI.
  544. # [21:59] <dbaron> We should use +一 instead. :-P
  545. # [22:01] <dbaron> (as in 一, 二, 三, 四, 五, 六, 七, 八, 九, 〇)
  546. # [22:03] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  547. # [22:19] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Quit: http://eric.daspet.name/ et l'édition 2007 de http://www.paris-web.fr/ )
  548. # [22:29] <Dashiva> Why ○ and not 十?
  549. # [22:30] * Joins: Lachy_ (Lachlan@203.214.144.160)
  550. # [22:31] <mjs> I think we should use 1 or 0
  551. # [22:32] <mjs> to make clear that you are sending a message that contains only one bit of information
  552. # [22:33] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@210.84.40.143) (Ping timeout)
  553. # [22:46] * Parts: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  554. # [22:49] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  555. # [23:22] * Quits: loic (bballizlif@90.29.252.98) (Quit: hoopa rules)
  556. # [23:47] <Dashiva> It would be nice if someone at some point stated -why- they like +1
  557. # [23:47] <Dashiva> I've only seen "that other group does it"
  558. # [23:47] <beowulf> i really don't like +1, it's a waste of email
  559. # [23:48] <mjs> They are basically giving +1 for the +1 convention
  560. # [23:48] <Dashiva> Then we had better smack them down before the catch-22 has time to set root
  561. # [23:48] <mjs> I already emailed Murray off-list
  562. # [23:49] <mjs> and he was upset that I asked him to cool it
  563. # [23:49] <mjs> I feel like it would be hypocritical to start to complain about useless messages wasting bandwidth
  564. # [23:49] <Hixie> it would help if we established if the group was a by-consensus or by-argument group
  565. # [23:49] <Dashiva> Could always add ThisIsNotAPopularityContest to the list :)
  566. # [23:50] <Hixie> if it's by-argument, then it doesn't matter if 500 people think one thing, if a 501th person brings up an argument that trumps them
  567. # [23:50] <Hixie> if it's by-consensus, then it matters how many people agree,
  568. # [23:50] <Hixie> and so +1 makes sense
  569. # [23:51] <Hixie> mjs: any opinions on invoking the process that selects a video source while there is already a video source selected?
  570. # [23:51] <mjs> the way I understand our process is discussion and then vote if needed
  571. # [23:51] <Lachy_> even in by-concensus, +1 only makes sense for posts that are discussing something relevant to the spec - something we haven't had much of on the list
  572. # [23:51] <Hixie> oops, wrong channel
  573. # [23:52] <Dashiva> Hixie: I would say that if it's by-consensus, only -1 really matters
  574. # [23:52] <Hixie> well there's that too
  575. # [23:52] <Hixie> though i imagine most people would usually "concur" (i.e. vote with the majority)
  576. # [23:53] <Hixie> mjs: that description doesn't have a "decision" step other than voting :-)
  577. # [23:53] <Dashiva> With over 200 people, it's madness to expect everyone to state agreement on every point
  578. # [23:56] <mjs> Hixie: I think it would be up to whoever is responsible for taking an action to make the front-line decision, and if anyone objects strongly enough they can call for a vote
  579. # [23:57] <Hixie> makes sense. of course we have no action-taking people yet... :-)
  580. # Session Close: Wed Apr 04 00:00:00 2007

The end :)