/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2007-04-15 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Sun Apr 15 00:00:00 2007
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:22] <sbuluf> hsivonen, i read your HTML/XHTML post. it was good. (and not too far from some similar questions i asked here yesterday). an extra issue: is this list of differences exhaustive? if not, wouldn't it make sense to post it in some wiki page, or something? (for next time the same questions do pop up)
  4. # [00:23] <hsivonen> sbuluf: not exhaustive
  5. # [00:23] <sbuluf> would it make sennse to start a wiki page or the like, and do an exhaustive one?
  6. # [00:23] <zcorpan_> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/HTML_vs._XHTML
  7. # [00:25] <hsivonen> sbuluf: what zcorpan_ said. but that page is about syntax. what I said focused on document tree differences
  8. # [00:25] <zcorpan_> hsivonen: that could perhaps be added to the wiki
  9. # [00:25] <sbuluf> zcorpan, exactly
  10. # [00:26] <hsivonen> zcorpan_: I agree, but it's past bed time
  11. # [00:26] <sbuluf> night, then
  12. # [00:26] <hsivonen> nn
  13. # [00:26] <zcorpan_> hsivonen: nn
  14. # [00:29] <zcorpan_> i wonder why "]]>" in content is a well-formedness error in xml
  15. # [00:30] <sbuluf> no clue here
  16. # [00:30] <zcorpan_> it's not a well-formedness error in attribute values, comments, or PIs
  17. # [00:31] <sbuluf> just in content?
  18. # [00:31] <zcorpan_> yes
  19. # [00:31] <sbuluf> even weirder
  20. # [00:31] <zcorpan_> indeed
  21. # [00:31] * zcorpan_ is filled with wonder
  22. # [00:31] <zcorpan_> :)
  23. # [00:31] <zcorpan_> i should write a book
  24. # [00:33] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  25. # [00:38] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  26. # [00:38] <hasather> zcorpan_: the spec says it's for compatibility, "]]>" cannot appear in SGML without a marked section start
  27. # [00:38] * Joins: Philip (philip@80.177.163.133)
  28. # [00:39] <zcorpan_> hasather: ah, ok
  29. # [00:40] * zcorpan_ will not look into sgml design decisions
  30. # [01:35] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  31. # [01:51] * Parts: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  32. # [02:23] * Joins: olli- (opera@80.203.95.229)
  33. # [02:29] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Ping timeout)
  34. # [02:37] * Joins: asbjornu (asbjorn@84.48.116.134)
  35. # [02:38] * Quits: asbjornu (asbjorn@84.48.116.134) (Quit: asbjornu)
  36. # [02:39] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  37. # [02:45] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  38. # [02:56] * Parts: zcorpan_ (zcorpan@84.216.41.224)
  39. # [02:57] <mjs> "<canvas>. You've specified an entire immediate-mode graphics api, more extensive in some ways than GDI, without describing the parameters or giving rendering rules to get interoperable pixel-perfect rendering."
  40. # [02:57] <mjs> if GDI is really less extensive than <canvas> than I feel really sorry for Windows developers
  41. # [02:58] <Hixie> "the parameters"?
  42. # [02:58] <Hixie> which parameters?
  43. # [03:05] <Hixie> ok the +1 thing is really starting to get my goat
  44. # [03:06] <olli-> +1
  45. # [03:20] * Quits: jmb (jmb@81.179.74.126) (Ping timeout)
  46. # [03:20] * Quits: martijn (martijn@83.137.193.141) (Quit: Lost terminal)
  47. # [03:21] <mjs> Hixie: I think he meant it in some graphics-related sense
  48. # [03:21] <mjs> I'm not sure pixel-perfect rendering for <canvas> is a desirable goal; I imagine the main things preventing the current spec from pixel-perfectness are antialiasing, gradient computation, and possibility of other than 1:1 scale factor
  49. # [03:22] <mjs> and those are all quality-of-implementation issues
  50. # [03:22] <mjs> similar to font rasterization
  51. # [03:22] * Joins: jmb (jmb@81.179.74.126)
  52. # [03:23] <Hixie> yeah it's not clear to me what he means
  53. # [03:26] <Hixie> he actually was really clear in one of the e-mails to me that microsoft really isn't interested in being compatible with legacy content, they really want nothing less than absolute fidelity to IE7 for their rendering in IE8
  54. # [03:26] <Hixie> which is interesting
  55. # [03:27] <Hixie> it means they burnt themselves so badly in IE7 that they're not even willing to try to fix things better
  56. # [03:27] <Lachy> indeed
  57. # [03:27] <mjs> that is what I assume the underlying motivation is
  58. # [03:27] <mjs> the thing is, perfect fidelity to IE7 may well be less compatible with current content than fixing things more
  59. # [03:48] <Hixie> that's their problem
  60. # [03:49] <Hixie> we can't convince them not to do it
  61. # [03:49] <Hixie> all we can do is convince them not to put hte versioning in the spec
  62. # [03:49] <Lachy> we have to convince them, we can't let them inflict vendor-lockin on a global scale
  63. # [03:52] <Hixie> god luck with that
  64. # [03:52] <Hixie> good even
  65. # [03:53] <Lachy> I'm writing an essay now to explain it all and propose that compromise
  66. # [03:54] <Hixie> that compromise wouldn't work anyway
  67. # [03:54] <Lachy> there's no harm in trying
  68. # [03:54] <Hixie> they'd just end up treating it as a version at one point anyway
  69. # [03:55] <Hixie> just like "standards mode" is going to be turned into "IE7 mode"
  70. # [03:55] <Hixie> no point suggesting what has already been tried and shown to fail
  71. # [03:55] <Lachy> I'm not ready to give up yet
  72. # [03:56] <Lachy> I can't give up yet. If we give up on that, then our effort will be futile
  73. # [03:56] <Hixie> not saying to give up, just that there's no point proposing things we know won't work
  74. # [03:58] <Lachy> well, we need a solution. He's clearly not going to accept the right solution, and we can't let him get away with his solution. We need to try something
  75. # [03:59] <Hixie> no argument from me there
  76. # [03:59] <Hixie> i don't have the solution though
  77. # [03:59] <Hixie> not one that we'd both agree to
  78. # [03:59] <Hixie> (them and us)
  79. # [04:00] <Lachy> then lets find out if they're willing to compromise on anything at all, no matter how small it may be
  80. # [04:01] <sbuluf> 1) there is any possible compromise?
  81. # [04:01] <sbuluf> 2) if there is such thing, but is so small as to be pyrric...is it worth, then?
  82. # [04:02] <Lachy> sbuluf, only one way to find out
  83. # [04:03] <sbuluf> 3) even if one adopt the "even if a tiny weenie compromise can be found, then it is bettere than nothing" mentality is adopted....wouldn't that be allowing microsft to get a "honarable seal of approval" in exchange for almost nothing?
  84. # [04:07] <Lachy> sbuluf, their monopoly puts them a very dangerous position, they don't need a seal of approval to go ahead with their plans - they've made that clear. But trying something, no matter how small, is better than sitting back and doing nothing
  85. # [04:08] <sbuluf> they do not need a seal of aproval to go ahead, right. but if they offer almost nothing...would you, as a groups, be willing to give it to them in exchange for almost nothing?
  86. # [04:09] <Lachy> even if we don't fully agree with th end result, getting them to budge slightly is better than the current situation
  87. # [04:10] <sbuluf> is it? really?
  88. # [04:10] <Lachy> as long as they budge in the right direction, then yes
  89. # [04:11] <sbuluf> (i say this not for confrontation, lachy, please note. is more with a sad tone. the tone from someone who sort of knew already this could happen)
  90. # [04:12] <mjs> Lachy: we can't really tell Microsoft what to do engineering-wise; we can advise but in the end it is their product
  91. # [04:12] <Lachy> I know
  92. # [04:13] <mjs> Lachy: on the other hand, we don't have to design the spec to make it more convenient for them to break interoperability
  93. # [04:13] <mjs> and, indeed, shouldn't
  94. # [04:13] <Lachy> I'm not saying we change the spec at all
  95. # [04:13] <Lachy> I'm only trying to get them to be a bit more reasonable with whatever they do
  96. # [04:15] <mjs> we can try advocacy, but Chris doesn't seem that interested in coordinating with other browsers
  97. # [04:15] <mjs> I think Microsoft has decided to value backwards-compatibility over interoperability
  98. # [04:16] <Lachy> I'm not trying to appeal to him from a browser vendor point of view, but rather a web developers point of view
  99. # [04:16] <mjs> whereas other browser vendors might prioritize it the other way
  100. # [04:16] <mjs> Microsoft is really pretty screwed, just about anything they do will piss off web developers
  101. # [04:16] <Lachy> I know, that's the point
  102. # [04:17] <sbuluf> they can do nothing
  103. # [04:17] <sbuluf> furthermore, they can say "we tried" (if this flops)
  104. # [04:17] <Lachy> I'm just wondering what Molly is doing for WaSP. She's supposed to be working with MS, but surely she wouldn't let them get away with this if she knew
  105. # [04:18] <Lachy> I'll ask her later
  106. # [04:18] <mjs> personally, I'm more concerned about their promise to lock in future bugs than their decision to lock in past bugs
  107. # [04:18] * Lachy too
  108. # [04:19] <sbuluf> in other words..." not just we compromise nothing today, we will not compromise nothing in the future either"
  109. # [04:28] * Quits: olli- (opera@80.203.95.229) (Ping timeout)
  110. # [04:31] <Hixie> in replying to his mails i'm starting to realise that chris has a really warped view of the world
  111. # [04:31] <Hixie> he should spend some time outside microsoft
  112. # [04:31] <Hixie> e.g. his believe that competing in the word processor space is easy
  113. # [04:31] <Hixie> he cites google's entry into that space as evidence that it's easy to do
  114. # [04:31] <Lachy> ha!
  115. # [04:31] <Hixie> hello, google basically had to invent a new market in order to enter that space.
  116. # [04:32] <Lachy> open office can barely compete in that space
  117. # [04:33] <mjs> Google Docs is interesting, but it is hardly a serious competitor to Microsoft Word, at least just yet
  118. # [04:33] <mjs> but yes, he seems to have a fairly insular worldview
  119. # [04:34] <mjs> that's often a risk at big companies and can happen at Apple as well, though I at least consciously try to avoid it
  120. # [04:39] <Hixie> i have changed employers every few years to avoid it
  121. # [04:39] <Hixie> and i now work for the open source program office, to try and keep a non-google-centric world view even now
  122. # [04:44] <mjs> Google has been accused of insularity but at least from the outside it seems to actively encourage employees to get exposure to outside ideas
  123. # [04:45] <Hixie> oh it's easy to get google-centric if you don't actively try to get out
  124. # [04:48] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  125. # [04:48] <mjs> well, the place does also seem designed to discourage you from leaving the campus
  126. # [04:48] <Hixie> heh
  127. # [04:49] <Hixie> making employees happy at work has that as a side-effect, yes
  128. # [04:49] <Hixie> :-)
  129. # [04:53] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  130. # [04:55] <sbuluf> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0042.html <--this was the first time i asked tim berners lee to make a w3c browser.
  131. # [04:56] <sbuluf> the first few lines might be interesting for some. (or not)
  132. # [04:57] <sbuluf> i don't quite undertand what "word processing" is. or why it should keep existing. i really don't.
  133. # [05:00] <mjs> the w3c already makes a browser - Amaya
  134. # [05:01] <mjs> if you try browsing the web with Amaya I think you will quickly see that trying to promote it further would be a waste of time
  135. # [05:01] <sbuluf> mjs, right. i meant a good one, of course. =P
  136. # [05:02] * Quits: Dashiva (noone@129.241.151.35) (Ping timeout)
  137. # [05:02] * Joins: Dashiva (noone@129.241.151.35)
  138. # [05:03] <sbuluf> i value some ideas in amaya, but i meant a really deployable to the masses one.
  139. # [05:03] * Quits: hsivonen (hsivonen@130.233.41.50) (Ping timeout)
  140. # [05:05] * Joins: hsivonen (hsivonen@130.233.41.50)
  141. # [05:10] <mjs> sbuluf: writing a good one is really hard, and I doubt the W3C could do a better job of it than, say, Mozilla or Apple
  142. # [05:10] <mjs> writing a really bad one is very easy
  143. # [05:14] <sbuluf> mjs...my idea of a browser was probably different than what you might have in mind, i must say. for example, please consider that xhtml2 was about to break back compat (which was one of the reasons for me to even dare to ask this). so no need to consider legacy content.
  144. # [05:15] <sbuluf> which i assume simplifies things
  145. # [05:15] <mjs> you're right, I wouldn't call something that only implements xhtml2 a web browser
  146. # [05:18] <sbuluf> mjs, i'm even more radical than that. but in any case, that was my particular idea. even if my idea of what the web language should be was not considered, i still think a common free and open source rendering engine, usable by all vendors, would be a good idea for everyone.
  147. # [05:18] <mjs> there are already two common and free open source rendering engines, usable by all vendors
  148. # [05:19] <mjs> Gecko and WebKit
  149. # [05:20] <sbuluf> right. i meant one done by the same people who did the specs. so there could be no gaps between specs and (the core of the) implementation.
  150. # [05:21] <mjs> wouldn't it make more sense to get the makers of existing browsers to help write the specs?
  151. # [05:21] <mjs> (which is what the HTML WG is doing)
  152. # [05:21] <Lachy> sbuluf, what makes you think the spec writers have any more skill with writing bug free browsers, than the programmers who have spent years writing browsers?
  153. # [05:21] <mjs> the spec writers historically have not even been that good at writing specs
  154. # [05:22] <Lachy> Hixie is the exception to that
  155. # [05:22] <mjs> I don't think he would want to implement a new browser engine though :-)
  156. # [05:23] <Hixie> from scratch? you must be kidding.
  157. # [05:23] <mjs> heck, if I knew as much about the web as I do now when Safari started, I never would have joined
  158. # [05:23] <mjs> and our engine wasn't even totally from scratch
  159. # [05:23] <sbuluf> oh, i have no probs with already existing programmers, including from browser vendors, of course) joining, or contributing. i just mean that this way, spec makers could not dream on about things that never come to actually happen. and everyone could contribute to just one usable by all engine, no more interop problems.
  160. # [05:25] <mjs> I don't think the developers of any existing browser would even remotely consider a project to write a new engine from scratch
  161. # [05:27] <mjs> it's like saying that because IEEE does
  162. # [05:27] <mjs> POSIX, they should write their own unix-like kernel from scratch
  163. # [05:30] <sbuluf> mjs, perhaps, yes. if FOSS platforms and engines already exist, perhaps whole chunks of code from them could be used, if everyone agrees.
  164. # [05:31] <mjs> I'm sorry but your idea is too far from the realm of reality to discuss usefully
  165. # [05:33] <sbuluf> mjs, sure, i was just commenting because of those few first lines, and perhaps their relevance for the discussion above
  166. # [05:47] * Lachy finishes his latest essay
  167. # [05:48] <Lachy> would anyone like to review before I send to the list?
  168. # [05:49] <sbuluf> did you upload it somewhere visible?
  169. # [05:49] <Lachy> uploading it now
  170. # [05:49] <mjs> The first few lines seem to assume that the W3C knows better than browser vendors what grandma and grandpa want
  171. # [05:50] <mjs> Lachy: uploading where
  172. # [05:50] <Lachy> hold on
  173. # [05:51] * marcos_ looking forward to this... :)
  174. # [05:51] <Lachy> http://lachy.id.au/temp/compromise.txt
  175. # [05:52] <sbuluf> mjs..you would not like my answer, i guess. i did not intend to start such topics, either, is too far from the intent of thi group. i just meant that if microsft says no...it mean nobody can do much. unless you go totally radical, which nobody here would consider.
  176. # [05:54] <mjs> I think even Microsoft knows what grandma and grandpa want better than the W3C does
  177. # [05:54] <Hixie> Lachy: i don't think the first paragraph will put chris into a receptive mood
  178. # [05:54] <sbuluf> i do not wish to disrupt here, or to make anyone lose time unduly, mjs.
  179. # [05:55] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6)
  180. # [05:55] <Lachy> ok, I can change that
  181. # [05:55] <Hixie> Lachy: when you say "I don't accept that", I don't think that makes sense -- I don't think Microsoft needs you to accept it for them to do it. You don't think it's a good idea for them, for sure, but your acceptance of it is irrelevant.
  182. # [05:55] <Hixie> (to them)
  183. # [05:56] <Hixie> (same with the next two sentences, but s/you/etc/)
  184. # [05:56] <mjs> well, clearly getting publicly flamed has some effect on them
  185. # [05:56] <Hixie> well maybe
  186. # [05:56] <marcos_> Lachy, don't attack him directly
  187. # [05:56] <mjs> so if Lachy is representative of a significant constituency, telling them his unvarnished opinion might have some value
  188. # [05:57] <mjs> still, attacking head-on is less likely to be effective persuasion
  189. # [05:57] <Hixie> sentence "explicitly choose
  190. # [05:57] <Hixie> "
  191. # [05:57] <Hixie> isn't complete
  192. # [05:57] <Lachy> oops
  193. # [05:58] <Hixie> don't use the word "ultimatum", it will trigger knee jerk reactions in chris
  194. # [05:58] <marcos_> ie. maybe remove "assuming your fear hasn't taken it all away"
  195. # [05:58] <sbuluf> the tone of all the first part is psychological.
  196. # [05:58] <Lachy> sbuluf, yes
  197. # [05:59] <Hixie> Lachy: fwiw, i personally think that them adding a new quirks mode is already bad and a repetition of past mistakes
  198. # [05:59] <Hixie> Lachy: i don't see why we'd accept a mode now but not accept a mode in the future
  199. # [05:59] <Lachy> as I said, he's already stated we have no choice in that
  200. # [06:00] <Lachy> so we have no choice but to live with it
  201. # [06:01] <Lachy> plus a few people already suggested that they could live with one more switch using <!DOCTYPE html>
  202. # [06:01] <Hixie> well he's already stated he wants optin default IE7
  203. # [06:01] <Hixie> so "we have no choice but to live with it" too
  204. # [06:02] <Hixie> etc
  205. # [06:02] <Hixie> i don't understand why you want to convince him of one part but not another
  206. # [06:02] <Lachy> it's the lesser of two evils
  207. # [06:03] <Lachy> we obviously can't convince him to make the write decision now and have just one standards mode
  208. # [06:03] <Lachy> s/write/right/
  209. # [06:06] <marcos_> Lachy, I think the email is honest and to the point, however, it is a big flame and I am not sure how Chris will react to that.
  210. # [06:06] <Hixie> the point is trying to convince him not to add yet another mode in the future isn't useful now
  211. # [06:06] <Hixie> because they're not under pressure now for that version
  212. # [06:06] <Hixie> IE9 is in the future
  213. # [06:07] <Hixie> any compromise they make now could trivially be changed later
  214. # [06:07] <Hixie> anyway gotta go shop. back in a bit.
  215. # [06:07] <Lachy> ok, I'll rewrite some of it and republish it shortly
  216. # [06:11] * Joins: myakura (myakura@60.239.122.32)
  217. # [06:24] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6) (Quit: polin8)
  218. # [06:39] * Joins: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235)
  219. # [06:43] <Lachy> I've rewritten it, made it sound like less of an attack
  220. # [06:51] <marcos_> Lachy, "You got burned when you released IE7 because you made some fundamental mistakes, and you don't don't want to get burned again." is a bit strong... maybe rephrase that in less personal terms... for all we know, he might think he made the right decision?
  221. # [06:52] <Lachy> what if I just s/you/Microsoft/
  222. # [06:53] <Lachy> changed.
  223. # [06:53] <marcos_> Yeah, that might be better... but it still calls into question what you mean by "burnt"
  224. # [06:54] <marcos_> Did they lose marketshare?
  225. # [06:54] <Lachy> no, they caused incompatibilities and complaints from users
  226. # [06:54] <Lachy> and even developers
  227. # [06:55] <marcos_> I understand, but I don't know how much they actually care about that. Hopefully they do.
  228. # [06:56] <Lachy> that's all he seems to care about. It seems to be the whole reasoning behind making no further changes to IE7 mode
  229. # [06:57] <marcos_> Kinda true, but they still manage to screw things up so something is still wrong with their logic.
  230. # [06:57] <sbuluf> imho, he reduced the situation to one word: lawyers.
  231. # [06:57] <Lachy> everything is wrong with their logic
  232. # [06:57] <Lachy> but that's not the point
  233. # [06:58] <marcos_> You say what I am trying to say in your email.
  234. # [07:00] <marcos_> I say send it and see what happens. The structure of the essay is much better now... it does not start agressively.
  235. # [07:00] <marcos_> Maybe get Hixie and mjs to recheck it :)
  236. # [07:01] <Lachy> ok, I'll leave it up there for now and wait
  237. # [07:15] * marcos_ bbl
  238. # [07:24] * Quits: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235) (Quit: See you...)
  239. # [07:27] <Hixie> Lachy: i'd avoid saying "you have clearly regressed to letting fear guide you" and similar things -- explicitly saying how he's thinking will put him in the defensive
  240. # [07:27] <Hixie> on the defensive, rather
  241. # [07:27] <Hixie> same with saying he made mistakes
  242. # [07:28] <Hixie> maybe better to say things like "I believe that things could have gone better if you had..." and such
  243. # [07:28] <Hixie> or "your arguments make it seem that you fear"
  244. # [07:29] * Quits: marcos_ (chatzilla@203.206.31.102) (Ping timeout)
  245. # [07:29] <Lachy> I was just fixing up that section
  246. # [07:34] <Lachy> that section has been revised now
  247. # [07:38] <Hixie> you still say "fundamental mistakes"
  248. # [07:39] <Hixie> i'd replace "When Microsoft released IE7, some fundamental mistakes" with "During Microsoft's development of IE7, some design choices were made"
  249. # [07:39] <Hixie> or something
  250. # [07:39] <Hixie> and maybe "that cause incompatibilites" with "that unnecessarily caused incomp..."
  251. # [07:40] <Hixie> the paragraph starting "Things could have gond better" still needs the passifying treatment
  252. # [07:41] <Hixie> "misguided solution" is similar -- no need to say it's misguided, just say "proposed solution"
  253. # [07:41] <Hixie> this is funny, because these are all the changes in wording that i've been learning to do over the years :-)
  254. # [07:42] <Hixie> the thing to realise is that it doesn't matter in these kinds of discussions if what you say is strictly what you feel -- the entire reason for the discussion is to convince someone else of something
  255. # [07:42] <Lachy> how about "Things could have gone better if you had fixed the limitations as well as the filters, but unfortunately, some mistakes were made, and you're understandably afraid of doing it again."
  256. # [07:42] <Hixie> so you have to phrase it in the way most likely to convince them that you are right
  257. # [07:43] <Hixie> "Things could have gone better if you had fixed the limitations as well as the filters, but, maybe due to time constraints or maybe due to design choices, you were unable to do so"
  258. # [07:43] <Hixie> or something
  259. # [07:43] <Hixie> i really wouldn't say "you're understandably afraid of doing it again"
  260. # [07:44] <Hixie> he'd just answer "we're not afraid" and you'd be back to square one
  261. # [07:44] <Lachy> he clearly is afraid of something, but ok.
  262. # [07:45] <Lachy> but then the next sentence doesn't really make sense "But basing your your opinions and decisions on that fear, rather than sound reasoning, is not the way to move forward."
  263. # [07:46] <Hixie> my point earlier was that for hte writing of the e-mail. it doesn't matter if he's afraid of something or not
  264. # [07:46] <Hixie> clearly he is, at least it seems so, and it is useful to be able to tell that when deciding what to do, how to argue
  265. # [07:46] <Hixie> but it isn't something you want to tell him
  266. # [07:46] <Lachy> ok
  267. # [07:46] <Hixie> you never point out people's weaknesses to them
  268. # [07:47] <Lachy> should I just take out that sentence completetly then?
  269. # [07:47] <Hixie> it makes them have kneejerk reactions
  270. # [07:47] <Hixie> maybe
  271. # [07:47] <Lachy> I need to say something about how making reasoned decisions is the right way to move forward
  272. # [07:47] <Hixie> i don't know what you should write, like i said, if i knew how to convince him i'd had done so already
  273. # [07:50] <Lachy> how about "Decisions about the future not only need to take the past into account, but also need to based on sound reasoning."
  274. # [07:52] <Hixie> do you want to say that because you think he doesn't believe it? or?
  275. # [07:53] <Lachy> I think he is failing to think logically, and only thinking about the past
  276. # [07:56] <Lachy> updated again
  277. # [08:04] <Lachy> I decided to take out that sentence and made a few editorial edits elsewhere
  278. # [08:06] <Lachy> I'm ready to send, unless there's any more comments
  279. # [08:08] * Hixie looks again
  280. # [08:09] <Lachy> one more editorial change made
  281. # [08:09] <Lachy> reload again
  282. # [08:09] <Hixie> maybe s/!?/?/
  283. # [08:09] <Lachy> oops, didn't upload the latest
  284. # [08:10] <Lachy> done
  285. # [08:11] <Hixie> seems fine
  286. # [08:11] <Lachy> cool, thanks
  287. # [08:11] <Hixie> not sure i agree that the compromise you offer is any better than what he wants
  288. # [08:11] <Hixie> but the mail itself seems fine
  289. # [08:11] <Lachy> why isn't it better?
  290. # [08:12] <Lachy> how is giving us the choice of being locked-in or not, not better than being locked-in by default?
  291. # [08:12] <Hixie> the lock-in comes from having undocumented modes
  292. # [08:13] <Hixie> and if the default is to use the latest mode, then every version will break pages, because most people will be using the default
  293. # [08:13] <Lachy> yeah, well, he's clearly not going to budge on introducing more modes, it's just a way to make it less painful for us to use
  294. # [08:14] <Lachy> I know it doesn't really help implementers that much
  295. # [08:43] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  296. # [08:49] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  297. # [09:06] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@124.168.27.56) (Connection reset by peer)
  298. # [09:15] * Quits: sbuluf (uzbywtv@200.49.140.155) (Ping timeout)
  299. # [09:19] * Joins: zcorpan_ (zcorpan@84.216.41.161)
  300. # [09:20] * Joins: sbuluf (pjitvlm@200.49.140.14)
  301. # [09:20] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@124.168.27.56)
  302. # [09:31] * Quits: sbuluf (pjitvlm@200.49.140.14) (Ping timeout)
  303. # [09:35] * Joins: sbuluf (ktqo@200.49.140.40)
  304. # [09:39] * Joins: marcos__ (chatzilla@203.206.31.102)
  305. # [09:39] * marcos__ is now known as marcos_
  306. # [09:53] * Quits: zcorpan_ (zcorpan@84.216.41.161) (Ping timeout)
  307. # [10:03] * Joins: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235)
  308. # [10:07] * Quits: myakura (myakura@60.239.122.32) (Quit: Leaving...)
  309. # [10:24] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154)
  310. # [10:25] <hsivonen> http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2007/04/14/the-joy-of-being-me.aspx
  311. # [10:26] <hsivonen> comments mention changing the UA string
  312. # [10:26] <hsivonen> interestingly, the idea hasn't come up on the list
  313. # [10:31] <hsivonen> though changing the UA string would probably cause major breakage on intranets with apps that go "You must use IE"
  314. # [10:44] * Quits: marcos_ (chatzilla@203.206.31.102) (Ping timeout)
  315. # [10:46] <Lachy> ha! he mentioned my off-list email to him without mentioning my name :-)
  316. # [10:47] * Lachy hates out-of-office replies
  317. # [10:48] * Joins: loic (loic@90.27.89.124)
  318. # [10:50] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  319. # [10:56] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  320. # [10:58] * Joins: asbjornu (asbjorn@84.48.116.134)
  321. # [10:59] * Quits: asbjornu (asbjorn@84.48.116.134) (Quit: asbjornu)
  322. # [11:30] * Quits: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235) (Ping timeout)
  323. # [11:38] * Joins: Sander (svl@80.60.87.115)
  324. # [12:08] * Joins: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235)
  325. # [12:16] * Joins: myakura (myakura@60.239.122.32)
  326. # [12:25] * Quits: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235) (Quit: bath)
  327. # [12:33] * Joins: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235)
  328. # [12:35] * Quits: marcos (chatzilla@203.206.31.102) (Quit: Chatzilla 0.9.77 [Firefox 2.0.0.3/2007030919])
  329. # [12:38] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  330. # [12:39] <Sander> You know, I can't help but think that the best way forward for Microsoft is to release their HTML 5 browser as a completely separate product. Make it have a new UA string, make it not respond to IE conditional comments (give it newname conditional comments if absolutely necessary), make it have a new navigator.useragent string. Effectively making this product a new entrant into the market....
  331. # [12:39] <Sander> ...Position it as the upgrade path, but don't force that upgrade.
  332. # [12:39] <Sander> Customers shouldn't do worse with it then with Firefox, while still having the option to use "old-IE" for legacy IE-only intranet apps. And it's not as if Microsoft hasn't done this before - just think of their ERP products.
  333. # [12:39] <Sander> s/then/than/ (meh)
  334. # [12:41] * Joins: marcos__ (chatzilla@203.206.31.102)
  335. # [12:41] * marcos__ is now known as marcos_
  336. # [12:42] <Sander> I wonder if they'd ever buy into that line of reasoning...
  337. # [12:42] * marcos_ is now known as marcos
  338. # [12:50] * Quits: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235) (Ping timeout)
  339. # [12:53] <claudio> Sander, I agree with you. MS (or other vendor) should be able to build a whole new UA, for HTML5
  340. # [12:54] * Joins: asbjornu (asbjorn@84.48.116.134)
  341. # [12:55] <claudio> (that is what I hope to see next... a Mozilla branch for HTML5 only)
  342. # [12:55] <claudio> it would easily become one of the reference implementation
  343. # [12:57] <claudio> *cough* to "easily" :)
  344. # [12:59] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  345. # [13:00] * Quits: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86) (Quit: Quit)
  346. # [13:01] * Joins: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86)
  347. # [13:01] <Sander> claudio: it wouldn't be necessary for Mozilla (or any other non-IE browser), as IE is the only one which is as consistently targeted by workarounds for bugs. Mozilla should just be able to follow the HTML5 specification and use it to render all of the current web as well.
  348. # [13:02] <claudio> Sander, the problem is that in that case MS could only "follow", I think.
  349. # [13:03] <claudio> but, I'm not very into it
  350. # [13:03] <Sander> and it wouldn't be a whole new UA for MS - it would be mostly the same rendering engine (assuming it can be extended and fixed to do HTML 5) - but just not responding to any of the current hacks anymore (and not needing to, as they'd be just as right at implementing the specs as everyone else)
  351. # [13:04] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  352. # [13:04] <Sander> they'd even still do activeX and all their other extensions, so a lot of apps which exist right now as IE-only - but in a standards-compatible way - would continue to work.
  353. # [13:04] <claudio> I really think they would better start from scratch.
  354. # [13:05] <claudio> (given what they did not in IE7)
  355. # [13:05] <Sander> they won't. They'll take one look at how long it took Mozilla, and consider it (rightly so) a bad idea to start from scratch.
  356. # [13:06] <Sander> However, what I'm proposing would give them far more leeway to make radical changes than they had in IE7, as IE7 responded to most of the same workarounds IE6 did, and so had to remain compatible with them.
  357. # [13:06] <claudio> but they have Avalon, now
  358. # [13:06] <Lachy> One of the reasons it took so long for Mozilla to start from scratch is because there was no spec that described how to implement a browser for the web
  359. # [13:07] <Sander> see one of chris' early message where he wrote that it'd have been better for IE7 if it would've just been sent the same content as gecko got.
  360. # [13:08] <Sander> Lachy: that's not the impression I've gotten from hearing the Mozilla devs talk about it. (Brought up recently again in the whole Mozilla 2 discussion - let me see if I can find the relevant post.)
  361. # [13:08] <Lachy> I'm sure much of their time would have been spent reverse engineering IE and NN4
  362. # [13:09] <claudio> did not they started from a "netscape5" codebase?
  363. # [13:09] <claudio> that is what I remember
  364. # [13:09] <Lachy> partly, yes, but a lot of it was rewritten
  365. # [13:09] <Sander> claudio: they did, and then scrathed the whole rendering engine in favour of "NGLayout", which later become gecko
  366. # [13:09] <claudio> I see
  367. # [13:10] <Sander> that was a great decision for the web, but the effective death-knell for Netscape (remember Netscape 6?)
  368. # [13:11] <Lachy> NN6 was definately a welcomed improvement over NN4, but it far too unstable
  369. # [13:12] <claudio> for MS, I think one way could be to hack some XAML renderer
  370. # [13:12] * Parts: asbjornu (asbjorn@84.48.116.134)
  371. # [13:12] <claudio> a "XAML to Web Control" converter for example
  372. # [13:13] <claudio> (it could be even a OSS project)
  373. # [13:13] <Lachy> claudio, what the?
  374. # [13:13] <Lachy> what does XAML have to do with the web?
  375. # [13:13] <claudio> Lachy, XAML is the "unified" MS langauge for describing UI
  376. # [13:13] <claudio> like XUL
  377. # [13:13] <Lachy> yeah, I know that
  378. # [13:13] <claudio> I know :)
  379. # [13:14] <Lachy> I'm wondering what the relevance is
  380. # [13:14] <claudio> I'm just pondering loudly :)
  381. # [13:15] <claudio> I see some overlaps... just have to figure out better
  382. # [13:16] <Sander> (Hmm, that mozilla 2 discussion post that I was thinking of wasn't very clear on that subject; probably only seemed so to me as I remembered earlier references.)
  383. # [13:22] <claudio> btw, I think MS think XAML has *much* to do with web. But I'm really not a .NET person
  384. # [13:22] <claudio> (can't elaborate)
  385. # [13:27] <marcos> OMG!! WTF is wrong with people: " Why even care about incompetent web developers?" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0875.html
  386. # [13:34] <beowulf> maybe it should be a design principal that we don't care about incompetents :)
  387. # [13:34] <beowulf> course, i'd feel unloved then
  388. # [13:36] <Dashiva> We don't really have to worry about the developers who write quirks mode pages, because quirks mode is already frozen
  389. # [13:36] <Sander> I don't think it'd be physically possible to both keep backward compatibility and make the language have a high chance of being used right by "incompetents". So, we shouldn't let their needs dictate what HTML 5 will look like - but we should still remember their existence, and - all other things being equal - choose the way that will make things easier for them.
  390. # [13:36] <Sander> Otherwise we end up with incomprehensible and totally impossible to code for a novice things like XHTML namespaces.
  391. # [13:40] <marcos> I don't understand how people can be so elitist. There is no reason why anyone should not be able to create a web page. It provides access to a publishing medium to millions of people with low literacy. If someone wants to code it like a pro and know about things like the DOM, good for them. I know my mom doesn't but I still think she should be able to code her own page.
  392. # [13:41] * marcos hates to use his mom as an example, because CW has also been using his mom as an example, but my mom is actually taking a web design course this week
  393. # [13:42] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  394. # [13:44] <beowulf> writing a simple web page should be easy, and it would be if it wasn't for the bit before <head>, i think
  395. # [13:44] <claudio> marcos, I hate when I'm paid so low, because "Hey! Just everyone can build a web page" (customer often can't evaluate the 'quality' of the work)
  396. # [13:45] <claudio> yes, we need to "educate" our very customers
  397. # [13:45] <Dashiva> There are novice users (your mom) and incompetent users (many web designers), I don't think we should group those too closely
  398. # [13:45] <claudio> right
  399. # [13:45] <marcos> maybe
  400. # [13:45] <beowulf> i'm not really thinking of someone like your mum when saying incompetants, i'm thinking of a 'professional' who willfully chooses to be rubbish because no-one cares and he can get away with it
  401. # [13:46] <beowulf> yes, what Dashiva said
  402. # [13:46] <Dashiva> When you make a trade out of something, you should be somewhat competent
  403. # [13:46] <marcos> I've been teaching web for 7 years so I've unleashed about 1000 incompetent web designers :)
  404. # [13:46] <Dashiva> Maybe we need a bar exam for web developers
  405. # [13:46] <marcos> that could help
  406. # [13:47] * Sander wishes there was a hard line between those who're competent and those who aren't.
  407. # [13:47] <beowulf> a diffinitive set of docs, written for certain levels would help
  408. # [13:47] <beowulf> docs for the casual user
  409. # [13:47] <beowulf> docs for the professional
  410. # [13:47] <Dashiva> Sadly, user education doesn't help much unless you can enforce it
  411. # [13:48] * marcos has to go; later all
  412. # [13:48] <beowulf> i dunno, i think it'd help
  413. # [13:49] <Dashiva> The problem comes from those who don't take the education, though
  414. # [13:49] <beowulf> can't help those people
  415. # [13:49] <Dashiva> And unless you somehow prevent them from working, they will produce incompetent pages
  416. # [13:49] <Dashiva> Cheaper than the pro too
  417. # [13:50] <beowulf> google 'how to write html'
  418. # [13:51] <beowulf> or 'beginners html'
  419. # [13:51] <Dashiva> ?
  420. # [13:52] <beowulf> well, if i was starting out, i don't think what you get there would help
  421. # [13:53] <beowulf> but what do i know? it'd be nice to see an official w3c set of tutorials up there, but then i'd need to know who the w3c are...
  422. # [13:53] <Dashiva> Well, I imagine most of it is aimed at novice users, not for becoming a professional designer
  423. # [13:58] * Joins: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235)
  424. # [14:00] * Quits: marcos (chatzilla@203.206.31.102) (Ping timeout)
  425. # [14:09] * Quits: loic (loic@90.27.89.124) (Ping timeout)
  426. # [14:24] * Joins: loic (loic@90.29.43.190)
  427. # [15:06] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  428. # [15:10] * Joins: Superdeboer (superdeboe@80.126.55.50)
  429. # [15:11] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  430. # [15:13] * Joins: asbjornu (asbjorn@84.48.116.134)
  431. # [15:20] <hsivonen> I have a story to tell about quirks mode switch, IE versioning and competence, but I have to figure out how to obfuscate it enough to avoid revealing the identities of the people involved
  432. # [15:22] <hasather> hsivonen: hehe
  433. # [15:30] <Lachy> hsivonen, can you tell us who is involved?
  434. # [15:31] <Lachy> via a pm
  435. # [15:31] * Quits: Superdeboer (superdeboe@80.126.55.50) (Ping timeout)
  436. # [15:32] * Joins: Superdeboer (superdeboe@213.84.89.226)
  437. # [15:48] * Joins: olli- (olli@80.203.95.229)
  438. # [15:49] * Quits: asbjornu (asbjorn@84.48.116.134) (Quit: asbjornu)
  439. # [16:32] * Quits: jmb (jmb@81.179.74.126) (Ping timeout)
  440. # [16:33] * Joins: jmb (jmb@81.179.74.126)
  441. # [16:57] * Quits: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235) (Connection reset by peer)
  442. # [16:58] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@209.79.152.188) (Ping timeout)
  443. # [16:58] * Joins: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235)
  444. # [17:10] * Quits: olli- (olli@80.203.95.229) (Ping timeout)
  445. # [17:13] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  446. # [17:18] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  447. # [18:20] * Joins: mw22_ (chatzilla@64.9.237.30)
  448. # [18:20] * mw22_ is now known as mw22
  449. # [18:24] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@64.9.237.30) (Ping timeout)
  450. # [18:29] * Joins: olli- (olli@80.203.95.229)
  451. # [18:35] * Quits: Superdeboer (superdeboe@213.84.89.226) (Ping timeout)
  452. # [18:35] * Quits: olli- (olli@80.203.95.229) (Ping timeout)
  453. # [18:36] * Joins: Superdeboer (superdeboe@80.126.55.50)
  454. # [19:07] * Quits: Superdeboer (superdeboe@80.126.55.50) (Ping timeout)
  455. # [19:08] * Joins: Superdeboer (superdeboe@213.84.89.226)
  456. # [19:20] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  457. # [19:22] * Joins: briansuda (briansuda@85.197.219.147)
  458. # [19:25] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  459. # [19:26] * Quits: briansuda (briansuda@85.197.219.147) (Quit: briansuda)
  460. # [19:41] * Quits: Shunsuke (kuruma@219.110.80.235) (Quit: See you...)
  461. # [19:52] * Quits: myakura (myakura@60.239.122.32) (Quit: Leaving...)
  462. # [20:29] * Joins: asbjornu (asbjorn@84.48.116.134)
  463. # [20:37] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6)
  464. # [20:48] * Quits: hsivonen (hsivonen@130.233.41.50) (Ping timeout)
  465. # [20:48] * Joins: hsivonen (hsivonen@130.233.41.50)
  466. # [20:49] * Joins: briansuda (briansuda@85.197.219.147)
  467. # [21:28] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  468. # [21:33] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  469. # [21:38] * Quits: briansuda (briansuda@85.197.219.147) (Ping timeout)
  470. # [22:07] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  471. # [22:10] * Joins: zcorpan_ (zcorpan@84.216.42.144)
  472. # [23:01] * Disconnected
  473. # [23:01] * Attempting to rejoin channel #html-wg
  474. # [23:01] * Rejoined channel #html-wg
  475. # [23:01] * Topic is 'W3C HTML WG http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ - http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ (logged) - http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples'
  476. # [23:01] * Set by anne on Tue Mar 27 12:28:46
  477. # [23:02] * Quits: krijnh (krijnhoetm@213.84.148.98) (Connection reset by peer)
  478. # [23:02] * Quits: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86) (Connection reset by peer)
  479. # [23:02] * Joins: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86)
  480. # [23:03] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  481. # [23:03] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  482. # [23:03] * Joins: Sander_ (svl@80.60.87.115)
  483. # [23:04] * Quits: Sander (svl@80.60.87.115) (Ping timeout)
  484. # [23:05] * Sander_ is now known as Sander
  485. # [23:12] * Quits: marcos____ (chatzilla@131.181.148.226) (Connection reset by peer)
  486. # [23:12] * Joins: marcos____ (chatzilla@131.181.148.226)
  487. # [23:12] * marcos____ is now known as marcos
  488. # [23:23] * Joins: Ashe`` (Ashe@213.47.199.86)
  489. # [23:23] * Quits: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86) (Connection reset by peer)
  490. # [23:23] * Joins: Dashimon (noone@129.241.151.35)
  491. # [23:23] * Quits: marcos (chatzilla@131.181.148.226) (Connection reset by peer)
  492. # [23:23] * Joins: Sander_ (svl@80.60.87.115)
  493. # [23:24] * Quits: Dashiva (noone@129.241.151.35) (Ping timeout)
  494. # [23:24] * Dashimon is now known as Dashiva
  495. # [23:24] * Joins: marcos____ (chatzilla@131.181.148.226)
  496. # [23:24] * marcos____ is now known as marcos
  497. # [23:24] * Quits: Superdeboer (superdeboe@213.84.89.226) (Ping timeout)
  498. # [23:25] * Parts: asbjornu (asbjorn@84.48.116.134)
  499. # [23:25] * Quits: Sander (svl@80.60.87.115) (Ping timeout)
  500. # [23:25] * Quits: heycam (cam@203.214.79.176) (Ping timeout)
  501. # [23:25] * Sander_ is now known as Sander
  502. # [23:25] * Joins: Superdeboer (superdeboe@213.84.89.226)
  503. # [23:25] * Joins: heycam (cam@203.214.79.176)
  504. # [23:26] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  505. # [23:26] * Quits: Mallory (mallory@80.248.208.232) (Ping timeout)
  506. # [23:31] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.139.123.225) (Connection timed out)
  507. # [23:31] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  508. # [23:32] * Joins: Dashimon (noone@129.241.151.35)
  509. # [23:32] * Quits: Dashiva (noone@129.241.151.35) (Connection reset by peer)
  510. # [23:32] * Dashimon is now known as Dashiva
  511. # [23:33] * Quits: sbuluf (ktqo@200.49.140.40) (Ping timeout)
  512. # [23:34] * Joins: Mallory (mallory@80.248.208.232)
  513. # [23:35] * Joins: sbuluf (wbqk@200.49.140.40)
  514. # [23:36] * Quits: Yudai (Yudai@59.147.29.149) (Ping timeout)
  515. # [23:36] * Joins: Yudai (Yudai@59.147.29.149)
  516. # [23:37] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.139.123.225)
  517. # [23:40] * Quits: sbuluf (wbqk@200.49.140.40) (Ping timeout)
  518. # [23:42] * Joins: sbuluf (xk@200.49.140.40)
  519. # [23:43] * Joins: hasather_ (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  520. # [23:45] * Joins: marcos_ (chatzilla@203.206.31.102)
  521. # [23:47] * Quits: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174) (Ping timeout)
  522. # [23:47] * Quits: hasather_ (hasather@81.235.209.174) (Ping timeout)
  523. # [23:48] * Joins: hasather_ (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  524. # [23:51] * Quits: marcos_ (chatzilla@203.206.31.102) (Ping timeout)
  525. # [23:54] * Quits: sbuluf (xk@200.49.140.40) (Ping timeout)
  526. # [23:54] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  527. # [23:55] * Joins: sbuluf (adkjsf@200.49.140.40)
  528. # [23:59] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  529. # Session Close: Mon Apr 16 00:00:00 2007

The end :)