/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2007-04-27 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Fri Apr 27 00:00:00 2007
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:08] * Quits: JacksonW (jackson@66.92.150.81) (Ping timeout)
  4. # [00:14] <Sander> hmm, eight days since my first email to the list, and just now received my first spam on that (never before existing) email address.
  5. # [00:18] * DanC changes topic to 'HTML WG http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ logged: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/'
  6. # [00:27] * Quits: kazuhito (kazuhito@222.151.150.159) (Quit: Quitting!)
  7. # [00:35] * Quits: hyatt (hyatt@17.255.100.75) (Quit: hyatt)
  8. # [00:49] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Quit: http://eric.daspet.name/ et l'édition 2007 de http://www.paris-web.fr/ )
  9. # [00:53] * Quits: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86) (Ping timeout)
  10. # [00:54] * Joins: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86)
  11. # [00:57] * Quits: Sander (svl@80.60.87.115) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  12. # [01:01] * Parts: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  13. # [01:06] * Quits: heycam (cam@124.168.141.224) (Ping timeout)
  14. # [01:14] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
  15. # [01:15] * Quits: jdandrea (jdandrea@68.192.161.254) (Quit: ciao)
  16. # [01:22] * Joins: sbuluf (yrzwyxp@200.49.140.103)
  17. # [01:27] * Quits: h3h (bfults@66.162.32.234) (Quit: |)
  18. # [01:31] * DanC is away: family time
  19. # [01:43] * Hixie wonders why David Dailey is being sarcastic
  20. # [01:43] <Hixie> was he offended by something?
  21. # [01:48] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254) (Quit: Leaving)
  22. # [01:52] * Joins: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84)
  23. # [01:55] * Quits: tH (r@87.102.6.103) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.78.1-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.0.9/2006120508])
  24. # [01:59] * Quits: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84) (Quit: bye)
  25. # [01:59] * Joins: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84)
  26. # [02:03] * Quits: PatrickDFIon (c66fbe05@128.30.52.23) (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
  27. # [02:07] * Quits: Voluminous (Voluminous@66.195.32.2) (Connection reset by peer)
  28. # [02:09] * Quits: zdenko_ (zdenko@84.255.203.169) (Quit: zdenko_)
  29. # [02:19] * Joins: hyatt (hyatt@17.255.100.75)
  30. # [02:41] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6)
  31. # [02:51] <karl> http://www.w3.org/TR/cuap hmmm CUAP would need a complete rewriting. In fact a complete mix with CHIPs http://www.w3.org/TR/chips
  32. # [02:51] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6) (Quit: polin8)
  33. # [02:54] * Quits: hyatt (hyatt@17.255.100.75) (Quit: hyatt)
  34. # [02:56] * Joins: h3h (bfults@66.75.149.197)
  35. # [03:06] <mjs> why do people pesistently think that iframe has accessibility issues, but object doesn't?
  36. # [03:06] <Dashiva> Because object is too broken to be an issue?
  37. # [03:07] <mjs> good point - doesn't even work for people without special accessibility needs
  38. # [03:07] <Dashiva> If we didn't have iframe, we might see attempts to use object instead, which would probably get the same complaints
  39. # [03:09] <h3h> anyone have a short list of shining examples of technical writing? (very clear, good, readable prose about a technical subject)
  40. # [03:27] * Joins: JacksonW (jackson@69.255.248.68)
  41. # [04:00] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.40.4)
  42. # [04:05] <karl> h3h: a bit old now, but which did a lot of good in its time is the accessibility guide by Mark Pilgrim
  43. # [04:06] <karl> http://diveintoaccessibility.org/
  44. # [04:06] <h3h> nice, I'll give it a read
  45. # [04:08] <karl> Many people think that dive into python is good too. I don't, but I guess it depends on each individual of being receptive to content.
  46. # [04:09] <karl> h3h: in a bit more hardcore but someone I think is an excellent writer on the topic of HTTP and REST is Joe Gregorio
  47. # [04:10] <karl> http://www.xml.com/pub/au/225
  48. # [04:11] <h3h> I read dive into python. my feelings were mixed...good overview, but not very good flow
  49. # [04:11] * Quits: kingryan (rking3@66.92.187.33) (Quit: kingryan)
  50. # [04:11] <karl> yep h3h a bit the same
  51. # [04:12] <h3h> I'll check out Joe's articles too. thanks
  52. # [04:24] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6)
  53. # [04:24] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6) (Quit: polin8)
  54. # [04:26] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.40.4) (Ping timeout)
  55. # [04:31] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6)
  56. # [04:42] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.242) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  57. # [04:47] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6) (Quit: polin8)
  58. # [04:55] <karl> http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200704/poll_results_504_of_respondents_maximise_windows/
  59. # [04:55] <karl> Poll results: 50.4% of respondents maximise windows
  60. # [04:55] <karl> but the interesting thing is in the details of the results
  61. # [04:56] <karl> only 20% of mac users maximize and I understand why. the paradigm of windows is not the same on both system.
  62. # [04:58] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.48.129)
  63. # [04:59] <mjs> maximize browser windows?
  64. # [04:59] <mjs> mac users do tend to make more actual use of overlapping windows (as do linux users, probably even more so)
  65. # [04:59] <karl> yep
  66. # [04:59] <karl> I do overlap. I do not like to have full windows on my workspace
  67. # [05:00] <mjs> I overlap and use Exposé, which is my favorite feature ever
  68. # [05:00] <karl> hehe I have 40 tabs on my browser and 21 windows open counting all apps. thanks expose
  69. # [05:01] <karl> I wish there was an expose per application with tab too.
  70. # [05:02] <mjs> interesting idea
  71. # [05:04] <Zeros> karl, tab?
  72. # [05:04] <Zeros> How would expose work with tabs?
  73. # [05:04] <karl> Adium, Camino, Safari etc, have tabs
  74. # [05:05] <karl> an expose would give a view ala expose of all the windows
  75. # [05:05] <Zeros> You want exposé to break the tabs out into an exposé cascade?
  76. # [05:05] <Zeros> that is an interesting idea
  77. # [05:05] <karl> so you can switch from one tab to another visually
  78. # [05:05] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@71.198.189.81)
  79. # [05:05] <karl> yes
  80. # [05:06] <Zeros> I think that might be difficult since there's no standard tab control widget being used by most apps
  81. # [05:06] <Zeros> Adium, Safari, Camino, they all use something different.
  82. # [05:07] <karl> yep
  83. # [05:07] <Zeros> Seems like we'd need a standard widget for it or a way to "publish" subwindows for exposé
  84. # [05:08] <karl> In fact there is a kind of Tab inside the system
  85. # [05:08] <karl> http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/TabView/index.html
  86. # [05:09] <Zeros> yes, though more and more applications are moving away from that
  87. # [05:09] <Zeros> Camino used to use that way back
  88. # [05:11] * Joins: adele (adele@67.170.236.225)
  89. # [05:11] * Parts: adele (adele@67.170.236.225)
  90. # [05:23] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Where dwelt Ymir, or wherein did he find sustenance?)
  91. # [05:29] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  92. # [05:34] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  93. # [05:45] * Quits: primal1 (primal1@72.87.242.30) (Quit: primal1)
  94. # [06:33] * Quits: JacksonW (jackson@69.255.248.68) (Quit: JacksonW)
  95. # [06:33] * Quits: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84) (Quit: bye)
  96. # [06:37] <chaals> heycam you slacker!
  97. # [06:55] * Joins: heycam (cam@124.168.141.224)
  98. # [07:13] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.48.129) (Quit: Leaving)
  99. # [07:32] * Joins: anne42 (annevk@86.90.70.28)
  100. # [07:36] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  101. # [07:41] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  102. # [07:57] * Quits: h3h (bfults@66.75.149.197) (Quit: h3h)
  103. # [07:58] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.48.129)
  104. # [07:58] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.48.129) (Quit: Leaving)
  105. # [08:14] * Joins: kazuhito (kazuhito@210.232.34.13)
  106. # [08:14] <anne42> maybe someone else can add more design principles to http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples ?
  107. # [08:15] <anne42> i have to do some travelling and such today
  108. # [08:32] <chaals> (Why do we want more of these at a time when people are disputing whether we want them at all? How about settling that first before provoking people?)
  109. # [08:33] * Quits: kazuhito (kazuhito@210.232.34.13) (Quit: Computer goes to sleep!)
  110. # [08:33] <anne42> I haven't added more principles
  111. # [08:33] <anne42> I have merely provided illustrations for three we already had
  112. # [08:34] <chaals> that does seem sensible.
  113. # [08:34] <anne42> I see how my message above is very confusing
  114. # [08:34] * chaals is glad...
  115. # [08:34] <anne42> I meant to say that maybe someone else can add more design principle **examples** to url
  116. # [08:35] <chaals> :)
  117. # [08:35] <chaals> (Thanks for clarifying)
  118. # [08:39] <MikeSmith> chaals - btw, we missed you here in Darmstadt
  119. # [08:39] <MikeSmith> well some of "us" did
  120. # [08:39] <mjs> anne42: thanks for adding examples
  121. # [08:40] <chaals> :D
  122. # [08:40] <chaals> MikeSmith, yeah, would have been good to have got there but wasn't to be.
  123. # [08:40] * chaals has to read minutes this morning...
  124. # [08:41] <MikeSmith> mjs - now that I'm on this commit-watching-by-email kick, I'm wondering if webkit checkins are getting posted to an public lists
  125. # [08:42] <mjs> MikeSmith: yes
  126. # [08:42] <mjs> http://webkit.org/contact.html
  127. # [08:42] <mjs> webkit-changes list
  128. # [08:42] <MikeSmith> excellent
  129. # [08:43] <mjs> alternately, our trac has an RSS feed: http://trac.webkit.org/projects/webkit
  130. # [08:43] * chaals wonders why MikeSmith doesn't get enough email already
  131. # [08:43] <MikeSmith> good that too
  132. # [08:43] <MikeSmith> my inbox is hungry ... not enough messages coming in from public-html these days
  133. # [08:44] <chaals> :D
  134. # [08:44] * MikeSmith makes note that we need to encourage Dmitry Turin to post to public-html more often
  135. # [08:44] <MikeSmith> speaking of surrealism
  136. # [08:45] <MikeSmith> (oh, I guess that conversation was over on #whatwg)
  137. # [08:45] * chaals notes that the fun of working in an international group is learning to deal with the world...
  138. # [08:46] <MikeSmith> with many worlds ...
  139. # [08:46] <MikeSmith> including worlds otherwise experienced only in comic books
  140. # [08:48] <MikeSmith> anyway, another beautiful day outside today and for me, thank god, another all-day meeting to look forward to
  141. # [08:48] <MikeSmith> which I must head off to now
  142. # [08:49] * MikeSmith counts his blessings ... on one hand
  143. # [08:49] <MikeSmith> (God: Please don't curse me for saying that)
  144. # [08:50] * MikeSmith hopes that God at least understands irony and sarcasm without it being explicity pointed out least
  145. # [08:50] <MikeSmith> s/hopes/prays/
  146. # [08:51] <MikeSmith> sorry God, you know what I meant (at least I hope you did)
  147. # [08:51] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Get thee behind me, satan.)
  148. # [08:57] * Joins: loic (loic@90.29.40.86)
  149. # [08:58] * Joins: zdenko (zdenko@84.255.203.169)
  150. # [09:11] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  151. # [09:12] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@124.168.27.56) (Ping timeout)
  152. # [09:15] * Quits: anne42 (annevk@86.90.70.28) (Ping timeout)
  153. # [09:23] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@124.168.27.56)
  154. # [09:26] * Quits: myakura (myakura@60.239.122.32) (Quit: Leaving...)
  155. # [09:27] <gsnedders> speaking of email, I only have 609 unread emails in my mailing list account (I long since gave up trying to use a single account for both my personal email and mailing lists, as even with filters that was too chaotic)
  156. # [09:30] <gsnedders> at this rate I'll run out of space with Gmail in nine years time…
  157. # [09:34] * Joins: kazuhito (kazuhito@210.232.34.13)
  158. # [09:43] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  159. # [09:48] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  160. # [10:22] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@71.198.189.81) (Quit: g'night)
  161. # [10:38] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154)
  162. # [10:52] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6)
  163. # [10:57] * Joins: icaaq (icaaaq@85.228.55.162)
  164. # [11:26] * Joins: myakura (myakura@60.239.122.32)
  165. # [11:29] * Quits: heycam (cam@124.168.141.224) (Quit: bye)
  166. # [11:34] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
  167. # [11:44] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30)
  168. # [11:44] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  169. # [11:51] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  170. # [11:56] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  171. # [12:02] * Quits: kazuhito (kazuhito@210.232.34.13) (Quit: Computer goes to sleep!)
  172. # [12:04] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Client exited)
  173. # [12:05] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
  174. # [12:09] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
  175. # [12:31] * Parts: icaaq (icaaaq@85.228.55.162)
  176. # [12:40] * Joins: kazuhito (kazuhito@210.232.34.13)
  177. # [12:53] * Quits: sbuluf (yrzwyxp@200.49.140.103) (Ping timeout)
  178. # [13:06] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  179. # [13:25] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@24.184.204.6) (Quit: polin8)
  180. # [13:36] * Quits: loic (loic@90.29.40.86) (Ping timeout)
  181. # [13:47] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.40.4)
  182. # [13:58] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  183. # [14:03] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  184. # [14:05] <MikeSmith> I see Gervase Markham joined the group
  185. # [14:05] <MikeSmith> good that
  186. # [14:05] <MikeSmith> Mark Birbeck too
  187. # [14:05] <MikeSmith> good too that
  188. # [14:17] * Quits: myakura (myakura@60.239.122.32) (Quit: Leaving...)
  189. # [14:41] * Joins: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30)
  190. # [14:44] * Joins: polin8 (polin8@64.81.134.176)
  191. # [15:18] * Quits: kazuhito (kazuhito@210.232.34.13) (Quit: Quitting!)
  192. # [15:27] * Joins: loic (loic@90.29.40.86)
  193. # [15:29] * Joins: Rewque (siko@213.7.62.130)
  194. # [15:30] <Rewque> Hey mates , can you tell me a good e-book for learning actionscript for macromedia flash 8 ?
  195. # [15:33] <Rewque> Hey mates , can you tell me a good e-book for learning actionscript for macromedia flash 8 ?
  196. # [15:33] <Lachy> Rewque, you might like to try a channel related to flash
  197. # [15:34] <Lachy> maybe a forum or mailing list
  198. # [15:34] <Rewque> there is not a flash channel
  199. # [15:35] <Lachy> maybe not on this server, but there's plenty of other IRC servers around, and other flash related forums, mailing lists, newsgroups, etc.
  200. # [15:35] <Bob_le_Pointu> There is a flash channel on EFNet.
  201. # [15:36] <beowulf> there's maybe one on undernet too
  202. # [15:36] <Rewque> thanks very much
  203. # [15:36] <Rewque> see ya
  204. # [15:36] * Quits: Rewque (siko@213.7.62.130) (Quit: Rewque)
  205. # [15:37] * Lachy wonders why Rewque thought this was an appropriate channel
  206. # [15:38] <beowulf> he appreciated that HTML authors are a better class of person and would know the answer to his question :)
  207. # [15:55] * Joins: PatrickDFIon (c66fbe05@128.30.52.23)
  208. # [15:56] * Quits: PatrickDFIon (c66fbe05@128.30.52.23) (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
  209. # [16:06] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  210. # [16:11] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  211. # [16:14] * Lachy wonders why the threads on public-html keep going around in circles?!
  212. # [16:15] * Joins: JacksonW (jackson@66.92.150.81)
  213. # [16:17] <Lachy> oh, nice! Jeff Cutsinger wrote a good response :-)
  214. # [16:19] * Joins: Voluminous (Voluminous@66.195.32.2)
  215. # [16:19] * Quits: Voluminous (Voluminous@66.195.32.2) (Quit: Leaving)
  216. # [16:23] * Joins: h3h (bfults@66.162.32.234)
  217. # [16:28] * Joins: timbl_ (timbl@128.30.52.30)
  218. # [16:36] * Joins: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
  219. # [16:36] * Parts: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
  220. # [16:40] <zcorpan> ok... i wasn't on the phone during the telecon, but i was on irc following, and now i've read the minutes as well, and i must say i am none the wiser
  221. # [16:41] <Lachy> would you like to listen to the telcon? I have a recording
  222. # [16:41] <zcorpan> sure, that would be great
  223. # [16:42] <Lachy> I'll have to compress it, X-Lite recorded a 276MB WAV file :-)\
  224. # [16:42] <zcorpan> ok
  225. # [16:45] * Joins: anne42 (annevk@213.236.208.22)
  226. # [16:45] * Quits: zdenko (zdenko@84.255.203.169) (Quit: zdenko)
  227. # [16:46] <anne42> oslo
  228. # [16:47] <anne42> anything new?
  229. # [16:48] <zcorpan> anne42: i created 50 test cases yesterday http://simon.html5.org/test/css/magic-body/
  230. # [16:48] <anne42> yeah, noticed that this morning
  231. # [16:49] <anne42> nice
  232. # [16:49] <zcorpan> anne42: you have a preference about how i should submit the bug reports? one big meta-bug or separate bugs for each failed test?
  233. # [16:49] <zcorpan> or both?
  234. # [16:50] <anne42> for Opera, single
  235. # [16:50] <zcorpan> ok
  236. # [16:50] <anne42> (if we have bugs that is)
  237. # [16:50] <hsivonen> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Apr/0068.html
  238. # [16:51] <zcorpan> (you have)
  239. # [16:51] <hsivonen> great. The question presupposes that there will be "the new XForms Transitional"
  240. # [16:51] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151) (Ping timeout)
  241. # [16:52] <zcorpan> perhaps it's time to ask why authors would want to transition between wf2 and xforms transitional on the list
  242. # [16:53] <anne42> (damn)
  243. # [16:54] <hsivonen> please check this box if you'd like to stop beating your wife
  244. # [16:54] <h3h> heh
  245. # [16:56] <zcorpan> anne42: it seems opera handles 'background' the same in html vs xml, but not 'overflow'... and there are some bugs in the edge cases
  246. # [16:57] <zcorpan> and some script doesn't execute correctly
  247. # [16:57] * Joins: mw22_ (chatzilla@84.41.169.151)
  248. # [16:57] * mw22_ is now known as mw22
  249. # [16:59] <anne42> zcorpan, ah, ok, we might have a bug on some of those already but file it anyway
  250. # [17:00] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.40.4) (Ping timeout)
  251. # [17:02] * Quits: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86) (Connection reset by peer)
  252. # [17:04] * Joins: zdenko (zdenko@193.77.152.244)
  253. # [17:05] * Joins: zdenko_ (zdenko@193.77.152.244)
  254. # [17:05] <anne42> hsivonen, we can ignore XForms Transitional right?
  255. # [17:09] <anne42> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Apr/0070.html
  256. # [17:09] * Quits: zdenko (zdenko@193.77.152.244) (Ping timeout)
  257. # [17:09] <anne42> (response from John)
  258. # [17:09] * anne42 hasn't read it
  259. # [17:09] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151) (Ping timeout)
  260. # [17:09] * Joins: mw22_ (chatzilla@84.41.169.151)
  261. # [17:09] * mw22_ is now known as mw22
  262. # [17:10] * Quits: citoyen (eira@195.139.204.228) (Ping timeout)
  263. # [17:10] * Quits: Yudai (Yudai@59.147.29.149) (Ping timeout)
  264. # [17:10] * Joins: Yudai (Yudai@59.147.29.149)
  265. # [17:10] * Joins: citoyen (eira@195.139.204.228)
  266. # [17:14] * Quits: timbl_ (timbl@128.30.52.30) (Quit: timbl_)
  267. # [17:15] * Joins: kazuhito (kazuhito@222.151.153.112)
  268. # [17:16] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  269. # [17:17] * Joins: timbl (timbl@128.30.52.30)
  270. # [17:18] <hsivonen> anne42: it seems that John Boyer's XForms Transitional and Dave Raggett's XForms Transitional are different things
  271. # [17:18] <hsivonen> anne42: the easiest way to address the problem would be renaming Web Forms 2.0 to XForms Transitional
  272. # [17:20] <hsivonen> in my view, "Transitional" is a word that has bad connotations
  273. # [17:26] * Joins: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86)
  274. # [18:01] * Quits: JacksonW (jackson@66.92.150.81) (Quit: JacksonW)
  275. # [18:02] <h3h> how about XForms Practical? :)
  276. # [18:02] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@71.198.189.81)
  277. # [18:08] * Joins: tH (r@87.102.6.103)
  278. # [18:08] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Get thee behind me, satan.)
  279. # [18:09] <hsivonen> h3h: heh
  280. # [18:09] <hsivonen> h3h: the name XForms Trasitional is hard-coded in the charter
  281. # [18:09] <h3h> I know :)
  282. # [18:09] <hsivonen> h3h: regardless of what XForms Transitional ends up meaning
  283. # [18:09] <h3h> but I agree on the negative connotations associated with "transitional"
  284. # [18:13] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  285. # [18:19] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  286. # [18:25] * Joins: Sander (svl@80.60.87.115)
  287. # [18:26] <Lachy> if anyone wants a recording of the telcon from last night, ftp://lachy.dyndns.org/
  288. # [18:31] * Quits: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Leaving)
  289. # [18:32] <Lachy> don't all get it at once, my upload speed isn't that fast
  290. # [18:33] <h3h> probably worth putting on a w3 server somewhere
  291. # [18:33] <Lachy> if DanC can do that, cool
  292. # [18:33] <Lachy> or someone else
  293. # [18:33] <Sander> heh, I'm noticing. :) *cancels and makes note to self to get it in a couple of hours*
  294. # [18:33] <Lachy> I'll let you know when the current downlaod finishes
  295. # [18:34] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.43.150)
  296. # [18:34] <Sander> thanks
  297. # [18:35] <DanC> Lachy, you can't publish that recording. you don't have permission from the participants.
  298. # [18:35] <DanC> hmm...
  299. # [18:35] <DanC> or maybe you do.
  300. # [18:35] <Lachy> the proceedings were public@
  301. # [18:35] <Lachy> !
  302. # [18:36] <Lachy> but I can cancel the downloads if you insist?
  303. # [18:36] * DanC thinks about it.
  304. # [18:36] <Lachy> would you like me to cancel for now, and get back to me?
  305. # [18:36] <DanC> W3C norms are to not release audio records, but I was quite explicit about the public-ness of the proceedings.
  306. # [18:37] <DanC> if you publish it, you need to send notice to public-html@w3.org, and be receptive to feedback.
  307. # [18:38] <DanC> it would be more polite to (a) take it down (b) mail public-html asking if anybody who was there objects and (c) put it back up after a couple days
  308. # [18:38] <Lachy> alright, I cancelled the uplaoads
  309. # [18:39] <DanC> weekend days don't count, btw. ;-)
  310. # [18:41] * Quits: timbl (timbl@128.30.52.30) (Quit: timbl)
  311. # [18:45] <Lachy> well, the audio recording is far more useful to people than the poorly scribed minutes.
  312. # [18:46] <Lachy> it seems silly that the W3C doesn't make recordings and publish them themselves
  313. # [18:55] * Quits: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174) (Client exited)
  314. # [18:55] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  315. # [18:56] <anne42> Lachy, people often want to make off-minutes remarks
  316. # [18:56] <Lachy> so you don't think the audio should be released?
  317. # [18:58] <anne42> I'm saying it's not silly that the W3C doesn't make recordings
  318. # [18:59] <Lachy> well, I disagree about that
  319. # [19:01] * Quits: kazuhito (kazuhito@222.151.153.112) (Quit: Quitting!)
  320. # [19:06] <anne42> John seems to be missing the point of WF2
  321. # [19:06] <anne42> It's not just about ease of authoring
  322. # [19:08] <anne42> oh, John joined the WG
  323. # [19:12] <anne42> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Apr/0071.html
  324. # [19:12] <anne42> makes sense
  325. # [19:23] * Quits: chaals (chaals@213.236.208.22) (Ping timeout)
  326. # [19:32] * Joins: timbl (timbl@128.30.52.30)
  327. # [19:40] * Quits: Bob_le_Pointu (mallory@80.248.208.232) (Quit: leaving)
  328. # [19:56] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@71.198.189.81) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  329. # [20:04] * Quits: zdenko_ (zdenko@193.77.152.244) (Quit: zdenko_)
  330. # [20:21] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  331. # [20:26] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  332. # [20:26] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.242)
  333. # [21:02] <DanC> ok, time to answer the HTML 5 question formally. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/
  334. # [21:02] * Quits: loic (loic@90.29.40.86) (Ping timeout)
  335. # [21:07] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254)
  336. # [21:11] <DanC> uh-oh... I'm not sure it's working correctly
  337. # [21:11] <DanC> can somebody who's not affiliated with a W3C member organization please test http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/ to be sure you can answer it?
  338. # [21:13] <xover> DanC: Seems to work.
  339. # [21:13] <DanC> odd that the list of non-responders at the bottom of http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results has only 30, rather than the usual 350+
  340. # [21:13] <xover> «Your answers have been successfully registered, thank you.»
  341. # [21:13] <DanC> whew.
  342. # [21:16] * Joins: Roger (roger@213.64.74.230)
  343. # [21:18] <h3h> DanC: it worked for me
  344. # [21:19] <h3h> though the non-responders list is awful short
  345. # [21:19] * h3h sees that was already noted
  346. # [21:19] <DanC> I think there's a bug in the non-responders list in the case of these formal questions. It doesn't seem to get in the way, though
  347. # [21:20] <h3h> sounds good
  348. # [21:30] * Joins: zdenko (zdenko@84.255.203.169)
  349. # [21:41] * Quits: Roger (roger@213.64.74.230) (Quit: Roger)
  350. # [21:43] * Quits: Sander (svl@80.60.87.115) (Ping timeout)
  351. # [21:44] * Joins: Sander (svl@80.60.87.115)
  352. # [21:57] <xover> DanC: Is there a way to indicate dissent without going to all out formal objection (i.e. "no" on the ballot)?
  353. # [22:02] <DanC> you can abstain and say why
  354. # [22:03] <xover> Ah, right, because “Concur” is essentially abstaining without objection / no opinion.
  355. # [22:03] <xover> thanks
  356. # [22:04] <DanC> concur is technically "+1 to whatever the majority says"
  357. # [22:04] <DanC> majority of those responding yes or no, I suppose.
  358. # [22:05] <DanC> I don't know why we offer the concur option
  359. # [22:05] <DanC> ah... I guess it helps reach quorum
  360. # [22:06] <DanC> in other words it means "I don't care too much which way this goes, but I don't want to talk about it any more, so I want the question to carry one way or the other."
  361. # [22:07] <DanC> not that quorum means all that much in our case
  362. # [22:07] <xover> If the process is rough consensus, there needs to be a way to say “No” without triggering a formal objection.
  363. # [22:07] <DanC> the process is not "rough consensus"
  364. # [22:08] <DanC> I have come to regard "rough consensus" as an abuse of terminology.
  365. # [22:09] <gavin> I don't think that unjustified opinions are worth very much when it comes to a decision like this one.
  366. # [22:09] <DanC> it's more clear to say: consensus means no objections, but sometimes we proceed without consensus.
  367. # [22:09] <gavin> perhaps I should say unjustified objections
  368. # [22:09] <DanC> indeed, unjustified opinions don't mean much.
  369. # [22:10] <xover> Hmm.
  370. # [22:10] <DanC> in particular, a "no" vote with a blank rationale is out of order.
  371. # [22:10] <beowulf> would I be wrong in saying that those who disagree with the "Support Existing Content" design principal haven't stated their case clearly, or have I missed part of the argument on the list?
  372. # [22:10] * DanC has missed the whole argument, so can't say
  373. # [22:11] <gsnedders> beowulf: I don't they did state it
  374. # [22:11] <gsnedders> how else we comply with "The Group will define conformance and parsing requirements for 'classic HTML', taking into account legacy implementations" I don't know
  375. # [22:13] * DanC catches up a bit, hoping that "support existing content" is proposed as a refinement of "don't break the web"; I like things stated in the positive...
  376. # [22:13] <xover> DanC: WOuld it be accurate to say the process is Consensus, but that the Chairs may elect to overrule a Formal Objection if warranted? (where "Warranted" is undefined for the purposes of this question)
  377. # [22:14] <DanC> the chairs indeed may overrule a formal objection; but we don't call the result "consensus". We call it a decision made despite a formal objection.
  378. # [22:14] <DanC> and we have to keep a record of it around, to get reviewed whenever we ask for a higher status.
  379. # [22:14] <beowulf> DanC: yeah, "don't break the web" is now "support existing content"
  380. # [22:15] * Quits: timbl (timbl@128.30.52.30) (Ping timeout)
  381. # [22:16] <DanC> sigh... is Doug Schepers sending mail without threading headers? (one for the MailingLists wiki topic)
  382. # [22:18] <DanC> indeed, I can't find any argument in Schepers message nor Johansson's message.
  383. # [22:19] * xover sees both References and In-Reply-To fields in Doug's messages...
  384. # [22:19] <DanC> ah; I had the previous message filtered out
  385. # [22:19] <DanC> or something
  386. # [22:21] <beowulf> the way I see it that design principal of don't break the web puts browser vendors interests against html authors interests, but only one argument has really been made (and it's winning so far)
  387. # [22:23] <DanC> hmm... how is it in the interests of authors to not support existing content?
  388. # [22:23] * xover thinks it's fuzzy and meaningless, and hence ripe for abuse should one be so inclined...
  389. # [22:24] <DanC> I think it's good to reward authors for producing XHTML+CSS/wai-happy/mobile-happy pages, but I don't see how that argues against "support existing content"
  390. # [22:25] <beowulf> yes
  391. # [22:26] <beowulf> i can't phrase my argument which is why i want someone else too :)
  392. # [22:26] <xover> ...but without presupposing someone will stoop to such rethorical tricks, it seems generally inoffensive and well intentioned.
  393. # [22:27] <DanC> I still like dbaron's utilitarian argument for "don't break the web". i.e. we want the behavior of the browsers to match the specs, and a browser that doesn't honor existing content can't survive in the market.
  394. # [22:29] <xover> Hmm. beowulf, Is it possible that the author's point of view (browser implementor) is still shining through in the phrasing and that this is what makes it stick in your craw?
  395. # [22:29] <Hixie> is there any other argument?
  396. # [22:29] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  397. # [22:29] <DanC> not stated, yet.
  398. # [22:30] <DanC> "i can't phrase my argument" -- beowulf
  399. # [22:30] <xover> Possibly. I fthere is, it would be good to get it articulated.
  400. # [22:30] <beowulf> if there is it's something along the lines of we're saying in a spec that all that 'bad' markup is our baseline
  401. # [22:31] <beowulf> from the pov of an html author
  402. # [22:31] <DanC> ah... here's some argument, sorta... "
  403. # [22:31] <DanC> While you are asking for developers to continue to struggle with the
  404. # [22:31] <DanC> legacy quirks for years or decades to come, certainly a greater cost."
  405. # [22:32] <DanC> -- Shepers, Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:27:52 -0400
  406. # [22:32] <gavin> browsers are going to have to do that anyways
  407. # [22:32] * xover was just about to say...
  408. # [22:32] <h3h> who are "developers" in that case?
  409. # [22:32] <h3h> HTML authors or browser developers?
  410. # [22:32] <gavin> browser developers, I assumed
  411. # [22:32] <DanC> content developers, is what I take Shepers to refer to
  412. # [22:32] <h3h> I don't see how that could be the case
  413. # [22:33] <h3h> if content authors are to use the new version of HTML, why would previous tag soup matter in the least?
  414. # [22:33] <gavin> content developers are the ones that put the web into the state that it is
  415. # [22:33] <h3h> it'll have the same position that it does today -- unholy, unsanctioned soup
  416. # [22:33] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
  417. # [22:34] <beowulf> yes, but let's imagine there are two classes of content developer, one writes to the specs the other makes tag soup
  418. # [22:34] <beowulf> the design principal gives air to both
  419. # [22:34] <gavin> and you think that is a bad thing?
  420. # [22:34] <beowulf> whereas the former wants that air supply removed
  421. # [22:34] <beowulf> i think
  422. # [22:34] <h3h> one of the main points of the "HTML5" draft is that it must tell browser implementors how to handle tag soup, while recommending a small subset of features for contemporary use by content authors
  423. # [22:34] * DanC comes to a frightening realization that Shepers actually thinks we're *designing* HTML.
  424. # [22:34] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  425. # [22:35] <xover> DanC: That's quite a common conception
  426. # [22:35] * xover carefully avoided adding the "mis" there... :-)
  427. # [22:35] <Sander> Maybe "we're not designing HTML" should be a design principle?
  428. # [22:35] <beowulf> hey, i'm won over by the argument, i just thought people like roger johannson might have something more in terms of a counter than so far shown
  429. # [22:36] <DanC> I'd rephrase "we're not designing HTML" as "the HTML marketplace is HUGE. It costs a LOT to change it. We should realize how little influence we have."
  430. # [22:37] <beowulf> yeah, it's mostly that point that won me over
  431. # [22:37] <DanC> in a word: be humble. (ok, that's 2 words). humility.
  432. # [22:37] <h3h> but...HTML 5-as-authored isn't for current content
  433. # [22:37] <h3h> it's for new content
  434. # [22:38] <xover> DanC: The IETF's RFC (2)821/822 WGs have been and continue to be in much the same situation.
  435. # [22:38] <h3h> I think people are confusing the parsing specification with the markup language specification and recommendations
  436. # [22:38] <Sander> h3h: disagreement about that is what underlies the whole versioning debate, imo
  437. # [22:38] <DanC> h3h, I find the html5lib code works better on existing content than any other tool I have at my disposal. (where tool = manageable bit of code)
  438. # [22:38] <h3h> Sander: versioning debate is precisely about parsing
  439. # [22:38] <h3h> DanC: right, but that's also parsing
  440. # [22:39] <Zeros> h3h, no its not
  441. # [22:39] <Zeros> The versioning debate is about documents and the possible features they contain as a whole
  442. # [22:39] <h3h> the way I see it, "HTML5" tries to say this:
  443. # [22:39] <Zeros> that includes CSS, new DOM features, new elements, everything
  444. # [22:39] <h3h> 1. Browser vendors: here's how to parse (almost) all content on the web.
  445. # [22:39] <h3h> 2. Content authors: here's the HTML that you should be using to write your documents from now on.
  446. # [22:40] <h3h> they are two very separate statements
  447. # [22:40] <h3h> and I think people are conflating them
  448. # [22:40] <xover> Perhaps they should be more clearly separated then?
  449. # [22:40] <h3h> perhaps!
  450. # [22:40] <h3h> Hixie: would you disagree?
  451. # [22:40] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  452. # [22:41] <xover> Is there anything preventing us from producing two separate documents for the postulated separate purposes?
  453. # [22:41] <Zeros> h3h, The parser rules relate to how to recover from errors and deal with content as I understand it. Much as binary formats have various recovery rules for bypassing erroneous parts.
  454. # [22:41] <Sander> wouldn't the tutorials already do 2.?
  455. # [22:41] <h3h> I think the charter says the group has a single spec deliverable
  456. # [22:41] <xover> I think only #2 is mandated by our Charter.
  457. # [22:42] <h3h> Zeros: and?
  458. # [22:42] <xover> But I don't know whether that prohibits producing a separate #1 doc.
  459. # [22:42] <h3h> Sander: the tutorials only deal with 2, but they don't cover 2
  460. # [22:42] <h3h> 2 must be defined by the spec
  461. # [22:42] <h3h> e.g. <canvas>, <input type=
  462. # [22:42] <h3h> "datetime"
  463. # [22:42] <h3h> etc.
  464. # [22:42] <Zeros> h3h, the "here's the HTML that you should be using to write your documents from now on." is parsed as HTML always was.
  465. # [22:43] <Zeros> We're not changing how HTML is parsed, we're just formalizing it.
  466. # [22:43] <h3h> Zeros: right. except for the new features.
  467. # [22:43] <h3h> assuming they make it into the spec
  468. # [22:43] <Zeros> h3h, those don't require new parser rules
  469. # [22:43] <DanC> hmm... as to "here's the HTML that you should be using to write your documents from now on" I still think XHTML+CSS is the way tutorials and such should approach it. I hear from educators that this works well.
  470. # [22:43] <h3h> maybe not new *parser* rules, but new browser behavior for sure
  471. # [22:44] <h3h> DanC: XHTML2?
  472. # [22:44] <Zeros> h3h, yes. The parsing of HTML will not change.
  473. # [22:44] <h3h> Zeros: http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/improve-your-forms-using-html5/
  474. # [22:44] <h3h> *that's* #2
  475. # [22:44] <Zeros> At least, god willing things like <table> 1,2,3 </table> don't get approved :P
  476. # [22:44] <h3h> it has nothing to do with #1
  477. # [22:45] <h3h> and the things like it (<canvas>, ...)
  478. # [22:45] <gavin> h3h: I think you're right that some people are conflating author requirements and UA requirements in the spec
  479. # [22:46] <h3h> so maybe a completely separate document for the parsing specification would be prudent
  480. # [22:46] <Hixie> h3h: yeah
  481. # [22:46] <Sander> h3h: 2 must be defined by the spec, but "regular" authors wouldn't read/understand that, so that formal definition could effectively be the same as 1. (So this is not disagreeing with what you said, but responding to what xover said.)
  482. # [22:46] <Zeros> h3h, From what I see Ann advocating that was a huge mistake, though at the time I believe the WHATWG was all that was left in terms of HTML's future outside XHTML
  483. # [22:46] <h3h> I don't think it's necessary, but if people can't mentally separate the two, maybe it is
  484. # [22:47] <h3h> Hixie: "yeah" you disagree with the separation of 1 and 2?
  485. # [22:47] <Hixie> h3h: i was "yeah"ing to your question above on whether i agreed
  486. # [22:47] <Zeros> h3h, The two are completely unrelated though. Parsing HTML and the features of HTML5 are different beasts
  487. # [22:47] <Hixie> i'm amazed that doug actually isn't in agreement on the "support existing content" thing
  488. # [22:47] <h3h> Zeros: exactly...
  489. # [22:48] <h3h> Hixie: me too.
  490. # [22:48] <Hixie> isn't that principle the whole reason this group exists?
  491. # [22:48] <h3h> I thought so
  492. # [22:48] <Hixie> i mean, if we're going to not have that principle, there's basically no point me being here, since i have that as one of my requirements for the work i'm doing
  493. # [22:49] <Zeros> If we're not going to have that principal then why not just use XHTML2?
  494. # [22:49] <xover> Hixie: You'll take your toys and go play in someone else's yard?
  495. # [22:49] <h3h> and there's little or no point to the group if so
  496. # [22:49] <Hixie> xover: no, i'll just continue the work i'm doing at the whatwg
  497. # [22:49] <Hixie> Zeros: exactly
  498. # [22:49] <h3h> indeed.
  499. # [22:49] <h3h> we already have Web Forms 2
  500. # [22:50] <h3h> that said, I really don't think that the disagreement can be on that point
  501. # [22:50] <h3h> it must be based on a misunderstanding or nuance of it
  502. # [22:52] <xover> Hixie: I'm concerned about that attitude. If the WG happens to disagree with you you will no longer be willing to participate and undermine it by producing a competing spec?
  503. # [22:53] <h3h> that's not how it is
  504. # [22:53] <h3h> here's how it is:
  505. # [22:54] <gavin> if the WG doesn't share one of the fundamental goals, I don't think it's unreasanable for him to say he's not going to participate
  506. # [22:54] <h3h> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/03/19/two-visions
  507. # [22:54] <h3h> right.
  508. # [22:54] <h3h> there's a *fundamental* way of looking at the future of the web
  509. # [22:54] <h3h> if that involves breaking compatibility with the current web, Hixie and many of us are out of here.
  510. # [22:55] <Hixie> xover: if the wg disagrees with me on fundamental principles, then yes, there's not much point me being involved. same reason i'm not involved in xhtml2.
  511. # [22:55] <h3h> that's unacceptable and wrong
  512. # [22:55] <Hixie> what h3h said
  513. # [22:55] <beowulf> on that goal, if we don't support existing content, there's a gulf from what we do and html4, is that right?
  514. # [22:55] <Hixie> beowulf: depends what you mean by "html4". do you mean the spec, or what browsers implemented?
  515. # [22:57] <beowulf> i probably mean both
  516. # [22:57] <Hixie> well then there's a gulf between html4 and html4 :-)
  517. # [22:57] <beowulf> i'll admit to being out of my depth :)
  518. # [22:57] <mjs> I hate to encourage -1/+1 type email, but if anyone agrees with the "Support Existing Content" principle and feels inclined to increase mail volume, now may be a good time
  519. # [22:57] <mjs> (or even if you disagree, then I'll know faster if HTML WG is a waste of time)
  520. # [22:57] <Hixie> mjs: yeah, i'm more interested in knowing who disagrees
  521. # [22:58] <h3h> I might organize my recent IRC babblings into a reply
  522. # [22:58] <beowulf> h3h: i really think that would help
  523. # [23:00] * Joins: polin8_ (polin8@64.81.134.176)
  524. # [23:01] * Quits: polin8 (polin8@64.81.134.176) (Ping timeout)
  525. # [23:08] <xover> mjs: I suggested earlier on here that there may be something in the phrasing in SuppExCon that reveals the author to have a browser implementor point of view, and that that may be triggering knee jerks.
  526. # [23:08] <xover> That's just going by the barely supressed vibrations in my own knee of course. :-)
  527. # [23:10] * Quits: polin8_ (polin8@64.81.134.176) (Quit: polin8_)
  528. # [23:12] <xover> Hmm. Does this rephrasing (of the second sentence) change its meaning?
  529. # [23:12] <xover> [[[
  530. # [23:12] <xover> Ideally, web documents and applications authored against older
  531. # [23:12] <xover> implementations, and which do not specifically request HTML5
  532. # [23:12] <xover> processing, should be possible to process in a HTML5 implementation.
  533. # [23:12] <xover> ]]]
  534. # [23:14] <xover> (unless I messed up, the only difference should be the cognitive focus on the author and not the browser (implementor))
  535. # [23:16] <mjs> xover: it's written from the browser implementor POV because it's basically the requirement for what it takes to get browsers to implement a spec
  536. # [23:16] <mjs> xover: I'll be glad to look at your rephrasing once I take some cold medicine and have some coffee
  537. # [23:16] <Hixie> oh hey, mjs entered the <none> thread
  538. # [23:17] <Hixie> i hope that means i can now find out what the thread was about
  539. # [23:17] <beowulf> there was a second i thought a <none> tag was being suggested
  540. # [23:18] <xover> I'm not suggesting the text has to change, just speculating why there seems to be so much opposition with few clear arguments.
  541. # [23:19] <Hixie> "If we discount the possibility of another browser manufacturer entering the market for a moment."
  542. # [23:19] <Hixie> uhhh
  543. # [23:19] <xover> heh heh
  544. # [23:20] <Hixie> wow, mjs' last mail ended remarkably honestly
  545. # [23:22] * xover applaudes the honesty...
  546. # [23:22] <mjs> I figured someone should say it
  547. # [23:23] * xover actually finds that single paragraph quite persuasive...
  548. # [23:25] * xover suddenly wonders whether Safari actually only has a single engine that processes all the content Safari supports...
  549. # [23:26] <Zeros> Someone linked to an interesting post from a few years ago about the purpose of the W3 and what the goals of the working group were. I should find that in the logs and post it on the list.
  550. # [23:26] <mjs> I'm not sure what that question means
  551. # [23:26] <mjs> it's all a single engine, but some of the code is only used sometimes
  552. # [23:26] <Zeros> Gave a nice historical context to mjs's comments
  553. # [23:27] <mjs> SVG for example mostly uses different code from HTML
  554. # [23:27] <xover> How about PNG? XML+XSLT?
  555. # [23:27] <mjs> quirks mode HTML and standards mode HTML share almost all the same code but have a few conditionals in rendering and parsing
  556. # [23:27] <Hixie> mjs: even for svg vs html text layout?
  557. # [23:28] * xover assumes PNG is handled by QT...
  558. # [23:28] <Zeros> NSImage?
  559. # [23:28] <mjs> Hixie: mostly different, not completely different - we're using a single text layout engine with some mode switches, but we're having to make more and more changes as we support SVG text more accurately
  560. # [23:28] <Zeros> err I think that's NSImageView actually
  561. # [23:29] <Hixie> mjs: interesting
  562. # [23:29] <mjs> image decoding is handled by separate libraries, image drawing is common code that all langauges which render bitmap images use
  563. # [23:29] <mjs> Hixie: SVG text really does have a design which is somewhat incompatible with CSS text - I wasn't just making that up on the SVG list a year ago
  564. # [23:29] * xover realises it's not really relevant; PNG would be a different beast in this context.
  565. # [23:29] <Hixie> mjs: yeah, that's why i'm surprised that you're using any common code
  566. # [23:30] <Hixie> mjs: mozilla has pretty much separate code, aiui, even for bidi
  567. # [23:30] <mjs> Hixie: well, we started out by seeing how far we could go reusing the HTML/CSS text engine
  568. # [23:30] <Hixie> due to the incompatibilities
  569. # [23:30] <Hixie> yeah
  570. # [23:30] <mjs> if we have to, we'll fork it completely
  571. # [23:30] <Zeros> mjs, So its just using the Foundation apis for images?
  572. # [23:30] <xover> I'm actually surprised the single-engine is considered even minimally sustainable.
  573. # [23:31] <mjs> Zeros: no
  574. # [23:31] <Zeros> ah
  575. # [23:31] <mjs> Zeros: I could give you all the implementation details, but too much may start getting off-topic for this channel
  576. # [23:32] <Zeros> Another time maybe. Thanks though.
  577. # [23:32] <mjs> xover: as opposed to what? completely separate code bases for each individual technology?
  578. # [23:32] <mjs> I don't see how it would be more sustainable to implement the HTML DOM separately for HTML and XHTML, or the XML parser separately for XML, SVG and generic XML
  579. # [23:32] <xover> No, but multiple engines sharing common code through traditional means.
  580. # [23:32] <mjs> (er, XHTML)
  581. # [23:33] <mjs> xover: I'm not sure how "multiple engines sharing common code" is different from "single engine with some code that only applies to particular modes or technologies"
  582. # [23:33] <Hixie> right, cycle to work time
  583. # [23:33] <Hixie> bbl
  584. # [23:33] <mjs> do you think the browser app should be using different APIs to render HTML documents and XHTML documents?
  585. # [23:34] <xover> Lets not go there... :-)
  586. # [23:34] <Zeros> xover, that's still possible. SpiderMokey could be used in a non Gecko browser
  587. # [23:34] <Zeros> monkey*
  588. # [23:34] <mjs> no, seriously, I don't get the question
  589. # [23:34] <mjs> XHTML and HTML have more in common than different
  590. # [23:35] <Zeros> "No, but multiple engines sharing common code through traditional means." suggests to me sharing code between vendors
  591. # [23:35] <Zeros> what did you mean by engines?
  592. # [23:35] <xover> But using, say, XHTML and SVG as examples; I would share the XML processor but have the SVG and XHTML engines separate and in a layer above it.
  593. # [23:36] <xover> I guess CSS would be tricky if "SVG-CSS" != "XHTML-CSS", but...
  594. # [23:37] <Zeros> xover, and now you need to composite them when XHTML and SVG are mixed.
  595. # [23:37] <xover> hmm
  596. # [23:37] <mjs> xover: XHTML and SVG share the XML parser, the core DOM, the loading infrastructure, the low-level graphics API, and the basic rendering infrastructure
  597. # [23:38] <mjs> they don't share the language-specific DOM interfaces, or the language-specific rendering code
  598. # [23:38] <mjs> but the way we did it makes it possible to mix XHTML and SVG in one document, and it just works
  599. # [23:38] <xover> Zeros: Interesting. I hadn't thought of that.
  600. # [23:39] <xover> mjs: I may be naively assuming the "engine" that are the single-format-specific bits are actually possible to get sufficiently "thin" that having n+1 of them is "cheap".
  601. # [23:41] <mjs> xover: not really - having both HTML and SVG support was a very large increase in code size
  602. # [23:41] <mjs> XHTML and HTML in all different rendering modes can fortunately share most of the same code, but an incompatible HTML5 mode likely wouldn't, so it would be a huge increase in code size
  603. # [23:42] <mjs> it's not easy to make the same element support different sets of attributes, the same language support different sets of elements, or the same element support different DOM APIs based on mode
  604. # [23:42] <h3h> hrm. I sent a reply to the list but it hasn't shown up yet (been almost 15 minutes)
  605. # [23:42] <mjs> that's part of why quirks mode is mostly limited to rendering and parsing differences, and much of quirks mode is implemented as a separate CSS style sheet
  606. # [23:43] <h3h> but there haven't been any other replies either
  607. # [23:44] <Zeros> Last message I got was from mjs
  608. # [23:44] <h3h> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/
  609. # [23:44] <h3h> Elliott Sprehn is the latest on that list
  610. # [23:44] <h3h> and has been for the last ~20 minutes
  611. # [23:45] <Zeros> oh yeah. The list doesn't echo messages back, that's why mjs is my newest one.
  612. # [23:45] <mjs> yeah, mail to the list seems to have stopped
  613. # [23:45] <mjs> I guess it's too much to hope that my last message just shut everyone up
  614. # [23:45] <h3h> w3 mail server problems or something? heh
  615. # [23:45] <beowulf> :)
  616. # [23:45] <xover> :-)
  617. # [23:45] <h3h> mjs: :)
  618. # [23:45] <Zeros> mjs, You'll need a bigger torpedo to do that
  619. # [23:46] <xover> mjs: Thank you for your perspective on this. It has given me much to consider.
  620. # [23:47] <mjs> anyone who would like more info on WebKit internals should feel free to stop by #webkit on irc.freenode.net any time
  621. # [23:47] <Zeros> cool. Thanks.
  622. # [23:47] <h3h> well I sent my reply to the "Re: Support Existing Content (was: Proposed Design Principles review)" thread with my 1/2 point breakdown
  623. # [23:49] <h3h> someone got tired of the nonsense and shut down the mail server :P
  624. # [23:52] <Zeros> How were they supposed to know that's what the big red button next to the light switch did?
  625. # [23:57] <h3h> new replies!
  626. # [23:57] <h3h> but...not mine!
  627. # [23:58] <h3h> I'd hate to resend and end up double posting
  628. # [23:58] * Parts: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
  629. # Session Close: Sat Apr 28 00:00:00 2007

The end :)