/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2007-05-02 / end

Options:

# Session Start: Wed May 02 00:00:00 2007
# Session Ident: #html-wg
# [08:53] * Attempting to rejoin channel #html-wg
# [08:53] * Rejoined channel #html-wg
# [08:53] * Topic is 'HTML WG http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ logged: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/'
# [08:53] * Set by Zeros on Mon Apr 30 23:38:28
# [08:53] <Hixie> i think that considering the spec to be a description of elements and attributes is one thing that made html4 as bad as it is
# [08:54] <Hixie> (as opposed to making it a description of a language that happens to have elements and attributes)
# [08:54] <Zeros> There needs to be some middle ground
# [08:54] <Hixie> i'm not even really convinced that having sections per element is a good way of doing it
# [08:54] <Hixie> e.g. <Legend> doesn't really work having its own section
# [08:54] <Hixie> it should be defined in the <details> section and the <fieldset> section
# [08:54] <krijnh> (Sorry for not updating the logs yesterday - my connection dropped)
# [08:54] <Hixie> same with <dt>/<dd> and <li>
# [08:55] <Hixie> anyway really gotta go
# [08:55] <Zeros> later
# [11:01] * Disconnected
# [11:01] * Attempting to rejoin channel #html-wg
# [11:01] * Rejoined channel #html-wg
# [11:01] * Topic is 'HTML WG http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ logged: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/'
# [11:01] * Set by Zeros on Mon Apr 30 23:38:28
# [11:05] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Ping timeout)
# [11:07] <Lachy> I'm trying to think of a few examples of non-backwards compatible changes to help explain the difference between back compat and graceful degradation. Any suggestions?
# [11:39] * Disconnected
# [11:39] * Attempting to rejoin channel #html-wg
# [11:39] * Rejoined channel #html-wg
# [11:39] * Topic is 'HTML WG http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ logged: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/'
# [11:39] * Set by Zeros on Mon Apr 30 23:38:28
# [11:39] <Dashiva> That last post from html60 seems to be eerily close to xforms. I wonder if they'll join forces :)
# [11:42] <krijnh> Ping
# [11:43] <hyatt> html60?
# [11:43] <hyatt> anne: i especially don't get the html5 should break backwards compat argument
# [11:43] <Dashiva> Dmitry Turin
# [11:43] <hyatt> anne: thats what xhtml does so there would be no point to html5
# [11:44] <anne> yeah
# [11:45] <anne> I suppose people think HTML5 will actually get implemented so they try to force XHTML2 design into HTML5 without realizing that it doesn't help
# [11:51] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
# [12:46] * Disconnected
# [12:46] * Attempting to rejoin channel #html-wg
# [12:46] * Rejoined channel #html-wg
# [12:46] * Topic is 'HTML WG http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ logged: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/'
# [12:46] * Set by Zeros on Mon Apr 30 23:38:28
# [12:48] <hsivonen> Gareth Hay withdrew his formal objection
# [12:48] <hsivonen> IBM's formal objection is still standing
# [12:49] <hsivonen> "one of the XForms opponents even asked recently how a particular simple WF2 form would be written in XForms, so the objections are not even based on firm knowledge of XForms but rather on having developed WF2" -- John Boyer
# [12:51] <Lachy> that just indicates that XForms doesn't leverage existing skillsets, which is a problem
# [12:52] <hsivonen> Lachy: that's a good point to make on the list
# [12:53] <Lachy> do you know where I can find the email he's referring to, and his to response to it?
# [12:55] <hsivonen> Lachy: my guess is that he is referring to mjs but he didn't properly respond to mjs. (presumably he didn't have a logical and technical refutation to mjs' points)
# [12:55] <Lachy> ok, I'll search their emails
# [12:57] <Lachy> ooh, so is Gareth leaving the group?
# [12:57] <Lachy> "Fine. I think today will be my last day on the list. "
# [12:59] <hsivonen> so it seems
# [13:00] <Lachy> I should explain to him that his arguments were dismissed on technical, logical and practical grounds, and that he should not take it to heart.
# [13:01] <Lachy> he says he's a newcomer, and so he needs to understand that there are a lot of people with significantly more experience than him, but that doesn't mean his feedback isn't welcome
# [13:01] <Lachy> he just needs to be prepared think about issues, listen to others and learn.
# [13:03] <anne> he already said he was clearly wrong...
# [13:03] <anne> Which objections against XForms?
# [13:04] <anne> I have enough knowledge of XForms to know that it isn't based on HTML4 and isn't based at all on HTML4 or the XML version of HTML4 forms.
# [13:04] <hsivonen> Lachy: actually, I think John Boyer was referring to Anne--not mjs
# [13:04] <anne> I think so too
# [13:05] <anne> But I was more asking because I know it to be more complex
# [13:05] <anne> because of the separation between controls and data and such
# [13:11] * Quits: claudio\out (claudioc@89.97.35.74) (Ping timeout)
# [13:11] * Joins: claudio\out (claudioc@89.97.35.74)
# [13:23] * Joins: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30)
# [13:37] <gsnedders> in parts it seems as if Gareth hasn't read the charter (which you have to say you've read to join the WG)
# [13:55] * hsivonen is more than ever of the opinion that technologists targeting the Web should be familiar with economics 101 and the basics of strategic management of technology.
# [13:56] <hsivonen> in particular, with the concepts of marginal benefit, opportunity cost and the basics of Game Theory
# [13:56] <gsnedders> no. implement every standard ever written :P
# [13:57] <Dashiva> Too bad just watching 'a beautiful mind' doesn't give enough info about Nash equilibria
# [13:58] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
# [14:03] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
# [14:17] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.43.182)
# [14:29] <Lachy> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/01/internet_explorer_standards/
# [14:30] <beowulf> hsivonen: urls? :)
# [14:31] <hsivonen> beowulf: in Wikipedia :-)
# [14:32] <beowulf> i have to work for knowledge?? i did not sign up for this! spoon feed me!
# [14:34] <hsivonen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_benefit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
# [14:35] <beowulf> hsivonen: gosh thanks, i was only joking about spoon feeding
# [14:37] <beowulf> on gareth hay's point about making the web better and html5 not doing that, aiui a better web is one that conforms to the w3c standards (largely) this is manifested by people running their site through the w3c validator and proving it's valid, no-one ever links to the actual standard always to the validator
# [14:37] <beowulf> so make a validator that complies with the 'good and proper' recommendations in html5
# [14:37] <hsivonen> beowulf: working on it ;-)
# [14:38] <beowulf> hsivonen: cool, i saw that :)
# [14:38] <beowulf> but is that not correct, no-one ever points to the actual spec to say they are valid, always to the validator results?
# [14:40] <hsivonen> beowulf: yeah, people tend to point to the validator. which is why it important to have a conformance checker instead of a mere validator
# [14:41] <beowulf> well, from my now developing point of view i don't think there's any need for two specs, just one from which a 'good and proper html' conformance checker can be built
# [14:42] <anne> HTML5 already has "two specs"
# [14:42] <anne> they are just intertwined
# [14:42] <anne> see for instance the syntax section
# [14:42] <anne> (which actually has two separate sections, not a good example...)
# [14:43] <hsivonen> anne: we need better marketing of the nature of the spec on this point
# [14:43] <beowulf> cool, i was referring to my suggestion from yesterday that two versions of the html5 spec might help gareth ad tina
# [14:43] * gsnedders sighs… maybe he's been doing too much Latin
# [14:44] <gsnedders> I read that as "gareth to tina"
# [14:44] <hsivonen> beowulf: zcorpan wrote a style sheet to that effect
# [14:44] <beowulf> gsnedders: apologies :)
# [14:44] <gsnedders> beowulf: I'd normally correct such things in my head, but not today :)
# [14:45] <beowulf> if i focus on just one channel maybe my typing will improve :)
# [14:45] * zcorpan points to http://simon.html5.org/temp/author-view-of-html5.css
# [14:46] <Lachy> wow, the commenters on that article on The Register just don't seem to grasp the issue
# [14:46] <beowulf> right, now for the dumbass questions, what's the difference between a conformance checker and a validator?
# [14:46] <anne> register?
# [14:46] <Lachy> see the link I posted above
# [14:48] <hsivonen> beowulf: a conformance checker checks for violations of the machine-checkable conformance criteria. a validator checks if the document is valid according to a schema
# [14:49] <hsivonen> beowulf: if the schema does not capture all the machine-checkable conformance criteria, there is a difference
# [14:49] <hsivonen> beowulf: (in practice schemas don't)
# [14:50] <beowulf> hsivonen: thank you
# [14:50] <gsnedders> Lachy: I like how one of the comments says that MS only implement standards they are involved in creating. There are plenty of standards that they were involved in that they don't implement (either at all, or properly).
# [14:50] <Lachy> which comment # was that?
# [14:51] <gsnedders> 4
# [14:51] <gsnedders> "Tom"
# [14:51] <beowulf> zcorpan: that stylesheet is great
# [14:51] <gsnedders> quite of lot of the commentors seem to think it's possible to just write a standards compliant browser overnight.
# [14:52] <zcorpan> beowulf: thanks
# [14:52] <hsivonen> gsnedders: which is why the IETF "consensus *and running code*" is better than mere "consensus"
# [14:53] <gsnedders> hsivonen: agreed.
# [14:53] <hsivonen> actually, IETF is "*rough* consensus and running code"
# [14:53] <gsnedders> the fact that HTML5 has multiple people already implementing the parsing section, and looking over with it with fine-toothcomb, undoubtedly helps
# [14:55] * Quits: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Leaving)
# [15:02] <zcorpan> perhaps we should do this at ietf instead?
# [15:02] * zcorpan hides
# [15:03] <anne> one reason not to do that is their text/plain specs
# [15:03] <gsnedders> originally the HTML WG was at IETF, IIRC
# [15:04] <anne> yeah
# [15:05] <gsnedders> (not that I was involved with the web then, obviously :))
# [15:07] <anne> zcorpan, did you ever get around filing bugs on us regarding XHTML and CSS?
# [15:08] <gsnedders> can I kill the computing exam? Mb != MiB!
# [15:15] <hsivonen> anne: it would be fun to see if the anti-irc, anti-mailinglist, pro-campfire, pro-forum people would find the IETF spec format old school ;-)
# [15:25] <zcorpan> anne: no not yet
# [15:25] * zcorpan starts with opera
# [15:26] <zcorpan> spec violation? not yet ;)
# [15:36] * Quits: loic (loic@90.29.17.142) (Ping timeout)
# [15:36] * Joins: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@219.110.80.235)
# [15:41] <zcorpan> anne: #263168
# [15:45] <zcorpan> what component is this in mozilla? Core->Style System (CSS) ?
# [15:45] <anne> likely
# [15:48] * Joins: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30)
# [15:48] <Lachy> who is Dominik Tomaszuk and I wonder why he voted no? He didn't provide any reasons.
# [15:49] <zcorpan> two "no"s now? wow
# [15:50] <anne> seems that we voted
# [15:51] <Dashiva> Two form nos from Boyer and two void nos from Tomaszuk...
# [15:54] <hsivonen> is it just me or does the International Webmasters Association look more Italian than International?
# [15:54] * hsivonen isn't familiar with the group
# [15:54] <hsivonen> what does it do?
# [15:55] <beowulf> carries out clandestine operations on the web
# [15:55] <beowulf> assasinations, that sort of thing
# [15:55] <hsivonen> looks like they certify Web professionals
# [15:55] <hsivonen> http://www.iwanet.org/
# [15:55] <beowulf> oh. that's much less interesting.
# [15:57] <Lachy> ooh, thers another XHTML2 telcon starting in a few minutes
# [15:57] <hsivonen> Lachy: will you attend?
# [15:57] <Lachy> in IRC only
# [15:57] <Lachy> probably just watch
# [16:00] <anne> yay, people did studies for headers=
# [16:01] <anne> I suppose headers= is easier to implement
# [16:02] <anne> however, the use cases are addressed with scope and implicit header finding algorithms as well
# [16:02] <anne> maybe headers= should just be supported in the processing algorithm
# [16:07] * Joins: loic (loic@90.41.2.216)
# [16:11] <Lachy> hey, Tina did join the XHTML2 WG :-)
# [16:16] * Joins: Sander (svl@80.60.87.115)
# [16:27] <Lachy> they ignored my questions. oh well.
# [16:27] <Dashiva> Isn't that what xhtml2 has become famous for?
# [16:27] <Lachy> yeah, but it's fun to play with them a little
# [16:29] <Philip`> Maybe that's why they're ignoring your questions?
# [16:31] <Lachy> oh, steven wrote "Lachy, as chair, I have to tell you that you are not a member of the WG, and therefore we are obliged not to take your comments into account during WG meeting. You are free however to send comments to the list."
# [16:31] <krijnh> :)
# [16:32] <Philip`> Ah, so play with them on the mailing list and it should be fine :-)
# [16:32] <Lachy> yeah
# [16:33] * Joins: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
# [16:41] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151) (Ping timeout)
# [16:42] * Joins: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151)
# [16:48] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
# [16:49] * Joins: AGraf (Ashe@213.47.199.86)
# [16:49] * Quits: Ashe (Ashe@213.47.199.86) (Quit: Quit)
# [16:49] * Joins: AGraf|mb (AlexanderG@213.47.199.86)
# [16:49] * Joins: briansuda (briansuda@82.221.34.106)
# [16:53] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
# [17:07] * Quits: tH (r@87.102.32.222) (Ping timeout)
# [17:07] * Quits: briansuda (briansuda@82.221.34.106) (Quit: briansuda)
# [17:10] * Joins: tH (r@87.102.32.222)
# [17:16] * Joins: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174)
# [17:18] <anne> how would an author view of the spec help people reading it?
# [17:19] <anne> i mean, why would they start reading the spec?
# [17:19] <zcorpan> perhaps it would help people who do read it understand it better
# [17:19] <anne> sure
# [17:20] <Preston> Is there are better way to get a clearer grasp of the HTML5 spec with a minimal time investment?
# [17:21] <anne> read the introductory parts and what you're interested in
# [17:21] <anne> just reading section 1 would probably help a lot
# [17:22] <xover> Actually, it would help a lot if the WHATWGers would point to specific parts of their spec when talking about its properties, what the spec does and does not do, and what the "intentions" of something is.
# [17:23] <anne> I think we point to the spec now and then
# [17:23] <xover> I'm sure you do.
# [17:23] <anne> saying things that are not at the other end of the pointer seems weird to me
# [17:23] <anne> because it might give an incorrect view
# [17:24] <Lachy> when we discuss specific issues, we usually do point to the relevant sections
# [17:26] <anne> Anyway, at this point it's not really relevant to discuss specific sections anyway I think
# [17:27] <anne> More about finding out whether we want to do something or not... it seems.
# [17:27] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.43.182) (Ping timeout)
# [17:34] * Quits: AGraf|mb (AlexanderG@213.47.199.86) (Quit: Quit)
# [18:03] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
# [18:14] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
# [18:35] * Quits: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Leaving)
# [18:38] * Joins: h3h (bfults@66.162.32.234)
# [18:49] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Quit: http://eric.daspet.name/ et l'édition 2007 de http://www.paris-web.fr/ )
# [19:09] <gavin> gsnedders: I'm pretty sure that Jeff was being sarcastic!
# [19:09] <gsnedders> gavin: didn't come across :)
# [19:09] <gavin> the application/eckshtml didn't trigger your sarcasm meter? :)
# [19:09] * Quits: tH (r@87.102.32.222) (Ping timeout)
# [19:09] <gsnedders> gavin: I'd've sent it anyway replying to some other email
# [19:10] <gsnedders> gavin: too many people seem to be forgetting what we're chartered to do
# [19:11] <gsnedders> gavin: and I've seen all too many people posting seemingly silly things while meaning them
# [19:11] <Philip`> We need to define a good parsing algorithm for <sarcasm>, given the constraints that its usage in existing content relies on both the start and end tags being optional
# [19:11] <gsnedders> :)
# [19:12] * Joins: mw22_ (chatzilla@84.41.169.151)
# [19:12] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151) (Ping timeout)
# [19:12] * mw22_ is now known as mw22
# [19:12] * Joins: tH (r@87.102.32.222)
# [19:17] * Quits: tH (r@87.102.32.222) (Ping timeout)
# [19:20] <Philip`> Does anyone have an existing example of the type of document they'd like for authors, e.g. good comprehensive tutorials or guides to HTML4, that could demonstrate what the HTML WG should try to produce?
# [19:20] <Philip`> (I would assume that such a thing either exists already (for some language other than HTML5), or else is impossible)
# [19:21] <gsnedders> something along the lines of the majority of other HTML reference documents
# [19:22] <Philip`> (It would be fun to have something like Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby...)
# [19:23] <gsnedders> (link?)
# [19:23] <Philip`> Are there specific ones of those other HTML reference documents that you think are good?
# [19:23] <Philip`> (http://poignantguide.net/)
# [19:24] <Philip`> (I've only ever looked at a few pages, but it looks more interesting than many other guides)
# [19:24] <gsnedders> I like the general layout of the <http://w3schools.com/tags/default.asp>, though I think there really should be a better ToC, as well as better description :P
# [19:25] <gsnedders> though of course there are a billion ways to do it
# [19:27] <gsnedders> but there again, we proper should have some ultra-basic document, as a proper guide.
# [19:27] <gsnedders> starting with the reader knowing no HTML
# [19:27] <gsnedders> *probably
# [19:27] <gsnedders> (or any other non-spoken language)
# [19:34] * Joins: mw22_ (chatzilla@84.41.169.151)
# [19:34] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151) (Ping timeout)
# [19:34] * mw22_ is now known as mw22
# [19:45] * Quits: Sander (svl@80.60.87.115) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
# [19:56] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151) (Ping timeout)
# [19:59] * Joins: mw22_ (chatzilla@84.41.169.151)
# [19:59] * mw22_ is now known as mw22
# [20:07] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.146)
# [20:07] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.242)
# [20:10] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.146) (Quit: mjs)
# [20:15] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.43.182)
# [20:15] * Joins: tH (r@87.102.32.222)
# [20:15] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.146)
# [20:17] * Quits: claudio\out (claudioc@89.97.35.74) (Quit: Leaving)
# [20:28] * Joins: briansuda (briansuda@82.221.34.106)
# [20:33] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151) (Ping timeout)
# [20:35] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.242) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
# [20:37] * Joins: hober (ted@66.162.32.234)
# [20:39] * Quits: hyatt (hyatt@24.6.91.161) (Quit: hyatt)
# [20:40] * Quits: hasather (hasather@81.235.209.174) (Ping timeout)
# [20:42] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.43.182) (Ping timeout)
# [20:44] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154) (Connection reset by peer)
# [20:45] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154)
# [20:51] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
# [20:54] <mjs> it's becoming impossible to keep up with public-html
# [20:55] <hober> It's quite a firehose, yes
# [20:56] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
# [20:57] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.242)
# [20:59] <h3h> it's actually pretty easy to keep up if you just ignore the babbling in the same 10 threads
# [21:00] * Joins: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151)
# [21:02] * Joins: mw22_ (chatzilla@84.41.169.151)
# [21:02] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.43.182)
# [21:03] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151) (Ping timeout)
# [21:03] * mw22_ is now known as mw22
# [21:03] * Quits: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@219.110.80.235) (Quit: さようなら)
# [21:05] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151) (Quit: Chatzilla 0.9.75-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.0.4/2006060814])
# [21:06] <anne> lol, people are suggesting new MIME types
# [21:07] <gavin> well, I think only one person was
# [21:07] <anne> right
# [21:07] <gavin> dbaron suggested it was the only way to transition to draconian error handling, and then someone said "hey good idea!" not realizing that it wasn't what dbaron was proposing
# [21:07] <gavin> and then Jeff posted his sarcastic reply to that
# [21:08] <dbaron> sarcasm doesn't work in email
# [21:10] <hober> We all know how well the switch to draconian error handling coupled with a new media type went last time!
# [21:10] <anne> heh, html60 would do good to actually read specs first...
# [21:10] <anne> <ol start=> and <li value=> ..
# [21:14] <h3h> somehow I expected more than random IRC trolling-style discussion from this list
# [21:14] <h3h> it's just a pile of FUD, ad homs and misinterpretations
# [21:19] <anne> the problem is that everything seems to be up in the air and that key people (the chairs) are not making clear what is in scope and out of scope
# [21:19] <anne> but maybe everything should be discussed first, dunno
# [21:19] <anne> at the rate this is going WHATWG will have HTML6 done by the time we publish some heavily compromised design principles
# [21:19] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.43.182) (Ping timeout)
# [21:20] * Joins: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30)
# [21:21] <DanC> any CSS WG members about? I'm learning about this "overlapping table cells" issue http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css2-src/issues/issues-4.html#issue-3 , where evidently the CSS WG made a decision over the objection of Anne
# [21:21] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.43.182)
# [21:22] <anne> I'm a CSS member
# [21:23] <anne> Not sure if that helps here :)
# [21:23] <DanC> yes, you're on record as objecting. Evidently Hixie, Glazman, and Hyatt are also members.
# [21:23] <DanC> I'm trying to figure out their role in this decision.
# [21:24] <anne> The larger issue is that table layout is not defined at all
# [21:25] <anne> The minor issue this is about is that table layout for HTML and XHMTL is supposedly to be done different (per the CSS 2.1 spec)
# [21:25] <anne> And then there's the member only issue about CSS not moving to CR for reason X
# [21:26] * Quits: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132) (Ping timeout)
# [21:26] <zcorpan> defining tables is something i might look into in due course
# [21:26] <DanC> oh phpht. /Style/Group/
# [21:27] <anne> zcorpan, good luck!
# [21:27] <zcorpan> anne: thanks :)
# [21:28] * Joins: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132)
# [21:29] * Joins: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151)
# [21:30] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151) (Quit: Chatzilla 0.9.75-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.0.4/2006060814])
# [21:32] * Joins: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151)
# [21:34] <DanC> "The CSS WG decided to _not_ change the spec based on Anne van Kesteren's comment" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Apr/0047.html . That's public. Which CSS WG members were involved in that decision/
# [21:34] <DanC> ?
# [21:34] <DanC> one of our databases lists Hixie, Hyatt, and Glazman as CSS WB members; I wonder if they were aware.
# [21:35] <anne> dunno
# [21:36] <DanC> how does the CSS WG make decisions?
# [21:36] <DanC> it seems to me that you'd know which WG members you were talking with. the group isn't _that_ big.
# [21:36] <anne> I believe during telcons and meetings
# [21:37] <anne> I attend neither
# [21:37] <anne> usually
# [21:37] <mjs> DanC: I can't imagine Hixie or Hyatt agreeing with those decisions
# [21:37] <gavin> was "WB" above a typo for "WG"?
# [21:37] <mjs> but I don't think they attend most of the f2fs or telecons
# [21:37] <anne> gavin, yes
# [21:38] <hsivonen> anne: does that mean the the CSS WG chose to blatantly disregard the way Presto, Gecko and WebKit interoperate with overlapping table cells? (and Trident, too, in text/html)?
# [21:38] <anne> hsivonen, yes, as seen in Hixie's twitter logs sometimes issues are disregarded because a page is using scripting...
# [21:39] <hsivonen> anne: sad, sad
# [21:39] <hsivonen> anne: I used to think the CSS WG was the WG that put the W in the WG at the W3C
# [21:40] <anne> I think it was mostly Hixie
# [21:40] <hsivonen> anne: did they find two fringe implementations that actually implement what the spec says about cell that would overlap in real browsers?
# [21:40] <anne> Hixie since moved on to fry bigger fish
# [21:41] <anne> hsivonen, I believe so, but not particularly convincing implementations iirc
# [21:41] <anne> The Adobe Mars project and XHTML Print profile implementations?
# [21:42] <hsivonen> I feel guilty about procrastinating with filing my research on this issue in the CSS 2.1 issue tracker
# [21:42] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.146) (Ping timeout)
# [21:43] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.146)
# [21:45] * hsivonen notes "browser-wing conspiracy" in www-archive
# [21:47] <anne> x-wing
# [21:47] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.146) (Connection reset by peer)
# [21:47] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.146)
# [21:48] * Quits: mw22 (chatzilla@84.41.169.151) (Ping timeout)
# [21:48] * DanC is away: errand
# [21:49] * Joins: hyatt (hyatt@17.255.99.92)
# [21:50] * Quits: hyatt (hyatt@17.255.99.92) (Client exited)
# [21:50] * Joins: hyatt (hyatt@17.255.99.92)
# [22:00] * Quits: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156) (Connection reset by peer)
# [22:02] * Joins: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
# [22:06] * Joins: asbjornu (asbjorn@84.48.116.134)
# [22:10] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.43.182) (Ping timeout)
# [22:13] * Quits: briansuda (briansuda@82.221.34.106) (Quit: briansuda)
# [22:16] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
# [22:16] * Quits: hyatt (hyatt@17.255.99.92) (Quit: hyatt)
# [22:26] <gsnedders> Philip`: (that Ruby guide is really rather good)
# [22:34] * Quits: h3h (bfults@66.162.32.234) (Quit: |)
# [22:36] <hober> hsivonen: :)
# [22:42] * Hixie learns that apparently the W3C offices at MIT are on the same floor as the CS Theory department's offices
# [22:44] <mjs> John Boyer's Formal Objection doesn't appear to "cite technical arguments"
# [22:44] <anne> that's ok
# [22:44] <anne> makes it ignorable
# [22:44] <Hixie> nor does the other one
# [22:44] <mjs> the other one doesn't even have a comment
# [22:44] <anne> we have two again?
# [22:45] <mjs> John Boyer and Dominik Tomaszuk
# [22:45] <anne> oh ok
# [22:45] * Quits: loic (loic@90.41.2.216) (Quit: hoopa rules)
# [22:45] * Joins: kingryan (rking3@66.92.187.33)
# [22:49] * Joins: loic (loic@90.41.2.216)
# [22:49] <gsnedders> the Forms WG seems to be chartered to draw on WF2 for XForms Transitional
# [22:50] <gsnedders> therefore, it makes as much sense to start from WF2 as it does from XForms Transitional
# [22:51] * Joins: h3h (bfults@66.162.32.234)
# [22:52] <mjs> It doesn't really make sense to identify XForms as a starting point, since XForms is not part of HTML, nor is it intended to be
# [22:52] <mjs> it's like saying the HTML WG should adopt SVG as a basis for review
# [22:53] <schepers> are you trying to draw me in here? ;)
# [22:59] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
# [23:01] * Joins: John_Boyer (boyerj@32.97.110.142)
# [23:04] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@74.103.208.221)
# [23:04] <John_Boyer> anybody know the link for the rrsagent minutes of this conversation?
# [23:05] <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make minutes
# [23:05] <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-html-wg-minutes.html John_Boyer
# [23:05] <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make log public
# [23:05] <RRSAgent> I have made the request, John_Boyer
# [23:06] <anne> John_Boyer, see the topic
# [23:06] <anne> John_Boyer, much better logs than RRSAgent
# [23:06] <gavin> RRSAgent: pointer?
# [23:06] <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-html-wg-irc#T21-03-07
# [23:07] <anne> all this nonsense about multiple specs and such
# [23:08] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.146) (Ping timeout)
# [23:08] * Parts: John_Boyer (boyerj@32.97.110.142)
# [23:09] * Joins: John_Boyer (boyerj@32.97.110.142)
# [23:09] <John_Boyer> Too bad mjs just left...
# [23:09] <John_Boyer> He claimed that my objection is ignorable because it doesn't cite technical args
# [23:09] <John_Boyer> sure it does
# [23:09] <John_Boyer> the question for vote was one of process, not technical
# [23:10] <John_Boyer> so my answer was technical regarding the process
# [23:10] <anne> except that your conclusions from the charter are wrong, afaict
# [23:10] <John_Boyer> We spent 9 months negotiating the conclusions I have from the charters with the director and CEO of the W3C
# [23:11] <John_Boyer> how can they be wrong???
# [23:11] <anne> the HTML WG charter says nothing about aligning with XForms
# [23:11] <John_Boyer> Did noone in this group see the vision document
# [23:11] <anne> it says something about architectural consistency
# [23:11] <anne> the vision document is non-binding
# [23:11] <John_Boyer> nor timbls blog for that mattter?
# [23:11] <anne> and is not the charter
# [23:11] <John_Boyer> the vision document provides further clarification of the charters
# [23:11] <anne> timbl's blog is interesting, though not the charter
# [23:12] <anne> the vision document is quite silly imo
# [23:12] <John_Boyer> Observe that the ONLY thing the HTML charter does say about forms is that the HTML WG will work with the Forms WG
# [23:12] <John_Boyer> Fine, then go back to the director
# [23:12] <John_Boyer> and get rechartered
# [23:12] <John_Boyer> again
# [23:12] <anne> no, it's non binding
# [23:12] <John_Boyer> Yes the charter is binding
# [23:12] <anne> only the charter is binding
# [23:12] <John_Boyer> and it says we have to work together
# [23:12] <anne> well, sort of, yes
# [23:12] <anne> not about aligning with XForms though
# [23:13] <John_Boyer> Right, the not-working-together working together solution
# [23:13] <anne> I think so far we've been pretty willing to cooperate investing time in reviewing XForms Transitional and pointing out flaws, etc.
# [23:13] <John_Boyer> We've had all these discussions already with myself and your chairs
# [23:14] <John_Boyer> quite unclear why they aren't taking a leadership role in clarifying what we'resupposed to be doing
# [23:14] <gsnedders> "The HTML WG and the Forms Working Group will work together in this Task Force to ensure that the new HTML forms and the new XForms Transitional have architectural consistency and that document authors can transition between them"
# [23:14] <John_Boyer> Yes, thanks
# [23:14] <gsnedders> that's all the charter says on the matter
# [23:14] <John_Boyer> yes
# [23:14] <John_Boyer> and what it DOESNT say is "and you can go off and deliver your own separate technology for forms too"
# [23:14] <gsnedders> it doesn't say we can't
# [23:14] <John_Boyer> where does it say you can do WF2 in your charter?
# [23:14] <gavin> it doesn't say a lot of things
# [23:14] <anne> Web Forms 2 is architectural consistent with XForms
# [23:14] <John_Boyer> You're not chartered to
# [23:15] <anne> John_Boyer, it mentions new controls under deliverables
# [23:15] <John_Boyer> ok
# [23:15] <anne> John_Boyer, the charter is quite explicit, I think
# [23:15] <anne> Anyway, you still haven't negated my original point about your argument
# [23:16] <gsnedders> the Forms WG charter (which you chair) says you will work in a task force _jointly with the HTML WG_
# [23:16] <John_Boyer> Still, I joined this conversation to defend the objection, which is that it cites technical issues related to the process-oriented question being voted on
# [23:16] <John_Boyer> Yes
# [23:17] <John_Boyer> Our charter is very clear about developing a new "hybrid" that is heavily influenced by WF2 while also allowing us to map the features onto XForms architecture
# [23:17] <anne> Frankly, at 11PM I hardly care about this
# [23:17] <gsnedders> the forms WG charter also says you will draw on the WF2 work. This means there are two options for startings points: 1. The (X)HTML Web Forms 2, or 2. XForms
# [23:17] <anne> I'd love to see a more concrete proposal than talk about architecture, but I suppose that may be hard to extract out of the XForms WG
# [23:17] <gsnedders> both seem reasonable starting points
# [23:17] <John_Boyer> or 3 is a new document which draw on both
# [23:17] <John_Boyer> that's what I argued we should be doing
# [23:17] <John_Boyer> in the objection
# [23:18] <hober> I assumed that the Forms WG would start with their document, the HTML WG would start with its document, and then the TF would work toward architectural compatibility. So I don't see what the problem with the HTML WG starting with WF2 is.
# [23:18] <anne> I have an identical interpretation of the charter
# [23:18] <John_Boyer> It preempts the whole process that the *joint task force* should go through
# [23:18] <anne> thanks hober
# [23:19] <John_Boyer> forms is a joint project
# [23:19] <anne> No it's not
# [23:19] <anne> forms architecture is
# [23:19] <anne> whatever that means
# [23:19] <John_Boyer> I just told you what it means
# [23:20] <gsnedders> "It is a goal that this work, which will be conducted in a task force jointly with the HTML WG, draw on the Web Forms 2 work (which moves from the Web Application Formats Working Group to the HTML Working Group) and be integrated into the XForms architecture (following design principles such as the separation of presentation from content)."
# [23:20] <John_Boyer> Please stop ignoring the requirement we have from the W3C AC to work together
# [23:20] <gsnedders> Forms WG Charter
# [23:20] <anne> I don't share your interpretation in that case
# [23:20] <John_Boyer> that's the problem
# [23:20] <John_Boyer> and the reason for my objection
# [23:20] <John_Boyer> your chairs are supposed to be making this clear to you
# [23:20] <gsnedders> I have the same interpretation as John_Boyer
# [23:20] <hober> I think the HTML WG's charter is reasonably clear on this point...
# [23:20] <gsnedders> I, however, think WF2 should be used as the starting point.
# [23:21] <John_Boyer> I just want a process that makes it easy to say "whatever is in this document is mappable to an XForms construct" and "if possible, it is equal to or very similar to what WF2 already says"
# [23:22] <anne> lol
# [23:22] <John_Boyer> The onus is different
# [23:22] <gsnedders> and if it is the be equal or similar to WF2, I think WF2 is the logical starting point
# [23:22] <anne> HTML4 + DOM2HTML is the starting point
# [23:22] <anne> WF2 is compatible with that
# [23:22] <anne> XForms, so far, is not
# [23:22] <gsnedders> the problem really is the HTML WG Charter and the Forms WG Charter say different things about how they should work together
# [23:22] <anne> WF2 is compatible with the XForms architecture, as explained in WF2
# [23:23] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: did I read correctly that you don't want this WG to publish Web Forms 2.0 as part of out REC?
# [23:23] <John_Boyer> yes
# [23:23] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: do you have a technical reason why Web Forms 2.0 would be bad to publish as part of our REC?
# [23:24] * anne bye! time to head "home"
# [23:24] <John_Boyer> I think you want to preempt the detailed technical work that needs to be done
# [23:25] <John_Boyer> We are chartered to produce a forms technology that is based on XForms and WF2.
# [23:25] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: no, I am trying to come to an understanding on why you object to Web Forms 2.0.
# [23:26] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: people who have worked on Web Forms 2.0 send feedback on Raggett's XForms Transitional
# [23:26] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: why are you dodging technical debate about Web Forms 2.0?
# [23:26] <John_Boyer> It's a huge document that I don't want to swallow wholesale like a foreign organism without consideration of the features
# [23:26] <gsnedders> John_Boyer: "we" being the forms WG?
# [23:27] <John_Boyer> I prefer positive addition of features to a document rather than throwing in everything, having everyone come to some wrong conclusions, then have to claw back things as we find they have problems
# [23:27] <John_Boyer> People who sent feedback on XF transitional continue not to recognize it's a joint process that is just getting started
# [23:27] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: from the point of view of HTML, XForms is the spec that throws away everything up front
# [23:27] <John_Boyer> so they sent it to public-html without cc to publid-forms
# [23:27] <hober> hsivonen++
# [23:28] <John_Boyer> that's why it's not the starting point either
# [23:28] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: is the requirement to base technology on both WF 2.0 and XForms based on a technical argument?
# [23:28] <gsnedders> anyhow, I've got four exams tomorrow. g'nite.
# [23:28] <John_Boyer> it is a charter requirement
# [23:28] <gsnedders> hsivonen: the Forms WG charter
# [23:28] <John_Boyer> both
# [23:28] <hsivonen> a charter is not a technical argument
# [23:28] <John_Boyer> html and forms
# [23:29] <John_Boyer> asking what document to start with is not a technical question
# [23:29] <John_Boyer> having a vote on that was inappropriate
# [23:29] <John_Boyer> or at least
# [23:29] <hober> I still don't follow how each WG starting with its own document and then working together in the TF toward architectural compatibility is in any way a bad thing.
# [23:29] <gsnedders> John_Boyer: the HTML WG Charter doesn't say it has to be based on both. It says it needs to be artichturally consistent.
# [23:29] <John_Boyer> if it was appropriate
# [23:29] <John_Boyer> then the answers need to be technical in the context of the process question
# [23:29] <John_Boyer> this is a new group that is different than the past
# [23:30] <John_Boyer> so the W3C process rules need some bend in them
# [23:30] <John_Boyer> please don't hide behind them when it is convenient and ignore them when it is convenient
# [23:30] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: Web Forms 2.0 has technical properties. so has XForms. the choice of stating point could, therefore, be made on their technical merit
# [23:30] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: (I'm including network effects here in technical merit--not just pure technology value)
# [23:30] <John_Boyer> and the third option, required by the charters is to "start" with both and create a new form tech
# [23:31] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: I haven't appealed to the W3C process at all here
# [23:31] <John_Boyer> that's what my "objection" actually says
# [23:31] <hober> Right, you guys start with XForms, we start with WF2, and then (after many moons of wrangling) meet in the middle somewhere.
# [23:31] <John_Boyer> That's not a "work together" process option
# [23:32] <John_Boyer> that's a "not working in good faith of the charters" option
# [23:32] <hober> It's exactly a work together option -- work together to acheive architectural compatibility, like our charter requires.
# [23:32] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: no offense, but let's do a third thing in order to avoid choosing from the two sounds like a political argument--not a technical argument
# [23:33] <hober> I think it's precisely in good faith with the HTML WG charter
# [23:33] <hober> I can't speak to the Forms charter as I haven't read it
# [23:33] <John_Boyer> Hmm. How about instead, we work together in good faith to create a forms technology that takes the best of XForms and WF2?
# [23:33] <hober> That's exactly what I'm saying.
# [23:33] <John_Boyer> Right, so the "start" of that document is the empty document
# [23:33] <gavin> I don't see how "work together" precludes using one of two documents as a starting point
# [23:34] <hober> Well, *that* document is the one that describes the architectural compatibility of the XForms WG artifacts and the HTML WG artifcats
# [23:34] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: so far, whenever people who have worked on Web Forms 2.0 have asked the XForms folks, what "best of XForms" they'd like to bring that Web Forms 2.0 lacks, the discussion veers to charters instead of technical features
# [23:34] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: which is why discussion is hard
# [23:34] <hober> And yes, that document is currently empty so far as I know
# [23:35] <John_Boyer> Discussion is hard because the task force is not formed and committed to doing the work.
# [23:35] <John_Boyer> My role is not to single-handedly do all the work
# [23:35] <John_Boyer> for all of you because I can't
# [23:35] <hober> What a strange thing to say.
# [23:35] <John_Boyer> My job is to make sure the right people start getting together and working together and agreeing on how they're going to start
# [23:35] <John_Boyer> and what they're going to produce
# [23:36] <John_Boyer> The push now from both WGs *should* be to get this forms task force started and let them run so the rest of the WGs can focus on the rest of their business
# [23:36] <John_Boyer> that push should go to the chairs
# [23:37] <John_Boyer> and this whole business of preempting what the task force is supposed to do should stop
# [23:37] <John_Boyer> I have to go now. Please send email to list...
# [23:37] <hober> I don't think anyone's trying to preempt what the TF is supposed to do
# [23:37] <John_Boyer> that's exactly what this vote is about.
# [23:37] <hober> No, it's not.
# [23:38] <John_Boyer> The vote asks us to start out by constraining what the TF is supposed to do.
# [23:38] <John_Boyer> What is the purpose of the proposal?
# [23:38] <gavin> Where does it mention any type of constraint?
# [23:38] <John_Boyer> Why are we rushing to some conclusion...
# [23:38] <hober> No, the vote asks the HTML WG to start with WF2
# [23:38] <gavin> It mentions a starting point, and editors, and a name
# [23:38] <hober> How is a start a conclusion?
# [23:38] <John_Boyer> OK, back to the charters.
# [23:38] <John_Boyer> Going in circles here
# [23:39] <hober> I stand by my interpretation of the HTML WG charter.
# [23:39] <John_Boyer> HTML WG is not chartered to go off by itself and build forms tech
# [23:39] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: it doesn't preclude the forms WG finally saying what they find is technically wrong about WF 2.0 so that this WG could fix WF 2.0 accordingly
# [23:39] <gavin> You just claimed that the vote is constraining future work, I think it'd be a good idea to explain that statement before changing the subject again.
# [23:39] <hober> It's chartered to pursue, via the joint TF, architectural compatibility with whatever the Forms WG does.
# [23:40] <John_Boyer> gavin, perhaps the vote is very poorly worded. But it is already obvious that WF2 is supposed to be taken as serious input to the new forms tech (see Forms WG charter). So...
# [23:41] <hober> Why *shouldn't* WF2 be taken as serious input????
# [23:41] <gavin> I think it's quite explicitly stated in the proposal and the vote that it's about a starting point, not a conclusion.
# [23:41] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: are you sayig that WF2 shouldn't be taken as serious input?
# [23:41] <hober> It's the product of years of hard work...
# [23:41] <John_Boyer> Didn't say it shouldn't
# [23:41] <John_Boyer> just finishing the answer now...
# [23:42] <John_Boyer> So, since it is obvious that WF2 is input to the new forms tech, what is the point of the proposal and vote? My interpretation of the question is that the proposer wants to use WF2 as the first version of the spec
# [23:42] <John_Boyer> I am advocating using empty document as the start of the new forms spec
# [23:43] <schepers> I think that a compromise can be made
# [23:43] <hober> Ahh
# [23:43] <hober> I think I see the misunderstanding now
# [23:43] <hober> The vote is about what the HTMLWG's starting point is
# [23:43] * Quits: loic (loic@90.41.2.216) (Quit: hoopa rules)
# [23:43] <schepers> John_Boyer: I agree with you that the work should be done in unison and in good faith
# [23:43] <hober> And you're interpreting that to mean something about the starting poing of the TF
# [23:44] <John_Boyer> There is not supposed to be a difference between starting point for HTML WG and starting point for the task force
# [23:44] <John_Boyer> The HTML WG component of the task force IS the set of people who should be participating in the forms work
# [23:44] <hober> This gets right back to my point re: each WG having their own documents, and the TF ensuring they become & remain architecturally compatible
# [23:44] <John_Boyer> and they should be starting with an empty document
# [23:45] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: do you believe the full HTML WG should not be participating in forms work?
# [23:45] <John_Boyer> That's the point I'm saying you are mistaken about
# [23:45] <John_Boyer> that's not the intent of the charters
# [23:45] <gavin> It might help make things clearer if you posted to the list with the reasons you think starting with a blank document is a better choice than starting with WF2
# [23:45] <schepers> but I also recognize that the vote for using WHATWG as a starting point is subject to heavy revision if necessary... that's not strongly stated in the poll, but it is there
# [23:45] <hober> I think my interpretation of the HTMLWG charter is a fair and reasonable one on this point, but, as I said before, I haven't read the other charter
# [23:46] * Quits: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132) (Ping timeout)
# [23:46] <hober> It's entirely possible that the charters themselves are different on this point.
# [23:46] <hsivonen> John_Boyer: btw, the design goals of this WG imply that we couldn't start with and empty spec. we should start with what is implemented in major browsers anyway
# [23:46] <John_Boyer> That's part of the problem. The HTML charter requires liaison with another WG on a significant component of work, so it is necessary to read that WG charter as part of the interpretation of how the work is to be done
# [23:47] <John_Boyer> That's still empty document, followed by design requirements that say things like "need to support old-style forms"
# [23:47] <John_Boyer> Like, I so really really have to go now though
# [23:47] <John_Boyer> I hope it is at least a bit clearer where my feedback is coming from.
# [23:48] <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make minutes
# [23:48] <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-html-wg-minutes.html John_Boyer
# [23:49] <hober> I think it is, yes, thanks
# [23:49] <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make minutes
# [23:49] <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-html-wg-minutes.html John_Boyer
# [23:49] * Parts: John_Boyer (boyerj@32.97.110.142)
# [23:59] * Quits: asbjornu (asbjorn@84.48.116.134) (Ping timeout)
# Session Close: Thu May 03 00:00:00 2007

The end :)