/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2007-08-03 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Fri Aug 03 00:00:00 2007
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:07] * Joins: mjs_ (mjs@17.203.14.179)
  4. # [00:09] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.105.80) (Ping timeout)
  5. # [00:11] <Philip`> KDE4 Beta 1's Konqueror's <canvas> support seems to fail quite a lot of tests :-(
  6. # [00:11] <Philip`> (and often quite badly, by showing random memory contents or crashing)
  7. # [00:11] <hyatt> Hixie: ping
  8. # [00:23] * Quits: heycam (cam@203.214.100.97) (Ping timeout)
  9. # [00:36] * Quits: mlk (mlk@217.157.139.101) (Quit: mlk)
  10. # [00:47] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  11. # [00:48] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  12. # [00:53] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  13. # [00:55] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241)
  14. # [00:57] <Hixie> hyatt: pong
  15. # [00:58] <hyatt> Hixie: i found the parsing code that says <html> should get made if end of file is hit
  16. # [00:58] <hyatt> but i don't see anything in the current draft that implies <head> or <body> would get made
  17. # [00:58] <Hixie> hyatt: keep following the chain :-)
  18. # [00:58] <hyatt> i did
  19. # [00:58] * Hixie looks
  20. # [00:59] <hyatt> look at main phase
  21. # [00:59] <hyatt> the insertion mode is irrelevant, since end of file is broken out
  22. # [00:59] <hyatt> there's even a red paragraph
  23. # [00:59] <Hixie> oh right
  24. # [00:59] <hyatt> that seems to imply you haven't dealt with it yet
  25. # [00:59] <Hixie> known open issue
  26. # [00:59] <Hixie> yeah
  27. # [00:59] <hyatt> ok for now i will only make <html>
  28. # [00:59] <Hixie> i forgot i hadn't fixed that red box yet
  29. # [00:59] <Hixie> in due course it will then :-)
  30. # [00:59] <hyatt> i\ think we have code that makes a <body> also anyway
  31. # [01:00] <hyatt> is it your expectation that a stream like this: "<html><body>"
  32. # [01:00] <hyatt> would create a head?
  33. # [01:00] <hyatt> i am very nervous about making heads implicitly
  34. # [01:00] <hyatt> google maps already broke when i allowed comments as children of <html> btw
  35. # [01:01] <hyatt> sighs
  36. # [01:01] <hyatt> way to go google for checking documentElement.firstChild and assuming it would be a head always
  37. # [01:01] <hyatt> :)
  38. # [01:01] <hyatt> "firefox moves the comment, so surely everyone else will too"
  39. # [01:01] <hyatt> "isn't firefox standards mode?"
  40. # [01:02] <hyatt> grumbles.
  41. # [01:02] <Hixie> <html><body> already makes a head in the current spec
  42. # [01:02] <hyatt> o rly
  43. # [01:02] <hyatt> i am nervous about that
  44. # [01:02] <hyatt> i doubt any browser does that
  45. # [01:03] <Hixie> i urge you to test ie
  46. # [01:03] <Hixie> and firefox
  47. # [01:03] <hyatt> ok
  48. # [01:06] * Joins: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84)
  49. # [01:12] * Joins: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30)
  50. # [01:13] * Parts: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
  51. # [01:19] * Joins: sbuluf (hr@200.49.140.191)
  52. # [01:42] * Quits: mjs_ (mjs@17.203.14.179) (Ping timeout)
  53. # [01:45] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.105.80)
  54. # [01:46] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.105.80) (Quit: mjs)
  55. # [02:07] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.105.80)
  56. # [02:16] * Quits: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132) (Ping timeout)
  57. # [02:29] * Quits: hyatt (hyatt@17.203.15.235) (Quit: hyatt)
  58. # [02:36] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30)
  59. # [02:44] * Joins: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132)
  60. # [02:56] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  61. # [03:01] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  62. # [03:14] * Quits: kingryan (rking3@208.66.64.47) (Quit: kingryan)
  63. # [03:15] * Parts: JonTi (10hahaha@83.109.163.98)
  64. # [03:18] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.105.80) (Quit: mjs)
  65. # [03:21] * Quits: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132) (Ping timeout)
  66. # [03:23] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254) (Quit: Leaving)
  67. # [03:25] * Quits: tH (Rob@87.102.81.18) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.78.1-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.0.9/2006120508])
  68. # [03:31] * Quits: jgraham (jgraham@81.86.219.96) (Ping timeout)
  69. # [03:49] * Joins: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132)
  70. # [04:32] * Quits: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132) (Ping timeout)
  71. # [04:50] * Joins: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132)
  72. # [05:04] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  73. # [05:09] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  74. # [05:17] * Quits: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132) (Ping timeout)
  75. # [05:25] * Quits: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  76. # [05:25] * Joins: beowulf (carisenda@91.84.50.132)
  77. # [05:46] * Quits: sbuluf (hr@200.49.140.191) (Ping timeout)
  78. # [05:54] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  79. # [06:48] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  80. # [07:12] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  81. # [07:17] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  82. # [07:18] * Joins: jasonjgw (jason@59.167.71.27)
  83. # [07:18] * Quits: jasonjgw (jason@59.167.71.27) (Quit: ircII EPIC4-2.6 -- Are we there yet?)
  84. # [07:18] * Joins: jasonjgw (jason@59.167.71.27)
  85. # [07:22] * Quits: jasonjgw (jason@59.167.71.27) (Quit: ircII EPIC4-2.6 -- Are we there yet?)
  86. # [07:33] * Joins: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30)
  87. # [07:46] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  88. # [08:51] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  89. # [09:08] * Quits: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84) (Quit: bye)
  90. # [09:19] * Joins: tH_ (Rob@87.102.81.18)
  91. # [09:19] * tH_ is now known as tH
  92. # [09:20] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  93. # [09:25] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  94. # [09:36] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154)
  95. # [09:41] * Joins: jgraham (jgraham@81.86.217.254)
  96. # [09:43] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
  97. # [09:46] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
  98. # [09:56] <anne> karl, I actually agree with the sentence in the spec, for what it's worth
  99. # [09:56] <anne> karl, re: XML Maturity
  100. # [09:57] <karl> anne: yes you can agree with the sentence in the spec, but that doesn't mean that the sentence is appropriate in the spec
  101. # [09:59] <anne> dunno, XHTML wouldn't work for authors and would not be as bacwards compatible as HTML
  102. # [09:59] <anne> generally speaking
  103. # [10:00] <anne> remember, 95% of the web is _syntactically_ incorrect
  104. # [10:01] <karl> that doesn't make xhtml bad. It's why I propose the first paragraph, saying basically. "Be careful if you use XHTML".
  105. # [10:01] <karl> instead of the sentence "XML sucks"
  106. # [10:01] <karl> I think it will help to keep the tones friendly
  107. # [10:02] <karl> and to avoid endless recurring debates
  108. # [10:02] <anne> does it say XML sucks currently?
  109. # [10:03] <karl> well yes, I see how people can read that.
  110. # [10:03] <karl> and we had comments like this
  111. # [10:04] <anne> "Generally speaking, authors are discouraged from trying to use XML on the Web, because XML has much stricter syntax rules than the "HTML5" variant described above, and is relatively newer and therefore less mature."
  112. # [10:04] <anne> is what it says
  113. # [10:05] <karl> we should not discourgared anything
  114. # [10:06] <karl> and this will raise the hair of more than one persons "and is relatively newer and therefore less mature."
  115. # [10:06] <karl> anyway
  116. # [10:06] <karl> I have already said what I had to say
  117. # [10:06] <MikeSmith> Practically speaking, that statement will likely never survive LC comments.
  118. # [10:06] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.41.130)
  119. # [10:07] <Lachy> I agree with Karl. I think the decision to use XHTML or HTML should be up to the author, the spec should only give advise on technical issues
  120. # [10:07] <MikeSmith> Well put.
  121. # [10:08] <MikeSmith> Except that instead of just advice, I would say it should give objection descriptions of conformant UA behavior.
  122. # [10:09] <anne> fwiw, I don't care much about whether it stays in the spec, it's just that I agree with the sentence
  123. # [10:09] <Lachy> "objection descriptions"? Do you mean objective?
  124. # [10:09] <MikeSmith> Lachy - yeah. Freudian slip there :)
  125. # [10:09] <anne> what it says is pretty objective, both statements are factually correct
  126. # [10:10] <MikeSmith> anne - great. Keep it in there then. If it's objective, then nobody can take issue with it of course.
  127. # [10:10] <anne> why not?
  128. # [10:11] <anne> people take issue with most things
  129. # [10:11] <karl> indeed, you are doing right now ;) birthday party too long?
  130. # [10:11] <MikeSmith> anne - exactly
  131. # [10:12] <Lachy> the spec may be be technically objective as-is, but it's just not worth debating the issue with those who object. It's easier to just change the wording.
  132. # [10:12] <MikeSmith> So why give them more ammunition?
  133. # [10:12] <MikeSmith> amen
  134. # [10:12] <MikeSmith> We have much more important battles to fight here.
  135. # [10:13] <MikeSmith> Providing the peanut gallery with more stuff to chime in on is maybe not too prudent.
  136. # [10:16] <MikeSmith> Anyway, to point out something really positive that's happened recently, note that a rep from Access (makers of NetFront browser) has joined the group and been posting to the list.
  137. # [10:17] <MikeSmith> and to public-webapi@w3.org, I see
  138. # [10:18] <MikeSmith> The NetFront browser engine is used in embedded applications all over the place, so their participation will definitely help to provide a broader perspective on browsing use cases and requirements.
  139. # [10:18] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  140. # [10:20] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  141. # [10:26] * Joins: mlk (mlk@217.157.139.101)
  142. # [10:28] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Where dwelt Ymir, or wherein did he find sustenance?)
  143. # [10:29] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30)
  144. # [10:32] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  145. # [10:58] * Quits: mlk (mlk@217.157.139.101) (Quit: mlk)
  146. # [11:26] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  147. # [11:27] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  148. # [11:32] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  149. # [11:41] * Joins: takkaria (Andrew@82.12.140.149)
  150. # [11:42] <karl> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/mobile-ajax/
  151. # [11:42] <karl> W3C/OpenAjax Workshop on Mobile Ajax
  152. # [11:42] <karl> 28 September 2007 at the Microsoft campus in Mountain View, following AjaxWorld West 2007 in Santa Clara
  153. # [11:52] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Where dwelt Ymir, or wherein did he find sustenance?)
  154. # [12:33] * Quits: Lionheart (robin@66.57.69.65) (Ping timeout)
  155. # [12:48] * Quits: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Leaving)
  156. # [13:16] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.41.130) (Ping timeout)
  157. # [13:26] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@84.216.43.162)
  158. # [13:32] <anne> karl, you need to symlink w3.org/html/wg/html5/diff with http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/Overview.html directly I think
  159. # [13:34] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  160. # [13:38] * Joins: frippz (frippz@193.15.86.40)
  161. # [13:38] * Parts: frippz (frippz@193.15.86.40)
  162. # [13:39] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  163. # [14:23] <Philip`> http://blogs.msdn.com/dthorpe/archive/2006/12/18/namespaces-in-html-too-much-trouble-to-bother-with.aspx - "XHTML is slightly more forgiving than XML" - huh?!
  164. # [14:28] <anne> that's a common incorrect thought
  165. # [14:28] <anne> there is a category of people who believe XHTML is the intermediate solution until we can simply use XML
  166. # [14:30] <zcorpan> ROBOd: (or any reviewers really): it may be easier for the editors to find your reviews if you have "detailed review" in the subject line
  167. # [14:30] <Philip`> It wasn't just XHTML-sent-as-HTML - he said that in the context of using application/xhtml+xml instead of text/xml (after having been confused that namespaces don't work in text/html)
  168. # [14:30] <ROBOd> zcorpan: aha, thanks for the tip
  169. # [14:31] <ROBOd> zcorpan: the emails i sent contain several corrections to mistakes in the spec
  170. # [14:33] <zcorpan> ROBOd: yep. of editorial nature afaict
  171. # [14:34] <ROBOd> yes
  172. # [14:34] * zcorpan generally doesn't comment about editorial stuff at this stage
  173. # [14:35] <ROBOd> i believe the spec needs to evolve at any level, including the editorial correctness
  174. # [14:35] <ROBOd> as in... if i read a section of the spec, one with which i agree in general (from a technical POV), but then I see some typo... i just can't let it be :)
  175. # [14:36] <zcorpan> editorial fixes might become irrelevant if the entire section gets dropped or redesigned or something
  176. # [14:37] <zcorpan> i know, it's hard to mentally ignore non-normative and editorial stuff... :)
  177. # [14:37] <ROBOd> :)
  178. # [14:37] <Philip`> I would expect most sections won't get dropped or redesigned, though
  179. # [14:37] <zcorpan> indeed, but some might
  180. # [14:37] <anne> in general editorial comments are mostly commented on by several people so it's not worth bothering
  181. # [14:38] <Philip`> But some might not, so pointing out easy-to-fix editorial comments at this stage reduce the chance of them slipping through later :-)
  182. # [14:38] <Philip`> *reduces
  183. # [14:38] <anne> actually, most of the obvious flaws (such as the signed thingie mistake) are generally spotted by several people
  184. # [14:38] <ROBOd> anne: it's not like "bothering" ... just like Philip` says
  185. # [14:38] <anne> oh, I keep track of things I see, I just don't point them out right away mostly
  186. # [15:00] <ROBOd> is it semantically correct to use the <h1-6> headings in section elements independently?
  187. # [15:02] <hsivonen> ROBOd: it is semantically correct if running the outline algorithm on the tree yields a semantically sensible outline
  188. # [15:02] <ROBOd> as in: it's more than often that I working on an independent HTML document where I markup my code starting, obviously, from H1 rank. however, when i want to publish the article within, say, a blog, or another web site I currently update the rankings, based on the target web site, since the web site already has higher rank headings
  189. # [15:03] <ROBOd> *i am working
  190. # [15:04] <ROBOd> i was thinking that the <article> element would allow for reusing the entire HTML document, as is.
  191. # [15:05] <Philip`> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-sections.html#headings suggests one option is to use only <h1>
  192. # [15:08] <Philip`> It looks like the only issue with different-numbered <hN>s is that if you have <hM> after <hN> with M < N then it makes an implicit section, so it's better to write explicit sections in all those cases and then it doesn't matter what numbers you use
  193. # [15:10] <ROBOd> yes, true
  194. # [15:16] <anne> another issue is styling
  195. # [15:20] <ROBOd> I am reading the spec section on embedded content, specifically "The img element". http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-embedded.html#the-img
  196. # [15:21] <ROBOd> and there's a question "Should we require the dimensions to be correct? Should we disallow percentages?" which i'd like to answer. is it appropriate to send my opinions on the matter on the mailing list?
  197. # [15:22] <ROBOd> asking because there are already *tons* of emails and ... it's not a very "pleasant feeling" to contribute to the tons of emails :)
  198. # [15:22] <anne> you should send an e-mail if you feel you have something new to contribute, in general
  199. # [15:24] <anne> so "Yes, Yes", "No, Yes" etc. would be a sign that you're prolly better off not sending the e-mail
  200. # [15:26] <ROBOd> on this matter that can't be too much said, except that I believe the dimensions should not be required to be correct
  201. # [15:27] <ROBOd> percentages should be disallowed, because if you allow them, what's stopping anyone from wanting other units? like ems, mm, etc
  202. # [15:27] <hsivonen> ROBOd: that has already been said at least once on the WHATWG list. so to restate the conclusion, it would be good to give Hixie a new reason
  203. # [15:27] <ROBOd> (CSS units)
  204. # [15:28] <ROBOd> hsivonen: yes, i was thinking about that fact - someone definitely already provided some comments on the matter
  205. # [15:28] <anne> in general you need to provide use cases, arguments and research to solve an open issue; not an opinion
  206. # [15:29] <hsivonen> ROBOd: fwiw, my reason was that if device pixel != CSS pixel, you want image pixels and CSS pixels not to match
  207. # [15:29] <hsivonen> and for compat, width and height have to be CSS pixels
  208. # [15:30] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  209. # [15:30] <anne> fwiw, image pixels are CSS pixels too as far as HTML is concerned
  210. # [15:31] <ROBOd> i must go now ... laters.
  211. # [15:31] <hsivonen> anne: umm, no they aren't if you have width and height attributes
  212. # [15:31] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154) (Quit: bbl)
  213. # [15:32] <hsivonen> anne: 100 CSS px by 100 CSS pb box with 200 image px by 200 image px bitmap makes perfect sense when the output device pixel density along one a dimension is double the CSS pixels
  214. # [15:36] <anne> the point I was trying to make is that if 4 device pixels map to 1 CSS pixels that image (in your example) would still be scaled down
  215. # [15:36] <anne> s/1 CSS pixels/1 CSS pixel/
  216. # [15:37] <hsivonen> anne: depends on what you mean by "scaled" as far as image and device pixels are concerned, no scaling in that case
  217. # [15:38] <anne> if an image pixel maps to a CSS pixel it will be scaled down (and an image pixel does just that)
  218. # [15:38] <hsivonen> Hixie: discussion on the wysiwyg signature flared up again. if your intent in to revise that section substantially, it might save review time to have a big red note to that effect
  219. # [15:39] <hsivonen> anne: by "image pixel" I mean a bitmap sample, not img element unit
  220. # [15:39] * anne hopes his comment to the list helps
  221. # [15:39] <anne> hsivonen, me too
  222. # [15:40] <anne> (in effect, it would be scaled up first and then scaled down; although I suppose UAs may optimize on that)
  223. # [15:40] <hsivonen> anne: that would be crazy
  224. # [15:40] <hsivonen> anne: as it would defeat the whole point of having a high-density display
  225. # [15:41] <hsivonen> my point is that in that case, the reasonable thing to do is to paint 200 by 200 bitmap samples to 200 by 200 display pixels
  226. # [15:41] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  227. # [15:42] <hsivonen> *and* say height='100' width='100' on the tag
  228. # [15:43] <anne> yeah, I suppose
  229. # [15:46] <anne> Hmm, those new table pages don't really seem like much of an improvement
  230. # [15:46] <anne> Oh well, I shouldn't complain, I don't have time to improve them either
  231. # [15:47] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  232. # [15:54] * Joins: myakura (myakura@122.29.114.29)
  233. # [16:21] * Joins: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
  234. # [16:27] <DanC> hmm... where are we on the XHTML 2 WG's request not to use "XHTML 5"? have the editors given it a think?
  235. # [16:28] <anne> I think you would discuss it with some Team people
  236. # [16:28] <anne> or something
  237. # [16:29] <anne> the draft uses "XHTML5" fwiw
  238. # [16:29] <anne> (without the space)
  239. # [16:37] <hsivonen> DanC: Last time I noticed, Hixie was deliberately staying out of the naming debate. at the end of the day, for compat with shipped UAs, the XML serialization of HTML5 needs to keep the MIME type and the namespace URI. (which both contain the string "xhtml".)
  240. # [16:38] <DanC> well, he asked me what he should do about it some weeks ago, and I advised him to give it a think, though not at top priority
  241. # [16:38] <DanC> he can't stay completely out; at a minimum, the current text of the draft is a reflection of his position
  242. # [16:39] <hsivonen> DanC: has there been any word from XHTML2 stake holders whether they'd be OK with us calling the XML serialization XHTML 1.5?
  243. # [16:39] <DanC> I intend to write back to the XHTML 2 WG in the course of doing our 1st WD of the spec; something like "so far, we haven't be persuaded to change from XHTML 5, though we haven't finished deciding"
  244. # [16:40] <DanC> I haven't asked the XHTML 2 WG that question. the ball is in our court. I could do that.
  245. # [16:41] <anne> they didn't like your suggestion of them not having the sequence "HTML" in their name?
  246. # [16:42] <DanC> I haven't made that request formally.
  247. # [16:42] <DanC> I suspect they're aware of my suggestion and not convinced by the arguments I've given so far
  248. # [16:43] <anne> we could just call it XHTML in our draft and let the community come up with the XHTML5 abbreviation
  249. # [16:44] <anne> seems to be sort of adopted: http://www.google.com/search?q=xhtml5
  250. # [16:45] <hsivonen> anne: makes sense
  251. # [16:46] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154)
  252. # [16:49] <hsivonen> DanC: btw, re: XML versions: is it too politically incorrect to stick to XML 1.0 is a spec that is supposed to go under /TR/ one day?
  253. # [16:50] <anne> hmm, even SVG Mobile 1.2 normatively references both XML 1.0 and XML 1.1 (including their namespace counterparts)
  254. # [16:51] <hsivonen> it would be "interesting" if zcorpan researched XML 1.1 parser availability on mobiles :-)
  255. # [16:51] <zcorpan> research done
  256. # [16:52] <anne> so far we haven't found much XML parsers, right?
  257. # [16:52] <hsivonen> zcorpan: did you find any outside Opera for Mobile?
  258. # [16:52] <zcorpan> hsivonen: no
  259. # [16:52] <hsivonen> zcorpan: as expected ;-)
  260. # [16:52] <zcorpan> i didn't find any xml 1.1 parsers either for that matter
  261. # [16:52] <zcorpan> 1.0
  262. # [16:53] <hsivonen> s/is a spec/in a spec/
  263. # [16:54] <anne> It's funny how reality clashes with http://www.w3.org/2007/03/vision.html
  264. # [16:56] <DanC> if we cite XML 1.0 rather than XML 1.1, that would require coordination with the I18N WG, but I can imaging that coordination resulting in consensus.
  265. # [16:58] <hsivonen> DanC: XML 1.1 is not needed for HTML 5 as all the element and attribute names are just ASCII. so our tag names work internationally instead of being nationalized
  266. # [16:59] <DanC> that sounds like a coherent argument, but for all I know, the I18N WG knows more details.
  267. # [16:59] <DanC> ... and I'd be duty-bound to ask them.
  268. # [16:59] <hsivonen> (curiously, in the context of XML 1.1 i18n isn't about making vocabularies internationaly usable but about enabling nationalized custom vocabularies)
  269. # [17:00] <anne> I'd say that any type of XML is allowed but that web browsers must at least support XML 1.0
  270. # [17:01] <zcorpan> anne: as opposed to UAs?
  271. # [17:01] <anne> yeah, no need for html5lib to support XML
  272. # [17:02] <hsivonen> anne: html5lib isn't an UA, is it?
  273. # [17:02] <hsivonen> anne: more like a component you could use to build an UA
  274. # [17:02] <anne> hmm, ok
  275. # [17:02] <Philip`> hsivonen: About the namespaces-in-HTML thing: "Use XHTML5" doesn't sound like a good solution for FBML, since FBML is meant to be written by hand and XHTML is often considered less suitable than HTML for writing by hand
  276. # [17:02] * Zakim Philip`, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...'
  277. # [17:02] <anne> well, some imaginary UA that scrapes html docs
  278. # [17:03] <anne> Zakim, bye
  279. # [17:03] * Parts: Zakim (rrs-bridgg@128.30.52.30)
  280. # [17:04] <myakura> hmm http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-pressrelease.html.en
  281. # [17:04] <myakura> says "With the chartering of the XHTML 2 Working Group, W3C will continue its technical work on the language at the same time it considers rebranding the technology to clarify its independence and value in the marketplace."
  282. # [17:04] <hsivonen> Philip`: yeah, it suspect that's the premise, but I'd like to hear what Sam's thinking is before I start debating my own assumptions about his proposal
  283. # [17:05] <zcorpan> anne: "Implementations may support only one of these two formats, although supporting both is encouraged."
  284. # [17:09] <beowulf> hsivonen: do you really want to know which mobile browsers have xml 1.1 parsers?
  285. # [17:09] <hsivonen> beowulf: out of curiosity, that would be fun to know. but I don't want to know enough to make an effort
  286. # [17:10] <beowulf> i'll find out then
  287. # [17:11] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@81.132.175.22) (Ping timeout)
  288. # [17:11] <zcorpan> beowulf: or xml 1.0 parsers. my research suggests that only opera mini / opera mobile has an xml 1.0 parser (and also 1.1)
  289. # [17:12] <zcorpan> (xml 1.1 requires support for xml 1.0, and i didn't find any non-opera mobile browser with support for xml 1.0)
  290. # [17:13] <beowulf> if there's anything else related to mobile device stats that you would find useful let me know and I'll add them to the list
  291. # [17:13] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@81.132.175.22)
  292. # [17:14] <zcorpan> beowulf: what is your method for researching?
  293. # [17:16] <beowulf> zcorpan: there's the absolute stats of available devices, but they're useless to me really, we're trying to match up with some access logs to see what's actually used in the wild and then return the full stats for those devices
  294. # [17:17] <zcorpan> beowulf: ok
  295. # [17:29] * Joins: Lionheart (robin@66.57.69.65)
  296. # [17:33] * Quits: myakura (myakura@122.29.114.29) (Quit: Leaving...)
  297. # [17:41] * Quits: laplink (link@193.157.66.214) (Ping timeout)
  298. # [17:41] * Quits: xover (xover@193.157.66.5) (Ping timeout)
  299. # [17:43] * Joins: xover (xover@193.157.66.5)
  300. # [17:43] * Joins: laplink (link@193.157.66.214)
  301. # [17:48] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  302. # [17:53] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  303. # [17:53] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
  304. # [18:02] * Joins: Roger (roger@213.64.74.230)
  305. # [18:02] * Quits: xover (xover@193.157.66.5) (Ping timeout)
  306. # [18:02] * Quits: laplink (link@193.157.66.214) (Ping timeout)
  307. # [18:03] <anne> zcorpan, yeah, I know
  308. # [18:03] * Joins: xover (xover@193.157.66.5)
  309. # [18:03] * Joins: laplink (link@193.157.66.214)
  310. # [18:42] * Parts: takkaria (Andrew@82.12.140.149)
  311. # [18:53] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.105.80)
  312. # [18:59] * Joins: foca (foca@201.221.11.135)
  313. # [19:00] * Quits: foca (foca@201.221.11.135) (Quit: foca)
  314. # [19:05] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Ping timeout)
  315. # [19:06] * Quits: Roger (roger@213.64.74.230) (Quit: Roger)
  316. # [19:26] * Quits: jgraham (jgraham@81.86.217.254) (Quit: Ex-Chat)
  317. # [19:46] * Joins: briansuda (briansuda@85.220.86.120)
  318. # [19:56] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  319. # [20:01] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  320. # [20:05] * Parts: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
  321. # [20:13] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
  322. # [20:13] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.105.80) (Quit: mjs)
  323. # [20:17] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.105.80)
  324. # [20:25] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.105.80) (Quit: mjs)
  325. # [20:28] * Joins: kingryan (rking3@208.66.64.47)
  326. # [20:31] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.203.14.179)
  327. # [20:31] <Philip`> Is getElementById in XHTML not meant to match non-XHTML-namespace elements?
  328. # [20:32] <Philip`> (and is there any other easy way to find non-XHTML elements?)
  329. # [20:33] <zcorpan> any element with an id
  330. # [20:33] <zcorpan> including custom ones declared as IDs in the internal subset, for instance
  331. # [20:34] <Philip`> Hmm, with a made-up namespace it appears that Opera matches on xml:id but Firefox doesn't
  332. # [20:35] <Philip`> (and neither match <o:p id="foo">)
  333. # [20:37] <zcorpan> (in html?)
  334. # [20:37] <Philip`> (In XHTML)
  335. # [20:38] <Philip`> (with a <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:o="foo">)
  336. # [20:38] <zcorpan> ok. makes sense -- firefox doesn't support xml:id
  337. # [20:38] <zcorpan> and "id" attributes on unknown elements aren't of type ID
  338. # [20:38] <Philip`> (because it's not like anyone cares what the value of a namespace is)
  339. # [20:39] <zcorpan> or elements from unknown namespaces...
  340. # [20:40] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.203.14.179) (Quit: mjs)
  341. # [20:47] <zcorpan> ...but it has been suggested that any element named "id" (in the null namespace) is an ID
  342. # [20:47] <zcorpan> aka XML ID 5
  343. # [20:48] <zcorpan> s/element/attribute/
  344. # [20:49] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@81.132.175.22) (Quit: gsnedders)
  345. # [20:55] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@81.132.175.22)
  346. # [21:08] * Quits: Bob_le_Pointu (mallory@80.248.208.232) (Ping timeout)
  347. # [21:08] * Joins: Bob_le_Pointu (mallory@80.248.208.232)
  348. # [21:29] * Joins: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123)
  349. # [21:42] <anne> DanC, yeah, that bug
  350. # [21:46] <DanC> ok
  351. # [21:46] <anne> I suppose it's not worth responding on the list...
  352. # [21:46] <DanC> right
  353. # [21:47] <DanC> I could/should have said "thjis one, I suppose", once I saw your name in the comments
  354. # [21:47] <DanC> my initial search for xml:id gave lots of hits, so I wasn't sure at first
  355. # [21:48] <anne> as for reparenting: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#adoptionAgency
  356. # [21:49] <anne> although I'm not sure reading that algorithm will help you out directly
  357. # [21:49] <zcorpan> DanC: i think hsivonen's point was that conformance checkers don't have to deal with the issue because they can abort instead of reparenting
  358. # [21:50] <DanC> regardless, he was implicitly referring to the spec; I like to make such references explicit
  359. # [21:50] <DanC> and he was referring to a part of the spec that I'm pretty sure not a lot of people grok
  360. # [21:54] * Philip` can't think of what reparenting cases would cause problems for scope-based xmlns
  361. # [21:55] <Philip`> where I'm assuming "problem" means "an element that changes to a different namespace after it's already been in the DOM"
  362. # [21:56] <Philip`> which may be too limited a meaning
  363. # [21:56] <anne> <b xmlns=foo>x<p>x</b>x</p>x is sort of an issue
  364. # [21:57] <anne> but not really
  365. # [21:57] <anne> although maybe the problem is that the namespace of the <p> element
  366. # [21:59] <Philip`> I think the proposal was to not support default namespaces, so only <x:y> elements would be affected
  367. # [22:00] <anne> hmm, in that case there wouldn't be a problem as those elements are not affected
  368. # [22:00] <anne> in any case, I'm still not sure that a) we should be bothering with this now and b) what problems this solves
  369. # [22:01] <anne> DanC, I'd like to participate in the Forms TF
  370. # [22:02] <DanC> cool... I'd sign you up, but we need some fair way to reduce the list of 12 down to 3. Chris W took the ball on that, but I haven't seen much progress.
  371. # [22:02] <DanC> well, I guess having Chris W pick isn't any more fair than having me pick.
  372. # [22:03] * Quits: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221) (Ping timeout)
  373. # [22:03] <DanC> 15 rather.
  374. # [22:04] * DanC checked http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fhtml%2Fwg%2Fwhowhat.xsl&xmlfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F40318%2Ftasks83%2Fresults&content-type=&submit=transform
  375. # [22:04] <anne> there's a limit on participants?
  376. # [22:05] <DanC> yes; since the HTML WG has so many more participants than the forms wg, a limit of 3 each seemed reasonable
  377. # [22:05] <anne> interesting...
  378. # [22:06] * anne nominates Hixie and Maciej
  379. # [22:06] <DanC> if you can get 12 others to withdraw, then we'd be done
  380. # [22:06] <anne> oh and hsivonen, although he didn't sign up...
  381. # [22:06] <anne> heh
  382. # [22:09] * Joins: gavin (gavin@74.103.208.221)
  383. # [22:12] * anne -> home
  384. # [22:12] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.203.14.179)
  385. # [22:28] <Philip`> Ah, maybe http://blogs.msdn.com/dthorpe/archive/2006/11/07/why-more-websites-don-t-support-opera.aspx explains why some other posts there make it sound like IE and Firefox are the only browsers that matter
  386. # [22:31] <mjs> I wonder what their excuse for Safari is
  387. # [22:55] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@86.34.246.154) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  388. # [22:56] * Quits: edas (edaspet@88.191.34.123) (Ping timeout)
  389. # [22:59] * Joins: hyatt (hyatt@71.198.1.183)
  390. # [23:04] * Joins: mjs_ (mjs@17.255.105.80)
  391. # [23:06] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.203.14.179) (Ping timeout)
  392. # [23:42] * Quits: briansuda (briansuda@85.220.86.120) (Quit: briansuda)
  393. # [23:43] * Joins: hyatt_ (hyatt@71.198.1.183)
  394. # [23:44] * Quits: hyatt (hyatt@71.198.1.183) (Ping timeout)
  395. # [23:54] * Quits: hyatt_ (hyatt@71.198.1.183) (Ping timeout)
  396. # Session Close: Sat Aug 04 00:00:00 2007

The end :)