/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2007-12-04 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Tue Dec 04 00:00:00 2007
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:06] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@66.30.196.151)
  4. # [00:08] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.41.149) (Quit: Leaving)
  5. # [00:09] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.41.149)
  6. # [00:12] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  7. # [00:12] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  8. # [00:13] * Quits: tH (Rob@87.102.21.203) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.79-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.0.9/2006120508])
  9. # [00:26] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@66.30.196.151) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.79 [Firefox 3.0b2pre/2007120105])
  10. # [00:30] <Hixie> oh hey, all the votes are closed
  11. # [00:30] <Hixie> let's see
  12. # [00:31] <Hixie> wow, i'm glad we got such overwhelming support for not changing the charter
  13. # [00:31] <Hixie> guess that means the charter change proposal doesn't carry
  14. # [00:32] <Philip> Overwhelming support is seemingly not consensus
  15. # [00:33] <Hixie> indeed, but 2 votes in favour is even less consensus :-)
  16. # [00:34] <Philip> But one person with a valid point can refute the conclusions of everyone else who didn't notice that point
  17. # [00:39] <jgraham_> Or, apparently, one large enough company can override everyone else :(
  18. # [00:47] <DanC> the question about whether to change the charter was not a formal proposal; it was gathering advice. As chair, if I think the charter should be changed, I have to change it, no matter how unpopular that is.
  19. # [00:48] <DanC> the WG doesn't own its charter; the charter is an interface between the WG and the rest of W3C
  20. # [00:50] <jgraham_> DanC: So the fact that Chris thinks it should be changed holds considerable weight compared to other WG members as he is a chair?
  21. # [00:51] <DanC> yes, though note Chris wasn't acting as chair when he answered the survey; he was representing microsoft
  22. # [00:51] <DanC> it sure would be nice to have somebody besides Chris W. representing microsoft
  23. # [00:53] <jgraham_> Would that make much difference?
  24. # [00:53] <jgraham_> (to the way Microsoft vote / Chris chairs)?
  25. # [00:55] <DanC> maybe not. maybe I just wish life were simpler than it is
  26. # [00:56] <DanC> hmm... the subtitle idea is interesting. (474FF59D020000D800023314@ntgwgate.loc.gov )
  27. # [00:56] <jgraham_> Oh well I can agree to that :)
  28. # [00:57] <DanC> re "there is little (read: zero) point in discussing
  29. # [00:57] <DanC> exactly how an element should be processed until such
  30. # [00:57] <DanC> time as the group are agreed that such an element
  31. # [00:57] <DanC> should exist at all" I don't think things are quite that orthogonal.
  32. # [00:58] * DanC doesn't suppose that's worth mail to the whole group at this point
  33. # [00:58] * jgraham_ thinks the chance of the group unanimously agreeing to anything is slim to none
  34. # [01:00] <DanC> while I think it's challenging, I maintain hope; I'm not giving up on the goal of consensus
  35. # [01:00] <DanC> hmm... ISSUE-24 didn't we already have a codec issue? what's the new issue, I wonder...
  36. # [01:01] <Philip> Is that goal more likely to be achieved by people having their minds changed, or by them getting fed up and leaving until there aren't any objectors left?
  37. # [01:03] * DanC wanders off to family time...
  38. # [01:11] * Joins: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30)
  39. # [01:18] <mjs> DanC: why should I bother voting in surveys?
  40. # [01:18] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@129.2.175.70)
  41. # [01:18] <mjs> DanC: it seems like as long as there isn't 100% agreement, only Microsoft's vote counts
  42. # [01:24] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  43. # [01:28] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  44. # [01:28] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70)
  45. # [01:28] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  46. # [01:30] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  47. # [01:34] <Hixie> what mjs just said certainly seems to be the way things are going
  48. # [01:37] * Joins: aroben_ (aroben@17.255.110.9)
  49. # [01:38] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@130.129.80.94)
  50. # [01:38] * Joins: aroben__ (aroben@17.203.12.236)
  51. # [01:40] * Quits: aroben_ (aroben@17.255.110.9) (Ping timeout)
  52. # [01:52] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@130.129.80.94) (Ping timeout)
  53. # [01:56] <ChrisWilson> Sigh. Glad I left IRC on.
  54. # [01:57] <ChrisWilson> I find statements like "as long as there isn't 100% agreement, only Microsoft's vote counts" somewhat amusing, in light of the competing claims that Opera, Mozilla and Apple simply have their way with the WG.
  55. # [01:58] <mjs> hi ChrisWilson
  56. # [01:58] <ChrisWilson> hi Maciej
  57. # [01:58] <mjs> having our way with the WG seems to be backed by majority votes of participants
  58. # [01:59] <mjs> we also don't have a Chair publicly arguing that giving us special treatment is necessary and allegedly allowed by W3C Process
  59. # [01:59] <mjs> because "preferential treatment" for market share is not "unfair"
  60. # [02:00] <mjs> whereas it seems that both Chairs are not Microsoft represenatives, and majority vote of the chairs overrides majority vote of the group
  61. # [02:00] <mjs> *are now
  62. # [02:00] <ChrisWilson> To follow that line of reasoning - then why don't you just ignore Microsoft and the W3C, and continue (collectively) your work in the WHATWG?
  63. # [02:01] <mjs> ChrisWilson: that's exactly what I'm trying to figure out
  64. # [02:01] <ChrisWilson> (not sure what you mean about both chairs not Microsoft reps)
  65. # [02:01] <mjs> DanC seems to think it is his job to disproportionately favor Microsoft's point of view
  66. # [02:02] <Hixie> ChrisWilson: the reason we're in the w3c is that we were trying to get your feedback (microsoft's feedback)
  67. # [02:02] <ChrisWilson> I would presume, from the email you sent a few days ago (sorry, been out of the office again), that you care what happens with Microsoft and IE. Maybe not in a "so we'll do whatever they want" way (hah), but you recognize the effect on that many browser users.
  68. # [02:02] <Hixie> ChrisWilson: without getting your feedback (which we still haven't received), the other reasons to be here are looking less and less convincing
  69. # [02:03] <ChrisWilson> I should clearly delineate - for the purposes of this conversation, I am not the WG chair. For that matter, I'm not really representing Microsoft right now either.
  70. # [02:03] <Hixie> ChrisWilson: (the only major other reason was to get patent policy coverage, but we can't get that without publishing a FPWD)
  71. # [02:04] <mjs> ChrisWilson: I care, but not enough to give Microsoft veto power over group decisions (especially when, as Hixie says, we're not getting any actual technical feedback)
  72. # [02:04] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  73. # [02:04] <ChrisWilson> Hixie - though I'm sure you're being honest when you say "trying to get (microsoft's) feedback", I'd point out that from my point of view, you've disregarded any of the feedback I've given so far - e.g., on the whole versioning debate - and accused me of trying to be anti-competitive rather than recognizing just how different the world is from this point of view.
  74. # [02:05] <Hixie> ChrisWilson: actually the last time we debated versioning, you specifically said you didn't want to request anything.
  75. # [02:05] <Hixie> ChrisWilson: so it's not clear that i'm ignoring anything
  76. # [02:06] <ChrisWilson> By the end of that conversation, it was clear it was going nowhere, yes; you and others are dead set against having any HTML version in the identifier.
  77. # [02:07] <ChrisWilson> mjs - I would not expect Microsoft to have veto power over group decisions; I WOULD expect to be following the model of "like | dislike but can live with | can't live with", as the DOM group did in the past e.g.
  78. # [02:08] <mjs> If we did that, should we expect the same level of success in Microsoft implementing the spec as the DOM group saw?
  79. # [02:08] <ChrisWilson> I can't live with us abusing scope in our charter. I understand that possibly you, Hixie and others thought "HTML WG charter == whatever's in or going to be in the HTML5 spec"; I don't think that's very compatible with being able to work in an open way under a RF patent policy.
  80. # [02:08] <mjs> the charter has no relevance to the patent policy
  81. # [02:09] <mjs> the patent policy is based solely on what is in FPWD and LC
  82. # [02:09] <Hixie> (and even if it did, the charter clearly does include the things you're saying are out of scope)
  83. # [02:09] <ChrisWilson> mjs: up through IE6, discounting the apparent vacation taken by IE? yes, I would. We did, in fact, implement more of the DOM than anyone else in that time frame.
  84. # [02:10] <mjs> basic DOM1 things like getAttribute still don't work right
  85. # [02:10] <mjs> and it's not clear if they ever will
  86. # [02:10] <mjs> (or equally basic things like getElementById)
  87. # [02:11] <ChrisWilson> in reverse order: Hixie - yes, I mistakenly stated one thing that was in there once; I don't think the WebAPI group has failed, and I disagree quite strongly that 2D immediate-mode graphics API is just a widget. That seems like open season to add anything to the HTML5 spec, and for the HTML5 spec to be "the book of all things".
  88. # [02:11] <Hixie> i understand that you believe that
  89. # [02:11] <ChrisWilson> mjs: not sure why you would make that presumption. Unless you mean in the context of HTML4 doctype, not opted in to an IE.Next "follow the standards" mode?
  90. # [02:12] <mjs> ChrisWilson: nothing I stated is based on presumption
  91. # [02:12] <mjs> it may be that basic DOM things will work some day, in IE Quirks Mode 5 or whatever
  92. # [02:13] <ChrisWilson> Hixie: I see what you did there. :) Do you disagree that with the current set of things in it, that the HTML5 spec is, in fact, intending to be the "Web Application Platform end-to-end specification"?
  93. # [02:13] <mjs> but they clearly don't today
  94. # [02:13] <ChrisWilson> Why is XMLHTTPRequest not part of it?
  95. # [02:14] <mjs> and there's no statement from Microsoft that they ever will, and thus, it's unclear if they ever will
  96. # [02:14] <mjs> XMLHttpRequest is not part of it because the Web API WG successfully made progress on that spec
  97. # [02:14] <ChrisWilson> mjs: I'm not understanding. basic DOM1 things like getAttribute() have bugs and errors in our current IE7 implementation. They will get fixed in a future version; that fix will not take effect without some level of opt-in from the web developer.
  98. # [02:14] <mjs> whereas for other data and networking APIs, they have not even started
  99. # [02:14] <Hixie> ChrisWilson: i disagree that the html5 spec oversteps our charter, but i'm not interested in spending time discussing this again, i'm busy working on the spec.
  100. # [02:15] <ChrisWilson> Hixie: sorry to waste your time. You didn't need to step in to the discussion if you were busy.
  101. # [02:16] <ChrisWilson> mjs: but that's a goofy distinction. I understand having WGs work on charted areas; I don't understand the single kitchen sink WG, and other groups can do stuff as long as they make enough progress.
  102. # [02:16] <ChrisWilson> My wife is about to pick me up anyway, so I'll have to go.
  103. # [02:16] <Hixie> ChrisWilson: i was just trying to explain why we had joined the w3c in the first place, and why we were considering leaving.
  104. # [02:16] <mjs> anyway, regardless of the scope, I can't agree with a decision process that's "in 43-2 votes, the 2 side wins if it includes Microsoft"
  105. # [02:16] * Joins: sbuluf (rqonno@200.49.132.107)
  106. # [02:17] <Hixie> indeed
  107. # [02:17] <hober> I don't understand what "some level of opt-in from the web developer" has to do with HTML language versioning.
  108. # [02:18] <Zeros> Wasn't the original tack on solution that HTML5 should have no version and then HTML6 should add it back again? heh.
  109. # [02:19] <mjs> I think arguments were made both ways, regarding the scope issue, and the arguments for broad interpretation of the scope were ultimately more persuasive, as seen in the vote
  110. # [02:19] <ChrisWilson> Hixie: this has clearly been a learning process all around.
  111. # [02:19] <Hixie> certainly, but i didn't learn the subject i was expecting to learn
  112. # [02:20] <mjs> I was hoping to hear Microsoft
  113. # [02:20] <Hixie> (i was expecting to learn technical subjects. i learnt how to subvert an industry consortium.)
  114. # [02:20] <mjs> 's actual technical input on things like canvas
  115. # [02:20] <ChrisWilson> You didn't learn the subject I was expecting you to learn, either. :)
  116. # [02:20] <ChrisWilson> hmm.
  117. # [02:20] <mjs> since it's been suggested they might be unimplementable in IE
  118. # [02:20] <mjs> (which I found a surprising claim)
  119. # [02:21] <Hixie> i can tell you that google was especially surprised to hear that canvas couldn't be implemented in IE, since we implemented it in IE.
  120. # [02:21] <Hixie> (as a JS shim)
  121. # [02:21] <Philip> (with lots of bugs :-p )
  122. # [02:21] <mjs> but all I'm seeing is process games to try to take things like that off the table
  123. # [02:21] <ChrisWilson> who do you think has subverted this industry consortium? I'd like you to think about that from Dan's perspective, and from mine, before you just answer with the first thing that comes to mind.
  124. # [02:22] <Hixie> i have no intention of putting blame anywhere
  125. # [02:22] <ChrisWilson> mjs - I don't think I ever said the canvas api was unimplementable in IE? I might have said graphics experts might find it less than ideal, but certainly not unimplementable.
  126. # [02:22] <Hixie> since i think it's pretty clear
  127. # [02:22] <ChrisWilson> well, I expect you do. I don't think it's very clear at all.
  128. # [02:23] <ChrisWilson> Anyway. I have to run. talk to you all later.
  129. # [02:23] <ChrisWilson> afk
  130. # [02:24] <mjs> here's a ChrisWislon email quote on canvas: "I explicitly cannot comment on features that will go in to the next version of IE, as a matter of policy. I think Apple needs to agree that canvas should be pursued in the HTML WG, and then we can have the discussion as a WG. I'm not against canvas as a matter of policy or anything."
  131. # [02:24] <mjs> "I'm not sure graphics rendering falls in the category of "semantics of documents and applications" - it would seem more like presentation. I'm not making a strong point here, just saying that it's on the bubble at best. I do think the <canvas> pattern needs to be addressed under the W3C, so I'm not necessarily against it. Regardless, I would hope we can provide some bridge between us and the other presentation efforts in the W3C."
  132. # [02:30] <mjs> "Indeed, and I spent tons of time reverse-engineering Netscape behavior back in the day. And I expect I'll be traipsing my way through your <canvas> bugs at some point in the future (or something; that's illustrative, not normative)."
  133. # [02:32] <mjs> URLs for some of those: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0268.html
  134. # [02:32] <mjs> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0304.html
  135. # [02:33] <mjs> "<canvas>. You've specified an entire immediate-mode graphics api, more extensive in some ways than GDI, without describing the parameters or giving rendering rules to get interoperable pixel-perfect rendering."
  136. # [02:38] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  137. # [02:47] * Quits: aroben__ (aroben@17.203.12.236) (Ping timeout)
  138. # [02:47] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@129.2.175.70) (Quit: Leaving)
  139. # [03:31] * Quits: jmb (jmb@152.78.68.189) (Ping timeout)
  140. # [03:32] * Joins: jmb (jmb@152.78.68.189)
  141. # [03:34] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  142. # [03:45] * Quits: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156) (Connection reset by peer)
  143. # [04:47] * Joins: aroben_ (aroben@17.255.110.9)
  144. # [04:54] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  145. # [05:01] * Joins: aroben__ (aroben@17.203.12.236)
  146. # [05:03] * Quits: aroben_ (aroben@17.255.110.9) (Ping timeout)
  147. # [05:19] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245)
  148. # [05:29] <marcos> hhmmm... from the above and given that Microsoft is not going to provide any technical input; then, IMHO, seem like Microsoft should leave the working group and rejoin again when the document gets to last call or CR.
  149. # [05:32] <MikeSmith> marcos - one would hope it's not a given that Microsoft is not going to provide any technical input
  150. # [05:37] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@71.204.145.103)
  151. # [05:43] <marcos> well, if they balanced their blocking of issues with some good technical feedback, that would ok too :D (not that I can talk, as I have provided no feedback on the spec and I am not even part of this working group!... I just love hanging out here for the drama!)
  152. # [06:00] <MikeSmith> for true drama, we should take the work on standardizing HTML5 and getting implementation support for it
  153. # [06:01] * Quits: aroben__ (aroben@17.203.12.236) (Connection reset by peer)
  154. # [06:01] <MikeSmith> and combine it with the work on standardizing ECMAScript 4 and getting implementation support for it
  155. # [06:01] <Hixie> the work on standardizing HTML5 and getting implementation support for it is pretty far along
  156. # [06:01] <Hixie> the only real blocker seems to be getting a FPWD
  157. # [06:02] * mjs has, for extra drama points, been working on making sure that HTML5 and ES4 make sense taken together
  158. # [06:06] * Quits: sbuluf (rqonno@200.49.132.107) (Ping timeout)
  159. # [06:09] <MikeSmith> someone suggested to me that the story since last Spring has been pretty much a "Dog Bites Man" story
  160. # [06:09] <MikeSmith> but maybe publishing the Design Principles doc was a little bit of "Man Bites Dog" at least
  161. # [06:10] <Hixie> ?
  162. # [06:11] * Joins: aroben_ (adamroben@17.203.14.135)
  163. # [06:12] <MikeSmith> Hixie - nothing -- just a pointless analogy
  164. # [06:13] * Quits: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84) (Quit: bye)
  165. # [06:15] * Joins: sbuluf (yyx@200.49.132.85)
  166. # [06:24] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245) (Ping timeout)
  167. # [06:26] * Joins: hyatt (hyatt@72.165.115.225)
  168. # [06:28] <Hixie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-html-cg/2007OctDec/0174.html also makes me wonder what the point of voting is
  169. # [06:28] <hober> Member-only?
  170. # [06:32] * Quits: aroben_ (adamroben@17.203.14.135) (Connection reset by peer)
  171. # [06:32] * Joins: aroben_ (adamroben@17.203.14.135)
  172. # [06:44] * Quits: aroben_ (adamroben@17.203.14.135) (Quit: aroben_)
  173. # [06:46] <MikeSmith> hober - yeah, that's a member-only archive
  174. # [06:54] * Joins: heycam (cam@203.217.91.18)
  175. # [07:00] * Parts: hyatt (hyatt@72.165.115.225)
  176. # [07:06] * Quits: hober (ted@68.107.112.172) (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (devel) (IRC client for Emacs))
  177. # [07:15] * Joins: aroben_ (adamroben@67.160.250.192)
  178. # [07:18] * Quits: aroben_ (adamroben@67.160.250.192) (Quit: aroben_)
  179. # [07:21] * Joins: aroben_ (aroben@67.160.250.192)
  180. # [07:24] * Quits: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Connection reset by peer)
  181. # [07:24] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  182. # [07:29] * Quits: heycam (cam@203.217.91.18) (Ping timeout)
  183. # [07:30] * Joins: heycam (cam@203.217.91.18)
  184. # [07:36] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@71.204.145.103) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  185. # [07:41] * Quits: heycam (cam@203.217.91.18) (Quit: bye)
  186. # [08:19] <olivier> Hixie: the point of voting is to get an idea of what the opinions are? W3C's goal is not democratic majority rule, it's consensus building :)
  187. # [08:20] <Hixie> sure, but if you have a vote and 50 people say "no" and 2 people say "yes", deciding that that means going the "yes" route is clearly not building consensus
  188. # [08:21] <Hixie> it's building discontent, if anything
  189. # [08:21] <olivier> right
  190. # [08:21] <olivier> but I don't think any such decision has been made
  191. # [08:22] <olivier> what I see is a 47-10 disagreement, not consensus, and the will to keep exploring both leads
  192. # [08:22] <olivier> if Dan was to force the minority solution, yeah that would probably be an issue, I agree
  193. # [08:22] <Hixie> "The possibility of changing our charter was also not popular but Chris and I feel some obligation to pursue it regardless" -- 2 vs 34, the 2s have it
  194. # [08:22] <mjs> really? have the chairs shown any will to *not* open the rechartering process?
  195. # [08:22] <Hixie> -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-html-cg/2007OctDec/0174.html
  196. # [08:22] <mjs> or to even consider that?
  197. # [08:22] <mjs> or to come up with some compromise?
  198. # [08:23] <mjs> how is any of this consensus building?
  199. # [08:23] <olivier> I don't know enough context, but I read "feel obligation" not "feel like"
  200. # [08:24] <mjs> I've seen them ask Members who asked for charter changes what changes they want
  201. # [08:24] <olivier> not the smartest thing to put it to the vote if there are some process rules that oblige them, granted
  202. # [08:24] <mjs> I haven't seem them talk to Members who oppose charter changes to explain their reasoning
  203. # [08:24] <mjs> I don't believe any process rule obliges them to recharter
  204. # [08:24] <mjs> and I don't believe that is their claim
  205. # [08:25] <olivier> has Dan explained what makes him "feel obliged"?
  206. # [08:25] <olivier> or have you asked him to detail his rationale
  207. # [08:25] <mjs> yes
  208. # [08:25] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  209. # [08:25] <mjs> both on this channel and privately
  210. # [08:25] <mjs> I have asked him
  211. # [08:25] <mjs> all he said is that we need Microsoft's and IBM's support
  212. # [08:26] <Hixie> oliver: ok, more concretely: "Release "HTML 5" specification as a W3C Working Draft?" 43 yes vs 6 no, yet "Chris Wilson and I decided the question does not carry"
  213. # [08:26] <mjs> didn't explain how to do that without losing existing support
  214. # [08:26] <Hixie> olivier: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd11spec/results and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Nov/0097.html
  215. # [08:26] <olivier> that sounds regrettable
  216. # [08:26] <olivier> indeed
  217. # [08:26] <mjs> I've even made specific compromise proposals on publishing the spec and the charter issue
  218. # [08:27] <mjs> such as setting a future date for FPWD to give extra time for patent review
  219. # [08:29] * olivier really has too little knowledge of the context to comment much, but it does sound like an annoying situation
  220. # [08:29] <olivier> I think I understand Dan's wish to keep everyone aboard, but one can't please all at the same time :/
  221. # [08:29] <Hixie> well he's currently risking losing the most active participants
  222. # [08:30] <marcos> hear hear
  223. # [08:30] <olivier> yes, I see that. The most active are probably also the ones with more good will to make temporary compromises
  224. # [08:31] <Hixie> well we'll see. he said he'd give us a binding timetable for when we'd publish the current spec as a FPWD before thursday 20th
  225. # [08:31] <Hixie> so that's what i'm waiting for before making any decisions on what to do next.
  226. # [08:32] * olivier sighs... patents are always a tough pill to swallow
  227. # [08:33] <Hixie> hm?
  228. # [08:33] <mjs> I don't see that there is any patent issue here
  229. # [08:33] <olivier> the key issue is the patent review upon publication of a FPWD, isn't it?
  230. # [08:33] <mjs> other than the fact that patent review won't start until we publish FPWD
  231. # [08:34] <mjs> it's unclear to me how not having that patent review serves any purpose
  232. # [08:34] <olivier> I think the point is to make sure that everyone does that review
  233. # [08:35] <olivier> if a major actor stays out of the WG during that review, that would be a serious risk
  234. # [08:35] <olivier> but that's just my immediate understanding of the problem
  235. # [08:35] <mjs> a greater risk than not having the review?
  236. # [08:35] <olivier> or is there more I'm missing?
  237. # [08:35] <mjs> I really don't know
  238. # [08:35] <olivier> a greater risk than having the review later, or giving more time for it
  239. # [08:36] <mjs> I've proposed a defined amount of extra review time
  240. # [08:36] <olivier> not having the review would be terrible, IMHO
  241. # [08:36] <mjs> a Member can always leave temporarily and return on completion of their review
  242. # [08:36] <mjs> changing the charter has no effect on review
  243. # [08:36] <mjs> so it seems to be just a procedural delay tactic
  244. # [08:36] <Hixie> yeah that seems to me to be the most optimal way of doing it -- just have any members who need more than 3 months to do their patent review leave the group temporarily
  245. # [08:37] <Hixie> otherwise we just slow down all the other players
  246. # [08:39] <olivier> that'd be a solution, I guess.
  247. # [08:41] <mjs> I also proposed extra time before publishing to allow review of the actual FPWD without anyone having to leave, as long as the amount of time is predefined
  248. # [08:58] * Quits: marcos (chatzilla@131.181.148.226) (Quit: and I'm gone...)
  249. # [08:58] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.41.149) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  250. # [09:18] * Quits: inimino (chatzilla@75.71.88.233) (Client exited)
  251. # [09:33] * Joins: tH_ (Rob@87.102.21.203)
  252. # [09:33] * tH_ is now known as tH
  253. # [09:38] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70)
  254. # [09:44] * Parts: anne (annevk@213.236.208.22)
  255. # [09:46] * Quits: aroben_ (aroben@67.160.250.192) (Ping timeout)
  256. # [10:03] * Quits: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Leaving)
  257. # [10:12] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  258. # [10:24] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  259. # [10:31] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  260. # [10:52] <Philip> http://www.dis29500.org/co-221/ - "Define a set of patent-free, portable video codecs as base." - ooh, maybe HTML5 could use the same ones for <video>
  261. # [10:56] <Philip> ...but "Whenever other codecs are used, the document must be marked as "extended"" - is there anything to stop people accidentally making "extended" documents and losing interoperability?
  262. # [10:57] <hsivonen> http://www.dis29500.org/category/classification/wrecking-amendment/
  263. # [10:57] <hsivonen> http://www.dis29500.org/category/classification/fluff/
  264. # [10:57] <hsivonen> Who is Alan Bell and who does he work for?
  265. # [10:58] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70)
  266. # [10:58] <hsivonen> http://www.dis29500.org/category/classification/has-ecma-response/
  267. # [10:58] <hsivonen> 1 issue has-ecma-response so far
  268. # [11:12] <mjs> what does "wrecking amendment" mean?
  269. # [11:14] <hsivonen> mjs: I don't know, but my guess is that it means major changes
  270. # [11:15] <hsivonen> such as: splitting the spec, using MathML or using SVG
  271. # [11:38] <Philip> hsivonen: http://www.theopenlearningcentre.com/content/view/32/71/
  272. # [11:49] * Quits: sbuluf (yyx@200.49.132.85) (Quit: sbuluf)
  273. # [11:50] <hsivonen> like I said on #whatwg, I presented HTML5 to a group of interested people yesterday
  274. # [11:50] <hsivonen> I had a question/answer segment
  275. # [11:50] <hsivonen> most of the questions I got were about video formats, patent licensing and format pluggability
  276. # [11:51] <hsivonen> is there a test suite for dual Ogg/MP4 content for testing that the selection mechanism actually gets implemented properly?
  277. # [12:03] <hsivonen> cool. with Xiph and a WebKit nightly, Chris Double's video tests play
  278. # [12:07] <Philip> It's almost enough to make you think that standards might actually work
  279. # [12:09] <hsivonen> Philip: I'm genuinely impressed by the level of interop, yes
  280. # [12:10] <hsivonen> howcome's demos play, too
  281. # [12:16] <Philip> Are those the original Opera <video> demos? I guess they count as legacy content now, so it could be considered good that HTML5 <video> maintains backward compatibility with them :-)
  282. # [12:18] <hsivonen> Philip: I don't know if the demos have been edited
  283. # [12:19] <Philip> Hmm, writing capital MUSTs in RFC-like documents feels really strange - is it actually necessary?
  284. # [12:22] <hsivonen> wow, even http://people.opera.com/howcome/2007/video/opacity.html works in WebKit
  285. # [12:22] <hsivonen> that's seriously cool interop
  286. # [12:23] * Quits: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Connection reset by peer)
  287. # [12:24] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  288. # [12:58] <mjs> hsivonen: perhaps we should use the classification of "Wrecking Amendment" for proposals in the context of the HTML5 Working GRoup
  289. # [12:58] <mjs> hsivonen: we tested our implementation against Opera's and Mozilla's demos with the Xiph quicktime codec, so not totally a coincidence
  290. # [13:01] <hsivonen> mjs: I appreciate the testing
  291. # [13:01] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42)
  292. # [13:02] <mjs> hsivonen: I'm not sure if anyone has made dual-codec content yet, but if so we'll attempt to demo at the video workshop
  293. # [13:22] <Lachy> http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/12/html5preview.html
  294. # [13:32] <mjs> aroben: nice article
  295. # [13:32] <mjs> hsivonen: funny because someone was questioning the interop to me earlier today
  296. # [13:39] * Quits: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Quit: timbl)
  297. # [14:03] * Joins: hasather (hasather@90.231.107.133)
  298. # [14:09] * Quits: matt (matt@128.30.52.30) (Quit: matt)
  299. # [14:11] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42) (Connection reset by peer)
  300. # [14:25] * Joins: myakura (myakura@122.29.41.32)
  301. # [14:26] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42)
  302. # [14:27] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42) (Quit: Leaving)
  303. # [14:29] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42)
  304. # [14:29] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42) (Client exited)
  305. # [14:29] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42)
  306. # [14:34] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  307. # [14:35] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42)
  308. # [14:36] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42) (Connection reset by peer)
  309. # [14:44] * Joins: smedero (smedero@158.130.16.191)
  310. # [14:58] * Joins: timbl (timbl@128.30.6.53)
  311. # [15:05] * Parts: timbl (timbl@128.30.6.53)
  312. # [15:19] * Joins: matt (matt@128.30.52.30)
  313. # [15:25] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42)
  314. # [15:26] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42) (Quit: Leaving)
  315. # [15:26] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42)
  316. # [15:29] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@66.30.196.151)
  317. # [15:38] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42) (Quit: Leaving)
  318. # [15:45] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  319. # [15:56] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  320. # [16:10] <hsivonen> test cases: http://hsivonen.iki.fi/test/moz/video-selection/
  321. # [16:11] <hsivonen> mjs: it looks like WebKit's selection mechanism is broken when the codecs parameter is present
  322. # [16:24] * Quits: matt (matt@128.30.52.30) (Quit: matt)
  323. # [16:24] * Joins: matt (matt@128.30.52.30)
  324. # [16:39] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42)
  325. # [16:49] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  326. # [16:50] * Quits: myakura (myakura@122.29.41.32) (Ping timeout)
  327. # [16:52] * Joins: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
  328. # [16:53] * Quits: tH (Rob@87.102.21.203) (Ping timeout)
  329. # [17:00] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42)
  330. # [17:00] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42) (Connection reset by peer)
  331. # [17:01] * Quits: smedero (smedero@158.130.16.191) (Ping timeout)
  332. # [17:01] * Joins: aroben_ (aroben@67.160.250.192)
  333. # [17:01] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.145.188.131)
  334. # [17:02] * Joins: smedero (smedero@158.130.16.191)
  335. # [17:02] * Quits: smedero (smedero@158.130.16.191) (Quit: smedero)
  336. # [17:04] * Quits: hasather (hasather@90.231.107.133) (Quit: leaving)
  337. # [17:04] * Joins: hasather (hasather@90.231.107.133)
  338. # [17:14] * Joins: myakura (myakura@122.29.41.32)
  339. # [17:27] * Joins: timbl (timbl@128.30.55.178)
  340. # [17:32] <mjs> hsivonen: broken in what way?
  341. # [17:34] * Parts: timbl (timbl@128.30.55.178)
  342. # [17:38] * Joins: hober (ted@68.107.112.172)
  343. # [17:45] * Quits: myakura (myakura@122.29.41.32) (Quit: Leaving...)
  344. # [17:49] * Joins: laplink (link@85.19.196.186)
  345. # [17:56] * Quits: hober (ted@68.107.112.172) (Client exited)
  346. # [17:56] * Joins: hober (ted@68.107.112.172)
  347. # [18:00] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@71.204.145.103)
  348. # [18:02] * Quits: aroben_ (aroben@67.160.250.192) (Ping timeout)
  349. # [18:23] * Quits: hober (ted@68.107.112.172) (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (devel) (IRC client for Emacs))
  350. # [18:24] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
  351. # [18:35] * Quits: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.72) (Ping timeout)
  352. # [18:41] * Joins: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.101)
  353. # [18:56] * Joins: aroben_ (aroben@17.203.12.236)
  354. # [18:57] * Quits: aroben_ (aroben@17.203.12.236) (Connection reset by peer)
  355. # [18:58] <aroben> mjs: thanks
  356. # [18:59] <mjs> aroben: for what?
  357. # [19:01] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@71.204.145.103) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  358. # [19:02] <aroben> mjs: 04:28 <mjs> aroben: nice article
  359. # [19:02] <aroben> mjs: I believe you meant s/aroben/Lachy/
  360. # [19:04] <mjs> aroben: I meant to say your post was nice too, but perhaps not on the same channel
  361. # [19:04] <mjs> not sure why I would have confused the two :-)
  362. # [19:04] <aroben> mjs: heh
  363. # [19:13] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@99.227.30.12) (Ping timeout)
  364. # [19:15] * Quits: laplink (link@85.19.196.186) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  365. # [19:16] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@99.227.30.12)
  366. # [19:16] * Joins: smedero (smedero@158.130.16.191)
  367. # [19:43] * Joins: hyatt (hyatt@17.255.110.53)
  368. # [19:51] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
  369. # [19:54] * Quits: hyatt (hyatt@17.255.110.53) (Client exited)
  370. # [19:54] * Joins: hyatt (hyatt@17.255.110.53)
  371. # [20:08] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@130.129.20.163)
  372. # [20:20] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241)
  373. # [20:28] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  374. # [20:31] * Joins: heycam (cam@203.217.91.18)
  375. # [20:32] * Joins: timbl_ (timbl@128.30.6.53)
  376. # [20:36] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  377. # [20:42] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241)
  378. # [20:48] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70)
  379. # [20:49] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@66.30.196.151) (Connection reset by peer)
  380. # [20:51] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.98.46)
  381. # [20:53] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42)
  382. # [20:59] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  383. # [21:00] * Quits: hyatt (hyatt@17.255.110.53) (Quit: hyatt)
  384. # [21:02] * Quits: smedero (smedero@158.130.16.191) (Quit: smedero)
  385. # [21:06] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@66.30.196.151)
  386. # [21:09] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  387. # [21:24] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70)
  388. # [21:50] * Joins: hober (ted@68.107.112.172)
  389. # [21:53] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  390. # [22:02] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  391. # [22:03] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70)
  392. # [22:03] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@130.129.20.163) (Ping timeout)
  393. # [22:19] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  394. # [22:37] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70)
  395. # [22:39] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.98.46) (Quit: mjs)
  396. # [22:42] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@99.227.30.12) (Ping timeout)
  397. # [22:42] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@99.227.30.12)
  398. # [22:43] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42)
  399. # [22:43] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@212.17.132.42) (Quit: Leaving)
  400. # [22:44] * Quits: matt (matt@128.30.52.30) (Quit: matt)
  401. # [22:50] * Joins: inimino (chatzilla@75.71.88.233)
  402. # [22:53] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  403. # [22:55] * Joins: jgraham_ (james@81.86.218.70)
  404. # [22:59] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  405. # [23:01] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.145.188.131) (Quit: gsnedders)
  406. # [23:09] * DanC just made some progress re http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/28 ... nothing earth-shattering, but the negotiation continues
  407. # [23:31] * Joins: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30)
  408. # [23:33] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@130.129.20.163)
  409. # [23:57] * Joins: laplink (link@85.19.196.186)
  410. # [23:59] * Quits: hasather (hasather@90.231.107.133) (Quit: leaving)
  411. # Session Close: Wed Dec 05 00:00:00 2007

The end :)