/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2007-12-20 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Thu Dec 20 00:00:00 2007
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:00] <DanC> I think it's straightforward to get explicit buy-in from lots of people who didn't answer last time
  4. # [00:00] * ChrisWilson makes confused-Scooby-Doo noise
  5. # [00:00] <Hixie> DanC: several people have said that their previous objections on canvas shouldn't stop publication, e.g.
  6. # [00:01] <anne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0208.html
  7. # [00:01] <anne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0209.html
  8. # [00:01] <Hixie> (people who otherwise hadn't voted on the spec itself)
  9. # [00:01] <anne> I thought there already was an ok?
  10. # [00:01] <DanC> yes, but that doesn't make it straightforward to re-animate a dead question.
  11. # [00:02] <DanC> there have been various oks; not the kind that I think are most straightforward.
  12. # [00:03] <Hixie> well, in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Nov/0097.html you said the question didn't carry because we didn't have a critical mass of support from those who didn't vote, but several of those have now said they're ok with publication...
  13. # [00:03] <mjs> is anyone actually not ok with publishing?
  14. # [00:03] <Hixie> yeah, that's the real question
  15. # [00:03] <DanC> we don't know, mjs. that's what's not straightforward
  16. # [00:03] <DanC> the straightforward way to find it out is to put the question
  17. # [00:03] * ChrisWilson presumes you mean other than Microsoft.
  18. # [00:04] <Hixie> oh, Microsoft still objects?
  19. # [00:04] <mjs> ChrisWilson: well, I'm not even sure if Microsoft's objection still stands
  20. # [00:04] <mjs> or, more particularly, if ASAP vs. Feb 26 would make a difference
  21. # [00:04] <ChrisWilson> ?
  22. # [00:04] <mjs> I don't know of other objections that haven't been clearly withdrawn
  23. # [00:04] <mjs> ChrisWilson: the Director gave us a deadline of February 26, 2008
  24. # [00:05] <hsivonen> DanC: do we really need to solicit for objections instead of going ahead with publishing considering that various participants cannot be unaware about the situation?
  25. # [00:05] <mjs> does waiting right up until that deadline ameliorate the reasons for Microsoft's objection?
  26. # [00:05] <DanC> I think it's cost-effective, though I can't say that we absolutely need to, hsivonen
  27. # [00:05] <ChrisWilson> I wasn't offering Microsoft's objection as the blocking, deciding factor; I was just reiterating our objection to the scope of the spec not matching the scope of the charter.
  28. # [00:06] <Hixie> DanC: i don't think anyone would blame you for deciding that people have had ample time to say they object if they object
  29. # [00:06] <mjs> I guess what I'm really asking is, does Microsoft care if we publish now, or on February 26
  30. # [00:06] <hsivonen> DanC: it might not be cost-effective if it just leads to more stalling by people who've had their chance to object
  31. # [00:06] <mjs> if both options are equally bad for Microsoft, we may as well publish now
  32. # [00:06] <ChrisWilson> I would of course prefer not to start the patent clock right before the holidays, but that's the chair's decision, and for the purposes of this decision I think I've been clear I'm not chairing.
  33. # [00:07] <ChrisWilson> heheh
  34. # [00:07] <Hixie> DanC: after all, we've already put the question up several times, and gotten support each time, and each time the nay-sayers have (other than microsoft) said that they "nay" shouldn't block publication, as far as i can tell
  35. # [00:07] * Joins: smedero (smedero@207.245.69.186)
  36. # [00:07] <Hixie> (with the exception of some "nays" that weren't technical issues, or which have now been resolved)
  37. # [00:07] <Hixie> (e.g. nokia's request)
  38. # [00:07] <DanC> we haven't gotten as much support as I'd like, Hixie . I grow weary of pointing that out
  39. # [00:07] <Hixie> we haven't?
  40. # [00:07] <Hixie> how much support do we need?
  41. # [00:08] <Lachy> who do we need support from that we don't?
  42. # [00:08] <Hixie> i thought you said we were in a good position to publish...
  43. # [00:08] <mjs> publishing after the holidays to allow the full patent clock seems reasonable
  44. # [00:08] * Hixie is very confused as to what the situation is
  45. # [00:08] * anne too
  46. # [00:09] <DanC> I said I *think* we're in a good position to publish. Again, the straightforward way to find out is to put the question. and it might be nice to have "yes" answers from, say, at least 1/3rd of the participating W3C member orgs
  47. # [00:10] <kingryan> DanC: how many member orgs are there in the WG?
  48. # [00:11] <hsivonen> is there a reason to expect previous non-responder Member orgs to respond this time?
  49. # [00:11] <DanC> details on "not as much support as I'd like": http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0427.html
  50. # [00:11] <DanC> yes, hsivonen . I called several of them on the phone, talked to them at the ftf, etc.
  51. # [00:11] <Lachy> 27 orgs in the HTMLWG
  52. # [00:11] <hsivonen> ok
  53. # [00:12] <Lachy> kingryan, it states that in the list of participants http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318&public=1
  54. # [00:13] <Hixie> we have support from 10
  55. # [00:13] <Hixie> so that would be more than a third
  56. # [00:13] * Joins: sbuluf (visu@200.49.132.119)
  57. # [00:13] <Hixie> does that mean we can publish?
  58. # [00:13] <DanC> it means that a proposal to publish is likely to carry
  59. # [00:13] <kingryan> hsivonen: my point, too– I wonder if there aren't some orgs who aren't going to respond still
  60. # [00:13] <anne> also, several on that list from DanC have since said they agreed to publish, e.g. Nokia
  61. # [00:13] <Lachy> so when can we put forth the proposal to publish?
  62. # [00:14] <Hixie> DanC: i don't understand why you aren't willing to say that we have a decision to publish. we've already met all the requirements you've suggested.
  63. # [00:14] <Hixie> we had a vote with overwhelming support, we have more than a third of member organisations in favour of publishing
  64. # [00:15] <Hixie> and we have director's approval with an encouragment to publisher asap
  65. # [00:15] <Hixie> publish, even
  66. # [00:16] <DanC> the decision process is that a question is put, we collect responses for 7 days, and then the chairs announce the results of the question. we have not, to date, done that with a "yes" answer for publishing the HTML 5 spec. we announced that the question failed the previous 2 times.
  67. # [00:17] <Hixie> right, but we then got more information that addressed the _reasons_ why you said it wasn't a "yes" the last time
  68. # [00:17] <Hixie> so there's no reason not to say that the question now counts as a "yes" that i can see
  69. # [00:17] <DanC> Chris and I could collect the various bits of information since we announced that the question failed and announce that the question carried after all, but that would be highly irregular. I think it's much more straightforward to put a new question. And it's not straightforward to do that over the holiday break.
  70. # [00:17] * hsivonen notes that Sam Ruby of IBM amended his No to Asbstain on the scope issue
  71. # [00:17] <Lachy> why do we need another questionaire when we already had one, and have since addressed the concerns of many no-voters?
  72. # [00:17] <Hixie> it wouldn't be any more irregular than missing our charter schedule by six months...
  73. # [00:18] <Hixie> especially when we explicitly have director approval to get on with it
  74. # [00:18] <DanC> we have renegotiated the schedule from the charter
  75. # [00:18] <smedero> I'm guessing opening up a survey now, over a rather international holiday period, isn't ideal? if so when it is reasonable to expect a new question could be put forth to the working group?
  76. # [00:19] <smedero> (sorry if that was answered before I popped in here...)
  77. # [00:19] <Hixie> DanC: right, so why not renegotiate the vote? after all, the vote was overwhelmingly "yes", it's not like we'd be going against the majority's wishes
  78. # [00:19] <DanC> "I lean more toward early January than late, but we'll see. " for the nth. time. (quoting from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0226.html this time)
  79. # [00:19] <smedero> ahh, damn... sorry.
  80. # [00:20] <smedero> ahh, that email hadn't been downloaded by gmail yet.
  81. # [00:20] <DanC> the straightforward way to "renegotiate" the vote is to do it again.
  82. # [00:21] <Hixie> to put it bluntly, i have no faith in our voting in this working group. my experience is that whether the vote carries or not has no bearing on what the results are.
  83. # [00:21] <smedero> indeed, it seems kinda sketchy to just rewrite a decision...
  84. # [00:21] <Hixie> so that somewhat sours my interest in another vote.
  85. # [00:21] <DanC> very well. tend to other things then.
  86. # [00:22] <Hixie> i'm trying to tend to publication...
  87. # [00:22] <DanC> well, then I recommend you get interested in an early january survey question.
  88. # [00:22] <Hixie> i really see no reason why we couldn't publish today, other than a perceived process issue
  89. # [00:23] <DanC> yes, you're rather selective about what you're willing to see
  90. # [00:23] <Hixie> you have the power to allow us to publish today, and you have the support of the working group and the director.
  91. # [00:24] <Hixie> even your own criteria for what we need to publish have been met
  92. # [00:24] <DanC> I and my co-chair perhaps have the power, but as I say, to use it that way would be highly irregular.
  93. # [00:24] <Hixie> no more irregular than saying that the vote didn't carry in the first place
  94. # [00:24] <Lachy> what is irregular about excercising your power to do your job?
  95. # [00:25] * ChrisWilson wonders if he missed a mail from the Director? Been heads down for a few days...
  96. # [00:26] <smedero> Well, it is not the chairs' job to rewrite history. I mean that's what publish now without a vote would be asking them to do. (because the vote on record is a "no")
  97. # [00:26] <smedero> (don't get me wrong, I'd rather publish this thing now too....)
  98. # [00:26] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  99. # [00:26] <Lachy> smedero, the vote on record has overwhelming yes. There were just a few who said no, but who's concerns have been addressed
  100. # [00:27] <Hixie> smedero: we actually don't need a vote to publish. w3c process just requires the chair to record a decision, which we could do right here.
  101. # [00:27] <smedero> (the response to ALA article shows that publishing now would be reflect positively on our work)
  102. # [00:27] <DanC> w3c process requires the chair to record a *working group* decision.
  103. # [00:27] <DanC> I like to have lots of evidence of support for working group decisions.
  104. # [00:28] <Hixie> we have lots of evidence of support for publishing
  105. # [00:29] <anne> I'm still confused. Even though you said "think" the only reason you could think of not to publish was the lack of a team contact. Michael then did the thing from the airport. And now you're suggesting nothing of that should've happened...
  106. # [00:29] <DanC> mjs, what do you think about the cost-effectiveness of a new survey vs sorta tweaking history?
  107. # [00:29] <smedero> So then, is there anywhere working group support could be documented appropriately in the eyes of the chairs? (For instance, clearly documenting "yes" statements from previous "no" and "abstain" voters?)
  108. # [00:30] <DanC> smedero, for the nth time: the straightforward thing is to have a telcon in early jan, put a question there, have lots of people answer in the following week, and publish after that.
  109. # [00:30] <smedero> clear.
  110. # [00:30] <Hixie> (huh. interestingly, "The Process Document does not require a quorum for decisions (i.e., the minimal number of eligible participants required to be present before the Chair can call a question).")
  111. # [00:30] * Quits: heycam (cam@203.217.74.244) (Ping timeout)
  112. # [00:31] <Hixie> (not that i'm suggesting using that here, we don't have to)
  113. # [00:31] <DanC> it doesn't require, but it does encourage
  114. # [00:31] <smedero> (apologies for re-raising stupid questions... just trying to understand the W3C process...)
  115. # [00:31] <Lachy> I honestly don't see the need for a new survey. We'll just waste 2 or 3 weeks waiting for people to get back from holidays before running it, only to have people answer mostly the same way they did before, except that the no-voters who had their concerns addressed should answer yes
  116. # [00:31] <hsivonen> fewer people participate in telecons than on IRC now. I don't see why a telecon is needed.
  117. # [00:31] * ChrisWilson decides he's doomed to wonder (if he missed a mail from the Director) and wanders off...
  118. # [00:31] <mjs> DanC: I think the old survey stands if the objections (either in it or afterwards) have been reasonably addressed
  119. # [00:32] <DanC> hmm
  120. # [00:32] <anne> ChrisWilson, I think DanC had a private conversation (as far as I can tell)
  121. # [00:32] <Hixie> (DanC: yeah, i was just looking up what "group decision" meant, and was surprised to find it didn't really affect my earlier point)
  122. # [00:33] <anne> ChrisWilson, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0203.html
  123. # [00:34] <DanC> Mike Smith is on holiday and the webmaster has some sort of moratorium. As Terje points out in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0210.html , W3C has a lot of experience that argues strongly against rushing things over the holiday break
  124. # [00:35] <DanC> hsivonen, I never said a telecon is needed. I said a telecon is straightforward
  125. # [00:35] <hsivonen> DanC: ok
  126. # [00:36] <Hixie> moratorium ends today, we still have a few hours. Mike Smith said he'd be happy to do it from vacation. And 6 months delay is hardly rushing. :-)
  127. # [00:36] <Hixie> (moratorium for request ends today, publication ends friday)
  128. # [00:36] <DanC> yes, but I don't think Mike had much sleep when he sent that.
  129. # [00:37] * Joins: heycam (cam@124.168.10.57)
  130. # [00:37] <DanC> I'm not happy for Mike to work during his vacation. that leads to burn-out.
  131. # [00:37] <Hixie> i am 100% confident that mike would actually be eager to help here.
  132. # [00:38] <Hixie> (and i'm already on the publication loop, so i can take care of any actual editing work that he would otherwise have to do)
  133. # [00:39] <mjs> how long does the moratorium last?
  134. # [00:39] <Hixie> 2nd of jan is when publication requests can resume
  135. # [00:40] <hsivonen> hmm. we passed the 10-year anniversary of HTML 4.0 two days ago
  136. # [00:41] <anne> oops, totally missed that
  137. # [00:41] * hsivonen sees that HTML 4.01 was published on Christmas eve
  138. # [00:41] <Hixie> so we even have two strong precedents for publishing at the end of the year? sweet :-)
  139. # [00:42] <kingryan> how cool would it be to publish the html 5 draft on 2007-12-24 ?
  140. # [00:42] <kingryan> not that I'm volunteering to help :)
  141. # [00:42] <xover> What do we gain from publishing on Friday? What do we lose by waiting until January?
  142. # [00:44] <mjs> I don't mind publishing in January if we can clearly decide to do so now, rather than just tabling until January and having a new round of objections then
  143. # [00:45] <Hixie> if we can get a binding decision to publish (not a decision to make another decision) then i'm ok with waiting too
  144. # [00:45] <xover> You'd rather publish now to sidestep the objections that would otherwise have materialised?
  145. # [00:45] <Lachy> DanC, can you give us a publication date?
  146. # [00:46] <Hixie> Lachy: you don't get to pick a publication date, you get to pick whether to publish -- the publication date is set by how long the publication loop takes
  147. # [00:46] <Hixie> Lachy: which basically only depends on the staff contact, the editor, and the pubteam
  148. # [00:47] <anne> mostly the last one
  149. # [00:47] <Hixie> eh, that depends :-)
  150. # [00:47] <DanC> I did, Lachy . 2008-02-26. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0203.html
  151. # [00:47] <DanC> I think we can do better than that. I'd like to take a holiday break first, though.
  152. # [00:48] <mjs> xover: I'd rather not drag the process out indefinitely
  153. # [00:49] <mjs> xover: there has been more than adequate opportunity to object by now, in my opinion
  154. # [00:49] <Lachy> DanC, when will you get back from your holidays?
  155. # [00:49] <DanC> <= 10 Jan
  156. # [00:50] * ChrisWilson waves bye
  157. # [00:50] <Lachy> what's the earliest date at which you can begin the publication process?
  158. # [00:51] <DanC> I'd like to take a holiday break before figuring out those details.
  159. # [00:51] <DanC> I suppose we could talk about it tomorrow on a telcon...
  160. # [00:51] * Quits: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.72) (Quit: ChrisWilson)
  161. # [00:51] <Hixie> you said at one point that i was optimistic to think we could publish it this year, but that you wished me luck
  162. # [00:51] <DanC> the time is a little inconvenient for me, so I was trying to cancel instead.
  163. # [00:51] <Hixie> but now you're the only thing in the way of us publishing this year
  164. # [00:52] <DanC> no, I'm not, hixie.
  165. # [00:52] <Hixie> i don't see anyone or anything else in the way, dan
  166. # [00:52] <DanC> you just refuse to acknowledge all the other factors, regardless of how often I point them out.
  167. # [00:52] <Lachy> the only other factor you have pointed out is your holiday break
  168. # [00:53] <Hixie> all the factors you've mentioned are factors that you decided to put in the way -- mike said he'd be ok with doing it, eager even; the process supports you; tim supports you; we have evidence; we have your own targets met.
  169. # [00:53] <Hixie> literally all we need is for you to record a group decision
  170. # [00:53] <Hixie> which you could do just by sending an e-mail
  171. # [00:53] <DanC> nope
  172. # [00:53] <Hixie> you have that power
  173. # [00:53] <DanC> that's just not the true
  174. # [00:54] <Hixie> what obstacle did i miss?
  175. # [00:54] <DanC> I invite you to re-read the mail I sent this week and what I said above in IRC. I'm off to family time.
  176. # [00:54] <Hixie> well, you told me to raise hell if you didn't give a binding timetable with a binding set of conditions under which we'd publish
  177. # [00:54] <Hixie> so
  178. # [00:54] <Hixie> i guess i'll raise hell
  179. # [00:55] <mjs> we do have a deadline
  180. # [00:55] <mjs> (Feb 26)
  181. # [00:55] <Hixie> we have a deadline and no reason not to publish sooner
  182. # [00:55] <mjs> but the obstacles to beating it seem kind of unclear to me
  183. # [00:55] <Hixie> yet dan refuses to let us publish
  184. # [00:55] <Lachy> DanC, you gave us a deadline for the latest we could publish. That's not a timetable for publication or a set of requirements.
  185. # [00:58] <dedridge> Hixie: If it's so important to have the spec published now. Why don't you listen to the feed back you get and add peoples ideas to the spec? Not just the ideas that you like yourself.
  186. # [00:59] <anne> euh, troll?
  187. # [01:00] <dedridge> The spec is writen in such a way that xhtml5 would be impossible to implement. I have suggested ways to improve this and you refuse to listen to them
  188. # [01:01] <Lachy> dedridge, good ideas do get added to the spec, or will in due course
  189. # [01:01] <dedridge> NO they don't Lachy!
  190. # [01:01] <Lachy> xhtml5 is not impossible to implement at all
  191. # [01:01] <dedridge> Yes it is.
  192. # [01:01] <Lachy> how?
  193. # [01:01] <dedridge> There needs to be support for application/xhtml+xml
  194. # [01:02] <Hixie> i have over 3600 e-mails to reply to, i'll reply to them all in due course. see http://whatwg.org/issues/ for the list of e-mails I still have to reply to, and http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/1 for the HTMLWG's list of issues that I will reply to.
  195. # [01:02] <Hixie> if you have sent something that isn't on those lists, then speak to smedero about adding it to the issues list
  196. # [01:02] <dedridge> if it is a opt in, it can't be supported
  197. # [01:02] <Lachy> dedridge, the spec supports application/xhtml+xml.
  198. # [01:02] <Lachy> wtf?
  199. # [01:03] <mjs> dedridge: what do you mean by "impossible to implement"?
  200. # [01:03] <hsivonen> dedridge: if you want application/xhtml+xml support in browsers that don't have it already, I suggest you publish killer content *only* as application/xhtml+xml
  201. # [01:03] <dedridge> But the spec says that support for application/xhtml+xml is optional
  202. # [01:03] <Lachy> dedridge, that doesn't make it impossible to implement. It just makes it a choice
  203. # [01:03] <hsivonen> dedridge: you can stop content negotiation today
  204. # [01:04] <hsivonen> nn.
  205. # [01:04] <Hixie> nn hsivonen
  206. # [01:04] <Lachy> there are UAs for which supporting xhtml is not necessary or desired. That doesn't stop any other UA from supporting it
  207. # [01:04] <dedridge> How about that spec say that support for text/html is optional
  208. # [01:04] <Philip> I thought it did say that text/html was optional
  209. # [01:04] <anne> text/html _is_ optional
  210. # [01:05] <Philip> "Implementations may support only one of these two formats, although supporting both is encouraged."
  211. # [01:05] <Lachy> dedridge, it says UAs can implement either
  212. # [01:05] <dedridge> BUt we all that it will be supported (text/html) so its nonsense
  213. # [01:05] <anne> one of the reasons innerHTML uses an XML parser in XML
  214. # [01:05] <Philip> People making HTML UAs other than web browsers could quite reasonably not support text/html
  215. # [01:06] <dedridge> Philip: I know
  216. # [01:06] <Hixie> dedridge: the spec saying that something "must" be supported doesn't make it supported, whether we leave it optional or required will not change microsoft's plans.
  217. # [01:07] <dedridge> Yes it will, because they wont be able to say the support the spec
  218. # [01:07] <Lachy> will IE8 still not support XHTML?
  219. # [01:07] <Hixie> dedridge: has that stopped them before?
  220. # [01:07] <dedridge> Lauchy: You tell me?
  221. # [01:07] <anne> now seems like a good time to leave, g'night!
  222. # [01:08] <Hixie> dedridge: (also, by not making it required i'm not ignoring your feedback -- we also have feedback that says it should be optional. when there are conflicting requests, i can't make everyone happy. why should i make you happy instead of someone else? it's just a matter of balancing the technical arguments.)
  223. # [01:08] <Hixie> nn anne
  224. # [01:08] <dedridge> appendix c stopped them last time
  225. # [01:08] <dedridge> now we have a new appendix c
  226. # [01:08] <Hixie> they didn't implement all of css2.1 but they say they do
  227. # [01:08] <Hixie> they didn't implement all of html4 but they say they do
  228. # [01:08] <Hixie> (this applies to all browsers, not just microsoft)
  229. # [01:09] <dedridge> But is just so happens that it works out the way you like Ian
  230. # [01:09] <smedero> indeed, I don't think anyone has a completely valid xhtml1 or html4 parser
  231. # [01:09] <mjs> I think if you want IE to support XHTML, the best thing to do is make the request to Microsoft
  232. # [01:10] <dedridge> Funny that
  233. # [01:10] <dedridge> It's not just IE
  234. # [01:10] <kingryan> dedridge: Hixie doesn't like everything in the spec
  235. # [01:10] <kingryan> neither do I
  236. # [01:11] <mjs> if you're talking about mobile browsers, they already pretend to support XHTML badly (sometimes only XHTML)
  237. # [01:11] <dedridge> You guys don't want people to use XHTML. Just have the courage to admit it
  238. # [01:11] <mjs> if you're talking about Safari/Firefox/Opera, I can't imagine any of those removing XHTML support
  239. # [01:11] <Lachy> dedridge, no-one is against people using XHTML if they choose to use it
  240. # [01:12] <kingryan> dedridge: I use XHTML. I don't care if others do and we don't really have any power to make them do it.
  241. # [01:12] <dedridge> Why would you name a spec html5 if it was truly xhtml too
  242. # [01:12] <mjs> WebKit has pretty good XHTML support that we are regularly improving
  243. # [01:12] <mjs> there's no real web compatibility need for it
  244. # [01:12] <dedridge> Kingryan: No, that's the point
  245. # [01:13] <kingryan> dedridge: ?
  246. # [01:13] <mjs> so I don't know why you think I would be against people using it
  247. # [01:13] <dedridge> not everone needs to use xhtml. We just need ua support for it
  248. # [01:13] <kingryan> dedridge: how do you propose that this group get UAs to support xhtml?
  249. # [01:13] <Hixie> there are indeed a growing number of things in the html5 spec that i don't like. silly technical arguments always getting in the way of what i want. :-P
  250. # [01:13] <dedridge> BY your attitude mjs, the things you say
  251. # [01:13] <Lachy> dedridge, 3 out of 4 major UAs do support it. Your problem is with MS
  252. # [01:13] <mjs> so words speak louder than actions?
  253. # [01:14] <kingryan> mjs: I've always thought that "code is law" :)
  254. # [01:14] <dedridge> I can't lobby MS if the spec doesn't require it
  255. # [01:14] <kingryan> dedridge: yes you can
  256. # [01:14] <Hixie> the xhtml spec requires it
  257. # [01:15] <kingryan> coffee time, bbiab
  258. # [01:15] <dedridge> But the xhtml spec is nonsense
  259. # [01:15] <smedero> how so?
  260. # [01:15] <dedridge> no one will use xhtml1.x
  261. # [01:15] <Hixie> yeah well no argument from me there
  262. # [01:15] <dedridge> any one wanting to use xhtml will use xhtml5
  263. # [01:15] <Hixie> (incidentally, i actually would quite like the spec to require xhtml support. i just don't see that the arguments in favour are very strong compared to the arguments against.)
  264. # [01:16] <dedridge> Think of it this way...
  265. # [01:17] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.41.149) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  266. # [01:17] <dedridge> if 2% of users used xhtml5 you would still need 100% of ua support for xhtml5
  267. # [01:17] <Hixie> i don't think anyone here disagrees
  268. # [01:17] <smedero> requiring XHTML, requires implementing an XML parser ... if you are building a consumer electronics device with limited system memory... you may not want to have an entire XML stack you have no interest in using.
  269. # [01:17] <dedridge> You can't get 100% support for it without it being compulsary
  270. # [01:17] <mjs> I don't know if we'll even get 100% of UAs to support the non-x version of html5
  271. # [01:17] <Hixie> if we didn't want xhtml, we wouldn't have so much of the spec dedicated to defining how it works
  272. # [01:18] <smedero> for instance... there are consumer electronics devices like the Chumby
  273. # [01:18] <smedero> which actually uses xHTML widgets
  274. # [01:18] <smedero> but let's just say they only HTML
  275. # [01:18] <smedero> and in no other way would they want to use XML
  276. # [01:18] <smedero> why force them to bundle an XML library with their software?
  277. # [01:18] * Quits: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156) (Quit: .)
  278. # [01:18] <Philip> The parser is only a fairly minor part of a browser engine, so it wouldn't make that much difference
  279. # [01:19] <dedridge> OK, do you think that someone can use xhtml5 in 5 yers time with out content-negotiation?
  280. # [01:19] <wilhelm> No.
  281. # [01:19] <dedridge> wilhelm: why? how about 10 years?
  282. # [01:20] <dedridge> the spec can change that I think
  283. # [01:20] <Hixie> you are far too optimistic about the power of specifications
  284. # [01:20] <smedero> anyway, Hixie points out the fallacy with assuming a MUST will make a UA implementor magically do everything the spec says.
  285. # [01:21] <smedero> history is very much against you on this point.
  286. # [01:21] <wilhelm> Even if MS did implement XHTML support in IE8, IE7 will not be gone in five years.
  287. # [01:21] <dedridge> A must is a good start
  288. # [01:21] <Philip> dedridge: Which "someone" do you mean? (I've already got some XHTML-only pages; Google wouldn't require XHTML support until approximately nobody uses IE7; other people will be at varying points in the middle, depending on what users they care about)
  289. # [01:22] <dedridge> wilhelm: i can deal with ie7 later
  290. # [01:22] <Hixie> yeah, i made an xhtml-only site about 7 years ago
  291. # [01:22] <dedridge> I agree with most of what you are saying...
  292. # [01:22] <dedridge> but...
  293. # [01:23] <mjs> HTML5 is probably not going to be on Microsoft's radar for a while
  294. # [01:23] <dedridge> is xhtml5 going to be usable
  295. # [01:23] <mjs> I suspect they will implement XHTML before they start taking HTML5 support seriously
  296. # [01:24] <dedridge> mjs: I think we can change that, we have to
  297. # [01:24] <Hixie> how can we possibly change microsoft's priorities?
  298. # [01:24] * Quits: hasather (hasather@90.231.107.133) (Quit: leaving)
  299. # [01:24] <dedridge> by getting people to use better browsers that offer new features
  300. # [01:25] <mjs> doing my best on that one :-)
  301. # [01:25] <wilhelm> dedridge: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990418.html <- this is still valid today, maybe even more so
  302. # [01:25] <mjs> as are Mozilla and Opera
  303. # [01:25] <dedridge> you must have a plan right? :)
  304. # [01:25] <Hixie> dedridge: that's other browsers, that's not the working group
  305. # [01:26] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.106.224) (Quit: mjs)
  306. # [01:27] <kingryan> dedridge: indeed, getting the market to put pressure on MS is a valid way to get them to change
  307. # [01:27] <kingryan> but the market and the spec are two different things
  308. # [01:27] <kingryan> and the former controls the latter
  309. # [01:28] <dedridge> But I can't lobby MS to support xhtml5 if there is no such official language and the spec says that xhtml support is optional
  310. # [01:29] <kingryan> dedridge: are you saying that MS won't support a technology unless a W3C spec says they must?
  311. # [01:29] <inimino> dedridge: but adding MUST requirements to the spec for political reasons weakens the spec
  312. # [01:29] * Quits: tH (Rob@87.102.85.140) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.79-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.0.9/2006120508])
  313. # [01:30] <dedridge> inimino: no. not at all. but it certainly helps
  314. # [01:30] <Hixie> you can ask for support even if it's optional
  315. # [01:30] <Hixie> just say "please support xhtml"
  316. # [01:31] <dedridge> It's not actually political reasons. It's simply to enable the use of xhtml
  317. # [01:31] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22)
  318. # [01:31] <inimino> but lobbying Microsoft or anyone else to support XHTML in the absense of market forces is basicall politics, no?
  319. # [01:32] <kingryan> dedridge: this is where I think you're wrong. must's don't enable anything.
  320. # [01:34] * Joins: Thezilch (fuz007@64.147.23.102)
  321. # [01:38] <dedridge> hixie: I have asked - > http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/12/05/internet-explorer-8.aspx#6679356
  322. # [01:40] <dedridge> Kingryan: i disagree, without a MUST , MS will always be able to say that support is optional
  323. # [01:40] <kingryan> dedridge: but support *is* optional, because html5 is optional
  324. # [01:40] <kingryan> microsoft don't have to do anything this group says
  325. # [01:42] <dedridge> html5 will not be optional? Once it is finished it will be a W3C rec. then it will be an official "web standard"
  326. # [01:43] <dedridge> then opera can take MS to court if they don't support it
  327. # [01:43] <kingryan> dedridge: it's still optional then. no one *has* to follow the w3c's recommendations
  328. # [01:43] <dedridge> I think that needs to change. Goverments should enforce standards
  329. # [01:44] <wilhelm> XHTML1 is a W3C recommendation.
  330. # [01:44] <Philip> Microsoft said their goal is interoperability, and standards are just a way to reach that goal - they won't support standards simply because they're standards (and I'm not aware of anyone else who does that either)
  331. # [01:45] <Philip> [They didn't say the bit after the hyphen, I think]
  332. # [01:45] <dedridge> LOL xhtml1 was a joke. appendix c killed that one off
  333. # [01:46] <Hixie> i really don't think the goverments should get involved in software development and deployment. that would be a disaster.
  334. # [01:46] <kingryan> dedridge: then we should make sure that html5 isn't a joke :)
  335. # [01:46] <Hixie> i can't even begin to imagine how bad that would be
  336. # [01:46] <Philip> Is it possible to enforce standards on software? If there were e.g. specific requirements on making a Java implementation, it's trivial to make e.g. a J++ implementation and no longer have to follow those rules
  337. # [01:46] <kingryan> governments have more important things to deal with, like war and poverty
  338. # [01:47] <dedridge> What about the netherlands?
  339. # [01:48] <kingryan> the netherlands don't have any poor people?
  340. # [01:48] <dedridge> Govenments enforce standards for all sorts of things. Why not the web
  341. # [01:49] <dedridge> I don't know if the NL's have any poor people or not. But don't they have strict standards on for web sites
  342. # [01:50] <inimino> Governments are already involved
  343. # [01:50] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  344. # [01:50] <inimino> but if you think they should mandate HTML5, you should be asking your government, not the W3C
  345. # [01:51] <dedridge> inimimo: No, the w3c must come first. I can't get my government to supprt something that isn't an official standard
  346. # [01:52] <Philip> Wouldn't it have to be something like ISO before it would be considered "official"?
  347. # [01:52] <inimino> dedridge: yes, but as W3C standards do not carry force of law, they must be written with a careful consideration of market forces
  348. # [01:55] <Lachy> AFAIK, the only W3C spec to get any sort of government backing has been WCAG 1.0
  349. # [01:56] <Lachy> and that's not all governments
  350. # [01:56] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  351. # [01:57] <dedridge> anyway, my point was that xhtml5 is unusable without compulsary support for application/xhtml+xml. No one's convinced be otherwise, or justified the need to keep the spec as it stands
  352. # [01:57] <Philip> Has any government required WCAG for anything other than their own sites?
  353. # [01:58] <dedridge> Philip: not sure.
  354. # [01:59] <inimino> dedridge: even if that's true, that's not necessarily an argument for making it a MUST in the spec
  355. # [02:00] <inimino> dedridge: essentially you want the HTML5 spec to be a tool to force XHTML adoption, but it's not clear that that would work
  356. # [02:03] <dedridge> inimimo: please don't tell me what I want :)
  357. # [02:05] <dedridge> inimino: it only makes sense to require support for the language that is being specified in the spec. The spec isn't just text/html
  358. # [02:06] <dedridge> does the html 4 spec say that support for the text/html media type is optional? I doubt it.
  359. # [02:07] <dedridge> why should the xhtml5 spec say that support for it's media type be optional?
  360. # [02:08] <inimino> dedridge: that was my interpretation of your remarks about Microsoft and XHTML support, if I misinterpreted then I don't know what you want
  361. # [02:08] <inimino> dedridge: it is not optional for XHTML support, it is just that XHTML support is optional
  362. # [02:08] * Quits: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  363. # [02:13] * Joins: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30)
  364. # [02:13] * trackbot-ng is loading HTML Issue Tracking data...
  365. # [02:13] * trackbot-ng found 16 users
  366. # [02:13] <trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
  367. # [02:14] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.41.149)
  368. # [02:33] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
  369. # [02:34] * Quits: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.219.50) (Quit: kingryan)
  370. # [02:35] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.241) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  371. # [02:38] * Quits: Thezilch (fuz007@64.147.23.102) (Ping timeout)
  372. # [02:46] * Quits: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Quit: timbl)
  373. # [02:55] * Joins: Thezilch (fuz007@64.147.23.102)
  374. # [03:06] * Quits: adele (adele@17.255.110.63) (Quit: adele)
  375. # [03:37] * Quits: smedero (smedero@207.245.69.186) (Quit: smedero)
  376. # [03:53] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245) (Ping timeout)
  377. # [04:11] * Joins: DougJ (doug_b_jon@74.76.28.112)
  378. # [04:16] * Parts: DougJ (doug_b_jon@74.76.28.112)
  379. # [04:37] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@71.204.145.103)
  380. # [04:45] * Quits: Thezilch (fuz007@64.147.23.102) (Connection reset by peer)
  381. # [04:45] * Joins: Thezilch[FH] (fuz007@64.147.23.102)
  382. # [05:05] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  383. # [05:05] <shepazu> Hixie, mjs, ping
  384. # [05:14] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
  385. # [05:54] * Joins: timbl_ (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  386. # [05:54] * Quits: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Connection reset by peer)
  387. # [06:17] * Joins: Thezilch (fuz007@64.147.23.102)
  388. # [06:17] * Quits: Thezilch[FH] (fuz007@64.147.23.102) (Connection reset by peer)
  389. # [06:49] * Quits: sbuluf (visu@200.49.132.119) (Ping timeout)
  390. # [07:09] * Quits: Thezilch (fuz007@64.147.23.102) (Ping timeout)
  391. # [07:48] * Joins: adele (adele@67.170.232.64)
  392. # [07:49] * Quits: adele (adele@67.170.232.64) (Client exited)
  393. # [07:49] * Joins: adele (adele@67.170.232.64)
  394. # [08:05] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@71.204.145.103) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  395. # [08:53] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
  396. # [08:54] <mjs> shepazu: pong
  397. # [08:56] <shepazu> mjs, just wanted to note that I don't think DanC is backing off from publication, just wanting to get the ducks in a row for a January publication (that's my impression)
  398. # [08:56] <shepazu> also, in an unrelated note, Safari's FF support is pretty good :)
  399. # [08:56] <shepazu> oops
  400. # [08:56] <shepazu> I mean, Safari's SVG support
  401. # [08:57] <mjs> shepazu: I wasn't (vociferously) complaining, but I don't understand what the remaining delay is
  402. # [08:57] <shepazu> I'm still waiting on Safari's support for Firefox, that's a much-needed implementation
  403. # [08:57] <mjs> I do think it's fair to wait until after the holidays to start the patent clock if that is the issue, but I'm not really clear on what the issue is
  404. # [08:57] <mjs> thanks for saying so
  405. # [08:58] <mjs> shepazu: we're polishing up support for SVG in <html:img> and CSS background images for the next release
  406. # [08:58] <mjs> and there will be more advanced text support
  407. # [08:58] <shepazu> mjs, I'm not sure either, but the immediate issue is that there's a moratorium on publication
  408. # [08:58] <shepazu> due to holidays and such
  409. # [08:59] <shepazu> looking forward to that
  410. # [08:59] <mjs> well, there's a moratorium now
  411. # [08:59] <mjs> there wasn't earlier today or yesterday
  412. # [08:59] <shepazu> right... the deadline was noon EST
  413. # [08:59] <mjs> but I can see that sliding it in under the wire might not be the best choice
  414. # [09:00] <shepazu> yeah, I do think that in Dan's mind it was a matter of propriety (my interpretation)
  415. # [09:00] <shepazu> and honestly, a couple of weeks won't change much
  416. # [09:01] <shepazu> and hopefully that's all it will be
  417. # [09:01] <mjs> I'm happy with the fact that there is a deadline set
  418. # [09:01] <shepazu> yes, I think we all are
  419. # [09:02] <shepazu> and that's a far deadline, one I don't think we'll come close to reaching... I'm hoping for FPWD in January
  420. # [09:02] <shepazu> ... of 2007 ;)
  421. # [09:02] <mjs> me too (now that December is off the table)
  422. # [09:03] <shepazu> anyway, that was all
  423. # [09:03] <shepazu> thanks
  424. # [09:04] * shepazu is starting to get used to MacOS, somewhat
  425. # [09:06] <mjs> one of us.... one of us...
  426. # [09:06] <mjs> don't worry, it's not a cult
  427. # [09:07] <shepazu> for me, the main problems are switching between apps (and subwindows, like emails), and trying to find replacement tools for familiar functionality
  428. # [09:07] <shepazu> I'm missing a good text editor and CVS client like TortoiseCVS
  429. # [09:08] <shepazu> but it's very zippy and I like spotlight a lot
  430. # [09:09] <mjs> cmd-tab to switch apps, cmd-~ to switch windows within an app
  431. # [09:09] <mjs> or better yet, set up expose to trigger from a screen corner
  432. # [09:09] <mjs> if you like the rodent
  433. # [09:10] <mjs> expose fucking rocks
  434. # [09:10] <shepazu> I like expose and I use cmd-tab... it's more that I'm used to the windows taskbar... I'll adjust
  435. # [09:11] <shepazu> I'm used to different kinds of notifications about events like activity in a chat window (though I quite like Colloquy and Adium)
  436. # [09:12] <shepazu> I know about the corner thing, but that's not my speed
  437. # [09:12] <mjs> the top thing I have found that confuses windows switchers, even after a while, is that many apps do not quit when you close the last window
  438. # [09:12] <mjs> (document-based apps basically)
  439. # [09:13] <shepazu> I have Growl, too, and I think I can customize that
  440. # [09:13] <shepazu> yeah, that is confusing :)
  441. # [09:14] <shepazu> but I'm starting to get used to cmd+Q
  442. # [09:14] <shepazu> ... I just have to kill some stray apps once in a while
  443. # [09:14] <shepazu> I hear BBEdit is good, but I'm not impressed with the free text editors I've tried
  444. # [09:16] <shepazu> I have a good friend who's going to give me lessons, though, so I'm sure I will adapt soon enough
  445. # [09:34] * Quits: adele (adele@67.170.232.64) (Quit: adele)
  446. # [10:01] * Joins: tH_ (Rob@87.102.85.140)
  447. # [10:01] * tH_ is now known as tH
  448. # [10:06] * Joins: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30)
  449. # [10:16] * Quits: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Leaving)
  450. # [10:26] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.41.149) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  451. # [10:44] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22)
  452. # [10:48] * trackbot-ng is loading HTML Issue Tracking data...
  453. # [10:48] * trackbot-ng found 16 users
  454. # [10:48] <trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
  455. # [10:48] * Quits: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  456. # [10:55] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  457. # [10:56] * Joins: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30)
  458. # [10:56] * trackbot-ng is loading HTML Issue Tracking data...
  459. # [10:56] * trackbot-ng found 16 users
  460. # [10:56] <trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
  461. # [10:56] <anne> ah, cmd-~, didn't know that one
  462. # [12:08] <anne> http://www.zeldman.com/2007/12/19/let-me-hear-your-standards-body-talk/
  463. # [12:10] * Quits: heycam (cam@124.168.10.57) (Quit: on holidays, back in a few days)
  464. # [12:45] * Parts: dedridge (opera@121.72.47.224)
  465. # [12:48] * Quits: timbl_ (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Quit: timbl_)
  466. # [13:15] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  467. # [13:15] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  468. # [13:15] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  469. # [13:16] <anne> hi MikeSmith!
  470. # [13:17] <MikeSmith> anne - hei
  471. # [13:18] <wilhelm> 'Morning. (c:
  472. # [13:18] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  473. # [13:18] <xover> Aren't you supposed to be on vacation Mike?
  474. # [13:19] <MikeSmith> wow, first time I've seen wilhelm on #html-wg (at least as far as I can remember)
  475. # [13:19] <MikeSmith> xover - yep, sorta partial vacation
  476. # [13:20] <xover> No rest for the…, etc.
  477. # [13:20] <wilhelm> I've been randomly lurking for a while.
  478. # [13:22] * Quits: jgraham_ (james@81.86.217.3) (Ping timeout)
  479. # [13:22] * Quits: jgraham (jgraham@81.86.217.3) (Ping timeout)
  480. # [13:28] * Joins: dedridge (opera@121.72.16.18)
  481. # [13:57] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@83.227.33.203)
  482. # [14:03] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245)
  483. # [14:55] * Quits: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  484. # [14:57] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@83.227.33.203) (Ping timeout)
  485. # [15:02] * Joins: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30)
  486. # [15:02] * trackbot-ng is loading HTML Issue Tracking data...
  487. # [15:02] * trackbot-ng found 16 users
  488. # [15:02] <trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
  489. # [15:04] * Quits: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  490. # [15:09] * Joins: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30)
  491. # [15:09] * trackbot-ng is loading HTML Issue Tracking data...
  492. # [15:09] * trackbot-ng found 16 users
  493. # [15:09] <trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
  494. # [15:18] * Joins: myakura (myakura@122.17.160.176)
  495. # [15:22] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.135.224.200)
  496. # [15:23] * Joins: smedero (smedero@158.130.16.191)
  497. # [15:25] * shepazu is now known as monkey_8
  498. # [15:25] * monkey_8 is now known as shepazu
  499. # [15:28] * Joins: matt (matt@128.30.52.30)
  500. # [15:43] * Quits: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Quit: timbl)
  501. # [15:50] * Joins: hasather (hasather@90.231.107.133)
  502. # [15:58] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  503. # [15:59] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  504. # [16:06] * Quits: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  505. # [16:13] <anne> so IE now does <p><table> as <p></p><table> thanks to Acid2
  506. # [16:13] <anne> I'm not a big fan of that
  507. # [16:13] <anne> It's compliant with HTML4 and all but I rather have less differences in quirks mode than more and being slightly more compliant with HTML4
  508. # [16:15] <Dashiva> Is having other browsers do <p><table> more practical?
  509. # [16:17] <anne> I'm not entirely convinced "practical" matters here, but then I'm representing a browser vendor and have a background in QA
  510. # [16:18] <anne> And at this point it's probably a lost cause
  511. # [16:18] * Parts: anne (annevk@82.156.27.18)
  512. # [16:18] * Joins: anne (annevk@82.156.27.18)
  513. # [16:18] <anne> oops
  514. # [16:19] <anne> Ctrl+Q is too close to Ctrl+W (or vice versa)
  515. # [16:19] <Dashiva> Lock tab
  516. # [16:19] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  517. # [16:20] <anne> Lock tab doesn't help with Ctrl+Q as that closes down the browser
  518. # [16:20] <Dashiva> But it removes the need to press ctrl-w (since it won't do anything) :)
  519. # [16:21] <gsnedders> anne: no, the annoying thing is when you ctrl+q with the focus on something apart from what you mena :P
  520. # [16:21] <gsnedders> *mean
  521. # [16:30] * Joins: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
  522. # [16:32] * Parts: dedridge (opera@121.72.16.18)
  523. # [16:32] * Quits: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  524. # [16:33] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.41.149)
  525. # [16:37] * Joins: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30)
  526. # [16:37] * trackbot-ng is loading HTML Issue Tracking data...
  527. # [16:37] * trackbot-ng found 16 users
  528. # [16:37] <trackbot-ng> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
  529. # [16:43] * Joins: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30)
  530. # [16:54] * Joins: timbl_ (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  531. # [16:54] * Quits: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Connection reset by peer)
  532. # [16:56] * Quits: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156) (Quit: .)
  533. # [16:59] * Joins: billmason (billmason@69.30.57.156)
  534. # [17:02] * Quits: beowulf (beowulf@194.74.230.217) (Quit: Merry Christmas everyone!)
  535. # [17:24] * Quits: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  536. # [17:26] * Quits: smedero (smedero@158.130.16.191) (Quit: smedero)
  537. # [17:27] * Joins: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30)
  538. # [17:27] * trackbot-ng HTML Issue Tracking http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
  539. # [17:28] * Quits: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  540. # [17:32] * Joins: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30)
  541. # [17:32] * trackbot-ng HTML Issue Tracking http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
  542. # [17:33] * Quits: myakura (myakura@122.17.160.176) (Quit: Leaving...)
  543. # [17:33] * Quits: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  544. # [17:37] * Joins: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30)
  545. # [17:37] * trackbot-ng HTML Issue Tracking http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
  546. # [17:40] * Quits: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  547. # [17:43] * Joins: trackbot-ng (trackbot-n@128.30.52.30)
  548. # [17:43] * trackbot-ng HTML Issue Tracking http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
  549. # [18:09] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
  550. # [18:25] * Quits: timbl_ (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Quit: timbl_)
  551. # [18:48] * Joins: adele (adele@67.170.232.64)
  552. # [19:05] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
  553. # [19:06] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245) (Ping timeout)
  554. # [19:08] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245)
  555. # [19:11] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245) (Ping timeout)
  556. # [19:19] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.179)
  557. # [19:25] * Quits: adele (adele@67.170.232.64) (Quit: adele)
  558. # [19:30] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Connection reset by peer)
  559. # [19:31] * Joins: hober (ted@68.101.220.172)
  560. # [19:40] * Joins: jgraham (james@81.86.208.38)
  561. # [19:41] * Joins: jgraham_ (jgraham@81.86.208.38)
  562. # [19:50] * Quits: tH (Rob@87.102.85.140) (Connection reset by peer)
  563. # [19:51] * Joins: tH_ (Rob@87.102.44.124)
  564. # [19:51] * tH_ is now known as tH
  565. # [19:54] * Joins: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.2.56)
  566. # [19:57] * Quits: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.2.56) (Quit: kingryan)
  567. # [19:58] * Joins: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.2.56)
  568. # [20:02] * Quits: matt (matt@128.30.52.30) (Quit: matt)
  569. # [20:07] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  570. # [20:16] * Joins: adele (adele@17.255.110.63)
  571. # [20:16] * Quits: adele (adele@17.255.110.63) (Client exited)
  572. # [20:16] * Joins: adele (adele@17.255.110.63)
  573. # [20:27] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245)
  574. # [20:43] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.79 [Firefox 3.0b3pre/2007121912])
  575. # [20:47] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  576. # [20:55] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
  577. # [21:08] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.179) (Ping timeout)
  578. # [21:08] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.106.224)
  579. # [21:09] * Joins: preston (chatzilla@68.4.242.69)
  580. # [21:10] * Quits: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Quit: timbl)
  581. # [21:11] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  582. # [21:15] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.41.149) (Quit: Leaving)
  583. # [21:15] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.41.149)
  584. # [21:17] * Joins: matt (matt@128.30.52.30)
  585. # [21:23] * Quits: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Connection reset by peer)
  586. # [21:23] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  587. # [21:25] * Quits: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Quit: timbl)
  588. # [21:40] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  589. # [21:47] * Quits: preston (chatzilla@68.4.242.69) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.79 [Firefox 2.0.0.11/2007120410])
  590. # [21:47] * Joins: preston (chatzilla@68.4.242.69)
  591. # [21:55] * Quits: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Ping timeout)
  592. # [22:05] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  593. # [22:34] * shepazu learns what cmd+W does, the hard way :D
  594. # [22:37] * Quits: matt (matt@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  595. # [23:52] * Joins: Thezilch (fuz007@64.147.23.102)
  596. # [23:58] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  597. # [23:58] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Client exited)
  598. # [23:58] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  599. # Session Close: Fri Dec 21 00:00:00 2007

The end :)