/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2008-01-11 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Fri Jan 11 00:00:00 2008
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:14] * Quits: hober (ted@67.168.62.146) (Quit: ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs))
  4. # [00:24] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  5. # [00:29] * Parts: dedridge (opera@121.72.5.194)
  6. # [00:42] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.255.108.101)
  7. # [00:43] * Joins: mjs_ (mjs@17.203.15.209)
  8. # [00:45] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.255.108.101) (Ping timeout)
  9. # [00:52] * Quits: aroben (aroben@69.248.233.169) (Quit: aroben)
  10. # [00:57] * Quits: tH (Rob@87.102.4.60) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.79-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.0.9/2006120508])
  11. # [00:59] <anne> gsnedders, I'd advise to focus on exams instead
  12. # [00:59] <anne> s/'d//
  13. # [01:06] * Joins: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  14. # [01:10] * anne reads up on the licensing discussion
  15. # [01:15] * Joins: adele (adele@67.170.232.64)
  16. # [01:19] <anne> Dean Edrigde formally objected to publishing
  17. # [01:21] <anne> I've no idea what he bases that objection on though. He claims to be ignored but I see lively discussion on the list... Another claim is that the specification should be renamed to HTML5 and XHTML5 where "HTML 5" in the title is about the language and not about either serialization...
  18. # [01:41] <gsnedders> anne: do you mind if I go against your advise? :)
  19. # [01:43] <anne> Hmm, I think I'll conveniently not answer that question
  20. # [02:00] * Joins: smedero (smedero@192.223.6.251)
  21. # [02:01] <Lachy> since the working group already formally resolved to call the spec HTML 5, Dean's formal objection is not likely to carry much weight http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0909.html
  22. # [02:03] * anne -> bed
  23. # [02:06] <smedero> Lachy: I thought your last reply to the "supporting both formats" thread would have cleared that matter up too. (That the HTML in the document title is a reference to the vocabulary and not the serialization)
  24. # [02:10] <Philip> When the name of the vocabulary is identical to the name of one serialisation but different to the name of the other serialisation, you can't claim that it's not highlighting one serialisation more than the other
  25. # [02:24] * gavin_ wonders how long he should expect to wait for his message to appear on www-archive
  26. # [02:24] <gavin_> it is the first time I've sent a message to that list, so perhaps there is a significant moderation delay?
  27. # [02:25] <Philip> Have you done the thing to say you give permission for your mail to be archived?
  28. # [02:25] <gavin_> yes
  29. # [02:31] <Philip> The first (and only) message I sent to www-archive appears to have been processed in about two minutes
  30. # [02:31] <gavin> hrm
  31. # [02:31] <Philip> so I guess there shouldn't be a huge delay
  32. # [02:31] <gavin> well, I sent it several hours ago
  33. # [02:31] <Philip> (but maybe I was just lucky - most lists seem to take a day or two)
  34. # [02:31] <gavin> and accpted the archiving a few minutes after that
  35. # [02:35] * Quits: smedero (smedero@192.223.6.251) (Ping timeout)
  36. # [02:39] * Joins: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30)
  37. # [02:39] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245)
  38. # [03:20] <Hixie> yeah i agree that we need a better name for the text/html serialisation
  39. # [03:41] <mjs_> Dean is not maintaining appropriate professional courtesy
  40. # [03:41] * mjs_ is now known as mjs
  41. # [03:42] <mjs> but it's true that HTML5 referring to two different things is potentially confusing
  42. # [03:43] <mjs> it's hard to give good short names to both the vocabulary and the text/html serialization
  43. # [03:48] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245) (Ping timeout)
  44. # [03:56] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245)
  45. # [04:23] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@71.204.145.103) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  46. # [04:37] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245) (Connection reset by peer)
  47. # [04:46] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  48. # [04:54] * Joins: timbl_ (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  49. # [04:54] * Quits: timbl (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Connection reset by peer)
  50. # [04:58] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.209) (Ping timeout)
  51. # [07:07] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Less talk, more pimp walk.)
  52. # [07:45] * Quits: jgraham (james@81.86.210.78) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  53. # [07:54] * Joins: tH_ (Rob@87.102.4.60)
  54. # [07:54] * tH_ is now known as tH
  55. # [08:02] * Quits: adele (adele@67.170.232.64) (Client exited)
  56. # [08:03] * Joins: adele (adele@67.170.232.64)
  57. # [08:06] * Quits: olivier (ot@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Leaving)
  58. # [08:08] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.40.140)
  59. # [08:22] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  60. # [08:23] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
  61. # [08:30] * Quits: adele (adele@67.170.232.64) (Quit: adele)
  62. # [09:04] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Ping timeout)
  63. # [09:10] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  64. # [09:17] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Client exited)
  65. # [09:28] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100)
  66. # [09:35] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  67. # [09:58] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  68. # [10:06] * Quits: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.30) (Ping timeout)
  69. # [10:18] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22)
  70. # [10:42] * Quits: sbuluf (ltt@200.49.132.109) (Ping timeout)
  71. # [10:44] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  72. # [10:53] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.40.140) (Quit: Leaving)
  73. # [11:01] * Joins: inimino (weechat@75.71.88.233)
  74. # [11:05] * Quits: anne (annevk@82.156.27.18) (Ping timeout)
  75. # [11:10] * Joins: anne (annevk@82.156.27.18)
  76. # [12:06] <anne> Hixie, yt?
  77. # [12:10] <Hixie> hey
  78. # [12:10] <Hixie> i am getting increasingly tired of dealing with the http community
  79. # [12:11] <anne> I wanted to ask you about cross-site POST and the reason for having two access checks (first for the GET and then for the POST); simply for being on the safe side right?
  80. # [12:11] <Hixie> do you mean specifically for POST or for anything other than GET?
  81. # [12:11] <anne> the latter
  82. # [12:12] <Hixie> the reason we require a preflight on DELETE and other verbs is that historically there has been no way to perform such actions on remote servers with the user's credentials without the user's consent
  83. # [12:12] <anne> that part I get :)
  84. # [12:12] <Hixie> and thus we assume there may be sites vulnerable to XSRF attacks with those verbs
  85. # [12:12] <anne> I meant the double access-control check; both on the preflight GET and on the actual DELETE
  86. # [12:12] <Hixie> that legitimately assume they are safe at this point
  87. # [12:13] <Hixie> oh
  88. # [12:13] <Hixie> well
  89. # [12:13] <Hixie> yeah
  90. # [12:13] <anne> k
  91. # [12:13] <Hixie> the first check is to see if we can send
  92. # [12:13] <Hixie> the second is to see if we can read
  93. # [12:13] <Hixie> (the two might be different)
  94. # [12:13] <Hixie> (though that seems unlikely)
  95. # [12:20] <anne> mnot's point about <?access-control?> seemed sort of valid btw, though for convenience it's much better than Access-Control: ... for which you either need to write a script (which complicates caching) or do arrange it in a separate file (.htaccess and AddHeader)
  96. # [12:20] * Joins: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.30)
  97. # [12:21] <Hixie> which point?
  98. # [12:22] <anne> that most hosting providers offer a way to use Access-Control
  99. # [12:22] <anne> (the header)
  100. # [12:23] <Hixie> as brad pointed out, hosting providers aren't everything
  101. # [12:23] <Hixie> there are many systems where it is non-trivial to add a header
  102. # [12:23] <Hixie> (not to mention that adding headers is far beyond some people's abilities, while adding a pi by copy and paste it not)
  103. # [12:25] <anne> yeah
  104. # [12:25] <anne> btw, I might add some of your answers to questions on the WHATWG list to the WHATWG faq
  105. # [12:26] <anne> by simple copy & paste for starters
  106. # [12:26] <Hixie> cool
  107. # [12:50] * Joins: myakura (myakura@222.148.4.83)
  108. # [12:52] * Parts: timbl_ (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  109. # [12:59] <anne> Hixie, you might want to test whitespace handling and attribute Selectors
  110. # [12:59] <anne> p[test~=y] { background:lime }
  111. # [12:59] <anne> <p test="x&#xd;y">This line should have a green background.
  112. # [12:59] <anne> and such
  113. # [13:00] <anne> actually, |<p test="x&#xc;y">This line should have a green background.| might fail in more browsers
  114. # [13:03] <Philip> Should you be able to access file:/// things which have a <?access-control?>?
  115. # [13:04] <Philip> (since presumably that's a case where you can't use Access-Control)
  116. # [13:06] <Hixie> anne: can you mail me that idea with Acid3 in the subject line?
  117. # [13:06] <Hixie> i am about to go to bed
  118. # [13:06] <Hixie> seems like something i should be able to add easily enough
  119. # [13:06] <Hixie> nn
  120. # [13:12] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@88.131.66.80)
  121. # [13:18] <Lachy> Philip, no, file:/// URIs should never be accessible from remote servers, even if the files contain <?access-control?>.
  122. # [13:48] * Quits: myakura (myakura@222.148.4.83) (Ping timeout)
  123. # [14:02] <gsnedders> <pubdate>07.01.08 07:40:00</pubdate>
  124. # [14:03] * gsnedders has never seen that format before in RSS dates
  125. # [14:23] * Philip wonders why 127.0.0.1 is so much more popular than 127.0.0.2
  126. # [14:26] <Lachy> is 127.0.0.2 assigned to anything?
  127. # [14:27] <Philip> It's mostly equivalent to 127.0.0.1
  128. # [14:28] <Lachy> I don't think that's true.
  129. # [14:28] <Lachy> http://wiki.openrbl.org/wiki/127.0.0.2 says "The ip-address 127.0.0.2 is used by most DNSBL for testing purposes."
  130. # [14:30] <Philip> All of 127.0.0.0-127.255.255.255 is loopback - "A datagram sent by a higher level protocol to an address anywhere within this block should loop back inside the host." (says RFC 3330)
  131. # [14:30] <Philip> Also, http://127.0.0.2/ is the web server running on my computer
  132. # [14:31] <Philip> (and seemingly everything except 127.0.0.0 and 127.255.255.255 is too)
  133. # [14:31] <Philip> so it works in practice :-)
  134. # [14:33] <Lachy> pinging 127.0.0.2 times out on my mac, but works on windows
  135. # [14:37] <Philip> Ah, okay - it works for me on two Linuxes
  136. # [14:39] * Philip is finding it useful for locally testing a program that doesn't like multiple connections from the same IP address, but works happily if one is from 127.0.0.2 and another from 127.0.0.3
  137. # [15:00] * gsnedders wonders what's worse: liking Mika, or being able to sing along high enough.
  138. # [15:05] * Joins: timbl__ (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  139. # [15:12] * Lachy is trying to think of a clear, concise and author-friendly way of describing element categories (prose content, phrasing content, etc) for the HTML5 guide.
  140. # [15:25] * Quits: timbl__ (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Connection reset by peer)
  141. # [15:25] * Joins: timbl_ (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  142. # [15:45] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@66.30.196.151)
  143. # [15:56] <Lachy> does this sound like an author-friendly description of metadata content:
  144. # [15:56] <Lachy> Metadata content includes elements for marking up document metadata; marking up or linking to resources that describe the behaviour or presentation of the document; or indicate relationships with other documents.
  145. # [15:56] <Lachy> Metadata elements typically appear within the head of a document, though some may also appear within the body. Some examples of metadata elements include: title, meta, link, script and style
  146. # [15:59] <hsivonen> Lachy: I'd strike "typically" considering that at least for now <style scoped> is not a metadata element.
  147. # [15:59] <hsivonen> Lachy: also, metadata elements are few enough to enumerate them all without a "for example"
  148. # [16:01] <Philip> It would probably be most helpful to enumerate them first, rather than trying to explain the characteristics of "metadata content"
  149. # [16:01] <zcorpan> Lachy: when they appear in body, they are not "metadata content", aiui
  150. # [16:02] <Lachy> ah, I see, <head> is the only element that can contain metadata content
  151. # [16:02] <Philip> (particularly since the explanation doesn't explain why e.g. <script> is called metadata)
  152. # [16:02] * Quits: heycam (cam@210.84.62.145) (Ping timeout)
  153. # [16:04] <Lachy> hsivonen, I only wanted to list the most common elements in that section. Elements like <base>, <event-source>, <command>, etc. aren't particluarly common compared with the others.
  154. # [16:04] * Joins: heycam (cam@210.84.62.145)
  155. # [16:12] <hsivonen> Lachy: good point.
  156. # [16:13] <hsivonen> btw, as a forward-looking IRC statement, rdf:RDF counts as a metadata element in XHTML5
  157. # [16:15] <Lachy> I noticed that. But I don't really have any desire to mention RDF in the authoring guide
  158. # [16:16] <hsivonen> Acid3 just hit slashdot...
  159. # [16:20] <Philip> At least it linked to the page which says it IS NOT READY
  160. # [16:20] <Philip> "Opera 8.5 @ Nintendo DS: 1%" :-(
  161. # [16:21] <gsnedders> and linked to anne's blog entry about it
  162. # [16:23] <Lachy> any suggestions for how to describe what prose content is?
  163. # [16:33] * Joins: aroben (aroben@71.58.127.126)
  164. # [17:14] * Parts: timbl_ (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  165. # [17:18] * Joins: smedero (smedero@192.223.6.251)
  166. # [17:25] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  167. # [17:35] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  168. # [17:49] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100)
  169. # [17:51] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100) (Quit: Leaving)
  170. # [17:51] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100)
  171. # [18:12] * Parts: zcorpan (zcorpan@88.131.66.80)
  172. # [18:21] * Joins: anne-mac (annevk@83.82.206.111)
  173. # [18:25] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
  174. # [18:33] <anne-mac> six organizations replied so far...
  175. # [18:34] <anne-mac> 42 responses in total
  176. # [18:34] <anne-mac> and in case you lost it: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd-html5-spec/results
  177. # [18:36] <hsivonen> the "This survey is subject to change for the first day or so" note is still there
  178. # [18:39] <Lachy> nice to see there's still only one objection to the spec
  179. # [18:52] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
  180. # [18:55] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  181. # [19:07] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@71.204.145.103)
  182. # [19:17] * Quits: beowulf (beowulf@208.113.221.22) (Client exited)
  183. # [19:29] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.209)
  184. # [19:42] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.209) (Ping timeout)
  185. # [19:47] * Joins: adele (adele@17.203.15.207)
  186. # [19:50] * Quits: anne-mac (annevk@83.82.206.111) (Ping timeout)
  187. # [19:51] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@66.30.196.151) (Connection reset by peer)
  188. # [20:11] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.209)
  189. # [20:14] <Dashiva> anne: Do you know if the W3C/* members count as Members?
  190. # [20:24] <mjs> Dashiva: I think Dan counted them among the 28 participating member organizations but I'm not sure
  191. # [20:24] <mjs> all three should count as one, really
  192. # [20:24] <mjs> I count 5 organizational votes so far
  193. # [20:24] <mjs> I hope someone from Google and someone from Mozilla will vote
  194. # [20:25] <mjs> and w3c
  195. # [20:25] <Dashiva> Not looking very promising to get half the Members to vote
  196. # [20:26] <mjs> many have never voted before
  197. # [20:26] <mjs> if MikeSmith votes on behalf of the w3c, will that count as all three w3c member orgs voting?
  198. # [20:26] <mjs> Hixie: are you going to put in Google's vote?
  199. # [20:35] * Joins: AnPol (anpol@89.31.118.251)
  200. # [20:37] * Quits: AnPol (anpol@89.31.118.251) (Quit: Bye)
  201. # [20:54] * Joins: timbl__ (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  202. # [21:00] * Quits: timbl__ (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Connection reset by peer)
  203. # [21:00] * Joins: timbl_ (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  204. # [21:20] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100) (Quit: Leaving)
  205. # [21:22] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100)
  206. # [21:26] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@66.30.196.151)
  207. # [21:33] * Joins: mjs_ (mjs@17.255.108.101)
  208. # [21:34] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.209) (Ping timeout)
  209. # [21:35] * Joins: timbl__ (timbl@209.6.134.246)
  210. # [21:35] * Quits: timbl_ (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Connection reset by peer)
  211. # [21:43] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  212. # [21:54] * Joins: timbl_ (timbl@96.237.56.114)
  213. # [21:56] * Quits: timbl__ (timbl@209.6.134.246) (Ping timeout)
  214. # [21:56] * Quits: timbl_ (timbl@96.237.56.114) (Quit: timbl_)
  215. # [22:04] * Joins: timbl_ (timbl@96.237.56.114)
  216. # [22:13] * Joins: Navarr (navarr@76.247.244.98)
  217. # [22:27] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.209)
  218. # [22:28] * Quits: mjs_ (mjs@17.255.108.101) (Ping timeout)
  219. # [22:30] * Quits: adele (adele@17.203.15.207) (Ping timeout)
  220. # [22:32] <smedero> In theory IBM would vote again.
  221. # [22:33] <smedero> Hrm... Microsoft probably won't vote? I don't think they did in the last one.
  222. # [22:33] <smedero> not sure which of the remaining member org would vote
  223. # [22:34] * Joins: adele (adele@17.255.100.227)
  224. # [22:34] * Quits: adele (adele@17.255.100.227) (Client exited)
  225. # [22:35] <Philip> smedero: Microsoft voted on http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd11spec/results
  226. # [22:35] <smedero> ahh thanks
  227. # [22:35] <smedero> i was just trying to find that
  228. # [22:36] * Quits: Thezilch (fuz007@68.111.154.116) (Connection reset by peer)
  229. # [22:36] <smedero> Huh... right... IBM (Sam) had voted and then retracted their vote I think.
  230. # [22:45] <Philip> smedero: I think that was the canvas/charter issue, not the spec one
  231. # [22:46] <smedero> oh right!
  232. # [22:46] <smedero> man
  233. # [22:46] <smedero> sorry, I'm spacing out here.
  234. # [22:49] <mjs> I just sent an email reminder in case organization reps didn't notice the quorum requirement
  235. # [22:50] <mjs> I might make some attempts at individual reminders next week if necessary
  236. # [22:51] <Philip> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318&public=1&order=org says "27 organizations"
  237. # [22:51] * Quits: timbl_ (timbl@96.237.56.114) (Ping timeout)
  238. # [22:51] <mjs> I guess the 28 in the survey is a bug?
  239. # [22:52] <Philip> There are 26 named in the list if you don't count any of the W3C ones
  240. # [22:52] <Navarr> im.. well, new.. where would you go to report a bug?
  241. # [22:53] <Philip> Navarr: A bug in what?
  242. # [22:53] <Navarr> "Current Questionaires" page
  243. # [22:53] <Navarr> i get a PHP fatal error.
  244. # [22:54] <Philip> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/showq ?
  245. # [22:54] <Navarr> yes
  246. # [22:54] <Philip> I'd guess the email addresses at the bottom of http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/
  247. # [22:54] <Navarr> sorry to bother; thank you very much.
  248. # [22:56] <Philip> It's not a bother at all :-)
  249. # [22:57] * Joins: adele (adele@17.203.15.207)
  250. # [23:02] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254)
  251. # [23:03] * Lachy wonders why Google hasn't voted yet. Hixie, are you planning to vote?
  252. # [23:03] <Hixie> vote on what?
  253. # [23:03] <Lachy> the survey to publish the spec
  254. # [23:03] <Hixie> did i already vote on two of those?
  255. # [23:04] <Hixie> didn't, even
  256. # [23:04] <Lachy> you did. But there's another one
  257. # [23:04] <Lachy> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd-html5-spec/results
  258. # [23:04] <Hixie> oh sheesh
  259. # [23:05] <Hixie> this is ridiculous
  260. # [23:05] <Hixie> i'll vote in due course
  261. # [23:05] <Lachy> I know, see DanC's mail on public-html-wg-annonce
  262. # [23:05] <Hixie> when's it due?
  263. # [23:05] <Hixie> the 16th?
  264. # [23:05] <Lachy> that's what it says
  265. # [23:05] <Hixie> k
  266. # [23:06] <mjs> he didn't do a very good job of highlighting the quorum requirements or the fact that this is a different survey from any of the previous ones
  267. # [23:06] <smedero> "As publication is necessary for progress of the group and this is a
  268. # [23:06] <smedero> non-technical question, we will decide it by counting votes. A quorum is
  269. # [23:06] <smedero> 50 working group participants, including half the 28 participating W3C
  270. # [23:06] <smedero> member organizations. Provided we have a quorum and at least 2/3rds of
  271. # [23:06] <smedero> the non-blank votes are 'yes', the question carries."
  272. # [23:07] <Hixie> well that's silly
  273. # [23:07] <Hixie> aren't most of the organisations only really there because someone from that organisation wanted to watch?
  274. # [23:08] <Philip> If someone objects to publication, it seems they would be better off not voting (hence preventing the quorum) rather than voting no
  275. # [23:08] <Hixie> and occasionally give feedback?
  276. # [23:08] <mjs> the weird organization quorum requirement is now the only blocker to the question carrying
  277. # [23:08] <mjs> barring a last-minute surge of no votes
  278. # [23:08] <mjs> yes it does sound very silly
  279. # [23:08] <smedero> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jan/0047.html
  280. # [23:08] <smedero> there's the original email
  281. # [23:09] <Lachy> unfortunately, there's really no way of distinguishing active organisations from inactive ones
  282. # [23:09] <Hixie> i never really understood people who think of organisations as something tangible
  283. # [23:10] <Lachy> a better solution would requite a majority of the active organisations to agree to publish, or just abolish the organisation requirement altogether
  284. # [23:10] <Hixie> Google isn't active in the HTML5 world, the say i see it; a lot of people who happen to work together under the name Google are.
  285. # [23:10] <Hixie> (and a lot of other people who work under that name aren't)
  286. # [23:11] <Lachy> by active, I just meant at least one employee actively contributing to spec development
  287. # [23:15] * Joins: sbuluf (zhsteur@200.49.132.78)
  288. # [23:21] <Lachy> I made some updates to the authoring guide. Mostly improving the element descriptions and describing some element categories. http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/
  289. # [23:21] * Joins: timbl (timbl@96.237.56.114)
  290. # [23:30] * Quits: timbl (timbl@96.237.56.114) (Ping timeout)
  291. # [23:30] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@66.30.196.151) (Ping timeout)
  292. # [23:31] <mjs> 7 orgs have now voted
  293. # [23:31] <mjs> 7 to go
  294. # [23:36] * Joins: jgraham (james@81.86.210.78)
  295. # [23:42] <Lachy> wow, Acid 3 says IE6 conforms to 100% of the standards http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=acid3ie6ok4.jpg (via slashdot comment http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=414942&cid=21999680 )
  296. # [23:43] <gavin> heh
  297. # [23:44] <Hixie> heh
  298. # [23:49] * Joins: timbl (timbl@96.237.56.114)
  299. # [23:53] <Navarr> Opera fails with a 65
  300. # [23:54] <Hixie> anne: yt?
  301. # [23:54] <Hixie> anne: can you comment on alex's e-mail in public-tss-testsuite? i don't know the details of what he asks, but i think you and jgraham were involved, right?
  302. # Session Close: Sat Jan 12 00:00:00 2008

The end :)