/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2008-01-14 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Mon Jan 14 00:00:00 2008
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:06] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@99.227.30.12)
  4. # [00:13] <mjs> we now have 10 org votes on the survey
  5. # [00:13] <mjs> AOL + IBM + Google + W3C would put it over the top
  6. # [00:14] <mjs> assuming we can get those orgs to vote
  7. # [00:14] <gavin> I forget, is the requirement that half the orgs vote, or that half the orgs vote positively?
  8. # [00:14] <mjs> Dispruptive Innovations could probably be persuaded to vote
  9. # [00:14] <mjs> half the orgs vote at all
  10. # [00:14] <mjs> it's a quorum requirement
  11. # [00:14] <gavin> ok
  12. # [00:14] <mjs> "A quorum is 50 working group participants, including half the 28 participating W3C member organizations. Provided we have a quorum and at least 2/3rds of the non-blank votes are 'yes', the question carries."
  13. # [00:16] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.137.236.187) (Quit: gsnedders)
  14. # [00:17] <Lachy> I'm sure we can count on Hixie and Mike to vote for Google and the W3C, and Sam should be able to vote for IBM (assuming he's not on holidays or something now)
  15. # [00:17] <Philip> It seems odd that a Member not voting is more effective at blocking the question than voting no
  16. # [00:18] <mjs> well, the question doesn't say what happens if quorum is not reached
  17. # [00:18] <Lachy> Philip, that's only true until there are at least 14 org votes
  18. # [00:19] <mjs> quorum requirements are normally there to prevent procedural trickery (raising a question when some are not available)
  19. # [00:19] <mjs> if anyone personally knows people at any of the other Member orgs, a personally reminder might be helpful
  20. # [00:21] <Lachy> MikeSmith already sent a reminder to each of the orgs that hasn't voted yet
  21. # [00:25] <tH> is this whole canvassing thing going to have to happen every 3 months, then?
  22. # [00:26] <mjs> a personal reminder?
  23. # [00:26] <mjs> maybe we should have a rule that if an org fails to vote in N surveys in a row (for some value of N) they no longer count for quorum purposes
  24. # [00:29] <Lachy> mjs, yes, see all the emails from Mike about the survey on www-archive http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jan/
  25. # [00:34] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  26. # [00:34] <mjs> ah, cool
  27. # [00:48] * Quits: jane (j@76.170.65.146) (Quit: zomg)
  28. # [00:56] * Joins: jane (j@76.170.65.146)
  29. # [01:16] * Quits: tH (Rob@87.102.16.84) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.79-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.0.9/2006120508])
  30. # [01:17] <Lachy> There's another no vote now. It says "I do not believe HTML5 should be published as a working draft until more of the inconsistencies are worked out."
  31. # [01:18] <Lachy> I wonder, do some people honestly think that a *working draft* needs to have all problems resolved before publishing?
  32. # [01:24] * Philip wonders which inconsistencies are being referred to
  33. # [01:25] <Dashiva> Wasn't there someone saying that much on the list? But since it would require a patient public and no heartbeat requirement, it's hardly worth considering
  34. # [01:30] <Philip> Is the "no heartbeat" requirement the one where we take so long before publishing that everybody dies?
  35. # [01:35] <Dashiva> It's the one where we don't publish until 2020, and then everyone has forgotten what HTML is
  36. # [01:37] <Philip> It would be interesting to know what will replace HTML in the future
  37. # [01:37] <Philip> (or whether civilisation will collapse before that happens)
  38. # [01:39] <Philip> (in which case I wonder what markup language the next civilisation will use)
  39. # [01:39] <Dashiva> The one facebook uses
  40. # [01:42] * Joins: anne-mac (annevk@77.163.243.203)
  41. # [01:53] * Quits: anne-mac (annevk@77.163.243.203) (Ping timeout)
  42. # [02:08] * Quits: gavin_ (gavin@99.227.30.12) (Ping timeout)
  43. # [02:12] * Joins: gavin_ (gavin@99.227.30.12)
  44. # [02:27] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100) (Quit: Leaving)
  45. # [02:54] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100)
  46. # [03:05] <Philip> http://browsershots.org/http://hixie.ch/tests/evil/acid/003/NOT_READY_PLEASE_DO_NOT_USE.html - that seems a handy way of running tests
  47. # [03:08] <mjs> strangely inconsistent
  48. # [04:16] * Joins: timbl (timbl@96.237.56.114)
  49. # [04:27] * Quits: sbuluf (mfluhhb@200.49.132.77) (Quit: sbuluf)
  50. # [04:47] * Quits: timbl (timbl@96.237.56.114) (Quit: timbl)
  51. # [05:09] * Joins: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.30)
  52. # [06:43] <Hixie> Lachy: good idea
  53. # [07:45] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Connection reset by peer)
  54. # [07:46] * Joins: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145)
  55. # [08:17] * Joins: tH_ (Rob@87.102.16.84)
  56. # [08:17] * tH_ is now known as tH
  57. # [08:35] * Quits: tH (Rob@87.102.16.84) (Quit: chatzilla update)
  58. # [08:37] * Joins: tH (Rob@87.102.16.84)
  59. # [09:22] * Quits: jgraham (james@81.86.208.116) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  60. # [09:36] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.40.140) (Quit: Leaving)
  61. # [09:36] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.40.140)
  62. # [09:58] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  63. # [10:03] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.40.140) (Quit: Leaving)
  64. # [10:03] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254)
  65. # [10:11] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.154.87.254) (Ping timeout)
  66. # [10:17] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.40.140)
  67. # [10:18] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@69.140.40.140) (Quit: Leaving)
  68. # [10:25] * Joins: jgraham (james@81.86.208.116)
  69. # [10:27] * Joins: anne-mac (annevk@77.163.243.203)
  70. # [10:28] <anne-mac> Hixie, please don't test too much of media queries to lock it down
  71. # [10:28] <anne-mac> Hixie, the current plan is for @media (bogus), all to be ignored (as an invalid statement)
  72. # [10:31] <Philip> (11 Member responses...)
  73. # [10:33] <anne-mac> yay
  74. # [10:42] <anne-mac> another one just came in
  75. # [10:42] <anne-mac> two to go
  76. # [10:42] <anne-mac> all my predictions are still not in...
  77. # [11:05] <hsivonen> given the www-archive response from France Telecom rep, it seems that the "subject to change" warning really works as a deterrent
  78. # [11:07] <anne-mac> it's great that Mike e-mailed all those reminders
  79. # [11:08] <Philip> Given the responses today, the weekend is also a deterrent
  80. # [11:08] <Philip> It's almost as if some people have lives outside of HTML :-(
  81. # [11:09] <Philip> Does it matter that the "100/" and "100" are on separate lines in http://www.hixie.ch/tests/evil/acid/003/reference.html when I view it in Opera?
  82. # [11:10] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  83. # [11:12] <anne-mac> yeah, e-mailing the reminders just before the weekend is probably better avoided going forwards
  84. # [11:28] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22)
  85. # [11:29] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22) (Quit: Leaving)
  86. # [11:29] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22)
  87. # [11:50] * Quits: anne-mac (annevk@77.163.243.203) (Ping timeout)
  88. # [11:52] <Lachy> woo hoo, up to 12 organisation votes now.
  89. # [12:31] <Lachy> one more org says they will vote, which will take us to 13. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jan/0056.html
  90. # [12:31] <Lachy> then, assuming Hixie will vote for Google, we have a quorum
  91. # [12:40] * Joins: Dashimon (noone@80.202.220.46)
  92. # [12:40] * Quits: Dashiva (noone@84.48.60.15) (Ping timeout)
  93. # [12:40] * Dashimon is now known as Dashiva
  94. # [12:51] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  95. # [13:36] * Joins: timbl (timbl@96.237.56.114)
  96. # [13:47] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@88.131.66.80)
  97. # [14:11] * Joins: matt (matt@128.30.52.30)
  98. # [14:13] * Joins: matt_ (matt@128.30.52.30)
  99. # [14:18] * Quits: matt (matt@128.30.52.30) (Ping timeout)
  100. # [14:18] * matt_ is now known as matt
  101. # [14:18] * Joins: anne (annevk@77.163.243.203)
  102. # [14:45] * Joins: myakura (myakura@118.6.175.129)
  103. # [14:51] * Joins: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245)
  104. # [14:59] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@217.42.133.143)
  105. # [15:04] * Joins: aroben (aroben@68.63.161.63)
  106. # [15:05] <Philip> 12 + AOL = 13
  107. # [15:05] <zcorpan> 0.5 more to go
  108. # [15:05] * gsnedders wonders how we get half a vote
  109. # [15:05] <anne> we obviously need higher goals :p
  110. # [15:05] <Lachy> Hixie, vote now and we're done!
  111. # [15:06] <anne> no we're not
  112. # [15:06] <anne> people can still remove their vote
  113. # [15:07] <Philip> We could have 29 more people vote no and nobody vote yes
  114. # [15:07] <Lachy> true, but that's not very likely
  115. # [15:07] <gsnedders> is there any way to find the email address of one of the responders?
  116. # [15:08] <Lachy> gsnedders, look in the list of participants
  117. # [15:08] <gsnedders> Lachy: which list?
  118. # [15:08] * gsnedders hasn't ever seen one with emails
  119. # [15:09] <anne> Member only
  120. # [15:09] <gsnedders> ah.
  121. # [15:09] <Lachy> oh, sorry. W3C members see the list with emails
  122. # [15:09] <Philip> Look in the non-responders list for one of the surveys that they didn't respond to
  123. # [15:09] <Lachy> or search the email archives for their name
  124. # [15:09] <gsnedders> Lachy: that didn't help
  125. # [15:10] <gsnedders> Philip: cunning :)
  126. # [15:10] <Lachy> gsnedders, who's email do you want?
  127. # [15:10] <gsnedders> Lachy: Samuel Santos
  128. # [15:10] <gsnedders> found it on an old questionaire, though
  129. # [15:15] <Philip> He has a good point about Macromedia
  130. # [15:16] * Quits: matt (matt@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  131. # [15:16] * gsnedders checks his memory of XHTML Modularization is correct
  132. # [15:17] <gsnedders> Seems to be…
  133. # [15:17] * Joins: matt (matt@128.30.52.30)
  134. # [15:17] <Philip> I guess you're going to complain that XHTML Modularization is not a feature? :-)
  135. # [15:18] <gsnedders> Nope
  136. # [15:18] <gsnedders> Mainly that seeming we have no schema it mostly isn't relevant
  137. # [15:19] <Philip> The ideas might still be relevant, just the implementation of the ideas has to change so it's not using schemas
  138. # [15:21] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  139. # [15:23] * gsnedders concludes everything he's written so far in the email is really badly written
  140. # [15:25] * Quits: matt (matt@128.30.52.30) (Broken pipe)
  141. # [15:26] * Joins: matt (matt@128.30.52.30)
  142. # [15:37] * Joins: matt_ (matt@128.30.52.30)
  143. # [15:41] * Quits: matt (matt@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  144. # [16:00] <hsivonen> gsnedders: fwiw, the whattf schema is modular. it is just totally non-normative
  145. # [16:01] <hsivonen> hmm. quorum is one Member away
  146. # [16:01] <gsnedders> not .5 members?
  147. # [16:01] <hsivonen> and the survey system changed to show a longer buggy list of non-respondents
  148. # [16:02] <anne> it's still a bit early for the west coast
  149. # [16:08] * matt_ is now known as matt
  150. # [16:22] * Quits: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  151. # [16:22] * Joins: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30)
  152. # [16:24] <Philip> 14 now, I think
  153. # [16:26] <hsivonen> mmm. quorum.
  154. # [16:26] <gsnedders> assuming nobody withdraws their vote
  155. # [16:27] <Philip> and assuming nobody has a valid formal objection
  156. # [16:28] <gsnedders> Philip: that's not a quorum requirement, though
  157. # [16:28] <hsivonen> Philip: "Should the question carry, any formal objections will be cited from the status section of the publication."
  158. # [16:28] <zcorpan> "Navarr Barnier - No - I do not believe HTML5 should be published as a working draft until more of the inconsistencies are worked out."
  159. # [16:29] <xover> FPWD requires Director approval. The Director will decide whether to let the question Carry in the presence of FO. Or so I take Process to explain it.
  160. # [16:29] <Philip> Ah, right
  161. # [16:29] <gsnedders> xover: yeah, that's right, but first the chairs have to over-rule them
  162. # [16:29] <xover> Right.
  163. # [16:31] <Philip> (15)
  164. # [16:31] <xover> Hmm. Actually, I think the Chairs decide whether to let the question Carry (over FO). The Director decides whether to grant the WGs request for Advancement (to FPWD), taking into account the noted FOs and other factors.
  165. # [16:33] <gsnedders> yeah, but also note that consensus isn't a requirement to publish a WD
  166. # [16:33] <xover> I'm a bit surprised the <video>/Theora question hasn't motivated any FOs.
  167. # [16:33] <xover> gsnedders: right
  168. # [16:34] <gsnedders> to people within the WG I think that situation is clear enough
  169. # [16:34] <xover> It's what had me considering whether I needed to be the Bad Guy again this survey.
  170. # [16:35] * Lachy wonders if the HTMLWG was more private like some other groups, and the editor's draft was only available to members, whether the objectors would have voted differently, since a FPWD would then be the only way to get public feedback
  171. # [16:36] * gsnedders doesn't think the W3C Process is very suited at all for public WGs
  172. # [16:36] <xover> “members” or “Members”?
  173. # [16:36] <gsnedders> Lachy: an ED is public, a MO is not.
  174. # [16:36] <Lachy> xover, what's the difference?
  175. # [16:37] <xover> WG members includes Invited Experts; W3C Members includes, well, the 27 orgs.
  176. # [16:37] <Lachy> xover, it would have to be viewable by WG members
  177. # [16:37] <xover> If the draft was Member only, I expect the non-Member WG members would have had a reason to vote for publication. :-)
  178. # [16:38] <xover> But Process does encourage soliciting feedback on even Editor's Draft versions, so the point is moot.
  179. # [16:38] <Lachy> xover, how can someone possibly vote if they can't even see what they're voting for
  180. # [16:39] <Philip> They can vote that they'd like to be allowed to see it please
  181. # [16:40] <gavin> what incentive would they have to vote for not being able to see it? :)
  182. # [16:40] * gsnedders notices the process doesn't even mention ED or MOs
  183. # [16:40] <Lachy> Philip, they'd could only request to see it. The votes would have to come from those who can to decide whether others should be allowed to see it.
  184. # [16:41] * xover would prefer he'd never seen some of the specs he's read over the years…
  185. # [16:41] <Lachy> xover, me too. Like, for example, anything related to the mobile web "walled garden"
  186. # [16:42] * gsnedders was going to write, "Why Web Standards Are Pointless"
  187. # [16:42] <Lachy> they're not pointless when they're done right
  188. # [16:42] <hsivonen> sigh. SAX XMLFilter sucks big time :-( :-(
  189. # [16:43] <gsnedders> Lachy: how many things that meet the requirements for Acid3 are done right, for example?
  190. # [16:44] <Philip> Standards are pointless and so we need a single vendor-controlled cross-platform solution that can ensure interoperability and can save the world from the pointless economic cost of reimplementing exactly the same features in multiple browsers
  191. # [16:44] <Lachy> gsnedders, I'd guess 0 are done 100% right. But some are better than others.
  192. # [16:45] <gsnedders> Lachy: if you look at specs that are really used, almost none are.
  193. # [16:45] <xover> Philip: Isn't that what we're up to here?
  194. # [16:45] <Lachy> like Silverlight
  195. # [16:46] * Lachy notes that silverlight is currently a complete market failure
  196. # [16:48] * Philip notes that Microsoft has only recently tried getting people to require it
  197. # [16:48] <Lachy> flash would probably be a better choice if we want a single-vendor solution to free us from the troubles of interopable standards that promote competition and innovation
  198. # [16:55] <hsivonen> It'll be interesting to see if Silverlight makes Flash go to Open Source like Netscape
  199. # [16:55] <hsivonen> (though with Flash there's the problem of third-party patents on codecs)
  200. # [16:55] * Quits: myakura (myakura@118.6.175.129) (Quit: Leaving...)
  201. # [16:58] <Lachy> excluding the video codecs, and assuming Adobe owns all flash-related patents and can give them RF licencing, making flash open source would be a good move
  202. # [16:59] <Philip> Why would it be good?
  203. # [17:05] <Lachy> actually, s/open source/open standard/
  204. # [17:06] <Lachy> it would be good because then it would not longer be controlled by a single vendor
  205. # [17:06] <Lachy> and would allow others to implement it
  206. # [17:06] <Philip> Why would Adobe consider it a good move?
  207. # [17:06] <Lachy> just like Adobe made PDF an open standard
  208. # [17:07] <Lachy> I'm not looking at it from Adobe's POV. I don't know what they would think
  209. # [17:08] <DanC> Adobe made PDF an open standard? I missed that one. do you remember when?
  210. # [17:09] <Lachy> also, browsers could implement it natively and security risks inherent in the plugin model would be reduced.
  211. # [17:09] <Philip> http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38920
  212. # [17:09] <Lachy> DanC, the PDF spec has been available for years
  213. # [17:09] <DanC> yes, I know the PDF spec has been available for years; but Adobe retained change control
  214. # [17:09] <hsivonen> DanC: some version of PDF became an ISO spec a month or two ago. it has been available and RF for years
  215. # [17:09] <Philip> Oh, that seems an older version...
  216. # [17:10] <Lachy> ok
  217. # [17:10] <DanC> "PDF is an open standard, and recently took a major step towards becoming ISO 32000." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF (which cites sources for this claim...)
  218. # [17:11] <Philip> http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=45873 - I wonder what CHF 64,00 is in real money...
  219. # [17:11] <hsivonen> and right when PDF became an ISO standard, Adobe embraced and extended it with 3D stuff that disrupts PDF's focus
  220. # [17:11] * hsivonen thinks PDF peaked at 1.4
  221. # [17:11] <Philip> 29.4064087 British pounds - thank you for all those decimal places, Google
  222. # [17:12] <DanC> it's good that all the govt and financial records in PDF are now backed by an open standard in addition to open source implementations.
  223. # [17:12] <Lachy> Philip, in real money, $65 AUD
  224. # [17:12] <Lachy> I hate british pounds, they're deceptively expensive
  225. # [17:12] <DanC> I still see PDF interop problems now and then, but not so many
  226. # [17:13] <hsivonen> PDF 1.3 interop is truly remarkable
  227. # [17:15] <hsivonen> Philip, zcorpan: http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fphilip.html5.org%2Fdemos%2Fcanvas%2F3d%2Fx3d%2Ftest.xhtml&charset=&nsfilter=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.web3d.org%2Fspecifications%2Fx3d-namespace
  228. # [17:15] <hsivonen> now it actually works. previously, it reported success for the wrong reason
  229. # [17:16] <hsivonen> I need to learn to remember that XMLFilterImpl is more trouble than it's worth
  230. # [17:26] <zcorpan> hsivonen: nice
  231. # [17:27] <hsivonen> now with field disabling JS when HTML parser chosen
  232. # [17:31] * zcorpan notes that the default schema for xml changed
  233. # [17:31] <zcorpan> ...when the root namespace is xhtml
  234. # [17:31] <hsivonen> zcorpan: more precisely, the default schema for the XHTML root namespace changed
  235. # [17:31] <hsivonen> right
  236. # [17:33] <zcorpan> aha! whatwg.org changed doctype, too
  237. # [17:37] * Quits: matt (matt@128.30.52.30) (Ping timeout)
  238. # [17:37] <anne> dogfood
  239. # [17:56] * Joins: matt (matt@128.30.52.30)
  240. # [18:00] <hsivonen> Validator.nu is now logging error messages when an (X)HTML5 schema is in use.
  241. # [18:00] <hsivonen> I intend to compile aggregate stats later
  242. # [18:00] <hsivonen> logging only happens with http URIs
  243. # [18:00] <hsivonen> it doesn't happen on uploads that don't have a URI for the doc
  244. # [18:01] <hsivonen> also, I'm not saving extracts.
  245. # [18:01] <hsivonen> I'm not logging error locations, either
  246. # [18:02] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  247. # [18:09] * Parts: timbl (timbl@96.237.56.114)
  248. # [18:15] <anne> it seems the non-responders part of the survey is less bogus now
  249. # [18:18] <Dashiva> Less bogus, but now it's harder to pick out the Members
  250. # [18:19] <zcorpan> Members and non-Members should be listed separately
  251. # [18:21] <anne> they are...
  252. # [18:21] <anne> the W3C Members are at the top
  253. # [18:21] <anne> the WG members are after that
  254. # [18:22] <Philip> It no longer identifies the Invited Experts
  255. # [18:22] <Dashiva> anne: Where?
  256. # [18:22] <anne> in the non-responders part
  257. # [18:23] <Dashiva> Well, we're trying to count responders, not non-responders
  258. # [18:24] <Philip> Try subtraction
  259. # [18:25] <Dashiva> Assumes you know the total, which there has been some conflicting values listed for
  260. # [18:28] <Philip> You can find the total by summing the responders and non-responders
  261. # [18:29] <Dashiva> Which requires separating Member responders from other responders, which was the initial task :)
  262. # [18:29] <hsivonen> you still need to adjust for the W3C Team being counted thrice
  263. # [18:31] <Philip> Dashiva: Circularity of calculation shouldn't be such a problem
  264. # [18:32] <Philip> If I say x=y-1 and y=2*x then there's the same sort of circular definition but you can still find the answer
  265. # [18:33] <zcorpan> Philip: but it requires thinking! :)
  266. # [18:33] <Dashiva> Sure, but you'd have me find it by solving a supertask of the task I was trying to solve, which is a really bad algorithm
  267. # [18:33] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100)
  268. # [18:34] <Philip> Dashiva: You must be not a mathematician
  269. # [18:34] <Dashiva> Correct, I got out of that racket after high school :)
  270. # [18:36] <Philip> The mathematician's way is to think: why bother proving something useless like Fermat's Last Theorem when you can simply prove a more general result that implies it?
  271. # [18:38] * gsnedders has maths exam on Thursday!
  272. # [18:38] <gsnedders> yay!
  273. # [18:41] <Philip> Remember to revise Fermat!
  274. # [18:44] <Dashiva> By claiming your answer won't fit on the answer sheet?
  275. # [18:46] * Joins: hober (ted@67.168.62.146)
  276. # [18:49] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100) (Quit: Leaving)
  277. # [18:49] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@84.215.54.100)
  278. # [18:58] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
  279. # [19:06] * Quits: hober (ted@67.168.62.146) (Quit: ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs))
  280. # [19:22] * Joins: hober (ted@67.168.62.146)
  281. # [19:24] * Quits: matt (matt@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  282. # [19:33] * Joins: adele (adele@17.203.15.207)
  283. # [20:00] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  284. # [20:18] * Quits: zcorpan (zcorpan@88.131.66.80) (Ping timeout)
  285. # [20:56] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.229)
  286. # [21:02] * Joins: kingryan (kingryan@66.92.219.50)
  287. # [21:16] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.229) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  288. # [21:57] * mjs counts 17 org votes
  289. # [22:00] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.229)
  290. # [22:02] <Hixie> do we know which inconsistencies Navarr is referring to?
  291. # [22:02] * Quits: jgraham (james@81.86.208.116) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  292. # [22:03] <Hixie> I spoke with Bob Hopgood, and basically we concluded that there wasn't much that could be done to change the spec to address his concerns, and that it mostly was about the W3C's messaging
  293. # [22:03] <Hixie> hopefully their press release, since they insist on having one (sigh), will clarify the relationship between XHTML1, XHTML2, and XHTML5.
  294. # [22:05] * Joins: jgraham (james@81.86.208.116)
  295. # [22:09] <Navarr> Hixie: I just don't think the spec is mature enough.
  296. # [22:09] <Hixie> well sure, we're only suggesting a very early first public working draft
  297. # [22:09] <hsivonen> Navarr: what's inconsistent about it? First Public WD does not have to be mature.
  298. # [22:09] <Hixie> what would you like fixed before it is published as a first draft?
  299. # [22:09] <Navarr> I know for a fact that many of those enthusiastic about specs will start using it, and inconsistencies that may be changed would be a pain for early adapters, non?
  300. # [22:10] <Navarr> a good example, and its the only one I have because I haven't had time to go through the whole specification yet, is the <b> <i> <u> series.
  301. # [22:10] <Hixie> sure, but that's already happening independent of whether we publish ir on the /TR/ page or not
  302. # [22:11] <Hixie> what's inconsistent about <b> <i> <u>? We have <b> and <i> because they have uses, and we dropped <u> because HTML4 said it was deprecated and it isn't used as much and has significantly fewer use cases
  303. # [22:11] * Hixie has also fixed some of samuel's concerns, btw
  304. # [22:11] <Navarr> wern't the uses for <b> and <i> given to the <strong> and <em> tags?
  305. # [22:12] <Navarr> and from the wording of the <b> tag, its not actually for a real use, just styling
  306. # [22:12] <jgraham> Navarr: No, in principle <b> != <strong>
  307. # [22:12] <jgraham> and <em> != <i>
  308. # [22:12] <gsnedders> Navarr: <b> and <i> have typographical meanings
  309. # [22:12] <jgraham> On the real web it might not be possible to make that distinction
  310. # [22:12] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  311. # [22:13] <Hixie> i think the spec explains in excruciating detail the differences between <b> and <strong> and so on
  312. # [22:13] <jgraham> But, for example, "I sailed on the <em>Queen "
  313. # [22:13] <gsnedders> Navarr: http://www.w3.org/2007/05/emphasis-diagram
  314. # [22:13] <jgraham> er. didn't mean to hit enter
  315. # [22:13] <hsivonen> Navarr: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-January/009060.html
  316. # [22:13] <Navarr> I read the book <u>Of Mice and Men</u>.
  317. # [22:14] <hsivonen> Navarr: that's bad typography
  318. # [22:14] <jgraham> The typographical usage of <u> is less common. That said I don't really care one way or the other about <u>
  319. # [22:14] <hsivonen> Navarr: but I wouldn't object to including <u> in the conforming language
  320. # [22:15] <jgraham> If people are happy with (<b>, <i>,<u>) but not (<b>,<i>) because of "consistency", I will go with it
  321. # [22:15] <Hixie> the amount of people complaining about <b> and <i> was orders of magnitude -- many orders of magnitude -- more than those complaining about <u>
  322. # [22:15] <Hixie> and the use cases were significantly more convincing
  323. # [22:15] <jgraham> because, frankly, it's an amazingly minor trivial issue compared to the attention it gets
  324. # [22:16] <Navarr> thats true, and it was discussed in here the other day if I remember correctly.
  325. # [22:16] <hsivonen> it's a total bikeshed
  326. # [22:16] <jgraham> In bikesheddiness it is probably second only to <acronym> vs <abbr>
  327. # [22:17] * Quits: mjs (mjs@64.81.48.145) (Quit: mjs)
  328. # [22:17] <gsnedders> I will paint my bikeshed with an <abbr>.
  329. # [22:17] * jgraham would love to think of a way of ending the underline thread that has been running on public-html for weeks
  330. # [22:17] <Navarr> also, a question, what happens to the XHTML2 working group if (X)HTML5 is published... do they continue..?
  331. # [22:18] <hsivonen> Navarr: most likely they will continue
  332. # [22:18] <jgraham> They continue ding their own thing
  333. # [22:18] <jgraham> They seem to be pitching XHTML2 more as a backend language these days
  334. # [22:18] <jgraham> apparently ebay UK are using it for something
  335. # [22:18] <gsnedders> Navarr: the two WGs fill different parts the W3C's vision (<http://www.w3.org/2007/03/vision>)
  336. # [22:19] <Hixie> the html wg doesn't fit any part of the w3c's vision
  337. # [22:19] <gsnedders> I'd argue it does in the short term
  338. # [22:19] <Hixie> unless it's the "oh my god we're about to become irrelevant let's at least pretend to care about the web" part of the vision
  339. # [22:20] <Hixie> just look at the press release for when they created the html wg if you don't believe me
  340. # [22:20] <gsnedders> Yeah, I've seen that.
  341. # [22:20] <Navarr> <selfNote>i need to go back and read over the spec.
  342. # [22:21] <Hixie> Navarr: is there anything other than the <u> issue preventing you from voting yes?
  343. # [22:22] <Navarr> not that i can think of right now, but my minds still swirling around; i just got home from a final exam.
  344. # [22:23] <Hixie> what could i do to address your concerns enough that you would vote yes?
  345. # [22:23] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.229) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  346. # [22:24] <Navarr> give me time to re-read over the specification :-p
  347. # [22:24] <Navarr> oh, right, i remember now. If I remember correctly, the specification addresses very little about its use in the form of XHTML.
  348. # [22:25] <gsnedders> Navarr: What needs to be defined that isn't already?
  349. # [22:25] <hsivonen> Navarr: actually, it says pretty much all it needs to say about XHTML alone (except it doesn't cover xml:space)
  350. # [22:26] <hsivonen> Navarr: the integration points with SVG, MathML, XBL2 and RDF are missing, though
  351. # [22:26] <hsivonen> Navarr: but those are easy to guess and can be filled in later
  352. # [22:27] <Navarr> well, like I said, i need to re-read over it, so that I dont make a fool of myself.
  353. # [22:27] <Navarr> its very poor taste to talk about what one does not fully know or understand.
  354. # [22:29] <jgraham> Navarr: I think I should take a vow of silence...
  355. # [22:29] <Philip> There's only a couple of days left to change the vote, and it might take longer than that to fully read the specification :-)
  356. # [22:29] <Philip> particularly if you read it backwards and inside-out too
  357. # [22:30] <Navarr> I'll move my vote back to abstaining then
  358. # [22:30] <gsnedders> Philip: and random bit following all cross references.
  359. # [22:30] <Philip> gsnedders: That's the inside-out :-)
  360. # [22:30] <gsnedders> eph.
  361. # [22:30] * Joins: edas (edaspet@82.233.238.50)
  362. # [22:30] <gsnedders> s/ep/pe/
  363. # [22:30] <jgraham> Does following all cross references include external ones?
  364. # [22:31] <hsivonen> jgraham: of course! but you have to guess what those are for now
  365. # [22:31] <gsnedders> jgraham: yes, it says all!
  366. # [22:31] <jgraham> Because that would quickly increase the total number of specs to read to cover pretty much everything, ever
  367. # [22:32] <jgraham> unless Hixie removed the bit about reading all specs in the same way
  368. # [22:32] <Lachy> Navarr, if you can't express what the inconcistencies are the in the spec that need to be addressed, then your no vote basically boils down to "because I don't understand the spec enough", and you should consider changing it to an abstain vote
  369. # [22:32] <Philip> Someone should make a pretty graph of all the normative references between specs
  370. # [22:33] <Navarr> Lachy: You're a little late, I'm already ahead of your advice :-p
  371. # [22:33] * Lachy should have finished reading the log before writing that, didn't see "I'll move my vote back to abstaining then"
  372. # [22:33] <jgraham> Philip: Can we emphasise "pretty" there to exclude the use of Graphviz? :)
  373. # [22:34] <Navarr> although, I do still think that the differences draft should not be publicized as such until HTML5 is reaching a more mature stage.
  374. # [22:35] <Philip> jgraham: What's not pretty about Graphviz? :-(
  375. # [22:35] <shepazu> Navarr, FWIW, it's considered bad style to use underlines on HTML pages because that's that common indication that a bit of text is a link
  376. # [22:35] <Philip> (assuming it's got proper antialiasing and fonts)
  377. # [22:35] <Navarr> Ive read that. Although, I've always seen it as the hand cursor being a common indication of a link
  378. # [22:36] <jgraham> Philip: Maybe I've just never seen a pretty graphviz graph
  379. # [22:38] <Philip> jgraham: Is http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/misc/states8.png not pretty? :'-(
  380. # [22:41] * gsnedders sighs
  381. # [22:41] <gsnedders> HTML is bizarre.
  382. # [22:42] <Navarr> I don't quite get the purpose of keeping <embed> and <object> as well as <video> and <audio> Video and Audio I can see with semantic purposes, but why do we need both <embed> and <object>?
  383. # [22:43] * Quits: heycam (cam@210.84.62.145) (Ping timeout)
  384. # [22:43] * Joins: heycam (cam@210.84.62.145)
  385. # [22:43] <hsivonen> Navarr: We need <embed>, because existing authoring tools emit it for non-ActiveX browsers
  386. # [22:44] <gsnedders> Adobe's SVG plugin has all kinds of bugs with <object> too
  387. # [22:44] <Navarr> Adobe's SVG plugin was discontinued, If I remember correctly
  388. # [22:44] <hsivonen> Navarr: that is, real-world cross-browser backwards-compat with plugin scenarios requires both
  389. # [22:45] <hsivonen> (though, real-world requires the ActiveX-specific attributes, too)
  390. # [22:45] <Navarr> then why isn't it moved to obsolete with rules for legacy rendering, but developers encouraged to use <object>; or is that actually the way its working?
  391. # [22:45] <gsnedders> Navarr: that's true, but what other plugins are there for SVG support in IE?
  392. # [22:46] <hsivonen> Navarr: to make it conforming to author content that has legacy-compatible fallback
  393. # [22:46] <jgraham__> Navarr: Because it seems less harmful to keep it than to have people go through elaborate hoops to use it but hide it from the validator
  394. # [22:46] <anne> <embed> is for plug-ins. <object> is for everything <iframe>, <embed>, <video>, <img>, and <audio> don't cater for
  395. # [22:46] <shepazu> there's the Renesis plugin
  396. # [22:46] <hsivonen> I'd make <applet> conforming as well
  397. # [22:46] <Navarr> I don't quite know of a monder browser that doesn't know <object.
  398. # [22:46] <anne> first need to define a processing model for <applet>
  399. # [22:47] <Philip> Mmm, apple tea
  400. # [22:47] <hsivonen> I'd make <applet> conforming even though I'm on the first Google result page for "java applets suck"
  401. # [22:47] <hsivonen> java applet suck, rather
  402. # [22:48] <Navarr> apparently there are actually at least two other current SVG plugins for IE
  403. # [22:48] <Navarr> Renesis and some other one supposedly released by the SVG Map Consortium
  404. # [22:52] <shepazu> there are others, as well, but some are not yet released... but it's would be far better for it to be natively supported
  405. # [22:53] <Navarr> and theres the posibility that they will, but its still unknown.
  406. # [22:53] <gsnedders> shepazu: Authors will still rely on plugins for compat with existing versions
  407. # [23:01] <anne> so 17 W3C Member votes now?
  408. # [23:04] <anne> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar/0000.html
  409. # [23:04] <anne> that bug sure bites a lot of people
  410. # [23:06] <Dashiva> Isn't there a movement to get rid of @media entirely too?
  411. # [23:07] <gsnedders> anne: didn't you get told that all spec writers aren't very good?
  412. # [23:11] * Quits: edas (edaspet@82.233.238.50) (Ping timeout)
  413. # [23:12] * Joins: edas (edaspet@82.233.238.50)
  414. # [23:12] * Joins: sbuluf (ykgsew@200.49.132.90)
  415. # [23:15] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.203.15.209)
  416. # [23:16] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@217.42.133.143) (Quit: Partying in teh intarwebs)
  417. # [23:16] <Lachy> I would be convinced to make <applet> conforming if browsers don't support embedding Java using either object or embed today, and IIRC, they don't.
  418. # [23:19] <hsivonen> Lachy: some (all?) support <object>, but in some cases <object> support isn't as good as <applet> support
  419. # [23:19] <Lachy> hsivonen, you're no longer the first result for "java applet suck", you're the 10th.
  420. # [23:19] <Lachy> oh, wait, I misread your earlier comment
  421. # [23:20] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.229)
  422. # [23:20] <hsivonen> Lachy: IIRC, <applet> has more useful behavior in IE when the Sun plug-in hasn't been installed
  423. # [23:21] <hsivonen> Lachy: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/plugin/developer_guide/using_tags.html
  424. # [23:21] <hsivonen> oops. looks like it is the other way round and <object> can be used to point the user to install
  425. # [23:22] <hsivonen> anyway, according to Sun, <applet> is the cross-browser element
  426. # [23:23] <hsivonen> fwiw, last time I checked, the Opera Mini simulator used <applet>...
  427. # [23:23] <hsivonen> anyway, bed time on my timezone
  428. # [23:23] <hsivonen> nn
  429. # [23:24] <Lachy> cya
  430. # [23:27] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
  431. # [23:29] * Quits: hober (ted@67.168.62.146) (Quit: ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs))
  432. # [23:32] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@217.42.133.143)
  433. # [23:48] * Quits: edas (edaspet@82.233.238.50) (Quit: Quitte)
  434. # [23:51] * Joins: aaronlev_ (chatzilla@209.6.168.245)
  435. # [23:52] * Quits: aaronlev (chatzilla@209.6.168.245) (Ping timeout)
  436. # [23:52] * aaronlev_ is now known as aaronlev
  437. # [23:56] * DanC is happy that the difference between 27 and 28 or 29 member orgs is irrelevant now that we have responses from 17 member orgs
  438. # Session Close: Tue Jan 15 00:00:00 2008

The end :)