/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2009-05-24 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Sun May 24 00:00:00 2009
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:21] * Quits: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28) (Ping timeout)
  4. # [00:22] * Joins: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28)
  5. # [00:47] * Quits: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28) (Ping timeout)
  6. # [00:59] * Joins: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28)
  7. # [01:17] * Quits: drry (drry@210.235.212.25) (Quit: Tiarra 0.1+svn-33115: SIGTERM received; exit)
  8. # [01:17] * Joins: drry (drry@210.235.212.25)
  9. # [01:25] * Quits: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.73) (Ping timeout)
  10. # [01:30] * Joins: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.72)
  11. # [01:43] * Quits: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28) (Ping timeout)
  12. # [01:44] * Joins: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28)
  13. # [02:05] * Quits: Hixie (ianh@129.241.93.37) (Ping timeout)
  14. # [02:10] * Joins: aroben (aroben@209.116.40.3)
  15. # [02:12] * Joins: Hixie (ianh@129.241.93.37)
  16. # [02:45] * takkaria sighs
  17. # [02:46] <takkaria> the RDFa people people don't seem to quite get the market realities of parsing HTML
  18. # [02:54] * Quits: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28) (Ping timeout)
  19. # [02:56] * Joins: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28)
  20. # [03:15] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 5851] Consider adding .toArray() on NodeList and HTMLCollection <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009May/0010.html>
  21. # [03:30] * Quits: aroben (aroben@209.116.40.3) (Quit: aroben)
  22. # [03:37] * Quits: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28) (Ping timeout)
  23. # [03:39] * Joins: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28)
  24. # [03:46] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 6300] [references] reference RFC 5322 instead of RFC 2822 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009May/0013.html> ** [Bug 6132] [sniffing] No whitespace before "<!DOCTYPE HTML" in content sniffing <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009May/0012.html> ** [Bug 6097] [rendering] <body background> is a URL attribute? <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009May/0011.
  25. # [03:46] <pimpbot> changes: Update spec to reference RFC5322 instead of RFC2822. (bug 6300) (whatwg r3119) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009May/0046.html> ** body.background is not a url dom attribute apparently. (bug 6097) (whatwg r3118) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009May/0045.html>
  26. # [03:50] * Joins: aroben (aroben@209.116.40.3)
  27. # [04:35] * Quits: aroben (aroben@209.116.40.3) (Quit: aroben)
  28. # [04:43] * Quits: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28) (Ping timeout)
  29. # [04:45] * Joins: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28)
  30. # [05:05] * Quits: tH (Rob@129.11.83.229) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.84-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.1/2008072406])
  31. # [05:23] * Joins: annevk (opera@94.210.210.44)
  32. # [05:27] * Quits: annevk (opera@94.210.210.44) (Quit: annevk)
  33. # [05:30] * Quits: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.30) (Quit: Core Breach)
  34. # [05:33] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11) (Ping timeout)
  35. # [05:34] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  36. # [05:38] * Quits: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28) (Ping timeout)
  37. # [05:41] * Joins: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28)
  38. # [06:06] * Joins: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.30)
  39. # [06:37] * Quits: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.28) (Ping timeout)
  40. # [06:46] * Quits: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@114.166.101.85) (Quit: Tiarra 0.1+svn-33115: SIGTERM received; exit)
  41. # [06:48] * Joins: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@114.166.101.85)
  42. # [07:11] * Joins: MarcoAchury (Marco@201.249.163.23)
  43. # [07:16] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 6351] Add event handler attributes for all events defined in HTML5 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009May/0015.html> ** [Bug 6350] Port examples from WF2 to HTML5 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009May/0014.html>
  44. # [07:47] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 6423] Names of confidence flag states inconsistent <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009May/0017.html> ** [Bug 6389] Avoid double parse error on EOF in DOCTYPE state <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009May/0016.html>
  45. # [07:47] <pimpbot> changes: Reduce the number of parse errors for EOF in DOCTYPE. (bug 6351) (credit: hs) (whatwg r3121) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009May/0048.html> ** Drop in some 'Extensibility' text from WF2. (whatwg r3120) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009May/0047.html>
  46. # [08:17] <pimpbot> changes: Fix lack of consistency of naming of confidence flags. (bug 6423) (credit: hs) (whatwg r3122) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009May/0049.html>
  47. # [09:20] * Quits: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@114.166.101.85) (Quit: Tiarra 0.1+svn-33115: SIGTERM received; exit)
  48. # [09:22] * Joins: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@114.166.101.85)
  49. # [10:47] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  50. # [12:42] * Joins: maddiin (mc@87.185.203.193)
  51. # [12:59] * Joins: tH (Rob@129.11.83.229)
  52. # [13:12] * Joins: annevk (opera@94.210.210.44)
  53. # [13:12] * Joins: MarcoAchury1 (Marco@201.249.140.134)
  54. # [13:12] * Quits: MarcoAchury (Marco@201.249.163.23) (Ping timeout)
  55. # [13:13] <anne> hmm, did we really decide on i18nrules?
  56. # [13:35] <Philip> Depends on what you mean by "decide"
  57. # [13:37] <Philip> Julian suggested using something more generic than "itsrules", then suggested "i18nrules", then Yves said "itsrules" would be preferable but "i18nrules" would be acceptable, and that was about it
  58. # [13:40] <anne> right...
  59. # [13:46] * Quits: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.30) (Ping timeout)
  60. # [13:52] <hsivonen> anne: are you going to send email about that?
  61. # [13:52] <hsivonen> (I was going to but got distracted.)
  62. # [13:53] <hsivonen> I care remarkably little about what it's called, but I want the wiki to reflect what ITS users are actually going to use
  63. # [13:54] <hsivonen> (as in, I don't care whether it's called itsrules or i18nrules. I might care about calling it something totally unrelated.)
  64. # [13:55] <anne> I don't really care at all
  65. # [13:55] <anne> ITS seems much too complicated anyway
  66. # [13:55] <anne> I do think itsrules was a better name
  67. # [13:58] <hsivonen> me, too, but I don't want to engage in a bikeshed about this
  68. # [14:01] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.165.92.13) (Quit: gsnedders)
  69. # [14:02] <hsivonen> I'll send email
  70. # [14:35] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.165.92.13)
  71. # [14:39] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.165.92.13) (Quit: Adios intarwebs.)
  72. # [14:48] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 6949] New: Don't use colon shorthand when talking about language-related attributes <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009May/0018.html>
  73. # [14:53] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.139.222.254)
  74. # [15:00] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  75. # [15:07] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.139.222.254) (Ping timeout)
  76. # [15:10] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.164.130.180)
  77. # [15:17] * Joins: myakura (myakura@114.150.90.87)
  78. # [15:28] * Quits: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@114.166.101.85) (Ping timeout)
  79. # [15:41] * Joins: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@114.166.101.85)
  80. # [15:57] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.164.130.180) (Quit: gsnedders)
  81. # [15:58] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  82. # [16:01] * Quits: drry (drry@210.235.212.25) (Quit: Tiarra 0.1+svn-33535: SIGTERM received; exit)
  83. # [16:02] * Joins: drry (drry@210.235.212.25)
  84. # [16:02] * Quits: MarcoAchury1 (Marco@201.249.140.134) (Ping timeout)
  85. # [16:06] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.164.130.180)
  86. # [16:53] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58)
  87. # [17:02] * Joins: MarcoAchury (Marco@201.249.140.134)
  88. # [17:16] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Ping timeout)
  89. # [17:55] * Joins: anne2 (annevk@94.210.210.44)
  90. # [17:55] * Quits: anne (annevk@94.210.210.44) (Ping timeout)
  91. # [17:56] * Quits: annevk (opera@94.210.210.44) (Ping timeout)
  92. # [18:10] * Joins: annevk (opera@94.210.210.44)
  93. # [18:32] * Quits: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30) (Ping timeout)
  94. # [18:46] * Joins: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.30)
  95. # [19:27] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  96. # [19:32] * Quits: myakura (myakura@114.150.90.87) (Quit: Leaving...)
  97. # [22:05] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  98. # [22:43] * Joins: masinter (user@192.150.10.200)
  99. # [22:43] <masinter> Anne?
  100. # [22:44] <annevk> hey
  101. # [22:45] <masinter> maybe this will be more effective than trading emails
  102. # [22:45] <masinter> I'm talking about the sentence in the DP document that says ""This document describes the set of guiding principles used by the HTML Working Group for the development of HTML5."
  103. # [22:46] <masinter> "the set of guiding principles" implies that this was it, there were no other principles, the use of "the" instead of "a" implies some definitiveness
  104. # [22:46] <masinter> and "used by the HTML Working Group" implies the principles were used, as stated, when they weren't always, exactly, used as they were stated
  105. # [22:47] <annevk> I wouldn't read informal text to literally :)
  106. # [22:47] <annevk> too*
  107. # [22:47] <hsivonen> masinter: what others are there, in your view?
  108. # [22:47] <masinter> well, people do, so that's why i proposed some different informal text which I thought might be more agreeable
  109. # [22:47] <masinter> what other what, Hsivonen?
  110. # [22:48] <hsivonen> masinter: other guiding principles than the ones listed in the document
  111. # [22:49] <masinter> walk through onen?
  112. # [22:49] <masinter>
  113. # [22:50] <masinter> sorry
  114. # [22:50] <masinter> IRC hiccup
  115. # [22:50] <masinter> walk through section 1 Introduction
  116. # [22:50] <masinter> Scope includes several constraints on the design
  117. # [22:51] <masinter> The reverse of "Paving the Cowpaths" was the example I used in the meeting
  118. # [22:51] <masinter> that "features in HTML4 that are not in widesread use can and should be dropped"
  119. # [22:51] <annevk> but HTML4 was not really used in the design of HTML5
  120. # [22:52] <hsivonen> masinter: rather, they haven't been added to the clean slate
  121. # [22:52] <masinter> or that such features that are in widespread use should not only be "consider" but mandated
  122. # [22:52] <hsivonen> masinter: (except profile was added and then removed)
  123. # [22:52] <masinter> The design principle says "evolution not revolution"
  124. # [22:52] <annevk> why would that refer to prior specs?
  125. # [22:53] <annevk> that's just how we think the platform needs to be evolved
  126. # [22:53] <masinter> is there anything in the DP document that says "do not consider HTML4?"
  127. # [22:54] <annevk> not by trying to replace it (e.g. XForms) but by slowly adding new features
  128. # [22:54] <masinter> it says "HTML 5 defines the fifth major revision of the core language of the World Wide Web, HTML. "
  129. # [22:54] <annevk> afaict HTML4 is not mentioned at all
  130. # [22:55] <masinter> you're telling me that someone should not believe, if you are advertising something as "the fifth major revision" that you are ignoring the fourth major revision and the document doesn't mention it?
  131. # [22:55] <masinter> That "fifth" comes after "third"?
  132. # [22:55] <annevk> I don't think any HTML spec was considered much in the design
  133. # [22:55] <hsivonen> I guess "revision" is wrong and "formulation" would be more accurate
  134. # [22:56] <annevk> yeah
  135. # [22:56] <masinter> so you're saying now that HTML5 is not a revision of HTML, it's just a new formulation?
  136. # [22:56] <masinter> not a revision of HTML4 at all?
  137. # [22:56] <annevk> does it matter what it is?
  138. # [22:56] <masinter> That's not in the charter, that wasn't what the working group was chartered to do
  139. # [22:57] <masinter> If you are going to publish a document that tells the world what it is, then the document you publish should be truthful and not misleading, yes.
  140. # [22:57] <MarcoAchury> The use and tradition become law. The things have a natural inertia against changes.
  141. # [22:57] <hsivonen> masinter: it is an independent expression of a revision of the platform without revising HTML 4 spec text
  142. # [22:57] <masinter> I'm just saying that the documents published should tell the truth and not mislead.
  143. # [22:58] <masinter> I've proposed some text for DP which I think is accurate, not perjorative, which I think might even get some agreement.
  144. # [22:58] <masinter> That these are a set of principles which many people agreed with and many used in the development of HTML5.
  145. # [22:58] <masinter> that they're valuable and positive.
  146. # [22:59] <masinter> not exhaustive, not always applied by everyone, but it's a useful document and explanatory of many, but not all, of the design decisions
  147. # [22:59] <masinter> I think that would be a fine thing to publish.
  148. # [22:59] <annevk> when are they not applied?
  149. # [22:59] <masinter> How many examples do you want?
  150. # [22:59] <annevk> I'm fine with pointing out in the SotD that things are contentious
  151. # [23:00] <annevk> I'm not too happy with e.g. renaming the document
  152. # [23:00] <annevk> masinter, the more the better I suppose
  153. # [23:00] <masinter> what's wrong with the examples I've supplied so far?
  154. # [23:00] <annevk> masinter, if we do not apply the principles then we might as well nuke the document somehow
  155. # [23:01] <masinter> i don't agree at all
  156. # [23:01] <annevk> masinter, so far you haven't said anything about a single principle unless I missed something
  157. # [23:01] <annevk> masinter, or how it has been incorrectly applied
  158. # [23:02] <masinter> hmmmmm
  159. # [23:02] <annevk> i.e. I do not think the @profile example applies for reasons stated above and the fifth revision thing is introductory text
  160. # [23:03] <masinter> you were taking minutes on the telecon
  161. # [23:03] <annevk> I tried, yes :)
  162. # [23:03] * Quits: MarcoAchury (Marco@201.249.140.134) (Ping timeout)
  163. # [23:03] * Joins: MarcoAchury (Marco@201.249.163.172)
  164. # [23:04] <hsivonen> nn
  165. # [23:04] <masinter> I proposed replacement introductory text, because it seemed like continuing to discuss the body was counter-productive.
  166. # [23:05] <masinter> If you'd like to talk about the spec design itself, I had more substantitve discussion about them.
  167. # [23:06] <annevk> I asked about when the principles have not been applied by people as you suggested
  168. # [23:10] <annevk> (As for the charter breaking earlier. Given the substantial feature overlap HTML5 has with HTML4 I think we're good in terms of "evolved". That does not mean HTML5 is not a new definition though. It is. E.g. it is no longer SGML based.)
  169. # [23:11] <masinter> "This document describes some of the Design Principles used in discussions of the development of HTML5"
  170. # [23:11] <masinter> Do you have a problem with that?
  171. # [23:12] <hsivonen> if we know of other principles in use, we should document those, too
  172. # [23:13] <hsivonen> (really nn now)
  173. # [23:13] <masinter> The most significant variability is around invention of totally new mechanisms
  174. # [23:14] <masinter> Take the Origin header, for example
  175. # [23:14] <masinter> a totally new mechanism, rather than evolving/fixing the referer field.
  176. # [23:15] <masinter> while in other cases, existing practice was taken as a mandate not only to "consider" something but as an absolute mandate
  177. # [23:15] <annevk> Origin may be a bad example. It was created by a different group.
  178. # [23:15] <masinter> it's in the spec
  179. # [23:16] <annevk> It's re-used, yes. But not really a new invention as such.
  180. # [23:17] <masinter> " a relatively clean and understandable language for authors"
  181. # [23:17] * Joins: hendry (hendry@89.16.172.32)
  182. # [23:17] <annevk> maybe we should've tried harder at fixing Referer though; but it might be too late now
  183. # [23:18] <masinter> "too late" doesn't make sense
  184. # [23:19] <masinter> are there any server vendors -- other than perhaps Google -- who are implementing Origin?
  185. # [23:19] <masinter> Is it in IIS? Apache? Tomcat?
  186. # [23:19] <annevk> it doesn't need to be in servers
  187. # [23:19] <annevk> it can just be read by scripts running on the servers
  188. # [23:20] <annevk> too late in the sense in that cross-origin requests work with Origin and IE8/Chrome 2/Safari 4/Firefox 3.5 will be shipping with it
  189. # [23:20] <annevk> (or are)
  190. # [23:21] <annevk> this design has been more or less in place since 2006 and only very recently we got this feedback (and yes, since the start we asked HTTP for feedback and registered the header name which changed over time)
  191. # [23:21] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58)
  192. # [23:22] <masinter> the needed reviewers weren't on the committee and the design wasn't explosed, so the fact that someone was working on it in 2006 is really not helpful
  193. # [23:23] <masinter> anyway, we're talking about DP
  194. # [23:23] <masinter> "consider users over authors over implementors over specifiers"
  195. # [23:24] <masinter> the idea that something is "too late" because implementors are already shipping it, gives the priority to implementors
  196. # [23:24] <masinter> even if the design isn't the best for authors or users, because the implementors would have to change their implementation
  197. # [23:25] <annevk> power of legacy
  198. # [23:26] <masinter> well, we're just talking about DP and whether the principles have been consistently applied
  199. # [23:26] <annevk> happens all the time: bloated DOM, XMLHttpRequest, etc.
  200. # [23:26] <masinter> Yes, of course
  201. # [23:28] <masinter> but the question is: what are the design principles actually used, are these the ones that were really followed? I'm just suggesting that we not deep-end on insisting that the DP document was rigorously followed, let's just move on
  202. # [23:29] <masinter> Laura Carlson just sent an email about the DP on accessibility
  203. # [23:29] <masinter> and table/@summary, maybe that's a repeat?
  204. # [23:30] <annevk> yeah, I'm not really persuaded by her argument that it has been used against the summary attribute
  205. # [23:30] <masinter> anyway, do you need more examples of times when DPs in the DP document weren't used as written? Or do you need more design principles that were also considered?
  206. # [23:31] <annevk> not sure, I'm trying to determine whether it's useful to do a reality check on them and fix text if required and principles if omitted
  207. # [23:31] <masinter> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#introduction section 1 includes a number of design goals
  208. # [23:31] <pimpbot> Title: HTML 5 (at dev.w3.org)
  209. # [23:31] <annevk> well, I think it's useful
  210. # [23:32] <masinter> you think what's useful?
  211. # [23:32] <annevk> but I'm not interested in the petty debates
  212. # [23:32] <masinter> i'm not either, really
  213. # [23:32] <annevk> I think it's useful to update the document, but probably not useful enough to warrant the discussion
  214. # [23:33] <masinter> well, i wasn't around in 2007 when the DP flame war was going on
  215. # [23:33] <masinter> and i haven't read all the mail -- wayyyyy too much
  216. # [23:33] <masinter> but the vote seemed to say "we wind up debating DPs rather than the technical content, so let's not"
  217. # [23:34] <masinter> and I like that better, it's much better to just fix something than argue about the reasons why you might want to fix it and whether fixing it is in scope.
  218. # [23:34] <annevk> I'd be ok wit hadding a note to the SotD stating something in the direction you suggested and then publishing it as note, but if Maciej (and Jonas seems to agree) thinks it's useful to do more work I'd support that as well
  219. # [23:35] <masinter> Even in the best, most coherent, happy-family working groups, with complete consensus on the spec itself, people have trouble agreeing on design goals
  220. # [23:36] <masinter> I spent a year on http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2542.txt
  221. # [23:36] <masinter> maybe more
  222. # [23:38] <masinter> well, that's hyperbole
  223. # [23:39] <masinter> but anyway: getting really consensus on goals and design principles is usually impossible, best you can do is saying "here are some things most people thought were important while we were working on this"
  224. # [23:39] <masinter> and if you change it so that you're documenting "some things that most people agreed on", you'll get a lot fewer arguments and more help
  225. # [23:40] <masinter> I don't think updating SotD is sufficient
  226. # [23:40] <masinter> or really in process, the 3-month heartbeat is a SHOULD, but we'd need a really good reason to keep on working on this
  227. # [23:41] <masinter> One possibility would be to move most of Section 1 of the HTML document and merge it with Design Principles
  228. # [23:41] <masinter> since section 1 isn't normative anyway
  229. # [23:43] <masinter> and there's considerable overlap beween "Design Principles" and goals, relationship to other speficiations, scope, etc.
  230. # [23:45] <annevk> I never really looked into it that way though I'm not sure if merging makes sense
  231. # [23:45] <masinter> I think it's worth looking at
  232. # [23:45] <annevk> The introduction for HTML5 is somewhat specific to that revision of HTML whereas the design principles are intended to outlive it
  233. # [23:46] <masinter> Well, it would be an editing job. Certainly the intro section contains a lot of material that isn't specific to this version
  234. # [23:48] <annevk> True, but not all of that is directly a principle :)
  235. # [23:50] <annevk> might be back later, though likely tomorrow
  236. # [23:50] <annevk> almost midnight here
  237. # [23:50] <karl> annevk: good night.
  238. # [23:51] <karl> the bad thing with Design Principles is that they are too many so they cancelled each other. I think Sam had written a blog post about that back in the ol' time or maybe was it on the mailing list. He was comparing with Atom Design Principles
  239. # [23:52] <karl> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/05/02/Different-Drummer
  240. # [23:52] <pimpbot> Title: Sam Ruby: Different Drummer (at intertwingly.net)
  241. # [23:57] <masinter> seems like most of things i'm saying have been discussed beforea :)
  242. # Session Close: Mon May 25 00:00:00 2009

The end :)