/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2009-06-18 / end

Options:

# Session Start: Thu Jun 18 00:00:00 2009
# Session Ident: #html-wg
# [00:09] * Quits: annevk (opera@94.210.210.44) (Quit: annevk)
# [00:29] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
# [00:51] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
# [01:01] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7032] Sandboxing and Referer <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Jun/0060.html>
# [01:06] * Parts: billmason (bmason@69.30.57.182)
# [01:12] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
# [01:28] * Quits: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30) (Ping timeout)
# [01:30] * Quits: tH (Rob@129.11.83.229) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.84-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.1/2008072406])
# [01:32] * Joins: Lachy_ (Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
# [01:33] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246) (Ping timeout)
# [01:36] * Joins: webben (benh@91.85.211.107)
# [01:37] * Quits: heycam (cam@124.168.61.74) (Quit: bye)
# [01:39] <pimpbot> planet: Post Google I/O 2009 <http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2009/06/post-google-io-2009.html> ** Google I/O: Now online, starting with all things Client <http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2009/06/google-io-now-online-starting-with-all.html> ** Android: Now beaming I/O videos and presentations to the world <http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2009/06/android-now-beaming-io-videos-and.html> ** Chrome Experiments at Go
# [01:46] * Joins: webben_ (benh@217.12.15.52)
# [01:48] * Quits: webben (benh@91.85.211.107) (Ping timeout)
# [02:16] * Quits: sryo (sryo@190.245.199.237) (Connection reset by peer)
# [02:35] * Joins: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84)
# [02:59] <MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/owea/charter
# [02:59] <pimpbot> Title: Open Web Education Alliance Incubator Group (draft) (at www.w3.org)
# [03:02] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7032] Sandboxing and Referer <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Jun/0061.html>
# [03:40] <pimpbot> planet: In HTML5, can you save an image to cache programmatically? <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1010290/in-html5-can-you-save-an-image-to-cache-programmatically> ** Calling JAXP from Ruby <http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/06/17/Calling-JAXP-from-Ruby>
# [04:10] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.240) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
# [05:03] <MikeSmith> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/the_price_of_fr.html
# [05:03] <pimpbot> Title: Well, I'm Back: The Price Of Freedom (at weblogs.mozillazine.org)
# [05:04] * Joins: jeff (chatzilla@63.135.139.234)
# [05:09] * Quits: jeff (chatzilla@63.135.139.234) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.11/2009060215])
# [05:09] * Joins: jeff (chatzilla@63.135.139.234)
# [05:13] * Quits: jeff (chatzilla@63.135.139.234) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.11/2009060215])
# [05:26] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
# [05:42] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@98.234.51.190)
# [05:51] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
# [05:51] * Joins: billyjackass (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
# [05:51] * Quits: billyjackass (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
# [06:31] <MikeSmith> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2009-June/008066.html
# [06:31] <pimpbot> Title: [webkit-dev] Ruby design document (at lists.webkit.org)
# [06:32] <MikeSmith> http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcgd8hk6_0ccsw4td4
# [06:32] <pimpbot> Title: Ruby (at docs.google.com)
# [06:45] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
# [06:56] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
# [07:02] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7034] New: change "conformance checker" to "ideology checker" or "loyalty checker" <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Jun/0062.html>
# [07:04] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@98.234.51.190) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
# [07:05] * MikeSmith changes topic to 'Pursuing conformance solutions for the N-body gravitational system known as "the Web", and in general, collectively performing various acts of unparalleled hubris (This channel is logged: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/)'
# [07:05] * MikeSmith changes topic to 'Pursuing conformance solutions for the N-body gravitational system known as "the Web", and in general, collectively performing various acts of unparalleled hubris (This channel is logged: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/)'
# [07:07] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
# [07:16] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
# [07:41] <pimpbot> planet: the tristan washing machine <http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/tristan-washing-machine/>
# [08:30] * Quits: aroben (aroben@71.58.77.15) (Connection reset by peer)
# [08:37] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Client exited)
# [08:45] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
# [08:57] * Joins: tH (Rob@129.11.83.229)
# [09:02] * Joins: hsivonen (hsivonen@130.233.41.50)
# [09:29] * Quits: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84) (Quit: bye)
# [09:39] * Joins: annevk (opera@94.210.210.44)
# [09:41] <pimpbot> planet: What to learn for RIA <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1011168/what-to-learn-for-ria>
# [09:55] * Joins: heycam (cam@124.168.61.74)
# [10:02] * Quits: anne (annevk@94.210.210.44) (Client exited)
# [10:03] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7032] Sandboxing and Referer <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Jun/0063.html>
# [10:28] * Quits: webben_ (benh@217.12.15.52) (Ping timeout)
# [10:41] * Joins: maddiin (mc@87.185.218.250)
# [10:56] * Quits: Lachy_ (Lachlan@85.196.122.246) (Ping timeout)
# [10:57] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
# [10:59] * Joins: Lachy_ (Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
# [10:59] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
# [12:00] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.174.38.173) (Quit: Adios intarwebs.)
# [12:04] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7034] change "conformance checker" to "ideology checker" or "loyalty checker" <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Jun/0064.html>
# [12:15] * Joins: anne (annevk@92.67.37.154)
# [12:16] * Quits: maddiin (mc@87.185.218.250) (Quit: maddiin)
# [12:29] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
# [12:34] <pimpbot> bugmail: "[Bug 7034] change "conformance checker" to "ideology checker" or "loyalty checker"" (2 messages in thread) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Jun/0065.html>
# [12:35] * Joins: webben (benh@217.12.14.240)
# [12:41] * Joins: rubys (rubys@75.182.92.38)
# [12:41] <rubys> hsivonen: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/06/17/Calling-JAXP-from-Ruby
# [12:41] <pimpbot> Title: Sam Ruby: Calling JAXP from Ruby (at intertwingly.net)
# [12:46] <hsivonen> rubys: nice! Do you convert between UTF-8 and UTF-16 at the language boundary?
# [12:46] <rubys> Yes.
# [12:47] * Joins: zcorpan (zcorpan@83.252.196.43)
# [12:48] <rubys> That's why I think that CSS selectors / XPath is so important.
# [12:51] <rubys> Ultimately, I will want to create some more Java code that does things like getContent (concatenate all text children of an element) and setContent (delete all children of an element and replace them with a single text node).
# [12:52] <rubys> At this point, I want to put my code under version control. It could go into the same SVN as validator.nu. If you don't think that makes sense, I'm inclined to create a git repository.
# [12:53] * Quits: anne (annevk@92.67.37.154) (Ping timeout)
# [12:54] * Joins: anne (annevk@92.67.37.154)
# [12:54] * Parts: anne (annevk@92.67.37.154)
# [13:04] <hsivonen> rubys: I think it makes sense to put it in the same repo
# [13:05] <rubys> next step? I may have had an id before, but if so, I lost it.
# [13:05] <hsivonen> rubys: I want to move the whole thing to hg, which would remove the central repo issue, but right now I'm too busy chasing quarterly goals
# [13:06] <hsivonen> rubys: let's see if I can reset your password
# [13:06] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Ping timeout)
# [13:07] * Quits: webben (benh@217.12.14.240) (Ping timeout)
# [13:11] <hsivonen> rubys: see email
# [13:15] <rubys> I've logged in. Thanks!
# [13:16] <rubys> Another thing I would like to do is to port the CSS2XPath logic to Java so that it can both available there, and made available to other languages.
# [14:06] * Joins: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30)
# [14:18] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
# [14:23] * Joins: webben (benh@217.12.14.240)
# [14:44] * Joins: anne (annevk@92.67.37.154)
# [15:21] * Quits: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30) (Ping timeout)
# [15:32] <anne> 'This change won't be complete without changing Ian's title to "Supreme Leader" and renaming Working Group to "Highest Echelons of HTML".'
# [15:32] <anne> sweet
# [15:39] * Quits: Lachy_ (Lachlan@85.196.122.246) (Quit: Leaving)
# [15:39] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
# [15:47] <Dashiva> HEH
# [15:47] * Joins: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30)
# [15:47] <Dashiva> Linkk, anne?
# [15:48] <anne> the bug MikeSmith filed
# [16:08] <pimpbot> bugmail: "[Bug 7034] change "conformance checker" to "ideology checker" or "loyalty checker"" (4 messages in thread) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Jun/0067.html>
# [16:30] * Parts: rubys (rubys@75.182.92.38)
# [16:37] * Joins: billmason (bmason@69.30.57.7)
# [17:00] * Joins: myakura (myakura@61.119.221.155)
# [19:13] * Disconnected
# [19:13] * Attempting to rejoin channel #html-wg
# [19:13] * Rejoined channel #html-wg
# [19:13] * Topic is 'Pursuing conformance solutions for the N-body gravitational system known as "the Web", and in general, collectively performing various acts of unparalleled hubris (This channel is logged: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/)'
# [19:13] * Set by MikeSmith on Thu Jun 18 07:02:08
# [19:13] <rubys> rrsagent, bye
# [19:13] <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-html-wg-actions.rdf :
# [19:13] <RRSAgent> ACTION: Julian coordinate with LMM and DanC to get an Internet Draft that addresses some HTML 5 href issues [1]
# [19:13] <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-html-wg-irc#T16-37-54
# [19:13] <RRSAgent> ACTION: Sam to send a call to the WG to update the Wiki page to adequately reflect both (all) viewpoints on summary, in prep. for a vote [2]
# [19:13] <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-html-wg-irc#T16-52-47
# [19:13] * Parts: RRSAgent (rrs-loggee@128.30.52.30)
# [19:14] <masinter> i was trying to make a more substantive point: that versioning and extensibility aren't just "related" but fundamentally combined
# [19:15] <masinter> maybe that wasn't clear? they're not just "kind of" related
# [19:15] <masinter> as opposed to, say, versioning and separation of presentation and style
# [19:15] <masinter> or versioning and internationalization or versioning and accessibility
# [19:16] <annevk> it very much depends on how you define versioning, it's a very fuzzy concept
# [19:17] <annevk> it was not my idea to dismiss your idea though, it makes sense; I just made a joke
# [19:17] <masinter> certainly the concept can be fuzzy
# [19:17] <masinter> i don't mind jokes
# [19:18] <masinter> i just mind not having the point actually acknowledged
# [19:18] * Joins: DanC (connolly@128.30.52.30)
# [19:18] <masinter> Versioning can be fuzzy, and the goal of bringing it up in the TAG is to try to be less fuzzy about it
# [19:19] <masinter> I think there is some theory of languages and evolution of languages and their semantics that can be applied usefully here
# [19:19] <annevk> often when versioning is mentioned it's not clear what the implications are for the various actors (authors, user agents, tools) and I'm not sure if it's always considered that being fuzzy about it can work if the language is incrementally evolved rather than in versions
# [19:19] <annevk> because I think most stuff on the Web is incrementally evolved and not in huge steps
# [19:19] <rubys> sorry if I offended, my offhand comment was not meant to be a deep thought or a formal critique
# [19:19] <masinter> yes, trying to be clearer about that was the point
# [19:19] <masinter> you didn't offend, i just didn't want to deep end on the jokes, i wanted to gather input for futher discussion at the TAG meeting next week
# [19:19] <annevk> (actually, I don't really think that as it's a fact)
# [19:20] <masinter> everything you say as a 'fact' is something that others interpret as something that is your 'belief'
# [19:21] <masinter> sometimes it is polite to acknowledge that you know that other people disagree, and the convention of preceeding it with 'i think' serves that purpose
# [19:21] <annevk> I suppose, but isn't it clear that browsers implement HTML, CSS, and DOM APIs piecemeal and that likewise authors adopt them piecemeal?
# [19:22] <masinter> we haven't carefully distinguished between implementations, instances, and specifications, and I agree the document on versioning should
# [19:22] <annevk> e.g. Opera supports <canvas>, but not <aside>; IE8 supports onhashchange, but not <canvas>, etc.
# [19:22] <masinter> well, you can define a 'language' by an implementation
# [19:22] <annevk> authors use <canvas> and for IE8 they use a JavaScript workaround
# [19:23] <masinter> or really, not just the implementation, but also the installation of the implementation
# [19:23] <annevk> if you tie language to the implementation how do you get interop on it? :)
# [19:23] <masinter> I think it's best to talk about a 'language' as an agreement
# [19:23] <masinter> between multiple implementations and instantionations
# [19:24] <masinter> a community agrees on a common language, even if there are subsets of the community which also have additional terms or changes or restrictions or modifications
# [19:24] * Parts: sbublava (stephan@77.119.102.67)
# [19:25] <masinter> over time, the "community" you consider important evolves, as well as the needs of different communities
# [19:25] <annevk> but if you want to tie versioning to the implementation than it's sort of already there, navigator.userAgent
# [19:25] <annevk> s/than/then
# [19:26] <masinter> using the name of the software as an indicator for its capabilities has enormous drawbacks
# [19:26] <masinter> it's why (Mozilla Compatible) ruled in HTTP user agent
# [19:26] <Philip> "a community agrees on a common language" - it seems like currently the community of web authors doesn't agree on a common language, e.g. some people write <br> and some write <br/> and they each have different views of what language they think they're writing, and then all those things get indistinguishably published as text/html
# [19:27] <masinter> because the desire was to determine capabilities, not implementation name, and the handling of unknown agents was to default it to assume -- incorrectly -- that if you didn't kno9w the name of the agent, the agent didn' tknow about common extensions
# [19:27] <masinter> The common language they agree on allows <br> and <br/>
# [19:27] <masinter> just as the language we are speaking allows 'yes' and 'yeah'
# [19:28] <masinter> and text/html is a language indicator, which may or may not indicate anything to anyone, given content-type sniffing
# [19:29] <annevk> masinter, I can't really think of anything substantively better than the current situation (other than having user agents be more compliant and have more tests, etc.), but I'm certainly interested in what the TAG comes up with
# [19:29] <Philip> I don't think many would believe they're using a language which allows both - people will think they're writing XHTML and so <br/> is the only thing that's allowed, and other people will think they're writing HTML4 and so <br> is the only thing that's allowed, and everyone else won't think about it at all and will just copy-and-paste whatever works
# [19:29] <masinter> we communicate even though we have different vocabularies, because the community of agreement is broader than the set of people talking, and includes those who provide dictionaries
# [19:29] <Philip> so there isn't really any agreement in intentions
# [19:30] <masinter> I don't have to know what your intentions are in order to understand what yo'ure saying
# [19:30] <masinter> and the agreement in communication is between the parties involved in the communication
# [19:30] <Philip> Hmm, I'm not sure what I said is what I intended :-)
# [19:31] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
# [19:31] <masinter> i think the notion is that people believe they are speaking "HTML", and the working group is trying to create a language which is the basis for future agreements about what constitutes the "HTML" language
# [19:31] <masinter> but that HTML is more like English than it is like French
# [19:32] <Philip> I meant something like: Authors aren't all intending to write in some common language (some intend HTML4, others intend XHTML), though it turns out that they all happen to be writing something that can be parsed as a single common language (like what HTML5 defines) and implementors intentionally implement that common language
# [19:32] <Philip> or, uh, something like that
# [19:32] <masinter> HTML Authors are intending to write in a language that they believe the that browsers will inderstand and interpret
# [19:33] <masinter> and certainly there is a general understanding of dialects of that language
# [19:33] <masinter> as supported by Microsoft and Netscape's independent "best viewed by" marketing campaigns in Browser Wars 1.0
# [19:34] <masinter> in which browser vendors intentionally introduced dialects
# [19:34] <masinter> In Browser Wars 2.0, the players are different, but it's not clear the economic forces that caused Browser Wars 1.0 have gone away
# [19:35] <masinter> HTML5 is a dialect being introduced with the hopes of gathering enough consensus as to eliminate other dialects, but the issues around extensibility remain
# [19:37] <annevk> my believe is that the "issues" are extremely small
# [19:37] <annevk> s/believe/belief/
# [19:37] <masinter> Neither Mozilla Foundation nor Microsoft have promised, or could reasonably expected to promise, not to introduce new features that aren't implemented by the other, so... there will be dialects
# [19:37] <masinter> are you willing to commit that Opera will never introduce any HTML feature not already also agreed to by Microsoft and Mizolla, Anne?
# [19:38] <masinter> Mozilla, sorry
# [19:38] <Philip> I think I'm probably failing to see a clear definition of what a 'language' is - in the HTML context there's a complex muddle of what various people write (and what they wrote ten years ago and haven't updated) and what various browsers understand (sometimes in conflicting ways), and there's not a perfect overlap between any of those things, and specifications all define something different again
# [19:38] <masinter> There will never ever be any Opera-only features?
# [19:38] <masinter> Philip, there is a long-standing 40-year old computer science tradition of defining languages
# [19:38] <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, DanC.a, in HTML_WG()12:00PM
# [19:38] <Zakim> HTML_WG()12:00PM has ended
# [19:38] <Zakim> Attendees were dsinger, Sam, MikeSmith, ChrisWilson, Masinter, LauraCarlson, Matt_May, Cynthia_Shelly, Shepazu, DanC, DanC.a, [Microsoft], Mike, +1.206.369.aaaa, Chris_Wilson,
# [19:38] <Zakim> ... annevk
# [19:39] <masinter> I don't think the concept is poorly defined
# [19:39] <annevk> masinter, using "ever" as argument makes my point I think about this being an extremely small issue
# [19:39] <masinter> every elementary computer science text book discusses what a 'language' is.
# [19:40] <masinter> i'm not sure how you measure how 'big' an issue is, Anne
# [19:40] <masinter> how many people care about it? It's economic impact on your company?
# [19:40] <annevk> how often I encounter it
# [19:40] <Philip> masinter: Computer scientists define it as e.g. a set of strings (usually defined by a grammar), sometimes with a definition of its semantics, and that doesn't seem like a useful definition in the context of HTML
# [19:40] <annevk> (how often I encounter it as being an issue, to be clear)
# [19:40] <annevk> (in practice)
# [19:40] <masinter> The syntax of a language is one of its important components
# [19:41] <masinter> Well, you may not encounter the versioning issue frequently because other people have worked hard to keep you from having to encounter it
# [19:41] <masinter> Certainly verisoning of programming languages, compatibility of compilers are serious issues for any experienced software engineer
# [19:41] <Philip> In that sense, the HTML language is the set of all strings (because all strings can be parsed as HTML), which doesn't seem very useful :-)
# [19:42] <masinter> Languages have syntax and semantics
# [19:43] <masinter> the syntax defines the structure of the language, not just the set of admissible strings
# [19:43] <masinter> Computer scientists -- at least none that I know -- define a language as a set of strings
# [19:44] <masinter> certainly there are a set of strings that are allowable and have syntax an dsemantics
# [19:44] <masinter> and if HTML wants to allow all strings to be admissible, that's unusual but not really a problem
# [19:44] <masinter> text/plain also allows all strings
# [19:44] <annevk> masinter, I think programming languages are different (and even with ECMAScript they try very hard to stay clear of versioning and succeed reasonably)
# [19:44] * Philip is thinking of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language notion of language, "i.e. finite strings of letters"
# [19:44] <annevk> also PHP is very much focused on backwards compatibility
# [19:45] <annevk> (other programming language used widely on the Web, though on the side of the server)
# [19:45] <masinter> compatibility is important, and 'backward' assumes a linear evolution which is often not accurate
# [19:45] <annevk> not entirely, but it pretty much is in my experience
# [19:46] <masinter> a single implementation with a controlled linear evolution can talk about 'backward' compatibility
# [19:46] <Philip> annevk: The evolution of compatibility between Netscape and IE and Firefox etc doesn't seem very linear at all
# [19:47] <masinter> Certainly there are more languages used on the web than HTML and PhP
# [19:47] * annevk is getting hungry from all the meta-talk; off to get some dinner
# [19:47] <masinter> and whether a language is a 'programming' language or a set of APIs is somewhat irrelevant
# [19:47] <Philip> but maybe it is if you forget about compatibility between implementations, and look at compatibility between an implementation and the documents that comprise the web (which is what really matters for compatibility)
# [19:47] <annevk> masinter, I disagree
# [19:47] <Philip> because then there's a clear linear time ordering
# [19:48] <Philip> assuming the web doesn't fragment
# [19:48] <masinter> there have been many cases of disjoint evolution of the web
# [19:48] <masinter> and Browser Wars 1.0 was only the most visible and egregious and intentional one
# [19:49] <masinter> but any language which has multiple implmenetations also has to deal with distributed extensions
# [19:49] <masinter> "distributed extensibility" is a question of whether HTML can manage the extensibility to reduce chaos and future incompatibility problems
# [19:50] <masinter> Anne, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.... I did say 'somewhat' irrelevant, because HTML is certainly -- with Javascript and its APIs -- a programming language
# [19:50] * Philip probably ought to go too, before it gets too cold walking home
# [19:50] <masinter> later then
# [19:52] * Philip thinks it's probably good to discuss versioning in a relatively principled way, but doesn't yet understand how to make it make sense, so he will try thinking on it :-)
# [19:56] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.240) (Ping timeout)
# [19:59] <masinter> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0529.html
# [19:59] <masinter> points to http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-html
# [19:59] <masinter> still "work in progress"
# [20:00] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@63.245.220.240)
# [20:04] <shepazu> masinter: you said, [[ "doing" SVG isn't necessary, "allowing" SVG is ]]... surely, for a uniform and reliable and interoperable platform, and for maximizing ease of authoring, simply allowing it isn't enough, right? If Flash had the design goal that a key feature (say, video or vector graphics) would only work on one browser but not another, that would not be a successful deployment
# [20:05] <shepazu> masinter: or do you have a different perspective that could qualify your remark?
# [20:05] <masinter> the question was in the context of whether Microsoft was going to implement SVG
# [20:06] <shepazu> my statement still stands
# [20:06] <masinter> whether Microsoft was going to support SVG
# [20:06] <masinter> but there are several SVG implementations
# [20:06] <shepazu> if Flash didn't support vector graphics in IE, do you think it would be successful?
# [20:06] <masinter> I'm talking about SVG
# [20:06] <shepazu> and I'm talking about the platform
# [20:07] <masinter> There are several open source SVG implementations
# [20:07] <masinter> so these aren't 'proprietary' and don't need Microsoft to support them
# [20:07] <shepazu> masinter: I'm curious about that... can you point to one?
# [20:07] <masinter> some browser vendors might wish to support SVG themselves, of course
# [20:07] <masinter> but it doesn't require "Microsoft" to support it.
# [20:08] <shepazu> which SVG plugin for IE are you thinking of?
# [20:08] <masinter> does it matter?
# [20:08] <shepazu> yes
# [20:08] <masinter> why?
# [20:08] <shepazu> I'm asking you to back up your claim
# [20:08] <masinter> Surely, the SVG specification is open
# [20:09] <masinter> my claim was that Microsoft "doing" SVG isn't necessary, it's necessary for the browsers to "Allow" SVG implementations
# [20:09] <shepazu> that's a different question than what I'm asking you
# [20:09] <masinter> ok, now I have to look i tup
# [20:10] <masinter> Java SVG implementation
# [20:10] <shepazu> I'm asking you if you think it's important for a platform to have feature compatibility across implementations
# [20:10] <shepazu> you might be thinking of Batik
# [20:10] <masinter> and a Google Code implementation in Flash I just read about
# [20:10] <shepazu> that's not suitable as a plugin for IE
# [20:10] <masinter> I was told there were other SVG plugins being developed but I don't know any details
# [20:11] <shepazu> SVG-Web, right... but it's not a feature match for FF, WebKit, Opera, etc.
# [20:11] <shepazu> I do know the details
# [20:11] <masinter> Are you saying htere aren't any open-source implemenations of SVG?
# [20:11] <shepazu> there are currently no open-source plugins for IE available
# [20:11] <shepazu> of SVG
# [20:11] <masinter> ah, it has t be "available"?
# [20:12] <shepazu> and the ones under development don't give feature parity
# [20:12] <masinter> parity to what?
# [20:12] <shepazu> to the other existing browser implementations
# [20:12] <masinter> so the fact that the browsers implement more of the spec than the plugings mean that plugins can never implement the spec?
# [20:13] <masinter> seems like there might be some additions or improvements to the plugin interface necessary, if that's the case
# [20:13] <masinter> which is part of "allowing" SVG -- to support a rich enough plugin interface to allow other implementations
# [20:14] <masinter> so perhaps not only does IE not implement SVG, perhaps it doesn't "allow" it
# [20:14] <shepazu> no, I'm saying that for the Open Web platform to work, there should be feature parity across browsers... if it can be done by a plugin, great, but this isn't a theoretical exercise, this is a matter of pragmatics
# [20:14] <masinter> i'm just speculating, perhaps it's just a manpower issue
# [20:14] <masinter> so you're saying that no browser can ever implement any feature that some other browser doesn't implement, and otherwise the Open Web platform cannot work?
# [20:14] <shepazu> masinter: if Adobe were to provide the source for ASV as a plugin, the community could maintain it
# [20:15] <shepazu> masinter: I'm saying that the platform is hindered by browsers *not* implementing a feature that *every other* browser implements
# [20:15] <shepazu> surely that's obvious
# [20:16] <masinter> you think it's obvious, but you're making some assumptions that I think are worth examining
# [20:16] <shepazu> which assumptions?
# [20:16] <masinter> well, how many browsers count?
# [20:17] <masinter> The Amazon Kindle doesn't implement all the browser features that Mozilla and Chrome implement
# [20:17] <masinter> so does the Aamazon Kindle hinder the platform?
# [20:18] <masinter> If Microsoft implements something other browsers don't, does that hinder the platform?
# [20:18] <annevk> does it work with the platform?
# [20:18] <shepazu> if it drops important features, it does hinder it... authors can't rely on their content working on it (assuming enough people are using the kindle as a browsing device)
# [20:18] <masinter> you're using the phrase "the platform" as if there were a single one
# [20:18] * annevk shouldn't have dropped in; should be making dinner now :)
# [20:19] <shepazu> masinter: yes, that's the goal, just as it's the goal for Flash to provide a stable platform
# [20:19] <shepazu> it's a laudable goal
# [20:19] <shepazu> it helps authors and users
# [20:19] <shepazu> it helps everyone
# [20:19] <shepazu> Flash has excellent authoring tools, and a consistent runtime
# [20:19] <masinter> Well, I don't want to get into a Flash debate
# [20:20] <shepazu> I'm not debating Flash
# [20:20] <masinter> er, ok
# [20:20] <shepazu> I think it's a good technology
# [20:20] <shepazu> I'm saying that I would like the Open Web platform to enjoy those same advantages
# [20:20] <shepazu> I think that's the goal of most or all people in the HTML WG
# [20:21] <shepazu> ... finally!
# [20:21] <masinter> I'm not sure how to take that other than as an insinuation
# [20:21] <shepazu> how so?
# [20:22] <masinter> we're either talking about the issues or we're talking about the motivation of the participants
# [20:22] <shepazu> I'm assuming we're all working toward the same goal, after decade(s) of division
# [20:22] <shepazu> I'm not ascribing motivation, I'm describing it
# [20:22] <masinter> If you want to discuss the motivations of "most or all people in the HTML WG", well, I think that's a complicated issue
# [20:22] <shepazu> well, ok, then lets drop that
# [20:23] <shepazu> and talk specifically about SVG
# [20:23] <masinter> I think "Open Web" is a marketing phrase
# [20:23] <masinter> of course the "Web" is "Open"
# [20:23] <shepazu> I think that SVG should be a part of the platform provided by HTML5
# [20:23] <shepazu> of course Open Web is marketing, it's just a term of convenience
# [20:24] <shepazu> I'm not above being lazy in my terms
# [20:24] <masinter> Well, it takes more effort to type "Open Web" than it does just to say "the web"
# [20:25] <shepazu> right now, it's too challenging to use SVG in IE, and that's not going to change anytime soon
# [20:25] <shepazu> well, "the web" includes lots of stuff that's not open, like *.doc files
# [20:25] <masinter> .docx is an ISO standard
# [20:25] <masinter> and claimed to be "open"
# [20:25] <shepazu> or h.264
# [20:25] <masinter> h.264 is an "open" standard which RAND licensing terms
# [20:25] <masinter> with
# [20:26] <shepazu> that's a key distinction, then... FF can't implement or use that
# [20:26] <masinter> Patents are certainly a related issue
# [20:27] <masinter> it is the nature of standards -- in all circumstances -- to allow organizations that are otherwise in competition and with different goals to get together and define specifications of mutual benefit
# [20:27] <shepazu> but I'm not interested in the semantics of the terms, I'm interested in why you think SVG should not be mandated in an HTML5 implementation?
# [20:27] <masinter> Oh!
# [20:27] <masinter> that isn't what I menat at all
# [20:27] <shepazu> that seems to be what you were saying
# [20:27] <masinter> Ah sorry
# [20:27] <shepazu> ah, good
# [20:28] <masinter> I'm really disturbed by the choice of <canvas> over <svg>
# [20:28] * Quits: anne (annevk@94.210.210.44) (Client exited)
# [20:28] <shepazu> that was my reading of your statement, which is why I asked for clarification, sorry if it wasn't clear
# [20:28] * Joins: anne (annevk@94.210.210.44)
# [20:28] * Quits: anne (annevk@94.210.210.44) (Connection reset by peer)
# [20:28] * Joins: anne (annevk@94.210.210.44)
# [20:29] <shepazu> I don't think it should be a either/or, I think implementations should support both
# [20:29] <masinter> I think the main thing that disturbs me is the use of imperative rather than declarative markup
# [20:29] <shepazu> Canvas and SVG both have use cases
# [20:29] <masinter> i haven't figured out what the use case is for <canvas> if you have <svg>
# [20:29] <shepazu> I also prefer declarative markup, personally
# [20:29] <shepazu> canvas is fast!
# [20:30] <shepazu> and doesn't come encumbered with a document-centric model, like SVG does
# [20:30] <masinter> Performance is a really complex subject
# [20:30] <masinter> that doesn't sound like a use case
# [20:31] <shepazu> well... trust me, some people like it :)
# [20:31] <masinter> Well, the email use case
# [20:31] <shepazu> I prefer SVG, of course :D
# [20:31] <masinter> no, "like" is conditioned by many things
# [20:31] <masinter> market share
# [20:31] <masinter> available tools
# [20:31] <masinter> The idea that you would add vector graphics to HTML, but in a way that was unsutable for use in HTML-based email
# [20:32] <masinter> or any circumstance where javascript or scripting is turned off
# [20:33] <shepazu> yeah, I'm with you
# [20:33] <masinter> the idea that <canvas> is fast and <Svg> isn't -- is that really true? And are those intrinsic issues with <svg> or just the accident of how much effort has gone into optimizing the <canvas> implementations?
# [20:33] <shepazu> well...
# [20:33] <shepazu> ASV was fast :)
# [20:34] <shepazu> current browsers... typically less fast
# [20:34] <masinter> benchmarking is a tricky art
# [20:34] <masinter> i've been in benchmarking wars before, and it isn't pretty
# [20:34] <shepazu> canvas is easier to implement, for sure, and that leads to interop gains
# [20:35] <masinter> I don't think it's tenable to give up on declarative graphics markup
# [20:36] <masinter> and so the challenge for SVG, I'd say, is: what changes are necessary to make it competitive with Canvas
# [20:36] <shepazu> ah, well, I'm glad to hear that you support SVG, and agree it should be mandated (or something like that)... I have to eat lunch now, but I'd like to continue this some other time
# [20:36] <shepazu> on that, it needs a better DOM interface, with easier constructors
# [20:37] <masinter> ok
# [20:37] <masinter> well, i'm hoping we can do something generically for plugins
# [20:38] <masinter> to make the plugin story not so painful. It would help not only SVG but also MathML and so on
# [20:38] <masinter> it's great if there are multiple independent open interoperable implementations of the web, but they don't all need to be built into monolitic browsers
# [20:54] <masinter> I'm not sure what it means to mandate <svg> and I think the issues or resolving the XML/HTML/namespace cmpatibility issues are serious
# [20:54] <Philip> Canvas is inherently faster than SVG for some common uses because it doesn't have to maintain a DOM
# [20:55] <masinter> HTML has to maintain a DOM
# [20:55] <Philip> e.g. you can draw fractals in <canvas> and it's just an n*n bitmap of 32-bit pixels, whereas something similar in SVG would have a huge amount more overhead
# [20:55] <masinter> and HTML is fast, so why is "maintain a DOM" a bottleneck
# [20:55] <masinter> fractals are a "common use"?
# [20:56] <Philip> No, but similarly high-detail graphics are fairly common
# [20:56] <Philip> e.g. for games
# [20:56] <Philip> or paint programs
# [20:57] <masinter> well, there's a point where HTML becomes "X-windows warmed over"
# [20:57] <masinter> I
# [20:57] <masinter> I'm concerned also about the model that graphics are pixel scaled
# [20:58] <shepazu> back...
# [20:58] <Philip> "maintain a DOM" is a bottleneck when you need to recreate the whole DOM thirty times a second, which is common for animated graphical things but rare for HTML DOMs
# [20:58] <masinter> compare canvas, say, to display postscript, and is it even the right imaging model
# [20:58] <masinter> i'm not sure of the processing model that requires "recreate the whole DOM"
# [20:59] <Philip> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pixel scaled"
# [20:59] <shepazu> what's the confusion about mandating SVG? that doesn't seem ambiguous
# [20:59] <masinter> why should you recrate it
# [20:59] <masinter> if you're interacting with a HTML document, you don't "recreate the whole DOM"
# [21:00] <Philip> masinter: Because I might be doing something like http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/83/play.xhtml and there's no feasible way to draw the next frame other than throwing away the previous frame and re-rendering the whole thing from scratch
# [21:00] <Philip> (and so it'd be really painful in SVG)
# [21:01] <masinter> ok, i see the point
# [21:01] <masinter> i'm not entirely sure this means throwing out declarative markup
# [21:01] <Philip> I don't disagree there are plenty of cases where SVG is far more appropriate
# [21:02] <Philip> so I like having both SVG and canvas
# [21:02] <masinter> how does XAML handle this?
# [21:02] * Philip has no idea
# [21:03] <masinter> not sure how Display Postscript managed
# [21:03] <Philip> I don't imagine many people wrote 3D FPS games in Display Postscript :-)
# [21:04] <masinter> you'd be surprised
# [21:04] <Philip> At least I'm pretty sure Doom didn't use it :-)
# [21:04] <masinter> i wonder if the problem is "the DOM"
# [21:05] <masinter> that "the DOM" is monolitic rather than modularized, so that you have to rebuild the whole thing rather than manipulating the display list
# [21:05] <shepazu> I think that mandating SVG support should be pretty straightforward... if a browser (say, IE) chooses to ship SVG support in the form of a plugin, that's fine by me, as long as 1) it works seamlessly with the HTML DOM and 2) it is shipped with the browser
# [21:07] <masinter> It's been a long time since I built any graphics programming infrastructure, so it's coming back to me slowly
# [21:08] <Philip> masinter: In the case of that Canvex game, the problem is that it has some internal representation of the world (as JS data structures), and if it had to maintain a separate display model (like an SVG DOM, or anything else) in parallel to the internal representation then it'd be complex to keep them in sync
# [21:09] <Philip> so it seems much easier when you can do a straightforward mapping from the internal representation onto a series of API calls, and repeat the process each frame
# [21:10] <Philip> (so the graphics API runs on an imperative model, not declarative)
# [21:10] <Philip> (and all the declarativeness happens in the internal representation of the world instead)
# [21:12] <masinter> it's unreasonable to believe that all desirable web graphics can be supported by canvas
# [21:12] <masinter> certainly Google Earth or Lively couldn't be
# [21:13] <masinter> so there has to be some choice about which use cases are important to build in and which ones aren't
# [21:13] <Philip> Anything 3D doesn't work very well in the current 2D canvas
# [21:13] <masinter> I wasn't entirely joking about X-protocol
# [21:14] <masinter> the X-protocol was a device-independent API for talking to screens, building user interfaces, etc. albeit in pixel scale
# [21:14] <masinter> and X went through several iterations
# [21:14] <masinter> how would you compare Canvas to X, in terms of features, portability, device independence, etc?
# [21:14] <Philip> Mozilla wants to expose the OpenGL ES API via <canvas> for 3D, and Google proposed O3D for doing scene-graph-based 3D graphics on the web, and then there's X3D and various other things that nobody seems particularly excited about supporting
# [21:16] <Philip> masinter: As far as I'm aware, the closest comparison is between canvas and the PDF imaging model
# [21:17] <Philip> so canvas compares to X in approximately the same way that the PDF imaging model compares to X
# [21:17] <masinter> oh hmmmm
# [21:17] <masinter> i'm going to have to do some more research in this area
# [21:17] <masinter> i'm just thinking about the versioning and extensibility issues here
# [21:17] <masinter> and what it means to "mandate" a feature
# [21:18] <masinter> <svg> is a little to close to home, i'm wondering if it would be easier to think about it if we were talking about somehting like JPEG2000
# [21:18] <masinter> the JPEG committee defines some new kind of image, I dunno -- 3D stereo image
# [21:18] <masinter> and some people want to use it, others could care less
# [21:19] <masinter> how does it get deployed?
# [21:19] <Philip> Sounds like APNG
# [21:19] <masinter> ?
# [21:19] <masinter> i mean, what's the extensibility story: it harms the platform if 3 out of 4 browsers decide they want it, and the 4th holds out?
# [21:19] <Philip> Mozilla proposes animation extensions to PNG, writes a specification, implements it; someone at Opera thinks it's a good idea and implements it too
# [21:20] <masinter> so 2 out of 4: minority, 3 out of 4, majority?
# [21:20] <masinter> Does Opera not use mozilla *or* webkit? Sorry to be dense here
# [21:20] <Philip> No, Opera is an entirely independent implementation of everything
# [21:21] <masinter> i haven't figured out how Opera can afford to have 17 HTML WG members in good standing
# [21:22] <masinter> ((take that back, sorry))
# [21:22] <Philip> With APNG, the format is designed to degrade (to a single static image) in browsers that don't support it, so the idea is people will start using it with the static fallback in IE (and most WebKit-based browsers)
# [21:22] <masinter> well, so would it be 'mandated'?
# [21:22] <Philip> and if it gets sufficiently widely used then the other browser developers will decide it's worth implementing
# [21:23] <masinter> so HTML with APNG is a different 'version' than HTML without APNG?
# [21:23] <Philip> and then it'll be a 'standard' feature that's needed for any browser that wants to browse the web
# [21:23] <masinter> or APNG is an extension?
# [21:24] <Philip> and none of those browser developers will care what an HTML spec says about the feature (they'll just implement it if it seems worth implementing)
# [21:24] <masinter> well, at some point that kind of thinking leads you to say "close down the standards group"
# [21:24] <masinter> the standards group is a place where implementors get together and agree what they're going to implement
# [21:25] <masinter> and if nobody's committed to do that, then what's the point of talking?
# [21:25] <masinter> the "spec" isn't an exercise in prose writing, it's supposed to document the agreement of the concerned parties
# [21:26] * Quits: tH (Rob@129.11.83.229) (Quit: updating chatzilla)
# [21:26] <masinter> people talk about "what browser implementors will do" as if they weren't in the room
# [21:26] <Philip> masinter: It's just an image format (like PNG or GIF or animated-GIF or JPEG2000-with-stereo-3D), so it doesn't seem like a different 'version' of HTML at all - it's just a feature of the widely-implemented web platform, and it becomes such a feature by having implementors and authors use it widely
# [21:26] * Joins: tH (Rob@129.11.83.229)
# [21:26] <masinter> i'm not sure there's a clear boundary between things-like-APNG and things-like-SVG
# [21:26] <shepazu> I don't agree that SVG is too close to home... in fact, it's the best exemplar we have at hand, since it is supported in all the major desktop browsers save IE... it's a perfect case to serve as an example for consideration
# [21:26] <masinter> i mean, they're different, but i don't know how to draw the line
# [21:27] <masinter> oh I wasn't trying to put it out of order, i just thought it might be useful to have some other cases
# [21:27] <masinter> and understanding why APNG is different from SVG is useful
# [21:28] <masinter> why mandate SVG but don't mandate APNG?
# [21:28] <shepazu> I think any other case would have to be something currently supported by at least one other major browser
# [21:28] <masinter> so the distinction isn't technical, but rather how many browsers implement it?
# [21:28] <Philip> As far as HTML5 is concerned, SVG is different because it benefits from changes to the text/html parser, whereas APNG just goes in <img>
# [21:28] <masinter> hmmmmm
# [21:29] <masinter> I think "benefits" is probably not 100% agreed
# [21:29] <masinter> well, clearly not 100% agreed
# [21:29] <shepazu> s/benefits from/is affected by/
# [21:29] <masinter> yes
# [21:29] <masinter> what about MathML?
# [21:29] <Philip> Well, if you don't change the parser then you have to write <script>document.body.appendChild(document.createElementNS('svg', '...')) ...</script> instead of <svg>...</svg>, so the changes do seem beneficial :-)
# [21:30] <shepazu> MathML is an interesting case
# [21:30] <Philip> (Beneficial to authors, at least)
# [21:30] <masinter> it's of limited use so you woudn't mandate it?
# [21:30] <masinter> ((some benefits and some costs))
# [21:30] <masinter> I need to go for a while, alas
# [21:30] <shepazu> as far as I know, it's not supported natively by any browser (though FF has a simple start on it, and I think Opera does as well), but I think it is useful enough that it should also be mandated
# [21:31] <masinter> i think we need to get a handle on "how extensions become mandated"
# [21:31] <shepazu> where "it" is MathML
# [21:31] <masinter> and that it's key to the versioning issues
# [21:31] <masinter> anyway, thanks for the chat, this has been helpful
# [21:31] * shepazu won't bring up APNG vs. MNG
# [21:32] <masinter> well, later
# [21:32] <Philip> shepazu: Too late!
# [21:32] <shepazu> later, masinter
# [21:33] <Philip> APNG vs MNG is perhaps an example of how specs are largely irrelevant, and features get (relatively) widely implemented based on technical merits as determined by browser developers
# [21:33] <shepazu> Philip: are you claiming APNG is technically superior?
# [21:33] <Philip> (e.g. they think MNG is too complex and requires too much code, so they don't support it and instead make up a new format)
# [21:34] <Philip> shepazu: It's superior in terms of simplicity and implementation size, while still supporting some of the same use cases
# [21:35] <shepazu> Philip: ok, I don't know enough about it to argue
# [21:35] <Philip> and I suppose it's also superior in terms of having useful fallback in legacy browsers (to a static image)
# [21:35] <shepazu> I've heard a different story, but I don't recall the details
# [21:35] <shepazu> oh, that does seem useful
# [21:37] <Philip> I can't imagine anyone would disagree that APNG was simpler and smaller, although they might disagree that MNG is too complex/large to be implemented instead, and they might disagree that APNG adequately solves the use cases they're interested in (e.g. because it lacks features to efficiently encode certain animations)
# [21:38] <shepazu> whoah! my Twitter account has just been suspended!
# [21:38] <Philip> and they might disagree with details like how the fallback can result in silent data loss in legacy PNG tools, and they might disagree with the use of formats that aren't blessed by the official PNG people, etc
# [21:38] <Philip> so there's a lot to disagree agree
# [21:39] <shepazu> [[
# [21:39] <shepazu> Account Suspended
# [21:39] <shepazu> This account is currently suspended and is being investigated due to strange activity. If we have suspended your account mistakenly, please let us know. See Suspended Accounts for more information.
# [21:39] <shepazu> ]]
# [21:40] <Philip> shepazu: Do you disagree that you've engaged in any strange activities? :-)
# [21:40] <shepazu> Philip: well, I can act a bit strangely, but I don't think I've done anything against their terms of service
# [21:54] <shepazu> ...aaaaaaannnnd it's been unsuspended
# [22:03] <masinter> specifications can be irrelevant if they don't represent the (rough) consensus of those who are intended to implement the specification
# [22:04] <masinter> the role of W3C is to "lead the web" to its "full potential". Leadership means getting people to agree to follow
# [22:05] <masinter> it's one thing to get the browser makers to agree to implement "Origin", but not fine if the people whose sites it is intended to protect don't agree that it would protect them
# [22:09] <annevk> fwiw, "the browser vendors" proposed "Origin"
# [22:11] * Joins: masinter` (user@192.150.10.200)
# [22:12] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@86.174.38.173)
# [22:12] * Quits: masinter (user@76.102.104.162) (Ping timeout)
# [22:21] <shepazu> What is... the terrifying origin of... THE BROWSER VENDORS?!?!?!? What lengths will they go to to protect this horrible secret?
# [22:22] <shepazu> Tune in next week... or better yet, last week :)
# [22:26] * Quits: annevk (opera@94.210.210.44) (Ping timeout)
# [22:26] * Quits: anne (annevk@94.210.210.44) (Ping timeout)
# [22:30] * Joins: anne (annevk@94.210.210.122)
# [22:41] * Joins: MarcoAchury (Marco@201.249.162.138)
# [22:54] <masinter`> huh?
# [22:55] <masinter`> shepazu, if you'd like to engage in argument by ridicule, I suppose it could be arranged
# [22:56] <shepazu> masinter`: I wasn't making any argument at all... just playing around with the term "origin" and old comic book stuff
# [22:56] <shepazu> wasn't aimed at you at all
# [22:56] <shepazu> just being silly
# [22:57] * gsnedders slaps shepazu's hand for being silly.
# [22:57] <masinter`> i'm grumpy, my 'unread mail' grew by 3000 emails in my two weeks off-net
# [22:58] <masinter`> it's hard enough to track the actual issues, the "change "conformance checker" to "ideology checker" or "loyalty checker" really set me off
# [22:59] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
# [22:59] <anne> following several HTML WGs? :)
# [23:00] <shepazu> sorry, masinter`, didn't mean to set you off
# [23:01] <masinter`> the issues are difficult
# [23:02] <masinter`> actually, jokes in IRC aren't really a problem
# [23:02] * shepazu suspects that masinter` didn't catch the "last week" reference, which if anything would mock the WHATWG
# [23:02] <masinter`> oh, i did
# [23:02] <shepazu> :)
# [23:03] <masinter`> it's hard to mock WHATWG because it does such a good job of mocking itself
# [23:04] <shepazu> snap.
# [23:06] * anne sometimes has that with the TAG
# [23:07] <masinter`> oh, the TAG is quite pompous and doesn't mock itself nearly enough
# [23:08] <anne> maybe not intentionally :)
# [23:08] <masinter`> at least not intentionally
# [23:10] <masinter`> I think I have humor credentials with RFC 2324
# [23:12] <shepazu> masinter`: what's up with the data URL RFC still not being ratified? that thing is implemented everywhere, is useful, and should be set in stone, no?
# [23:13] <anne> hehe
# [23:13] <anne> "Thus, there is a strong, dark, rich requirement for a protocol designed espressoly for the brewing of coffee."
# [23:14] * shepazu would not be surprised to see HTCPCP taken seriously in some quarters
# [23:14] <shepazu> actually, I think HTML5 redefines parts of HTCPCP to be compatible with existing implementations
# [23:19] * Quits: anne (annevk@94.210.210.122) (Ping timeout)
# [23:21] * Joins: masinter (user@76.102.104.162)
# [23:21] <masinter> there is no problem with 'data'
# [23:21] <masinter> sorry, was disconnected
# [23:21] * Quits: masinter` (user@192.150.10.200) (Ping timeout)
# [23:22] <masinter> IETF standards track isn't like W3C Rec track
# [23:22] <masinter> similar in some ways but quite different
# [23:22] <masinter> I used to get periodic reports of HTCPCP implementations
# [23:24] <masinter> I enjoyed doing the research for RFC 2324, i suppose it belongs in Device APIs though
# [23:24] <shepazu> masinter: any commercial implementations? :)
# [23:24] * Joins: anne (annevk@94.210.210.122)
# [23:24] <shepazu> yes, definitely a DAP spec
# [23:26] <masinter> http://larry.masinter.net/0103-ipac-history.pdf
# [23:26] <masinter> the Internet Personal Appliance Consortium (IPAC) met at an IETF, trying to do device protocols. Seriously
# [23:27] <masinter> Well, many of the issues are really the same
# [23:27] <masinter> like, the "BREW" method
# [23:27] <shepazu> heh
# [23:27] <masinter> is it good for beer and tea as well as coffee?
# [23:28] <masinter> And if you have a device which is similar but not quite the same?
# [23:28] <masinter> do you use the same API with some things being errors?
# [23:28] <masinter> like 418 I'm a teapot?
# [23:30] <masinter> I tried to go through all of the HTTP extension mechanisms and define one of each
# [23:30] <masinter> new method, new URI schemes, new headers, new header values, new MIME types, new result messages
# [23:30] <shepazu> pity you only did the protocol and not the APIs
# [23:31] <shepazu> slacker :)
# [23:31] <shepazu> that spec would never be implemented today!
# [23:32] <masinter> most people never noticed RFC 2325
# [23:33] <masinter> a MIB is a kind of API
# [23:33] <masinter> remote API but still, I wonder if device APIs should look harder at the MIB work
# [23:34] <masinter> that's another TAG topic for next week
# [23:52] * Quits: heycam (cam@124.168.61.74) (Quit: bye)
# [23:57] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
# Session Close: Fri Jun 19 00:00:00 2009

The end :)