/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2009-08-03 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Mon Aug 03 00:00:00 2009
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:35] * Joins: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84)
  4. # [00:38] * Joins: taf2 (taf2@98.218.77.43)
  5. # [00:47] <pimpbot> planet: Help Test HTML5 Parsing in Gecko <http://blog.whatwg.org/test-html5-parsing>
  6. # [01:12] * Quits: annevk (opera@83.85.115.44) (Quit: annevk)
  7. # [01:39] * Quits: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167) (Quit: And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.)
  8. # [02:25] * Quits: MKozakewich (4ac6942e@64.62.228.82) (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  9. # [02:30] * Quits: taf2 (taf2@98.218.77.43) (Quit: taf2)
  10. # [02:52] * Joins: J_Voracek (irchon@32.159.145.12)
  11. # [02:52] * Quits: J_Voracek (irchon@32.159.145.12) (Client exited)
  12. # [03:14] * Quits: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  13. # [03:32] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
  14. # [03:38] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmith@mcclure.w3.org)
  15. # [04:30] * Joins: karl (karlcow@128.30.54.58)
  16. # [04:39] * Quits: dbaron (dbaron@98.234.51.190) (Quit: 8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.)
  17. # [05:48] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Forgot to say what the argument to stepUp()/stepDown() does. (whatwg r3526) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Aug/0028.html>
  18. # [06:00] <MikeSmith> Hixie: editorial/wording nit about "A valid browsing context name is any string with at least one character that does not start with a U+005F LOW LINE character."
  19. # [06:01] <MikeSmith> ah, nm
  20. # [06:01] <MikeSmith> it's unambiguous enough as is
  21. # [06:03] <Hixie> if you have nits, use the new reporting tool :-)
  22. # [06:32] * Joins: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.185.151.94)
  23. # [08:13] * Quits: anne (annevk@83.85.115.44) (Ping timeout)
  24. # [08:30] * Joins: hsivonen (hsivonen@130.233.41.50)
  25. # [09:00] * Quits: heycam (cam@130.194.72.84) (Quit: bye)
  26. # [09:06] * Joins: anne (annevk@83.85.115.44)
  27. # [09:11] * Quits: Zeros (Zeros-Elip@67.185.151.94) (Ping timeout)
  28. # [09:22] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Clean up some of the conventions around Infinity and NaN. (whatwg r3528) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Aug/0030.html> ** hixie: Text explaining what the element definitions mean and stating that some parts of those definitions are normative. (whatwg r3527) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Aug/0029.html>
  29. # [09:35] * Joins: tH (Rob@82.4.89.172)
  30. # [09:48] * Joins: heycam (cam@124.168.112.102)
  31. # [09:52] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Make HTMLOptionElement.text read-write. (whatwg r3529) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Aug/0031.html>
  32. # [10:21] * Quits: webben (benh@217.12.15.52) (Ping timeout)
  33. # [10:51] * Joins: annevk (opera@83.85.115.44)
  34. # [10:51] * Joins: jgraham (jgraham@74.53.238.210)
  35. # [10:58] * Joins: webben (benh@217.12.14.240)
  36. # [11:03] * Joins: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30)
  37. # [11:06] * Quits: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30) (Quit: tlr)
  38. # [11:07] * Joins: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30)
  39. # [11:15] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  40. # [11:30] <gsnedders> MikeSmith: Can we not have splitter commits sent out on the mailing list? They just add noise, IMO
  41. # [11:37] <MikeSmith> gsnedders: I've love to but I have no means for filtering them out
  42. # [11:37] <gsnedders> MikeSmith: n00b
  43. # [11:37] <MikeSmith> heh
  44. # [11:53] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7199] New: microformat <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Aug/0009.html>
  45. # [11:57] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246) (Ping timeout)
  46. # [11:57] * Joins: Sander (svl@86.87.68.167)
  47. # [12:23] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7199] microformat <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Aug/0010.html>
  48. # [12:23] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: PropertyNodeList.contents returns an Array, not a DOMStringArray (whatever that is) (whatwg r3530) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Aug/0032.html>
  49. # [12:28] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: what would be the advantage of building the HTML5-datatype-aware jing using from a Saxon directory?
  50. # [12:28] <MikeSmith> do you mean just to take advantage of the Saxon gcj build setup?
  51. # [12:29] <hsivonen> MikeSmith: I mean copying the jar manifest incantations that jing uses for saxon and editing them for the datatype lib
  52. # [12:29] <hsivonen> so that java -jar does the right thing
  53. # [12:29] <hsivonen> alternatively, you could re-jar everything into one big jar
  54. # [12:31] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: OK, I see what you're saying
  55. # [12:38] * Quits: anne (annevk@83.85.115.44) (Ping timeout)
  56. # [12:38] * Quits: annevk (opera@83.85.115.44) (Ping timeout)
  57. # [12:41] * Joins: anne (annevk@83.85.115.44)
  58. # [12:42] * Parts: anne (annevk@83.85.115.44)
  59. # [12:53] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: ack for last checkin (whatwg r3533) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Aug/0035.html> ** hixie: typo (thanks to ms2ger) (whatwg r3532) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Aug/0034.html> ** hixie: Remove an obsolete note. (whatwg r3531) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Aug/0033.html>
  60. # [12:57] * Joins: maddiin (mc@87.185.249.59)
  61. # [13:01] * Quits: Marcos (Marcos@213.236.208.22) (Quit: Marcos)
  62. # [13:06] * Joins: anne (annevk@83.85.115.44)
  63. # [13:13] * Quits: webben (benh@217.12.14.240) (Ping timeout)
  64. # [13:18] * Joins: Lachy (Lachy@213.236.208.22)
  65. # [13:19] * Joins: Lachy_ (Lachy@213.236.208.22)
  66. # [13:19] * Quits: Lachy (Lachy@213.236.208.22) (Quit: Leaving)
  67. # [13:19] * Quits: Lachy_ (Lachy@213.236.208.22) (Quit: Leaving)
  68. # [13:22] * Joins: Lachy (Lachy@213.236.208.22)
  69. # [13:23] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: typo (whatwg r3534) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Aug/0036.html>
  70. # [13:45] * Joins: webben (benh@217.12.14.240)
  71. # [13:50] <pimpbot> planet: Cartagen: Rich mapping on the client side <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ajaxian/~3/nhkKYFvq85s/cartagen-rich-mapping-on-the-client-side>
  72. # [14:11] * Joins: sierk (sbornema@89.182.147.58)
  73. # [14:12] * Quits: sierk (sbornema@89.182.147.58) (Quit: sierk)
  74. # [14:48] * Quits: Dashiva (noone@129.241.137.223) (Connection reset by peer)
  75. # [14:48] * Joins: Dashiva (noone@129.241.137.223)
  76. # [14:57] * Parts: anne (annevk@83.85.115.44)
  77. # [15:00] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Ping timeout)
  78. # [15:01] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  79. # [15:03] * Joins: taf2 (taf2@98.218.77.43)
  80. # [15:14] * Quits: taf2 (taf2@98.218.77.43) (Quit: taf2)
  81. # [15:28] * Joins: annevk (opera@83.85.115.44)
  82. # [15:37] * Quits: jwatt (roslea@94.209.103.175) (Client exited)
  83. # [15:46] * Joins: taf2 (taf2@38.99.201.242)
  84. # [16:03] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Client exited)
  85. # [16:10] * DanC boots up, finds a bunch of heartbeat draft mail over the weekend, wishes people would get a life
  86. # [16:13] <jgraham> Heh
  87. # [16:13] <Lachy> DanC, personally, I wish the chairs would find a more reasonable way to move forward with the issue, instead of continuing with the circus Sam has been driving for weeks
  88. # [16:14] <Lachy> actually, I really wish we had done what I suggested we did about a year ago, in that when it comes to publishing WDs for heartbeat requirements, we just adopt a process that allows it to proceed without question.
  89. # [16:15] <Lachy> after FPWD, and editor should be free to publish a new WD for review at any time, without question. It's only when moving beyond WD status that there really needs to be any fuss
  90. # [16:15] <Lachy> s/and editor/any editor/
  91. # [16:35] * Joins: myakura (myakura@221.184.76.97)
  92. # [16:42] * Joins: rubys (rubys@98.27.52.152)
  93. # [16:44] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  94. # [16:45] <rubys> Lachy: I would agree with that, but would take it one step further. Any draft that three independent members of the working group supports gets to make it to FPWD. Anything less allows those that get there first to block advancement of dissenting points of view.
  95. # [16:46] <Lachy> I'm not too concerned about that. But what I don't want to continue seeing is your encouragement of people to fork the spec, in a way that forces us to make an either/or decision about which one to publish
  96. # [16:47] <Lachy> I'm ok with people taking sections and presenting a draft containing just the affected sections, rather than forking the whole spec just to edit one small part
  97. # [16:47] * Joins: dbaron (dbaron@98.234.51.190)
  98. # [16:48] <Lachy> if we ever get to a point where someone really wants to take over the whole spec from Hixie, then it's reasonable to fork the whole spec. But, ideally, that should only happen if Hixie really flys off the rails.
  99. # [16:48] <Lachy> *flies
  100. # [16:49] <rubys> I don't believe that anybody wants to take over the whole spec. They simply have some changes that the would like to get included.
  101. # [16:49] <Lachy> rubys, that's my point, which is why I don't think encouraging people to fork the whole spec is a good approach
  102. # [16:50] <rubys> summary isn't defined in one place.
  103. # [16:51] <Lachy> so? It still only required edits in about 2 or 3 small sections
  104. # [16:52] <rubys> I've seen appeals to reason. I've seen small diffs. To date, a complete document hasn't been published.
  105. # [16:52] <rubys> (I've seen one, but it hasn't been published)
  106. # [16:52] <Lachy> define "published" in that context?
  107. # [16:53] <rubys> actually, I take it back. Those diffs mention jfoliot's site.
  108. # [16:56] <rubys> in any case, I prefer to let darwin take care of the ill-advised proposals rather than block them from the get-go
  109. # [16:57] <Lachy> rubys, now that you've told Hixie to incorporate John's proposed changes so that we can move on, how does that affect the resolution of the issue and the ability for the group to revert that change later on?
  110. # [16:58] <rubys> that's what makes this discussion silly: it doesn't.
  111. # [16:58] <Lachy> ok, then what's the point of doing it?
  112. # [16:58] <rubys> The difference is between, and I quote 'It has been suggested that the summary="" attribute should not be obsolete, and the working group may vote on the matter at some future point.' and 'It has been suggested that the summary attribute should be made obsolete, and the working group may vote on the matter at some future point.'
  113. # [16:59] * Joins: anne (annevk@83.85.115.44)
  114. # [16:59] <rubys> I wrote up the difference in the note that you are referring to. It is the difference between working together and "talk to the hand".
  115. # [17:00] <Lachy> There's not much difference there. It just seems like this is a tactic to get make one side temporarily happy and move on, while ignoring the other side completely
  116. # [17:01] <rubys> One approach is acting as a rogue agent and draws negative attention on the HTML WG, the other puts the PF WG on notice and should they not follow through the bad is on them.
  117. # [17:02] <Lachy> huh?
  118. # [17:04] <rubys> I believe I said that much clearer in my note.
  119. # [17:06] <rubys> And from my perspective, I can't reconcile "There's not much difference there" with "ignoring the other side completely". Both are even in the same IRC line even.
  120. # [17:08] <Lachy> rubys, the fact is that you're forcing a change to the spec that meets the demand of one side, which is not supported by any evidence at all, just to make them happy. This ignores how people who disagree with the changes will feel
  121. # [17:08] <rubys> If there truly is "not much difference there", then my suggestion is to "give in" as there isn't much to "give in" to; and in return ask John "to follow through on his promise to assist with and expedite a review of the current WCAG recommendation on this matter. "
  122. # [17:09] <Lachy> Although I've already stated that I'm not too concerned about what one particular WD says on the issue.
  123. # [17:09] <rubys> but clearly, and in direct contradiction to your words, you seem to feel that there is an important difference there, one that makes it important for us to continue this circus.
  124. # [17:09] <anne> Lachy, why are you saying rubys is forcing a change?
  125. # [17:09] * anne thought the whole point of having a poll was to not force things
  126. # [17:09] <Lachy> anne, read his recent mail in which he asked Hixie to incorporate John's proposal
  127. # [17:10] <rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0106.html
  128. # [17:10] <pimpbot> Title: Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2 from Sam Ruby on 2009-08-03 (public-html@w3.org from August 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
  129. # [17:10] <Lachy> "At this point in time, I would like to ask that you update your draft accordingly: make summary fully and completely conforming and document the issue being explored."
  130. # [17:10] <Lachy> so it appears that the whole idea of having a poll has suddenly been dropped
  131. # [17:10] <rubys> I was quite happy with my original request to simply publish Ian's draft. I was quite happy with my request to have a poll.
  132. # [17:10] <anne> I don't see anybody being forced by that...
  133. # [17:11] <jgraham> rubys: FWIW your characterisation of the scientific method does not match my (very limited) experience of science as it is practiced
  134. # [17:11] <Lachy> it depends if Hixie has a choice to ignore rubys' request or not
  135. # [17:11] <rubys> he very much does, at which time I will continue with a poll
  136. # [17:12] <Lachy> so will the poll be asking if John's proposed changes should be incorporated into the WD?
  137. # [17:13] <rubys> Not unless I get a strong feeling that Hixie understands the request. Repeating that cycle is not something I particularly relish.
  138. # [17:14] <rubys> My preference is to give Hixie first right of refusal. This should be easy if "there's not much difference there".
  139. # [17:14] <Lachy> I think Hixie understands the request, just not the effect it will have or the process being used to get there
  140. # [17:15] <Lachy> but I can't speak for Hixie though
  141. # [17:16] <rubys> I'd love for Hixie to produce two drafts, and ask for a poll to see which goes forward. If he is not willing to do that, I'm willing to go with one from Hixie and one from Foliot.
  142. # [17:17] <Lachy> rubys, the only remaining problem is that it seemingly shifts the burdon of proof from the summary proponents who've yet to clearly demonstrate why summary deserves to be in, onto those of us who've already demonstrated that it doesn't, which isn't really fair
  143. # [17:17] <Julian> Lachy, I disagree with that summary.
  144. # [17:18] <Lachy> Julian, which part?
  145. # [17:18] <Julian> Lachy, I found the arguments of those who want it back totally convincing.
  146. # [17:18] <Julian> Lachy, I also think that the burden of proof is on those who want a change from HTML4.
  147. # [17:18] <Lachy> which arguments? Did I miss any evidence that supported their case?
  148. # [17:18] * DanC catches up... on IRC... still drowning in email
  149. # [17:18] <Julian> It's all on the archives, for instance in Shelley's mails.
  150. # [17:19] <Lachy> Julian, no, the burdon of proof is always on those who want to add a feature to HTML5. If the proponents can't justify why it should be in, it should get rejected.
  151. # [17:19] <Julian> Lachy, I disagree with that as well.
  152. # [17:19] <jgraham> Lachy: I don't think that blanket statemnent applies
  153. # [17:19] <jgraham> or is relevant
  154. # [17:19] <Julian> Lachy, I understand that this is the "WHATWG" point of view, but it's just that, not more.
  155. # [17:20] <Lachy> Julian, you seem to be operating under the assumption that whatever HTML4 said is correct, and must be taken as the gospel truth until debunked, which is a backwards approach
  156. # [17:20] <rubys> Lachy: don't make a slippery slope argument
  157. # [17:20] <anne> Julian, what is the WHATWG point of view?
  158. # [17:20] * anne doesn't really agree with all that Lachy has said here
  159. # [17:21] * anne isn't sure the WHATWG has a point of view
  160. # [17:21] <rubys> burden of proof is very different than gospel truth
  161. # [17:21] <Julian> Anne, about the "fresh start", and "everything is being re-examined".
  162. # [17:21] <Lachy> rubys, I didn't say they were the same, did I?
  163. # [17:21] <jgraham> Burden of proof is not a useful concept
  164. # [17:21] <anne> Julian, re-examining things is normal, not?
  165. # [17:22] <anne> (e.g. HTTPbis seems to do that a lot as well)
  166. # [17:22] <Julian> Anne, to a certain degree, yes.
  167. # [17:22] <rubys> I don't believe Julian argued against re-examining
  168. # [17:23] <Julian> Anne, but, as you mentioned HTTPbis, we are not removing features just because they aren't widely implemented, or because we disagree with their approach.
  169. # [17:23] <Julian> Anne, they really need to be *broken*, or *completely* implemented to be a candidate for removal
  170. # [17:24] <anne> Julian, yeah
  171. # [17:24] <Julian> Anne, we also assume that something in RFC2616 isn't changed unless there's a strong consensus to do so.
  172. # [17:24] <rubys> oh, btw, anne: happy belated birthday.
  173. # [17:24] <anne> thanks rubys :)
  174. # [17:24] <Lachy> Julian, do you mean "completely unimplemented"?
  175. # [17:24] <anne> Julian, I think Hixie's argument has been that summary is broken
  176. # [17:24] <rubys> next year I will be twice your age
  177. # [17:25] <Julian> Lachy, nobody implements it, or at least nobody involved in the WG's discussion
  178. # [17:25] <Julian> Anne, yes, that's his argument, but many people are not convinced.
  179. # [17:26] <Lachy> Julian, right, that's what I thought you must have meant
  180. # [17:26] <rubys> until they are convinced, I think an accurate stating of the current state is that summary is not (yet) obsolete.
  181. # [17:26] <anne> Julian, I don't know how many people are convinced
  182. # [17:26] <anne> Julian, I haven't seen numbers anyway
  183. # [17:26] <Julian> Anne, well, let's find out
  184. # [17:26] <rubys> I'm willing to go with a poll, side by side, both documents authored by Hixie.
  185. # [17:27] <anne> Julian, that seems better than stating as if it were a fact that it is already known...
  186. # [17:27] <Dashiva> Let the popularity contest begin :)
  187. # [17:27] * jgraham notes that voting is also not part of the scientific process
  188. # [17:27] <rubys> popularity contest is not being fair. Leadership is all about the ability to attract followers. Being right and having nobody follow is not better than being imperfect but widely followed.
  189. # [17:28] <anne> jgraham, yeah, didn't really mean to sound in favor of voting solutions...
  190. # [17:28] <Dashiva> rubys: Maybe if it was a worldwide poll, but it's not
  191. # [17:29] <rubys> Dashiva: on that matter, I'm willing to go with "it is just a Working Draft" argument.
  192. # [17:29] <Philip> jgraham: Yes it is - papers get selected for publication based on how many of the reviewers think they're worth publishing
  193. # [17:30] <Lachy> rubys, as long as the poll is a non-binding, information gathering exercise only, I don't have any objections. That's not to say I'm entirely happy about it, but I can accept it in the interest of moving on
  194. # [17:30] <rubys> it would be "binding" only in the sense that there would be a WD published with the results, with that WD guaranteed to be replaced in three months, if not sooner.
  195. # [17:31] <Philip> (Actually I'm probably wrong, it's not really a numerical majority thing - as far as I'm aware they tend to review everything and then meet and try to find consensus on which to publish, which doesn't involve voting (unless they can't agree, I guess))
  196. # [17:31] <jgraham> Philip: Not for astrophysics journals that I have interacted with
  197. # [17:32] <rubys> so, my first preference is no poll, and Hixie takes my suggestion; my second preference is with a poll with two documents authored by Hixie; my third preference is for a poll with two documents, one authored by Hixie, and one by Foliot.
  198. # [17:32] <jgraham> Telescope time allocation is more like that I guess but you can always reapply for the time next year and get a different group of people
  199. # [17:33] <jgraham> (the journals I interacted with had a single reviewer per paper with the possibility to escalate the matter if you felt the reviewr made unfair comments)
  200. # [17:34] <Lachy> jgraham, just out of interest, have you had any papers published in any scientific journals?
  201. # [17:34] <jgraham> (however the pre-review system of the journals is overrated; most things end up on preprint servers anyway, and what is much more important is how your work is recieved after publication)
  202. # [17:35] <jgraham> Lachy: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PRE&qform=AST&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&adsobj_query=YES&aut_logic=AND&obj_logic=OR&author=Graham%2C+J%0D%0AFab
  203. # [17:35] <pimpbot> Title: SAO/NASA ADS Abstract Service (at adsabs.harvard.edu)
  204. # [17:35] <jgraham> Oh, long URL
  205. # [17:35] <jgraham> sorry
  206. # [17:35] <jgraham> (not much as you can see)
  207. # [17:36] <Lachy> "Retrieved 0 abstracts"
  208. # [17:36] <jgraham> Oh, well you should get 5
  209. # [17:36] <Philip> jgraham: Oh, okay, I guess it's somewhat different with CS conference publications
  210. # [17:36] <jgraham> ALthough only 3 are real papers
  211. # [17:37] <jgraham> (real, first author, papers)
  212. # [17:37] <Philip> jgraham: URL probably got cut short, after the "Graham, J Fab"
  213. # [17:37] <Lachy> maybe the URL got truncated over IRC and it didn't search properly
  214. # [17:37] <jgraham> Oh
  215. # [17:40] <jgraham> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PRE&aut_logic=AND&author=Graham%2C+J%0D%0AFabian%2C+A.C.
  216. # [17:40] <pimpbot> Title: Author Query Results (at adsabs.harvard.edu)
  217. # [17:41] <Lachy> that worked
  218. # [17:50] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Ping timeout)
  219. # [17:54] * Quits: myakura (myakura@221.184.76.97) (Quit: Leaving...)
  220. # [18:06] * gsnedders is now known as gsnedders|work
  221. # [18:14] * Quits: taf2 (taf2@38.99.201.242) (Quit: taf2)
  222. # [18:14] * Joins: taf2 (taf2@38.99.201.242)
  223. # [18:19] * Quits: Lachy (Lachy@213.236.208.22) (Quit: Leaving)
  224. # [18:34] * Parts: rubys (rubys@98.27.52.152)
  225. # [18:39] * Joins: adele (adele@17.246.19.228)
  226. # [18:40] * Quits: adele (adele@17.246.19.228) (Quit: adele)
  227. # [18:41] * Joins: adele (adele@17.246.19.228)
  228. # [18:58] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@83.252.196.118)
  229. # [18:59] <DanC> so (nearly) all the messages under the subject of publishing are actually about summary.
  230. # [19:09] <Philip> There might be a little bit about RDFa too
  231. # [19:35] * Quits: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30) (Quit: tlr)
  232. # [19:37] * DanC checks to see that the issue tracker is up to date on the summary issue
  233. # [19:38] <DanC> hmm... the editor's position of 24 Feb says "There have been a number of studies, by Philip, yourself, myself, and
  234. # [19:38] <DanC> others."
  235. # [19:38] <DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0601.html
  236. # [19:38] <pimpbot> Title: summary="" in HTML5 from Ian Hickson on 2009-02-24 (public-html@w3.org from February 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
  237. # [19:38] <DanC> issues list should cite those
  238. # [19:39] * gsnedders just wants to replace "Philip" with "someone else" in that list
  239. # [19:39] <Philip> ?
  240. # [19:40] <gsnedders> Well, "someone else, yourself, myself" is more amusing
  241. # [19:41] <DanC> where is Ian's own study? I don't see it in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0215.html either
  242. # [19:41] <pimpbot> Title: Re: several messages about tables and related subjects from Ian Hickson on 2008-03-23 (public-html@w3.org from March 2008) (at lists.w3.org)
  243. # [19:43] <DanC> ah. http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-3a5c00cbe1e685353fb69bb5a2e2f65faa3f6cea -> http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/tables.html
  244. # [19:43] <pimpbot> Title: HTML/SummaryForTABLE - ESW Wiki (at esw.w3.org)
  245. # [19:55] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  246. # [20:06] * Joins: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30)
  247. # [20:07] * Quits: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30) (Client exited)
  248. # [20:22] * Joins: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.30)
  249. # [20:29] * Joins: plh (plh@128.30.52.28)
  250. # [20:29] * Joins: rubys (rubys@98.27.52.152)
  251. # [20:38] * Quits: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.85) (Ping timeout)
  252. # [20:43] * Joins: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.105)
  253. # [20:48] * Quits: adele (adele@17.246.19.228) (Quit: adele)
  254. # [21:07] * Parts: rubys (rubys@98.27.52.152)
  255. # [21:28] * Quits: webben (benh@217.12.14.240) (Ping timeout)
  256. # [22:04] * Joins: adele (adele@17.246.19.228)
  257. # [22:12] * Quits: maddiin (mc@87.185.249.59) (Quit: maddiin)
  258. # [22:12] * Joins: webben (benh@91.85.212.62)
  259. # [22:15] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@83.252.196.118) (Quit: gsnedders)
  260. # [22:52] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  261. # [22:56] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11) (Ping timeout)
  262. # [23:01] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  263. # [23:06] * Quits: taf2 (taf2@38.99.201.242) (Quit: taf2)
  264. # [23:08] * Joins: webben_ (benh@217.12.15.52)
  265. # [23:11] * Quits: webben (benh@91.85.212.62) (Ping timeout)
  266. # [23:25] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@83.252.196.118)
  267. # [23:27] * Joins: jwatt (roslea@94.209.103.175)
  268. # [23:46] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@83.252.196.118) (Quit: Adios intarwebs.)
  269. # [23:49] * Quits: plh (plh@128.30.52.28) (Quit: Ooops, I crashed)
  270. # Session Close: Tue Aug 04 00:00:00 2009

The end :)