/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2009-09-25 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Fri Sep 25 00:00:00 2009
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:00] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11) (Ping timeout)
  4. # [00:02] * Joins: drunknbass_work (aaron@71.107.253.243)
  5. # [00:05] * Joins: masinter (user@128.30.6.166)
  6. # [00:05] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  7. # [00:08] <pimpbot> bugmail: "[Bug 7721] Drag and Drop is not keyboard accessible" (3 messages in thread) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Sep/0816.html>
  8. # [00:25] * Quits: DanC_lap (connolly@128.30.52.169) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  9. # [00:27] * Quits: masinter (user@128.30.6.166) (Ping timeout)
  10. # [01:28] * Joins: J_Voracek (irchon@166.205.6.176)
  11. # [01:29] * Quits: J_Voracek (irchon@166.205.6.176) (Client exited)
  12. # [01:30] * Joins: J_Voracek (irchon@166.205.5.56)
  13. # [01:30] * Quits: J_Voracek (irchon@166.205.5.56) (Client exited)
  14. # [01:31] * Parts: aroben (aroben@71.58.77.15) (Leaving)
  15. # [01:38] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Editorial fixes: more mis-xreffing. Will it never end? (whatwg r4000) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Sep/0252.html> ** hixie: Editorial fixes: more mis-xreffing (whatwg r3999) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Sep/0251.html> ** hixie: Make text more clear (and consistent with later similar text). (whatwg r3998) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Sep
  16. # [01:38] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7599] Either drop the two places that set the "Origin" HTTP header, or update HTML5 to match the Sec-From/Origin I-D (if the latter is stable enough yet). <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Sep/0819.html> ** [Bug 7697] The type attribute should ammend the Accept header accordingly. HTTP spec is in accordance with the rules here, in terms of the Accept header being non-authorative. script and style elements alre
  17. # [01:59] * Joins: cardona507 (carloscard@67.180.160.250)
  18. # [02:22] * Quits: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.169) (Quit: tlr)
  19. # [02:31] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.246.18.149) (Connection reset by peer)
  20. # [02:33] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.246.18.149)
  21. # [02:34] * Quits: tH (Rob@82.4.89.172) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.85-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.1/2008072406])
  22. # [02:34] * Quits: julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Ping timeout)
  23. # [02:48] * Joins: julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  24. # [02:53] * Quits: cardona507 (carloscard@67.180.160.250) (Quit: cardona507)
  25. # [03:08] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Editorial fixes: a paragraph that shouldn't be class=impl; a missing xref. (whatwg r4001) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Sep/0253.html>
  26. # [03:36] * Joins: cheeaun (cheeaun@116.14.61.215)
  27. # [03:36] * Parts: cheeaun (cheeaun@116.14.61.215)
  28. # [03:54] * Quits: drunknbass_work (aaron@71.107.253.243) (Quit: Bye!)
  29. # [04:58] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.246.18.149) (Quit: mjs)
  30. # [05:08] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmithX@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
  31. # [05:37] * Quits: Dashiva (noone@129.241.137.223) (Connection reset by peer)
  32. # [05:37] * Joins: Dashiva (noone@129.241.137.223)
  33. # [05:38] * Joins: cardona507 (carloscard@67.180.160.250)
  34. # [05:38] * Quits: cardona507 (carloscard@67.180.160.250) (Quit: cardona507)
  35. # [05:55] * Joins: mjs (mjs@69.181.42.237)
  36. # [07:32] * Joins: DanC_lap (connolly@128.30.52.169)
  37. # [07:37] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmithX@mcclure.w3.org)
  38. # [07:38] * Joins: Rodi (rodi@98.154.249.109)
  39. # [07:44] * Parts: Rodi (rodi@98.154.249.109)
  40. # [07:59] * Joins: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.27)
  41. # [08:13] * Quits: mjs (mjs@69.181.42.237) (Quit: mjs)
  42. # [08:19] * Quits: DanC_lap (connolly@128.30.52.169) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  43. # [08:43] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11) (Ping timeout)
  44. # [08:48] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  45. # [09:11] <MikeSmith> issue: suggested replacement for head/@profile does not provide for disambiguation
  46. # [09:11] * trackbot noticed an ISSUE. Trying to create it.
  47. # [09:11] <trackbot> Created ISSUE-82 - Suggested replacement for head/@profile does not provide for disambiguation ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/82/edit .
  48. # [09:12] <MikeSmith> issue-82: escalated from http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7522
  49. # [09:12] * trackbot attempting to add a note to ISSUE-82.
  50. # [09:12] <trackbot> ISSUE-82 Suggested replacement for head/@profile does not provide for disambiguation notes added
  51. # [09:12] <pimpbot> 7522: contributor@whatwg.org, P3, RESOLVED FIXED, <math> should also be phrasing and flow content, like <img> and <svg>.
  52. # [09:12] <MikeSmith> dammit
  53. # [09:13] <MikeSmith> issue-82: escalated from http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7512 (not 7522...)
  54. # [09:13] * trackbot attempting to add a note to ISSUE-82.
  55. # [09:13] <trackbot> ISSUE-82 Suggested replacement for head/@profile does not provide for disambiguation notes added
  56. # [09:13] <pimpbot> 7512: julian.reschke@gmx.de, P2, NEW, suggested "replacement" for head/@profile does not work
  57. # [09:30] * Joins: sbublava (sbublava@77.119.119.125)
  58. # [09:50] * Quits: MarcoAchury (Marco@206.49.165.27) (Ping timeout)
  59. # [10:07] * Joins: mjs (mjs@69.181.42.237)
  60. # [10:38] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  61. # [11:12] * Quits: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.86) (Ping timeout)
  62. # [11:17] * Joins: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.77)
  63. # [11:19] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  64. # [11:30] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmithX@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
  65. # [11:31] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22)
  66. # [11:40] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7725] New: It should be made more clear that only the "disk representation" is changed, not the "memory representation". I.e. images are not suddenly reloaded etc. <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Sep/0820.html>
  67. # [11:57] * Joins: tH (Rob@82.4.89.172)
  68. # [12:07] <julian> Henri, is it intentional that validator.nu issues an error for the legacy doctype?
  69. # [12:10] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7726] New: legacy doctype syntax allows <!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM"about:legacy-compat"> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Sep/0821.html>
  70. # [12:15] * Quits: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.169) (Quit: shepazu)
  71. # [12:17] <mjs> julian: seems like a clear bug to me
  72. # [12:18] <julian> mjs, filing a bug...
  73. # [12:18] <mjs> I don't believe hsivonen has stated his intent to violate the spec on this, it is probably just something that hasn't yet been updated
  74. # [12:18] <julian> the message I get implies that it's intentional
  75. # [12:19] <mjs> maybe I misunderstood the spec
  76. # [12:20] <julian> http://bugzilla.validator.nu/show_bug.cgi?id=657
  77. # [12:20] <pimpbot> Title: Bug 657 legacy doctype causes validation error (at bugzilla.validator.nu)
  78. # [12:20] <julian> "The DOCTYPE legacy string should not be used unless the document is generated from a system that cannot output the shorter string."
  79. # [12:20] <julian> As the validator doesn't know how the HTML code was generated, an error seems to be incorrect to me.
  80. # [12:21] <mjs> and in any case that is a SHOULD NOT, not a MUST NOT
  81. # [12:22] <mjs> I guess it should be a warning not an error?
  82. # [12:22] <julian> I can see why some might want to issue a warning.
  83. # [12:23] <julian> Fro my point of view this is one of the many cases of overspecification.
  84. # [12:23] <julian> The doctype is totally harmless, so IMHO there shouldn't even be a SHOULD NOT.
  85. # [12:23] <julian> Just explain why it's there. End of story.
  86. # [12:24] <julian> In particular it's in violation of the RFC2119 advice on when to use the keywords
  87. # [12:24] <anne> didn't HTML5 change to require <meta name=generator> ?
  88. # [12:24] <julian> " Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not...
  89. # [12:24] <julian> ...required for interoperability."
  90. # [12:25] <anne> the retransmission thing seems applicable, no?
  91. # [12:26] <Philip> I think almost all authoring requirements are in violation of RFC2119 advice on when to use the keywords
  92. # [12:26] <julian> Retransmissions? Why would there be any?
  93. # [12:26] <Philip> so the problem is that HTML5 claims it's using RFC2119 terminology when it's not
  94. # [12:27] <Philip> (which could perhaps be fixed by not claiming to be using RFC2119 terminology, and by defining what it does mean by those terms)
  95. # [12:27] <julian> Philip, that's likely true. Most specs over-use them, as the authors do not understand that they can write normative text without them.
  96. # [12:29] <julian> A nice counter-example is RFC3986.
  97. # [12:29] <mjs> julian: my preference would be to make any doctype that triggers standards mode conforming
  98. # [12:29] <mjs> julian: but I don't feel very strongly about that
  99. # [12:30] <julian> mjs, +1
  100. # [12:30] <Philip> Even HTML4 doctypes?
  101. # [12:30] <mjs> ones that trigger standards mode, yes
  102. # [12:30] <anne> actually, yeah, that'd be my preference too
  103. # [12:31] <mjs> if the document is in standards mode, than using an old-style doctype causes no interop issue
  104. # [12:31] <Philip> That would be confusing when you put your HTML4-doctyped conforming HTML5 document through the W3C validator and it gets validated as HTML4 instead
  105. # [12:32] <julian> Maybe even those - assume a perfectly valid HTML4 document -- why should it be non-conformant in HTML5 if the only required change is the doctype?
  106. # [12:32] <julian> Philip, I wouldn't find that confusing.
  107. # [12:32] <Philip> Non-interoperability with common validators seems like a problem
  108. # [12:32] <anne> Philip, well, the validator should always validate according to the latest HTML standard
  109. # [12:32] <mjs> and I believe the short <!DOCTYPE html> form is very well marketed and indeed sells itself, so the value of telling authors they could have used the shorter thing is low
  110. # [12:33] <mjs> I think the validator should validate text/html as HTML5 by default at some point, and only validate as a different version if you specifically ask, instead of switching on the doctype
  111. # [12:33] <anne> I don't see why the validator should support versioning if nobody else does
  112. # [12:33] <mjs> but I suppose that would be a plausible reason to make formerly used doctypes invalid, if the w3c validator won't do that
  113. # [12:33] <Philip> anne: I can't imagine ever convincing W3C people that the validator should validate HTML4 documents with HTML4 doctypes as if they were HTML5, because it would cause a huge outcry when loads of people's valid HTML4 documents suddenly start getting called invalid HTML5
  114. # [12:35] <anne> Philip, if the W3C validator doesn't want to comply it's just non-compliant
  115. # [12:36] <Philip> Indeed, so that's a practical interoperability problem, and RFC2119 suggests the spec should use 'MUST' to prevent people encountering interoperability problems
  116. # [12:37] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11) (Ping timeout)
  117. # [12:37] <julian> The spec can simply say that all these doc types are conforming, but if you want to force a validator to validate as HTML5 you better use one of the new ones.
  118. # [12:37] <julian> And, btw, interop with validators is probably not what the authors of RCF2119 were considering .-)
  119. # [12:38] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  120. # [12:38] <mjs> I've lost my enthusiasm for making all doctypes that trigger standards mode conforming
  121. # [12:38] <mjs> if we don't count interop between content producers (human and automated) and validators, then RFC2119 would suggest we should delete the notion of document conformance
  122. # [12:39] <anne> it has its share of advocates
  123. # [12:39] * anne lost interest in the debate too, though still thinks it's a good idea
  124. # [12:39] <mjs> I used to think that way, but hsivonen convinced me that interop between content producers and validators is important
  125. # [12:40] * jgraham notes that RFC2119 is not manna from heaven
  126. # [12:40] <mjs> HTML5 does claim to follow it however
  127. # [12:41] <Philip> jgraham: That's why I kind of vaguely think it might be nice if someone wrote something that was similar to RFC2119 but defined the keywords in a way that matches how they're used in practice by HTML5-like spec
  128. # [12:41] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7727] New: legacy doc type does not need to be discouraged by "SHOULD NOT" <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Sep/0822.html>
  129. # [12:41] <jgraham> I tend to agree. But this is so far out into the spec purity weeds that it's scary
  130. # [12:41] <mjs> but I think it's fair to say that you should be able to get at least some core shared error checking functionality from a validator without having to switch validators every time you switch CMSes
  131. # [12:42] <Philip> It would be easier if we got rid of conformance requirements and specs entirely, and just produced test suites
  132. # [12:42] <Philip> since then we wouldn't have to worry about the semantics of the words used
  133. # [12:42] <jgraham> Philip: It would be hard for people writing the testsuites to agree on what they should test...
  134. # [12:42] <mjs> the problem is that even though some central definition of error is needed to make such an ecosystem work, it's somewhat arbitrary what is defined to be an error
  135. # [12:43] <jgraham> (also, how would you produce a test suite for content)
  136. # [12:43] <Philip> jgraham: You produce a test suite for validators
  137. # [12:44] <mjs> a validator is the dual of a test suite
  138. # [12:45] <Philip> Count the number of web pages with "the W3C validator says my page is okay!" badges, vs the number of pages with "I read the entire HTML4 spec and checked that my page follows all the document conformance requirements!" badges
  139. # [12:46] <Philip> and you will clearly see that a test suite for validators will have much more effect on authors than a list of document conformance requirements
  140. # [12:46] <mjs> depends on whether you expect validators to code to test suites more than to conformance requirements
  141. # [12:47] <Philip> I'm afraid valid arguments aren't allowed here
  142. # [12:48] <jgraham> It depends on whether you believe in non-machine-checkable conformance requirements
  143. # [12:49] <hsivonen> julian: I guess I've only allowed about:legacy-compat in the HTML5 doctype expectation mode
  144. # [12:49] <hsivonen> julian: but I've forgotten to make it have HTML5ness in the auto expectation mode
  145. # [12:50] <hsivonen> whether the space is allowed between SYSTEM and " is a different thing
  146. # [12:51] <hsivonen> julian: should be easy to fix once I've flushed Gecko-oriented changes from my parser sandbox
  147. # [12:51] <Philip> mjs: (I suppose the problem with coding to test suites is overfitting, so I guess you really need conformance requirements to tell people what is right and test suites to tell them when they're wrong)
  148. # [12:51] <Philip> (so I suppose we can't simplify the world by getting rid of specs :-( )
  149. # [12:52] <mjs> I was going to say that a test suite can't generally test unbounded combinations of things, not sure if that is what you mean by overfitting
  150. # [12:53] <mjs> (i.e. you could always be evil and claim the concatenation of two items in the test suite can behave in any random way, assuming that's not also in the test suite, and it's not possible for all concatenations to be in the test suite)
  151. # [12:53] <mjs> but conformance requirements can express a universal quantifier
  152. # [12:56] <Philip> I mean an implementor could write 'if (input == "...the first test case...") return "...the relevant output..."; else ...'
  153. # [12:57] <Philip> so it's describing artifacts of the test suite rather than describing the underlying model
  154. # [12:58] <Philip> (like with machine learnings algorithms that can accurately fit the training data but don't generalise to new data)
  155. # [12:59] <Philip> (which Wikipedia agrees is called overfitting, I think)
  156. # [13:04] <jgraham> Philip: So you don't plan to write a web browser using random code generation and a genetic algorithm, with "goodness of fit" determined by test results passed?
  157. # [13:08] <Philip> You know, I was actually thinking of that
  158. # [13:08] <Philip> at least for the parsing algorithm
  159. # [13:09] <Philip> although maybe it would be illegally cruel to subject a neural network to the details of HTML parsing
  160. # [13:16] <hsivonen> mjs: I think it also makes sense to do what the spec does now: making those standards-mode doctypes that were previously promoted by the W3C conforming
  161. # [13:17] <hsivonen> mjs: I don't see why we'd want to make home-grown custom DTD stuff that happens to trigger the standards mode conforming
  162. # [13:18] <hsivonen> V.nu already implements this part of the spec when the parser is in the HTML5 mode as opposed to the autodetect mode
  163. # [13:19] <mjs> hsivonen: does it actually do that?
  164. # [13:20] * hsivonen rechecks for regressions
  165. # [13:20] <mjs> I think HTML5 only makes <!DOCTYPE HTML> and the legacy doctype conforming
  166. # [13:20] <hsivonen> mjs: nope
  167. # [13:21] <mjs> unless there are document conformance requirements hidden in the parsing section
  168. # [13:21] <hsivonen> unless Hixie changed the spec again
  169. # [13:21] <mjs> those are the only two doctypes mentioned in the "HTML syntax" section
  170. # [13:21] <hsivonen> mjs: try <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> on html5.validator.nu
  171. # [13:21] <hsivonen> I get: Warning: Obsolete doctype. Expected <!DOCTYPE html>.
  172. # [13:21] <hsivonen> but no error
  173. # [13:21] <hsivonen> per spec
  174. # [13:21] <jgraham> Philip: Why?
  175. # [13:22] <hsivonen> mjs: obsolete but conforming FTW!
  176. # [13:22] <Philip> jgraham: Why what?
  177. # [13:22] * hsivonen rechecks the spec for regressions
  178. # [13:22] * anne thinks obsolete but conforming to be a somewhat crazy concept
  179. # [13:22] <anne> but maybe my understanding of "obsolete" is wrong
  180. # [13:23] <jgraham> Philip: Why are you considering making a genetically-evolved HTML parser?
  181. # [13:23] <Lachy> it made more sense when they were called downplayed errors
  182. # [13:23] <mjs> I see, there's a list of "obsolete permitted doctypes"
  183. # [13:23] <hsivonen> anne: in "obsolete but conforming" "obsolete" has its normal English meaning--not the spec terminology meaning
  184. # [13:23] <mjs> hidden in the parsing section
  185. # [13:23] <julian> henri, thanks (I was away for lunch)
  186. # [13:23] <jgraham> Maybe we could call such things deprecated :)
  187. # [13:23] <Philip> jgraham: For the same reason I consider all kinds of stupid things that I have no intention of ever actually doing (and probably no ability to ever do, either)
  188. # [13:24] <Philip> and that would never work
  189. # [13:24] <mjs> HTML5 actually says its conforming for validators to check documents with those doctypes as HTML4
  190. # [13:24] <hsivonen> mjs: that's what v.nu does in the autodetect mode
  191. # [13:24] <jgraham> Philip: There are a multiplicity of different reasons that you give, at least, for doing the tings you do
  192. # [13:24] <jgraham> I wasn't aware of a single underlying reason
  193. # [13:25] <Philip> s/same reason/same reasons/
  194. # [13:25] <jgraham> Philip: All of them. I guess some reasons that you have done other things don't apply in this case
  195. # [13:25] <Philip> Mostly it's just because it's easier to consider doing stupid things than to actually do useful things
  196. # [13:26] <jgraham> s/./?/
  197. # [13:27] <Philip> jgraham: What do you mean by "??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????"?
  198. # [13:27] <jgraham> Philip: INSUFFICIENT_MAGIC_ERROR
  199. # [13:27] <hsivonen> Philip: you need to parser the regexp in the quirks mode
  200. # [13:27] <hsivonen> *parse
  201. # [13:29] * Quits: sbublava (sbublava@77.119.119.125) (Ping timeout)
  202. # [13:41] <pimpbot> planet: Opacity: Fancy a design tool with “Save as Canvas”? <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ajaxian/~3/Gz_B62SO-Y4/opacity-fancy-a-design-tool-with-save-as-canvas>
  203. # [13:45] <hsivonen> pimpbot: apparently <canvas> is the new PostScript
  204. # [13:45] <pimpbot> hsivonen: Huh?
  205. # [13:45] <hsivonen> SVG is to <canvas> what PDF is to PostScript
  206. # [13:46] <hsivonen> roughly
  207. # [13:47] <hsivonen> "Burst engine, which can take SVG animations and convert them to JavaScript objects that are rendered inside of a <canvas> tag."
  208. # [13:47] <hsivonen> that seems just wrong
  209. # [13:47] <julian> Anne, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0834.html
  210. # [13:47] <pimpbot> Title: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-03 from Julian Reschke on 2009-09-24 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2009) (at lists.w3.org)
  211. # [13:47] <julian> "which also brings advice on the use of the charset parameter into line with current practice. In brief, the charset parameter should only be added if it agrees with the xml encoding declaration. In the absence of an explicit charset parameter, the encoding specified by the xml encoding declaration is used. (This is a change from RFC 3023, which required enforcing us-ascii in that case)."
  212. # [13:47] <anne> julian, did you read the draft?
  213. # [13:47] <jgraham> If only Javascript had been based on Forth rather than Self, postscript could be the new postscript
  214. # [13:48] <julian> Anne, not yet - are you saying what they claim is not true?
  215. # [13:48] <anne> julian, not for text/xml per the draft
  216. # [13:48] <anne> julian, maybe the previous draft said something broken for non-text/xml too?
  217. # [13:48] * anne thought it didn't
  218. # [13:49] <mjs> saving an animation as code to draw on a canvas actually does not seem like a bad idea
  219. # [13:49] * hsivonen wishes things that editors say about their specs could be taken as true without having to check
  220. # [13:49] <hsivonen> (compare with the alleged syntax-based construction of RDFa)
  221. # [13:50] <hsivonen> mjs: shouldn't the author let the browser's SVG subsystem run the animation with UA-controlled clock and zooming?
  222. # [13:50] <hsivonen> s/zooming/size of backing buffer bitmap/
  223. # [13:51] <julian> Anne, so they changed it only for application/xml
  224. # [13:51] <mjs> depends on the memory use, code size, and performance characteristics of the result
  225. # [13:51] <anne> julian, reading RFC 3023 there was no weird default for application/xml
  226. # [13:52] <anne> julian, so I've no idea what that paragraph is alluding too
  227. # [13:52] <hsivonen> these days, I'm running most Web pages at home with a > 1.0 zoom factor, so I'm rather annoyed at canvas-based "vector graphics" that are just as pixelated as bitmaps
  228. # [13:52] <hsivonen> so I want to see more SVG
  229. # [13:52] <hsivonen> or UA-sized canvas backing buffers
  230. # [13:52] <julian> Anne, I agree.
  231. # [13:53] <julian> It's also not mentioned in the "Changes" appendix.
  232. # [13:53] <julian> Mail sent.
  233. # [13:53] <mjs> ah
  234. # [13:53] <mjs> WebKit is able to run at a > 1.0 zoom factor and scales the canvas buffer appropriately
  235. # [13:53] <anne> julian, almost nothing changed: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-03.txt
  236. # [13:53] <mjs> but not all canvas code is prepared for the consequences
  237. # [13:53] <pimpbot> Title: Diff: draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-02.txt - draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-03.txt (at tools.ietf.org)
  238. # [13:53] <anne> julian, maybe they uploaded the wrong draft...
  239. # [13:53] <mjs> (anything that does pixel-level munging is almost certainly not coded resolution-independent)
  240. # [13:54] <julian> Anne, we'll find out.
  241. # [13:57] <hsivonen> mjs: I run OS X at scale factor 1.0 because people haven't done their QA correctly at other factors
  242. # [13:58] <hsivonen> mjs: then I run Firefox. it remembers my zoom factor per-site
  243. # [13:58] <hsivonen> mjs: which is more important than the hi-res backing buffer from Safari
  244. # [13:59] <mjs> I'm just saying, the fact that your use case doesn't work as you like it is not a failure of canvas as a design
  245. # [14:00] <hsivonen> mjs: it's a failure in the rollout of the design
  246. # [14:02] <mjs> in any case, if I were deploying animated graphics to the Web, I would care more about size on the wire and memory use than people who love zooming all their web sites
  247. # [14:02] <mjs> there may well be cases where animated GIF wins this comparison
  248. # [14:04] <hsivonen> It's not about loving to zoom
  249. # [14:04] <hsivonen> it's about having an unusual screen size (37") and an unusual viewing distance (3 m)
  250. # [14:05] <mjs> that is indeed unusual
  251. # [14:05] <hsivonen> it's what happens when you use one these things legacy-oriented marketers call "TVs"
  252. # [14:41] <pimpbot> planet: Dive Into HTML 5, Intro Articles, and IE 6 Cheatsheet <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ajaxian/~3/mrrrM3GR65A/dive-into-html-5-intro-articles-and-ie-6-cheatsheet>
  253. # [14:50] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22) (Quit: Leaving)
  254. # [14:55] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22)
  255. # [15:03] * Joins: sryo (sryo@190.245.211.98)
  256. # [15:11] * Joins: DanC_lap (connolly@128.30.52.169)
  257. # [15:21] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11) (Ping timeout)
  258. # [15:26] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  259. # [15:49] * Joins: aroben (aroben@71.58.77.15)
  260. # [15:51] * Quits: aroben (aroben@71.58.77.15) (Quit: Leaving)
  261. # [15:51] * Joins: aroben (aroben@71.58.77.15)
  262. # [16:12] * Joins: laplink (link@193.157.66.134)
  263. # [16:17] <DanC_lap> I remember mail about an implementation on the microdata stuff... but I can't find it in the archives... too much recall and too little precision when searching for "microdata implementation"
  264. # [16:17] <DanC_lap> anybody have clues/pointers?
  265. # [16:17] <Philip> DanC_lap: http://philip.html5.org/demos/microdata/demo.html ?
  266. # [16:17] <Philip> Also http://james.html5.org/microdata/
  267. # [16:17] <pimpbot> Title: HTML 5 Microdata Extractor (at james.html5.org)
  268. # [16:18] <Philip> pimpbot, why no title for mine? :-(
  269. # [16:18] <pimpbot> Philip: Huh?
  270. # [16:18] <DanC_lap> thanks!
  271. # [16:18] <jgraham> DanC_lap: Mine, at least is out of date wrt the current spec
  272. # [16:19] <Philip> Oh, right, because I don't have a <title> element except in a textarea that gets scriptedly inserted into the document
  273. # [16:19] <jgraham> But I see no point in updating it until Hixie has finished his usability study
  274. # [16:19] <Philip> Mine is out of date too
  275. # [16:19] <Philip> (I think)
  276. # [16:21] <Philip> I see no point in updating mine because RDFa is going to conquer the world
  277. # [16:24] <jgraham> I for one welcome our new RDFa overlords
  278. # [16:28] <Philip> I wonder if the overlords will force me to memorise which attributes take URIs, which take CURIEs, and which take Safe CURIEs
  279. # [16:32] * jgraham wonders why more web technologies aren't named after obscure scientific units
  280. # [16:33] <hsivonen> jgraham: maybe the other technologies don't like to be associated with dangerous characteristics of matter
  281. # [16:33] <hsivonen> like radiation
  282. # [16:34] <Philip> I want a web technology that's RAD
  283. # [16:34] <hsivonen> am I confusing curies and sieverts?
  284. # [16:34] <jgraham> No Curies are units of radiation
  285. # [16:35] <jgraham> I plan to invent TESLA and GAUSS. My aim will be to make them as similar as possible whilst having vastly different meanings
  286. # [16:38] <Philip> Someone on a blog noted the irony of a technology for abbreviating URIs having a name that is not actually a proper abbreviation of anything
  287. # [16:41] <hsivonen> Philip: it's also longer than "URI"
  288. # [16:41] <Philip> Maybe they should have been called CUs
  289. # [16:41] <Philip> or CIs, depending on your preferred spelling of 'address'
  290. # [16:42] <Philip> Actually, just call them Cs and then there's no problem
  291. # [16:42] <pimpbot> planet: Chromie <http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/09/22/Chromie>
  292. # [16:42] * Joins: jdandrea (jdandrea@98.109.116.42)
  293. # [16:43] * Quits: jdandrea (jdandrea@98.109.116.42) (Quit: ciao)
  294. # [16:43] * Joins: jdandrea (jdandrea@98.109.116.42)
  295. # [16:45] * Quits: gsnedders (gsnedders@217.44.35.222) (Quit: Adios intarwebs.)
  296. # [16:52] * Quits: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@118.1.222.160) (Ping timeout)
  297. # [16:56] * Quits: sryo (sryo@190.245.211.98) (Connection reset by peer)
  298. # [17:04] * Joins: Shunsuke (Shunsuke@118.1.222.160)
  299. # [17:07] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@213.236.208.22) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  300. # [17:07] * Quits: jdandrea (jdandrea@98.109.116.42) (Connection reset by peer)
  301. # [17:07] * Joins: jdandrea (jdandrea@98.109.116.42)
  302. # [17:21] * Joins: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.169)
  303. # [17:42] <pimpbot> planet: Web platform + Mobile future = A new adventure; Joining Palm with Ben <http://almaer.com/blog/joining-palm-with-ben>
  304. # [17:44] * Quits: Dashiva (noone@129.241.137.223) (Quit: Dashiva)
  305. # [17:46] * Joins: Dashiva (noone@129.241.137.223)
  306. # [17:47] * Joins: gsnedders (gsnedders@217.44.35.222)
  307. # [17:47] * Joins: sbublava (sbublava@77.118.242.169)
  308. # [17:50] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
  309. # [18:07] * Joins: Zeros (_icond@96.255.47.51)
  310. # [18:07] * Quits: DanC_lap (connolly@128.30.52.169) (Ping timeout)
  311. # [18:17] * Quits: sbublava (sbublava@77.118.242.169) (Ping timeout)
  312. # [19:01] * Joins: sbublava (sbublava@77.116.178.241)
  313. # [19:10] * Joins: hober (ted@206.212.254.2)
  314. # [19:24] * Joins: DanC_lap (connolly@128.30.52.169)
  315. # [19:35] * Quits: Zeros (_icond@96.255.47.51) (Quit: Leaving)
  316. # [19:40] * Joins: drunknbass_work (aaron@71.107.253.243)
  317. # [19:42] * Quits: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246) (Quit: Leaving)
  318. # [19:42] <pimpbot> planet: theora 1.1 is released – what you should know <http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/09/theora-1-1-released/>
  319. # [19:50] * Joins: DanC_ (connolly@128.30.52.169)
  320. # [19:52] * Quits: DanC_lap (connolly@128.30.52.169) (Ping timeout)
  321. # [19:57] * Quits: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.169) (Quit: tlr)
  322. # [20:28] * Quits: DanC_ (connolly@128.30.52.169) (Ping timeout)
  323. # [20:31] * Joins: DanC_ (connolly@128.30.52.169)
  324. # [20:43] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Make a number of clarifications for authors. (forms-related stuff) (whatwg r4002) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Sep/0254.html>
  325. # [20:58] * Quits: DanC_ (connolly@128.30.52.169) (Ping timeout)
  326. # [21:01] * Joins: DanC_ (connolly@128.30.52.169)
  327. # [21:13] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Use INVALID_STATE_ERR rather than INVALID_ACCESS_ERR in a number of cases. (whatwg r4003) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Sep/0255.html>
  328. # [21:28] * Quits: DanC_ (connolly@128.30.52.169) (Ping timeout)
  329. # [21:31] * Joins: J_Voracek (irchon@166.205.4.174)
  330. # [21:31] * Quits: J_Voracek (irchon@166.205.4.174) (Client exited)
  331. # [21:31] * Joins: DanC_ (connolly@128.30.52.169)
  332. # [21:51] * Quits: DanC_ (connolly@128.30.52.169) (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  333. # [22:10] * Quits: mjs (mjs@69.181.42.237) (Quit: mjs)
  334. # [22:36] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  335. # [22:46] * Joins: heycam (cam@66.134.141.179)
  336. # [23:00] * Joins: Lachy (Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
  337. # [23:13] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7724] I would like to know: what is to become of the A element’s NAME attribute? I validated a HTML5 website that I am working this Wednesday (2009-09-23) which contained an A element with a NAME attribute: the W3C Markup Validator did not mind one bit. Howe <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Sep/0823.html>
  338. # [23:17] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.246.18.60)
  339. # [23:19] * Quits: jdandrea (jdandrea@98.109.116.42) (Quit: jdandrea)
  340. # [23:20] * Joins: J_Voracek (irchon@166.205.4.50)
  341. # [23:20] * Quits: J_Voracek (irchon@166.205.4.50) (Client exited)
  342. # [23:26] * Joins: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.169)
  343. # [23:43] * Quits: aroben (aroben@71.58.77.15) (Connection reset by peer)
  344. # [23:59] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmithX@mcclure.w3.org)
  345. # Session Close: Sat Sep 26 00:00:00 2009

The end :)