/irc-logs / w3c / #html-wg / 2009-10-06 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Tue Oct 06 00:00:00 2009
  2. # Session Ident: #html-wg
  3. # [00:14] * Quits: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.169) (Quit: shepazu)
  4. # [00:26] * Quits: heycam (cam@63.245.220.224) (Quit: bye)
  5. # [01:21] * Quits: taf2 (taf2@38.99.201.242) (Quit: taf2)
  6. # [01:48] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Clarify that 'authors must' and 'documents must' are to be considered equivalent. (whatwg r4085) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Oct/0016.html> ** hixie: Clarify how pushState() and transfering nodes between documents affects Referer: computation in the fetch algorithm. (whatwg r4084) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Oct/0015.html> ** hixie: Hide <audio> irrespective of CSS.
  7. # [02:47] * Joins: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.169)
  8. # [03:09] * Joins: taf2 (taf2@216.15.54.105)
  9. # [03:12] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Ping timeout)
  10. # [03:15] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  11. # [03:24] * Quits: taf2 (taf2@216.15.54.105) (Quit: taf2)
  12. # [04:10] * Quits: shepazu (schepers@128.30.52.169) (Quit: shepazu)
  13. # [04:19] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Try to clarify WindowProxy. (whatwg r4086) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Oct/0017.html>
  14. # [05:17] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.246.19.26) (Client exited)
  15. # [05:17] * Joins: mjs (mjs@17.203.14.169)
  16. # [05:19] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: More <meter> examples. (whatwg r4087) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Oct/0018.html>
  17. # [05:31] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11) (Ping timeout)
  18. # [05:37] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  19. # [05:41] <pimpbot> planet: Opera Developer Network: Future of Web Apps London: HTML5 <http://my.opera.com/ODIN/blog/show.dml/4399886>
  20. # [06:05] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmithX@mcclure.w3.org)
  21. # [07:19] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Terminology consistency fix. (whatwg r4088) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Oct/0019.html>
  22. # [07:41] <pimpbot> planet: Should I care about HTML 5? <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1523629/should-i-care-about-html-5>
  23. # [07:49] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: oops, LTR-specific styles (whatwg r4089) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Oct/0020.html>
  24. # [08:11] * Quits: mjs (mjs@17.203.14.169) (Quit: mjs)
  25. # [08:17] <hsivonen> is freenode down just for me or for everyone?
  26. # [08:18] <hsivonen> just for me, I guess
  27. # [08:19] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: yeah, it's working for me fine
  28. # [08:20] * Quits: jmb (jmb@152.78.68.189) (Ping timeout)
  29. # [08:21] * Joins: jmb (jmb@152.78.68.189)
  30. # [08:44] * Joins: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.169)
  31. # [08:50] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: typo (whatwg r4090) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Oct/0021.html>
  32. # [08:57] * Quits: jmb (jmb@152.78.68.189) (Ping timeout)
  33. # [08:57] * Joins: jmb (jmb@152.78.68.189)
  34. # [08:59] <hsivonen> MikeSmith: the filters on Planet HTML5 failed to pick up the latest from diveintomark
  35. # [09:00] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: hmm, dunno why. the filter basically just looks for "HTML\s*5" and a few other things
  36. # [09:01] <hsivonen> MikeSmith: perhaps "HTML\s*WG" and "HTML\s+Working\s+Group" should be on the list
  37. # [09:02] <hsivonen> or "namespaces" :-)
  38. # [09:02] <MikeSmith> hed
  39. # [09:02] <MikeSmith> heh
  40. # [09:02] * Joins: mjs (mjs@69.181.42.237)
  41. # [09:02] <MikeSmith> hsivonen: I think I have HTML WG in there already
  42. # [09:02] * MikeSmith goes to check his regex
  43. # [09:15] * Quits: jmb (jmb@152.78.68.189) (Ping timeout)
  44. # [09:15] * Joins: jmb (jmb@152.78.68.189)
  45. # [09:40] * Quits: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11) (Ping timeout)
  46. # [09:41] * Joins: tH (Rob@82.4.89.172)
  47. # [09:54] * Joins: gavin (gavin@99.226.207.11)
  48. # [10:34] * Joins: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38)
  49. # [12:05] <anne> Julian, I see namespace confusion all over and not at all limited to the DOM
  50. # [12:09] <Julian> but the examples I see on the mailing list all have to do with DOM
  51. # [12:10] <Julian> of course there's other confusion as well; but what does that mean? There#s also confusion about character encodings, CSS, HTTP methods, whatnot
  52. # [12:13] <anne> I see much more confusion from experts on namespaces than CSS
  53. # [12:13] <anne> though confusion about namespaces in CSS was a recent one, due to some copy and paste mistake
  54. # [12:16] <Julian> what kind of experts?
  55. # [12:17] <anne> professors at uni, QA at Opera, implementors at Opera (we still have namespace bugs with respect to attributes actually), people from the W3C Team
  56. # [12:19] * MikeSmith wonders how much other things we could be trying to get resolved that would actually be of the most value to end users...
  57. # [12:19] <MikeSmith> hey, how about ruby?
  58. # [12:19] <anne> does the <ruby> spec text still have issues?
  59. # [12:19] <MikeSmith> anne: you're still in the CSS WG, right?
  60. # [12:19] <anne> I am, yes
  61. # [12:20] <anne> though I won't be at the next F2F as it clashes with WebApps
  62. # [12:20] <MikeSmith> anne: the HTML5 spec for ruby does not have any serious issues, as far as I know -- but I think the CSS spec for it does
  63. # [12:20] <MikeSmith> anne: an HTML5 <ruby> implementation will be landing in Webkit trunk soon, but I'm told that the ruby text won't be styleable because of issues with the CSS ruby spec
  64. # [12:20] <MikeSmith> but I don't know about the specifics
  65. # [12:20] <pimpbot> changes: hixie: Add IANA considerations sections for HTTP headers. (whatwg r4091) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-diffs/2009Oct/0022.html>
  66. # [12:21] <anne> MikeSmith, I think that's because that's an implied box
  67. # [12:21] <anne> MikeSmith, so we'd need to introduce a pseudo-element of some sorts
  68. # [12:21] <anne> though coloring and such should work
  69. # [12:21] <MikeSmith> anne: OK. Well I hope the other part can get resolved soon
  70. # [12:22] <mjs> Julian: would it be fair to say you think technical purity is quite important when it comes to markup and protocols?
  71. # [12:22] <Julian> Maciej, is that a trick question?
  72. # [12:23] <Julian> Yes, I think technical purity is a good thing. But of course there are other things to consider as well.
  73. # [12:23] <mjs> Julian: it seems to be a much lower priority for you when it comes to the DOM
  74. # [12:23] <mjs> I'm puzzled by the disconnect
  75. # [12:23] <Julian> Right now I think that many people think of technical purity as something bad, and are more than happy to ignore it without sufficient reason.
  76. # [12:24] <Julian> I see.
  77. # [12:24] <Julian> DOM in itself is inconsistent, because it allows mixing L1 and L2 access.
  78. # [12:25] <Julian> It's a nightmare.
  79. # [12:25] <Julian> That IE doesn't support L2 makes things even harder.
  80. # [12:25] <Julian> So I think it would be very interesting to discuss a new API that doesn't repeat those mistakes.
  81. # [12:25] <mjs> does that mean it's ok to design specs so that L1 access will let you pass the test cases, but L2 access won't, even in DOMs that support Level 2?
  82. # [12:25] <Julian> But it's probably too late to do that for HTML5.
  83. # [12:26] <Julian> Is that the case?
  84. # [12:26] <mjs> (for namespace-aware content)
  85. # [12:26] <mjs> (er, for namespaced content rather)
  86. # [12:27] <Julian> If there are RDfa test cases for XHTML which can't be passed by an implementation using pure DOM Level 2, that sounds like a bug.
  87. # [12:27] <Julian> Pointer?
  88. # [12:27] <mjs> there are such RDFa test cases for HTML
  89. # [12:29] <hsivonen> e4x tried to be the new and great API
  90. # [12:29] <mjs> I don't know if that shows misunderstanding or deliberate violation of the conceptual model, but I think it's one or the other, and I don't think you can blame it on DOM
  91. # [12:30] * gsnedders|work points out there are tree models that don't give something like nodeName, and you're stuck if you want the actual prefix
  92. # [12:31] <Julian> Please point to these test cases, optimally in email.
  93. # [12:36] <mjs> here is one example: http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/test-cases/html4/0001.html
  94. # [12:36] <pimpbot> Title: Test 0001 (at rdfa.digitalbazaar.com)
  95. # [12:37] <mjs> but I think it's true of all the text/html test cases
  96. # [12:39] * Joins: myakura (myakura@118.8.87.112)
  97. # [12:41] * Quits: jmb (jmb@152.78.68.189) (Ping timeout)
  98. # [12:43] <pimpbot> planet: XML on the Web <http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2009/xml-on-the-web/>
  99. # [12:44] * Joins: jmb (jmb@152.78.68.189)
  100. # [12:44] <Philip> mjs: Maybe not quite all - you could do <div property="xml:foo"> and it might or might not (I don't think it's been decided by the RDFa group yet) give you a triple, without having to parse any attribute names containing colons
  101. # [12:45] <Philip> but that's a bit of an edge case :-p
  102. # [12:45] <mjs> Philip: hmm... the RDFa spec does not seem to make any allowance for the xmlns: or xml: prefixes to be predefined as currently written
  103. # [12:46] <mjs> Philip: but if they were set to be predefined to their usual values for CURIE resolution purposes, then sure
  104. # [12:46] <mjs> Philip: I guess a test case that did not use xmlns: at all and just use ":foo" style CURIEs using the default prefix, that would also work fine with DOM L2 APIs only
  105. # [12:47] <Philip> Shane proposed an errate to say that RDFa processors MAY predefine xml and xmlns
  106. # [12:47] <Philip> *errata
  107. # [12:47] <mjs> MAY, awesome
  108. # [12:47] <Philip> but I think it was generally agreed that that might not be such a good idea
  109. # [12:48] <Philip> although if the prefixes aren't defined by default, it's apparently impossible to implement an RDFa processor using XSLT
  110. # [12:48] <mjs> I can't really think of legitimate use cases for using the XML or XMLNS namespaces as CURIE prefixes
  111. # [12:50] <Philip> It doesn't seem very useful in practice, I just think it's an edge case that ought to be defined
  112. # [12:50] <Philip> (because I think everything ought to be defined)
  113. # [12:50] <hsivonen> it sucks, though, if you are working with a non-DOM API that has a built-in prefix resolution facility that is sane per namespace but you can't use it because it predefines xml and xmlns
  114. # [12:52] * Philip added some tests like http://github.com/msporny/rdfa-test-suite/blob/887c494ff514f7a2c7c6e7d55ffe1c958adfefd2/tests/0160.txt and Manu said they would review them all and make sure all the behaviour is defined by the specs
  115. # [12:52] <pimpbot> Title: tests/0160.txt at 887c494ff514f7a2c7c6e7d55ffe1c958adfefd2 from msporny's rdfa-test-suite - GitHub (at github.com)
  116. # [12:52] <Philip> so hopefully this kind of thing would be addressed then
  117. # [12:58] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmithX@mcclure.w3.org) (Quit: Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.)
  118. # [13:10] * Quits: johndrinkwater (john@84.92.108.8) (Ping timeout)
  119. # [13:16] * Joins: johndrinkwater (john@84.92.108.8)
  120. # [13:21] <Julian> mjs, I don't see the problem with that test case (other than you need Dom L1 for HTML)
  121. # [13:22] <hsivonen> Julian: if you need to touch L1, your solution is impure in terms of XML Architecture
  122. # [13:22] <mjs> Julian: that particular test file is HTML - and you can't get the correct behavior using DOM Level 2 in the obvious way (looking at namespaceURI and localName of attributes) - to pass you have to use DOM L1
  123. # [13:23] <mjs> Julian: which is what I claimed - that you will fail the text/html test cases if your implementation uses DOM Level 2 correctly
  124. # [13:23] <Julian> mjs, but that's exactly the proplem we're discussing; RDFa works around the inconsistency between the HTML DOM and the XHTML DOM
  125. # [13:23] <mjs> there's no inconsistency between the HTML DOM and the XHTML DOM
  126. # [13:23] <Julian> mjs, I asked for an XHTML example
  127. # [13:23] <mjs> (at least, not in HTML5)
  128. # [13:24] <Julian> of course it is
  129. # [13:24] <mjs> I made a claim about the HTML test cases
  130. # [13:24] <hsivonen> mjs: how do you mean no inconsistency?
  131. # [13:24] <mjs> all right, there are minor inconsistencies, none that are relevant to this issue
  132. # [13:24] <mjs> (uppercasing certain things)
  133. # [13:24] <Julian> if they would be consistent, you could use L2
  134. # [13:25] <mjs> parsing that HTML markup does not produce the DOM one might expect if you expect Namespaces in XML to work in HTML
  135. # [13:25] <Julian> that's the inconsistency
  136. # [13:25] <mjs> but the DOM APIs themselves have the same behavior as usual
  137. # [13:26] <Julian> that's not helpful if a different DOM is constructed
  138. # [13:26] <Julian> (well ,it is helpful, but not for this particular case)
  139. # [13:26] <hsivonen> I agree with Julian that it's an inconsistency
  140. # [13:26] <Philip> It's an inconsistency that violates a Design Principle, too
  141. # [13:27] <Julian> Yes, I think I mentioned that yesterday or the day before
  142. # [13:27] <Philip> (but is probably required for several other Design Principles)
  143. # [13:27] <mjs> maybe I don't get the way you guys are using "inconsistency"
  144. # [13:27] <hsivonen> it can be fixed by changing parsing or by rejecting the design of RDFa
  145. # [13:27] <mjs> that HTML document produces a different DOM than a similar-looking XHTML document would
  146. # [13:27] <Julian> yes, or by living with the fact that you need L1 methods to process it
  147. # [13:28] <mjs> but there isn't an observed difference in DOM behavior, given the parsing
  148. # [13:28] <Julian> yet's the inconsistency is in parsing.
  149. # [13:28] <Julian> from the client's point of view the result is the same
  150. # [13:28] <hsivonen> Julian: nope, it's a violation of DOM Consistency if the L2 methods expose a different tuple
  151. # [13:28] <mjs> of course, an XML parser will just fail to parse that document
  152. # [13:28] * jgraham thought the design principle was only supposed to cover above-parser-level behaviour
  153. # [13:28] <mjs> if you want to take it literally
  154. # [13:29] <Julian> that's why I'd prefer if it parsed the same in HTML and XHTML, producing the same DON
  155. # [13:29] <Julian> M
  156. # [13:29] <mjs> I don't think the DOM Consistency design principle can sensibly apply to parsing, because otherwise any syntax difference between HTML and XHTML causes us to fail
  157. # [13:29] <mjs> well, it's a fatal error in XML
  158. # [13:29] <hsivonen> jgraham: I thought it was supposed to cover observable behavior
  159. # [13:30] <mjs> or at least, it's not an XHTML document if parsed as XML
  160. # [13:30] <Philip> jgraham: "The two serializations should be designed in such a way that the DOM trees produced by the respective parsers appear as consistently as feasible to scripts and other program code operating on the document trees." - that's talking about serialisation, not just above-parser behaviour
  161. # [13:30] <jgraham> Philip: I agree it is not worded in a way that backs up my belief about the intent
  162. # [13:31] <mjs> "as consistently as feasible" makes it ambiguous what is a "violation"
  163. # [13:32] <Julian> that's the nice thing about design principles, right?
  164. # [13:33] <hsivonen> mjs: I think the interpretative tradition here is that the meaningful parts of the conforming language need to have their semantics exposed in the same way to L2 in both text/html and XML
  165. # [13:33] <mjs> I mean, it's obviously not feasible to make an HTML document containing <img> without a trailing slash produce no DOM at all, or is it feasible to make one that doesn't declare a default namespace produce non-HTML elements
  166. # [13:33] * hsivonen cites his own interpretation as the tradition
  167. # [13:33] <jgraham> hsivonen: It is not clear to me what your interpretation implies about parsing
  168. # [13:34] <mjs> hsivonen: then I guess for any use of xmlns: in HTML the principle would not apply, unless an external spec makes it conforming
  169. # [13:34] <mjs> in which case, there is a violation unless either the spec stops doing that or HTML parsing changes
  170. # [13:34] <hsivonen> mjs: right. that's why it's only a problem in a world where you acknowledge RDFa
  171. # [13:35] <Julian> ...or the Microsoft proposal.
  172. # [13:35] <mjs> (actually, the use of an xmlns default namespace declaration of the xhtml namespace would still be fine)
  173. # [13:35] <mjs> the Microsoft proposal involves HTML parsing changing
  174. # [13:36] <hsivonen> Julian: on the contrary, the MS proposal could remove the inconsistency here
  175. # [13:36] <hsivonen> Julian: but there are reasons to avoid changes even if the changes would reduce DOM Inconsistency
  176. # [13:37] <mjs> anyway - my point was not originally about consistency, but rather about the fact that tests for RDFa in text/html will not pass for an implementation that properly uses DOM Level 2, yet people are fine with this, even though it seemingly subverts the architecture of namespaces by making the nodeName instead of the {namespaceURI, localName} pair meaningful
  177. # [13:38] <hsivonen> jgraham: my interpretation implies that parsing is currently fine by the DOM Consistency principle if RDFa isn't treated as an applicable specification
  178. # [13:38] <mjs> thus I conclude that people either don't understand namespaces, or don't actually think prefix-based indirection to a namespace URI is actually important
  179. # [13:38] <hsivonen> jgraham: but not fine if you acknowledge RDFa
  180. # [13:39] <mjs> but to be fair, xmlns is a bit of a special case; since the prefix can't be rebound, there is only one possible false positive and no possible false negatives by using nodeName
  181. # [13:39] <Julian> Henri, that's what I meant
  182. # [13:40] <mjs> doing the same kind of processing to look for arbitrary namespaced attributes would be madness
  183. # [13:40] <Julian> mjs, you say that as if there was a different choice for doing this in HTML given the realities of implementations
  184. # [13:41] <hsivonen> a way to remove madness is to fix RDFa. If you fix it enough, it starts looking like microdata.
  185. # [13:41] <mjs> well RDFa has the completely separate problem of CURIEs
  186. # [13:42] <mjs> you could fix the dependence on fake namespace processing without fixing that (or any other potential problems)
  187. # [13:42] <hsivonen> CURIEs is the problem that sticks out the most but it's not the only problem
  188. # [13:43] <mjs> I'm just saying - you could make it usable in text/html without creating namespace architecture problems, and yet not make any changes to fix potential other problems
  189. # [13:43] <mjs> (alternately you could change HTML parsing in every single browser to let RDFa keep doing what it is doing already on a sound footing)
  190. # [13:44] <Philip> (And every non-browser HTML parser)
  191. # [13:44] <Philip> (unless you're happy with them sticking to namespace-unaware APIs)
  192. # [13:44] <Philip> (which is less of a problem when scripting is not allowed)
  193. # [13:45] <Julian> mjs, "make it usable" without a change to the de facto syntax?
  194. # [13:46] <mjs> Julian: I mean you could change the de facto syntax in a small way without making the bigger changes hsivonen envisions that would make it look a lot like microdata
  195. # [13:47] <Philip> I assume you mean e.g. rename xmlns:foo="..." to rdfa-prefix-foo="..."?
  196. # [13:47] <mjs> or any of a host of other ways to declare CURI prefixes
  197. # [13:47] <mjs> er CURIE
  198. # [13:47] <Julian> mjs, please elaborate... just for the purpose of not having to use DOM L1? That sounds like one of these "technical purity" arguments...
  199. # [13:48] <mjs> indeed
  200. # [13:48] <mjs> that's why I was originally curious why you don't seem to care as much about technical purity when the context is DOM rather than markup
  201. # [13:49] <anne> DOM L1 is not sufficient to distinguish xmlns from XML xmlns and therefore inappropriate imo
  202. # [13:50] <hsivonen> Julian: I'm also curious why RDFa's reliance on L1 doesn't offend your sense of purity
  203. # [13:50] <anne> treating things as if there's a difference between L1 and L2 also does not make much sense, L2 is just a superset
  204. # [13:50] <anne> certainly offends mine
  205. # [13:50] <Julian> Henri, it does
  206. # [13:51] <Julian> But having a different syntax for HTML and XHTML offends my sense of purity as well
  207. # [13:51] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7817] New: Last example: stray </p> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Oct/0059.html> ** [Bug 7816] New: editorial: stray colon here in author view <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Oct/0058.html>
  208. # [13:51] <mjs> anne: with the specific case of xmlns, because it can't be rebound, using L1 APIs only collapses two different cases
  209. # [13:51] <hsivonen> Julian: the solution to that is to change the XHTML syntax and to rescind RDFa in XHTML
  210. # [13:52] <Julian> Henri, I don't see that happening.
  211. # [13:52] <mjs> anne: so I don't have that much of a problem with it, as long as it's clearly stated that hitting both those cases is intended, and it's defined how to disambiguate
  212. # [13:52] <Julian> I also happen to think that prefix-based notation is good, and not having a new way of binding prefixes is even better.
  213. # [13:54] <anne> mjs, yeah maybe; in theory we could introduce a third DOM-based serialization where xmlns has a different meaning and "default" namespace and it would be nice if things didn't broke down at that point
  214. # [13:55] <anne> mjs, besides of course that in HTML xmlns would only have effect for RDFa which does not make a whole lot of sense to me
  215. # [13:55] <mjs> anne: I think that would have to be a DOM-based serialization where it's impossible to build the tree using DOM APIs
  216. # [13:56] <mjs> I'm not saying the use of xmlns is great, just that it's a much smaller problem than it would be to process attributes in some other namespace using nodeName
  217. # [13:56] <anne> true
  218. # [13:58] * Joins: plh (plh@128.30.52.28)
  219. # [14:05] * Quits: plh (plh@128.30.52.28) (Quit: always accept cookies)
  220. # [14:11] * Joins: plh (plh@128.30.52.28)
  221. # [14:15] * Parts: anne (annevk@213.236.208.22)
  222. # [14:17] * Joins: anne (annevk@213.236.208.22)
  223. # [14:43] <pimpbot> planet: Interactive CSS 3 Generator <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ajaxian/~3/8H18UPZRs6o/interactive-css-3-generator>
  224. # [15:06] * Joins: sryo (sryo@201.252.137.53)
  225. # [15:10] * Quits: sryo (sryo@201.252.137.53) (Quit: Leaving.)
  226. # [15:50] * Joins: aroben (aroben@71.58.77.15)
  227. # [15:59] * Joins: MikeSmith (MikeSmithX@mcclure.w3.org)
  228. # [17:15] * Quits: myakura (myakura@118.8.87.112) (Quit: Leaving...)
  229. # [17:22] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7820] New: s/codec parameter/codecs parameter/ twice <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Oct/0060.html>
  230. # [17:55] * Quits: Marcos (Marcos@213.236.208.22) (Quit: Marcos)
  231. # [18:16] * Joins: Marcos (Marcos@213.236.208.22)
  232. # [18:22] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7800] title attribute: add new attr for machine-readable strings <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Oct/0061.html>
  233. # [18:37] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Client exited)
  234. # [19:25] * Joins: rubys (rubys@65.190.139.141)
  235. # [19:26] * Parts: rubys (rubys@65.190.139.141)
  236. # [19:50] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  237. # [19:52] * Quits: MikeSmith (MikeSmithX@mcclure.w3.org) (Ping timeout)
  238. # [20:06] * Joins: rubys1 (rubys@65.190.139.141)
  239. # [20:18] * Quits: Dashiva (noone@129.241.137.223) (Quit: Dashiva)
  240. # [20:20] * Joins: Dashiva (noone@129.241.137.223)
  241. # [20:22] <pimpbot> bugmail: "[Bug 7800] title attribute: add new attr for machine-readable strings" (2 messages in thread) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Oct/0062.html>
  242. # [20:44] * Quits: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233) (Client exited)
  243. # [20:44] <pimpbot> planet: Translation From MS-Speak to English of Selected Portions of Tony Ross’ “Distributed Extensibility Submission” <http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/10/05/distributed-unicorns-and-ponies>
  244. # [20:49] * Parts: rubys1 (rubys@65.190.139.141)
  245. # [21:06] * Joins: Julian (chatzilla@217.91.35.233)
  246. # [21:23] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7824] New: It would be very helpful to have a brief mention here of *why* the WindowProxy object exists. <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Oct/0063.html>
  247. # [22:03] * Joins: rubys1 (rubys@65.190.139.141)
  248. # [22:08] * rubys1 is now known as rubys
  249. # [22:12] * Quits: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.106) (Ping timeout)
  250. # [22:17] * Joins: ChrisWilson (cwilso@131.107.0.83)
  251. # [22:43] * Quits: ROBOd (robod@89.122.216.38) (Quit: http://www.robodesign.ro )
  252. # [22:59] * Quits: tH (Rob@82.4.89.172) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.85-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.1/2008072406])
  253. # [23:04] * Joins: tH (Rob@82.4.89.172)
  254. # [23:14] * Quits: mjs (mjs@69.181.42.237) (Quit: mjs)
  255. # [23:18] * Quits: tlr (tlr@128.30.52.169) (Quit: tlr)
  256. # [23:47] * Joins: rubys2 (rubys@65.190.139.141)
  257. # [23:49] * Quits: rubys (rubys@65.190.139.141) (Ping timeout)
  258. # [23:53] <pimpbot> bugmail: [Bug 7825] New: typo: "if one available" should read "if one is available" <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2009Oct/0064.html>
  259. # Session Close: Wed Oct 07 00:00:00 2009

The end :)