/irc-logs / freenode / #whatwg / 2009-06-04 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Thu Jun 04 00:00:00 2009
  2. # Session Ident: #whatwg
  3. # [00:06] * Quits: ap (n=ap@194.154.88.32)
  4. # [00:06] * Joins: hober (n=ted@unaffiliated/hober)
  5. # [00:07] * Quits: inimino (n=inimino@atekomi.inimino.org) (SendQ exceeded)
  6. # [00:08] <hober> Mr. Last Week must be disappointed that http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=WHATWG+teamsters doesn't result in anything.
  7. # [00:09] * Joins: inimino (n=inimino@atekomi.inimino.org)
  8. # [00:10] <Philip`> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=html5+elements - hmm
  9. # [00:10] * Quits: inimino (n=inimino@atekomi.inimino.org) (SendQ exceeded)
  10. # [00:12] * Joins: inimino (n=inimino@atekomi.inimino.org)
  11. # [00:12] * Joins: othermaciej (n=mjs@17.246.17.18)
  12. # [00:13] * Quits: inimino (n=inimino@atekomi.inimino.org) (SendQ exceeded)
  13. # [00:14] * Joins: inimino (n=inimino@atekomi.inimino.org)
  14. # [00:21] * Quits: arun__ (n=arun@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com)
  15. # [00:36] * Joins: webben (n=benh@dip5-fw.corp.ukl.yahoo.com)
  16. # [00:42] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@EM114-48-168-86.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  17. # [00:54] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@202.0.36.64)
  18. # [00:55] * Quits: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@084202133045.customer.alfanett.no) ("Ex-Chat")
  19. # [01:12] * Joins: mgrdcm_ (n=mgrdcm@65.111.247.194)
  20. # [01:12] * Quits: mgrdcm (n=mgrdcm@65.111.247.194) (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
  21. # [01:14] * Quits: mgrdcm_ (n=mgrdcm@65.111.247.194) (Client Quit)
  22. # [01:16] * Quits: pauld (n=pauld@host86-144-251-8.range86-144.btcentralplus.com)
  23. # [01:21] * Quits: inimino (n=inimino@atekomi.inimino.org) (simmons.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
  24. # [01:21] * Quits: mpt (n=mpt@canonical/launchpad/mpt) (simmons.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
  25. # [01:23] * Joins: nessy (n=nessy@203-166-243-94.dyn.iinet.net.au)
  26. # [01:23] * aroben|lunch is now known as aroben
  27. # [01:25] * Joins: pauld (n=pauld@host86-144-251-8.range86-144.btcentralplus.com)
  28. # [01:26] * Quits: pauld (n=pauld@host86-144-251-8.range86-144.btcentralplus.com) (Client Quit)
  29. # [01:33] * Quits: atwilson (n=atwilson@74.125.59.1)
  30. # [01:34] * Joins: mpt (n=mpt@canonical/launchpad/mpt)
  31. # [01:34] * Joins: pauld (n=pauld@host86-144-251-8.range86-144.btcentralplus.com)
  32. # [01:34] * Quits: myakura (n=myakura@p4050-ipbf3009marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp) ("Leaving...")
  33. # [01:35] * Joins: atwilson (n=atwilson@74.125.59.1)
  34. # [01:43] * aroben is now known as aroben|away
  35. # [01:44] * Quits: pauld (n=pauld@host86-144-251-8.range86-144.btcentralplus.com)
  36. # [01:44] * Joins: inimino (n=inimino@atekomi.inimino.org)
  37. # [01:45] * Joins: dimich_ (n=dimich@72.14.227.1)
  38. # [01:52] * Joins: heycam (n=cam@clm-laptop.infotech.monash.edu.au)
  39. # [01:55] * Joins: othermaciej_ (n=mjs@17.203.15.228)
  40. # [01:58] * Quits: tndH (n=Rob@james-baillie-pc083-229.student-halls.leeds.ac.uk) ("ChatZilla 0.9.84-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.1/2008072406]")
  41. # [01:59] * Quits: dave_levin (n=dave_lev@72.14.227.1)
  42. # [02:02] * Quits: othermaciej (n=mjs@17.246.17.18) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  43. # [02:04] * Quits: atwilson (n=atwilson@74.125.59.1)
  44. # [02:19] * Quits: othermaciej_ (n=mjs@17.203.15.228)
  45. # [02:23] * Quits: dolske (n=dolske@firefox/developer/dolske)
  46. # [02:24] * Joins: dolske (n=dolske@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com)
  47. # [02:28] <heycam> what's the best way to specify fallback for mathml content in an html 5 document (say, a png of the math)?
  48. # [02:31] * Quits: doublec (n=doublec@202.0.36.64) ("Leaving")
  49. # [02:32] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@nat/google/x-12f0b444c85b9b9b)
  50. # [02:46] * Joins: hdh (n=hdh@hdh-1-pt.tunnel.tserv20.hkg1.ipv6.he.net)
  51. # [02:51] * Quits: dimich_ (n=dimich@72.14.227.1)
  52. # [02:56] * Joins: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@69.181.143.54)
  53. # [02:58] * Quits: hobo (n=hobo@aboutnerd.com) (simmons.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
  54. # [02:58] * Quits: deltab (n=deltab@82-36-30-34.cable.ubr02.smal.blueyonder.co.uk) (simmons.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
  55. # [02:58] * Joins: hobo (n=hobo@aboutnerd.com)
  56. # [02:58] * Joins: deltab (n=deltab@82-36-30-34.cable.ubr02.smal.blueyonder.co.uk)
  57. # [03:04] * Joins: philipj_ (n=philipj@pat.se.opera.com)
  58. # [03:06] * Joins: mgrdcm (n=mgrdcm@69.246.244.191)
  59. # [03:16] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@69.181.143.54)
  60. # [03:16] * Quits: tantek (n=tantek@adsl-63-195-114-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
  61. # [03:18] * Quits: sicking (n=chatzill@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  62. # [03:24] * Joins: wakaba_ (n=wakaba@EM114-51-142-86.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  63. # [03:33] * Joins: tantek (n=tantek@c-67-180-202-79.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  64. # [03:37] * Quits: pmuellr (n=pmuellr@user-0ce2gjn.cable.mindspring.com)
  65. # [03:38] * Quits: nessy (n=nessy@203-166-243-94.dyn.iinet.net.au) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  66. # [03:42] * Quits: webben (n=benh@dip5-fw.corp.ukl.yahoo.com) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  67. # [03:45] * Quits: wakaba (n=wakaba@EM114-51-138-0.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  68. # [03:52] * Joins: spstarr (n=spstarr@kde/developer/spstarr)
  69. # [03:52] * Parts: spstarr (n=spstarr@kde/developer/spstarr) ("If I left, thanks for your help ;-)")
  70. # [03:54] * Quits: slightlyoff (n=slightly@72.14.229.81)
  71. # [03:56] * Quits: philipj_ (n=philipj@pat.se.opera.com) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  72. # [03:59] * Joins: onar_ (n=onar@c-67-180-87-66.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  73. # [04:01] * Quits: jruderman (n=jruderma@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com) ("Leaving...")
  74. # [04:02] * Joins: othermaciej (n=mjs@c-69-181-42-237.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  75. # [04:05] * Quits: onar_ (n=onar@c-67-180-87-66.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  76. # [04:10] * Joins: jcgregorio (n=chatzill@adsl-072-148-043-048.sip.rmo.bellsouth.net)
  77. # [04:13] * Joins: slightlyoff (n=slightly@72.14.224.1)
  78. # [04:14] <jcranmer> Hixie: can you convice the Google Video/YouTube people to use <video> ?
  79. # [04:17] <jcranmer> tell them they're evil bastards until they do so
  80. # [04:17] <jcgregorio> jcranmer: http://www.youtube.com/html5
  81. # [04:18] <jcgregorio> that was demoed at Google IO
  82. # [04:18] <jcranmer> can it load ALL videos in there?
  83. # [04:20] <jcranmer> that seems to break in FF 3.6a1pre
  84. # [04:23] <kinetik> jcranmer: it's serving h.264
  85. # [04:26] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@202.0.36.64)
  86. # [04:28] * Quits: dolske (n=dolske@firefox/developer/dolske)
  87. # [04:31] * Joins: onar_ (n=onar@c-67-180-87-66.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  88. # [04:31] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@EM114-48-168-86.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) ("Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.")
  89. # [04:32] * Quits: sverrej (n=sverrej@59.94.247.81) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  90. # [04:32] * Joins: sverrej (n=sverrej@59.94.240.149)
  91. # [04:41] * Quits: heycam (n=cam@clm-laptop.infotech.monash.edu.au) ("bye")
  92. # [04:42] * Quits: onar_ (n=onar@c-67-180-87-66.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  93. # [04:47] * Joins: cying (n=cying@adsl-75-41-114-136.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net)
  94. # [04:49] * Joins: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@69.181.143.54)
  95. # [04:52] <shepazu> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=races
  96. # [04:56] * Joins: onar_ (n=onar@c-67-180-87-66.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  97. # [05:04] * Quits: jcgregorio (n=chatzill@adsl-072-148-043-048.sip.rmo.bellsouth.net) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  98. # [05:04] * Quits: tantek (n=tantek@c-67-180-202-79.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
  99. # [05:05] * Joins: jcgregorio (n=chatzill@adsl-072-148-043-048.sip.rmo.bellsouth.net)
  100. # [05:13] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@tea12.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp)
  101. # [05:13] * Quits: onar_ (n=onar@c-67-180-87-66.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  102. # [05:16] * Joins: tantek (n=tantek@adsl-63-195-114-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
  103. # [05:17] * Joins: dolske (n=dolske@c-76-103-40-203.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  104. # [05:21] * Quits: gsnedders (n=gsnedder@host86-164-130-180.range86-164.btcentralplus.com) (Remote closed the connection)
  105. # [05:28] * Joins: heycam (n=cam@clm-laptop.infotech.monash.edu.au)
  106. # [05:40] * Joins: dave_levin (n=dave_lev@72.14.227.1)
  107. # [05:47] * riven` is now known as riven
  108. # [05:50] * Joins: onar_ (n=onar@c-67-180-87-66.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  109. # [05:55] * Quits: hdh (n=hdh@hdh-1-pt.tunnel.tserv20.hkg1.ipv6.he.net) (Remote closed the connection)
  110. # [05:59] * Quits: sverrej (n=sverrej@59.94.240.149) ("Ex-Chat")
  111. # [06:01] <roc> that's cool, but check this out:
  112. # [06:01] <roc> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=programming+languages
  113. # [06:01] <roc> why is there a "death" column?
  114. # [06:02] <roc> with very ... strange ... values
  115. # [06:17] <MikeSmith> <cite style="font-style: normal">Lincoln</cite>
  116. # [06:17] <MikeSmith> nice
  117. # [06:26] * Quits: gavin (n=gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  118. # [06:28] * Joins: gavin (n=gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  119. # [06:38] * Joins: pauld (n=pauld@host86-144-251-8.range86-144.btcentralplus.com)
  120. # [06:41] * Quits: pauld (n=pauld@host86-144-251-8.range86-144.btcentralplus.com) (Client Quit)
  121. # [06:44] * Quits: jwalden (n=waldo@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com) ("->home")
  122. # [06:49] * Quits: tantek (n=tantek@adsl-63-195-114-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
  123. # [06:50] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@69.181.143.54)
  124. # [06:52] * Quits: onar_ (n=onar@c-67-180-87-66.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  125. # [06:53] * Joins: onar_ (n=onar@c-67-180-87-66.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  126. # [07:01] * Joins: ojan (n=ojan@220.109.219.244)
  127. # [07:05] * Quits: weinig (n=weinig@17.246.17.109)
  128. # [07:11] <hsivonen> jgraham: whoa. sorry. I just noticed that the test case didn't match Safari and Opera and checked that <frame> and </frame> don't set frameset-o to not ok
  129. # [07:16] * Joins: slightlyoff_ (n=slightly@204.14.154.228)
  130. # [07:20] <hobo> What is going to happen with the onbeforeunload and onunload events, Opera doesn't acknowledge them
  131. # [07:20] <hobo> does whatwg deal with that?
  132. # [07:22] <roc> I find it hard to believe Opera doesn't support them
  133. # [07:22] * Joins: jruderman (n=jruderma@c-98-248-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  134. # [07:24] <hobo> i dunno my test keeps failing
  135. # [07:24] <Hixie> the html5 spec does define those events, yes
  136. # [07:25] <hobo> The previous specs included them as well right?
  137. # [07:25] <hobo> Opera just does whatever?
  138. # [07:29] <Hixie> i don't think they've ever been defined
  139. # [07:29] <Hixie> some spec might have mentioned them though i doubt it
  140. # [07:32] * Joins: hdh (n=hdh@hdh-1-pt.tunnel.tserv20.hkg1.ipv6.he.net)
  141. # [07:32] * Quits: slightlyoff (n=slightly@72.14.224.1) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  142. # [07:37] * Joins: jwalden (n=waldo@c-98-248-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  143. # [07:39] * Quits: roc (n=roc@202.0.36.64)
  144. # [07:42] * Quits: jcgregorio (n=chatzill@adsl-072-148-043-048.sip.rmo.bellsouth.net) ("ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.10/2009042523]")
  145. # [07:47] * Joins: maikmerten (n=merten@ls5dhcp196.cs.uni-dortmund.de)
  146. # [08:00] * Quits: aroben|away (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  147. # [08:01] * Joins: weinig (n=weinig@c-67-180-35-124.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  148. # [08:01] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@tea12.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp) ("Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.")
  149. # [08:04] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@EM114-48-145-32.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  150. # [08:04] * Quits: doublec (n=doublec@202.0.36.64) ("Leaving")
  151. # [08:06] * Joins: annevk2 (n=annevk@htr06-1-82-227-229-89.fbx.proxad.net)
  152. # [08:07] * Joins: takoratt_ (n=takoratt@220.109.219.244)
  153. # [08:08] * Joins: aroben (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben)
  154. # [08:12] * takoratt_ is now known as takoratta
  155. # [08:19] * Quits: heycam (n=cam@clm-laptop.infotech.monash.edu.au) ("bye")
  156. # [08:33] * Joins: ap (n=ap@194.154.88.37)
  157. # [08:35] * Joins: tndH (n=Rob@james-baillie-pc083-229.student-halls.leeds.ac.uk)
  158. # [08:36] * Joins: Mrmil (n=ut_ollie@host-77-236-204-8.blue4.cz)
  159. # [08:45] * Joins: Mau`werk (n=ano@a80-101-46-164.adsl.xs4all.nl)
  160. # [08:49] * Joins: tantek (n=tantek@adsl-63-195-114-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
  161. # [08:51] * Quits: tantek (n=tantek@adsl-63-195-114-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) (Client Quit)
  162. # [08:55] * Quits: annevk2 (n=annevk@htr06-1-82-227-229-89.fbx.proxad.net)
  163. # [08:59] * Joins: BARTdG (n=BARTdG@5ED42544.cable.ziggo.nl)
  164. # [09:08] * Quits: weinig (n=weinig@c-67-180-35-124.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  165. # [09:10] * Joins: pesla (n=retep@procurios.xs4all.nl)
  166. # [09:13] * Parts: ojan (n=ojan@220.109.219.244)
  167. # [09:15] * Joins: heycam (n=cam@124-168-70-194.dyn.iinet.net.au)
  168. # [09:18] <annevk42> Opera doesn't support those events
  169. # [09:18] <annevk42> (yet)
  170. # [09:20] <annevk42> heycam, no fallback is needed for MathML; it just needs to be supported
  171. # [09:20] * Quits: onar_ (n=onar@c-67-180-87-66.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  172. # [09:20] <heycam> annevk42, ?
  173. # [09:20] <heycam> what if i want to target browsers that do support mathml in text/html as well as those that don't?
  174. # [09:21] <hsivonen> heycam: tough luck
  175. # [09:22] <hsivonen> heycam: actually, there's a way
  176. # [09:23] <hsivonen> heycam: 1) make all your MathML text nodes into CDATA sections
  177. # [09:24] <hsivonen> heycam: 2) stick and <img> with the image of the formula into annotation-xml
  178. # [09:24] <hsivonen> heycam: 3) hide annotation-xml using a selector that has an explicit namespace so it only matches if the elements really got assigned to the MathML namespace
  179. # [09:25] <heycam> that's so crazy it just might work
  180. # [09:25] <Philip`> What if a browser implements the HTML5 parsing algorithm but not MathML rendering?
  181. # [09:26] <heycam> in reality, pubrules won't let me use mathml in text/html anyway so the question is moot (for my purpose)
  182. # [09:26] * Quits: BARTdG (n=BARTdG@5ED42544.cable.ziggo.nl) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  183. # [09:26] * Joins: BARTdG (n=BARTdG@5ED42544.cable.ziggo.nl)
  184. # [09:26] <annevk42> Philip`, browsers have bugs
  185. # [09:26] <heycam> annevk42, likes
  186. # [09:26] <heycam> erm, lies!
  187. # [09:26] <hsivonen> Philip`: oh, right. are there MathML elements that in the normal course of MathML rendering hide <annotation> or <annotation-xml>?
  188. # [09:26] <annevk42> film at eleven
  189. # [09:26] <hsivonen> Philip`: at least <annotation-xml> as child of <semantics> isn't hidden automatically, IIRC
  190. # [09:27] <annevk42> heycam, you wish :p
  191. # [09:27] * Joins: wakaba (n=wakaba@EM114-51-133-112.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  192. # [09:27] <hsivonen> heycam: anyway, I recommend playing with <annotation> and <annotation-xml>
  193. # [09:27] <heycam> hsivonen, ok
  194. # [09:28] <heycam> are there any browsers that support mathml in text/html yet?
  195. # [09:28] * Joins: dbaron (n=dbaron@193.51.208.72)
  196. # [09:28] <hsivonen> heycam: there are my tryserver builds
  197. # [09:28] <heycam> k
  198. # [09:28] <hsivonen> heycam: SVG is easier, because you can count on <desc> getting hidden by the UA when SVG is supported
  199. # [09:29] <heycam> put fallback content inside <desc>?
  200. # [09:29] <hsivonen> heycam: right
  201. # [09:29] <heycam> it is a kind of description i suppose
  202. # [09:35] * Joins: roc (n=roc@121-72-186-182.dsl.telstraclear.net)
  203. # [09:35] * Joins: gsnedders (n=gsnedder@host86-164-130-180.range86-164.btcentralplus.com)
  204. # [09:37] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@EM114-48-145-32.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) ("Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.")
  205. # [09:38] * Joins: takoratt_ (n=takoratt@220.109.219.244)
  206. # [09:39] * Joins: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@pat-tdc.opera.com)
  207. # [09:41] * Quits: takoratta (n=takoratt@220.109.219.244) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  208. # [09:43] * Quits: wakaba_ (n=wakaba@EM114-51-142-86.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  209. # [09:45] * Quits: cying (n=cying@adsl-75-41-114-136.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net)
  210. # [09:50] <annevk42> http://sandfly.net.nz/blog/2009/05/the-html5-video-tags-fatal-flaw/#comment-463 -- very typical indeed :p
  211. # [09:54] <hsivonen> sigh. the next commenter blames Mozilla instead of blaming MPEG-LA
  212. # [09:54] * Joins: zcorpan (n=zcorpan@c83-252-196-43.bredband.comhem.se)
  213. # [09:54] <heycam> oh my goodness is that blog the shape of things to come (re @font-face usage)?
  214. # [09:55] <annevk42> isn't it awesome?
  215. # [09:55] * hsivonen notes that howcome promoted Theora before Mozilla was visibly behind Theora
  216. # [09:55] <annevk42> @font-face is the new <marquee> + animated GIF
  217. # [09:55] <hsivonen> (not to suggest blaming howcome. MPEG-LA should be blamed.)
  218. # [09:56] <hsivonen> annevk42: I haven't seen any animated @font-face yet
  219. # [09:56] <annevk42> lol
  220. # [09:58] <heycam> and of course you know that svg fonts can have videos and animated paths and whatnot inside glyphs
  221. # [09:59] <annevk42> not really, but I do now...
  222. # [10:00] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@tea12.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp)
  223. # [10:01] <Philip`> It should only take a few years for things to settle down, so that people only use @font-face when it's a sensible design decision rather than using it simply to be cutting-edge
  224. # [10:02] <Philip`> and in the meantime I hope Opera adds a 'disable font download' option
  225. # [10:03] * heycam imagines an svg font whose glyphs have child foreignObjects with marquees in them
  226. # [10:03] * jwalden ponders self-referential SVG fonts
  227. # [10:04] <Philip`> The advantage of SVG fonts is that they're weird and complicated and nobody knows how to use them, so they won't get abused
  228. # [10:05] <Philip`> whereas anyone can download a TTF file from some random 1001 FREE FONTS! site and stick it on their own page
  229. # [10:06] <jwalden> frankly, I don't understand the use case for generic SVG font embedding, outside of use within SVG files themselves
  230. # [10:06] <jwalden> a large amount of complexity for not that much gain over font files themselves
  231. # [10:07] <jwalden> "I've always wanted to animate my font's glyphs!"
  232. # [10:08] * Joins: philipj_ (n=philipj@pat.se.opera.com)
  233. # [10:12] * Joins: tantek (n=tantek@63.195.114.133)
  234. # [10:30] <othermaciej> jwalden: SVG fonts do have some capabilities that are not available in typical outlined font formats
  235. # [10:30] <othermaciej> jwalden: such as multicolored characters
  236. # [10:30] <othermaciej> whether anyone should use such capabilities is beyond me
  237. # [10:30] <jwalden> wait, do fonts have intrinsic colors?
  238. # [10:30] <othermaciej> they don't have to
  239. # [10:30] <othermaciej> but they can
  240. # [10:30] <jwalden> what does that even mean in conjunction with CSS?
  241. # [10:31] <jwalden> castles in the sky
  242. # [10:31] <othermaciej> the outline definition doesn't by default define a color, in which case the CSS color is followed
  243. # [10:31] <othermaciej> but you can draw part or all of the character with an explicit color
  244. # [10:31] <jwalden> gag gag gag gag gag
  245. # [10:32] * jwalden wonders what other absurd bells and whistles exist
  246. # [10:32] <othermaciej> also, for very one-off custom letterforms for headings, it may be easier to draw them with SVG than to create a throwaway TTF
  247. # [10:32] <othermaciej> but still I think TrueType Web fonts are much more useful
  248. # [10:32] <jwalden> it still seems unlikely that conversion tools are so difficult to procure or so impossible to use to validate the concept
  249. # [10:33] <Philip`> For custom headings you might as well just use an SVG file, rather than create a font and use it in @font-face
  250. # [10:33] <jwalden> although I suppose you do need SVG for your glyphs to be able to have realtime socket access to change in response to external network inputs
  251. # [10:34] <othermaciej> I don't think that SVG fonts were necessarily created with well thought out use cases and as a meaningful alternative to TrueType
  252. # [10:34] <othermaciej> it just seemed like something that an output format for Adobe Illustrator should have
  253. # [10:35] <jwalden> ah, back to the famed Macromedia hijinks again
  254. # [10:36] <Philip`> Macromedia?
  255. # [10:36] * Philip` thought it was always an Adobe thing
  256. # [10:38] <othermaciej> SVG was Adobe's pet project before they formed Macrodobe and decided SVG should die
  257. # [10:44] * Quits: jwalden (n=waldo@c-98-248-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Remote closed the connection)
  258. # [10:48] * Quits: dave_levin (n=dave_lev@72.14.227.1)
  259. # [10:49] <zcorpan> Philip`: you can't select the text if you just use an svg file, though
  260. # [10:50] <zcorpan> although i probably wouldn't bother creating an svg font as opposed to just use an svg file
  261. # [10:52] * Joins: ojan (n=ojan@220.109.219.244)
  262. # [10:53] * Joins: mat_t (n=mattomas@nat/canonical/x-d0514395d6c0527a)
  263. # [10:54] * Joins: ROBOd (n=robod@89.122.216.38)
  264. # [10:54] * Joins: nessy (n=nessy@203.166.253.89)
  265. # [10:55] <hsivonen> othermaciej: my impression of the history is that having Illustrator export normal hinted OpenType fonts along with SVG would have been a horrible pirate vector
  266. # [10:55] <hsivonen> othermaciej: so SVG needed something that you can't drop in your system font folder
  267. # [10:56] <hsivonen> othermaciej: and then it just ballooned from there
  268. # [10:56] <othermaciej> hsivonen: I did not at the time follow nor have I since studied the actual history
  269. # [10:56] <othermaciej> I assumed it was part of SVG's desire to do everything in SVG
  270. # [10:56] <hsivonen> othermaciej: the above is speculation from few data points
  271. # [10:57] <hsivonen> I haven't done actual mailing list archeology
  272. # [10:57] <roc> does anyone actually support the full SVG font madness with arbitrary SVG content in glyphs?
  273. # [10:57] <roc> with animations and all?
  274. # [10:57] <roc> and looking at that blog, is it too late to drop support for font-face?
  275. # [10:57] <othermaciej> WebKit supports arbitrary content in glyphs, though I don't know if declarative animations will work
  276. # [10:58] <hsivonen> othermaciej: I do note, however, that SVG (1.1 IIRC) spec has an unusual field of use prohibition for fonts
  277. # [10:58] <hsivonen> the most interesting Process question is if the PP applies if you violate the field of use prohibition
  278. # [10:58] <othermaciej> hsivonen: field of use prohibition seems like a bizzarre thing for a W3C spec to contain
  279. # [10:59] <roc> with the complete <use>-alike style inheritance, it seems like an implementation nightmare
  280. # [11:00] <hsivonen> roc: do you plan on implementing it all anyway?
  281. # [11:00] <jgraham> Hey the fonts on that blog are useful. They tell me that I have better things to do than read the blog without even having to look at the words. Such is the amazing ability of typography
  282. # [11:00] <roc> I'm no sure
  283. # [11:01] <roc> I think to do it "right" we'd have to clone the SVG content into anonymous children of the text
  284. # [11:01] <roc> or something equally crazy
  285. # [11:02] <roc> for non-HTML text this is really crazy
  286. # [11:12] * Quits: nessy (n=nessy@203.166.253.89) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  287. # [11:15] * Joins: nessy (n=nessy@203.166.253.89)
  288. # [11:15] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@tea12.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp) ("Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.")
  289. # [11:17] * Quits: nessy (n=nessy@203.166.253.89) (Client Quit)
  290. # [11:17] <othermaciej> I think we only allow use of SVG fonts from SVG - not 100% sure though
  291. # [11:17] <jgraham> Philip`: BTW hg rebase looks like it might be useful for your source control problem
  292. # [11:17] <othermaciej> using SVG fonts also makes you take a slower and more memory-intensive code path
  293. # [11:17] * jgraham thinks he will want to solave a similar problem so is quite interested in solutions
  294. # [11:20] <Philip`> "hg: unknown command 'rebase'"
  295. # [11:20] <jgraham> Philip`: It hould be packaged with hg > 1.1 I think, but you may have to enable it
  296. # [11:21] <Philip`> Ah, looks like an extension thingy
  297. # [11:22] <Philip`> I found that pulling from an SVN-converted-to-Hg repository didn't work anyway, because it pulled everything into the root directory, whereas I wanted it moved into some subdirectory instead
  298. # [11:22] <Philip`> so I just gave up and copied the files with no history
  299. # [11:22] <othermaciej> good god, that font is truly fucking terrible
  300. # [11:22] <Philip`> and if I want to patch the originals then I guess I can figure out some way to do that in the future
  301. # [11:24] <Philip`> http://sandfly.net.nz/blog/2009/02/a-better-handwriting-font-with-yourfontscom/ - apparently he is "very happy with the result"
  302. # [11:25] * Philip` doesn't think it really aids in readability much
  303. # [11:25] <othermaciej> I am curious what is really up with Google's H.264 license by the way; if they can really legitimately ship ffmpeg with H.264 support, it seems like Mozilla could too if it coughed up the money
  304. # [11:25] <othermaciej> I'm not really sure if their explanation makes sense or not though
  305. # [11:26] <hsivonen> othermaciej: it wouldn't work for downstream distributors
  306. # [11:27] <othermaciej> is Chrome (as opposed to Chromium) redistributable?
  307. # [11:28] <annevk42> I think so
  308. # [11:28] <hsivonen> othermaciej: I meant not only redistributable as binary but redistributable as in compilining your own build and shipping that
  309. # [11:28] <hsivonen> *compiling
  310. # [11:28] <annevk42> I think the point is that the patent license is for Chrome as a whole, not for usage of FFmpeg
  311. # [11:29] <othermaciej> I don't know the exact nature of Google's patent licenses, but it's unclear to me if source vs. binary would be a critical legal issue
  312. # [11:29] <roc> I'm waiting for our lawyers to reach some conclusions before I comment further
  313. # [11:31] <othermaciej> I don't think you can build your own Chrome (as opposed to Chromium) but that's mainly due to trademarks
  314. # [11:31] <roc> but even if Google's interpretation is completely right, I think it subverts the intent of the LGPL
  315. # [11:31] <othermaciej> I was surprised by their interpretation, such a thing had not occurred to me
  316. # [11:31] <othermaciej> but the legal issues are too subtle for me to have a useful opinion on whether is right
  317. # [11:33] <roc> We've fought pretty hard to keep Web standards royalty free
  318. # [11:33] <roc> I'm not in a hurry to abandon that fight now
  319. # [11:33] <Philip`> One email from a Google person made it sound like it was a loophole that was closed in the LGPL3
  320. # [11:33] <othermaciej> I wish video standards had the same IP norms as Web standards
  321. # [11:34] <hsivonen> it seems it's that it's possible to be open-source in terms of copyright while still being freedom-deprived for downstream (e.g. by using BSD on code that infringes on a 3rd party patent)
  322. # [11:34] <othermaciej> even more, I wish algorithms and algorithmic techniques could not be patented
  323. # [11:34] <roc> absolutely
  324. # [11:35] <othermaciej> ffmpeg itself seems to be a case of open source software that is freedom-deprived upstream
  325. # [11:35] <othermaciej> since it infringes on third-party patents and doesn't grant you a license
  326. # [11:35] <othermaciej> er, downstream
  327. # [11:35] <roc> yeah but at least if you download ffmpeg from them, you get the same rights they have
  328. # [11:35] <othermaciej> and, in the US and other countries where software patents are valid
  329. # [11:35] <roc> when you download it from Google, you don't
  330. # [11:36] <roc> The open source community was up in arms when Novell appeared to have struck a patent license deal with Microsoft
  331. # [11:37] <othermaciej> GPL certainly seems less ambiguous about this than LGPL
  332. # [11:37] <othermaciej> since you can't link with non-GPL code which has a hypothetical grant of rights
  333. # [11:37] * Joins: ciaran_lee (n=ciaran_l@83-70-243-34-dynamic.b-ras1.prp.dublin.eircom.net)
  334. # [11:38] <othermaciej> I also believe the Novell move was seen as conceding Microsoft had legitimate patent claims against Linux, which was something that hadn't been convincingly demonstratd
  335. # [11:38] <othermaciej> afaik no one disputes that MPEG-LA has legitimate patent claims against ffmpeg (at least in countries where it holds patents)
  336. # [11:38] <roc> it's true that the GPL and the LGPL are different here
  337. # [11:39] <roc> I don't know why that is
  338. # [11:39] <roc> but I always thought they were in the same spirit
  339. # [11:39] <roc> modulo the virality
  340. # [11:39] <othermaciej> patents in Software and especially on open standards are kind of bullshit
  341. # [11:39] * hsivonen wonders if the FSF is going to comment on this whole thing
  342. # [11:40] <othermaciej> I would be curious what they think, or a group like the SFLC
  343. # [11:40] <roc> does anyone really think that the Linux kernel does not infringe Microsoft's patents?
  344. # [11:40] <roc> the kernel is big and complicated
  345. # [11:40] <roc> Microsoft's patents are many and broad
  346. # [11:40] <roc> of course they intersect
  347. # [11:41] <othermaciej> it does make one wonder why Microsoft won't cite specifics in public
  348. # [11:47] <roc> I've never understood why Microsoft hasn't gone on an all-out patent attack on free software
  349. # [11:47] <roc> I would have
  350. # [11:47] <Philip`> Maybe they're not evil?
  351. # [11:48] <othermaciej> maybe they really don't have any patents that are all that good
  352. # [11:48] <roc> neither of those options seem credible
  353. # [11:48] <jgraham> maybe they don't want IBM to sue them?
  354. # [11:50] <roc> seems like a risk worth taking, they can always settle with IBM for the right amount of money
  355. # [11:51] <othermaciej> maybe they fear antitrust litigation
  356. # [11:51] <jgraham> Maybe they fear precipitating change in the whole patent system
  357. # [11:51] <othermaciej> though, I heard a recent story to the effect that Microsoft was threatening and pressuring WinMobile handset vendors who bundled a non-Pocket IE browser
  358. # [11:52] * Quits: ojan (n=ojan@220.109.219.244)
  359. # [11:52] <roc> antitrust maybe...
  360. # [11:52] <roc> for a while I thought they might be holding fire so that the EU didn't get spooked away from formalizing software patents
  361. # [11:52] <roc> but that receded
  362. # [11:53] <roc> my brother is a patent attourney, a partner in the law firm that handles Microsoft's NZ work
  363. # [11:53] <roc> you can imagine what our family gatherings are like
  364. # [11:53] <othermaciej> that must be... interesting
  365. # [12:01] * Quits: tantek (n=tantek@63.195.114.133)
  366. # [12:24] * Joins: philipj__ (n=philipj@pat.se.opera.com)
  367. # [12:27] * Quits: philipj_ (n=philipj@pat.se.opera.com) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  368. # [12:30] * Joins: takoratta (n=takoratt@220.109.219.244)
  369. # [12:30] * Joins: Andrei (n=andrei@194.110.194.1)
  370. # [12:31] * Joins: ZombieLoffe (n=e@unaffiliated/zombieloffe)
  371. # [12:38] * Quits: takoratta (n=takoratt@220.109.219.244) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  372. # [12:47] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@118-92-133-45.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz)
  373. # [12:48] * Quits: takoratt_ (n=takoratt@220.109.219.244) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  374. # [12:58] * Quits: zcorpan (n=zcorpan@c83-252-196-43.bredband.comhem.se)
  375. # [13:00] * Quits: roc (n=roc@121-72-186-182.dsl.telstraclear.net)
  376. # [13:02] * Joins: myakura (n=myakura@p4050-ipbf3009marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp)
  377. # [13:19] * Joins: nessy (n=nessy@203.166.253.89)
  378. # [13:23] * Quits: nessy (n=nessy@203.166.253.89) (Client Quit)
  379. # [13:24] * Joins: nessy (n=nessy@203.166.253.89)
  380. # [13:25] * Joins: zcorpan (n=zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  381. # [13:37] * Joins: Lachy (n=Lachy@pat-tdc.opera.com)
  382. # [13:43] <hsivonen> hmm. it seems we may be lacking test case coverage for EOF inside doctype in each possible position
  383. # [13:44] <jgraham> hsivonen: In tree construction or in tokenizer?
  384. # [13:44] <jgraham> In tokenizer we will lack coverage for things that changed since Philip` made all those tests
  385. # [13:44] <hsivonen> jgraham: tokenizer
  386. # [13:45] <jgraham> In tree-construction we lack tests everywhere
  387. # [13:45] <jgraham> e.g. html5lib failed 0 tests due to not implementing the framesetOK flag at all
  388. # [13:46] * Philip` really ought to update his tokeniser / test generator
  389. # [13:47] <jgraham> Philip`: Where is the code? I have no intentions to make changes I just want to know if it makes more sense to me than last time I looked at it...
  390. # [13:48] <Philip`> jgraham: There's some version at http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/svn/tokeniser/ which might (or might not) be close to the latest version that exists
  391. # [13:49] * Quits: nessy (n=nessy@203.166.253.89) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  392. # [13:49] <Philip`> test_gen.ml is the bit that generates tests, based on the interpreter in tokeniser_interp.ml which executes the algorithm in tokeniser_spec.ml
  393. # [13:53] <Philip`> Hmm, I'm not entirely certain that any of it makes sense to me
  394. # [13:54] <hsivonen> the tokenizer alone seems to have over 50 different errors and warnings
  395. # [13:55] <Philip`> I think test_gen basically has a list of test strings (initially [""]), then for each one it looks at the final interpreter state (just before it would consume an EOF) and finds all the 'interesting' characters for that state, and then constructs a new set of strings, and then trims out ones that end up in duplicate states of others, and then repeats a few times
  396. # [13:56] <Philip`> hsivonen: What kinds of errors?
  397. # [13:57] <hsivonen> Philip`: I mean the number of different error messages the V.nu tokenizer can emit
  398. # [13:58] <Philip`> hsivonen: Oh, right
  399. # [14:05] * Quits: BARTdG (n=BARTdG@5ED42544.cable.ziggo.nl) ("Apparaat USB-apparaat voor massa-opslag uit systeem verwijderd")
  400. # [14:08] <jgraham> Is the live dom viewer broken in IE8-in-windows 7 for anyone else or is it just me?
  401. # [14:08] <Philip`> "this is clearly going to be a long discussion" - surely not!
  402. # [14:08] <Philip`> jgraham: Broken in what ways?
  403. # [14:08] <jgraham> Specifically using w() to write to the output
  404. # [14:08] <Philip`> jgraham: (e.g. some way other than the XSS filter breaking it?)
  405. # [14:08] <Philip`> Oh
  406. # [14:08] <jgraham> (it orks in compat view but that is rather useless)
  407. # [14:09] * Philip` doesn't remember whether w() worked in IE8-in-Vista
  408. # [14:14] * Quits: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@pat-tdc.opera.com) ("Ex-Chat")
  409. # [14:15] * Joins: pmuellr (n=pmuellr@nat/ibm/x-2e46903b00c314eb)
  410. # [14:24] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@EM114-48-208-84.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  411. # [14:32] * Quits: mgrdcm (n=mgrdcm@69.246.244.191)
  412. # [14:34] * Quits: myakura (n=myakura@p4050-ipbf3009marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp) ("Leaving...")
  413. # [14:44] * Quits: othermaciej (n=mjs@c-69-181-42-237.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
  414. # [14:44] * Joins: othermaciej (n=mjs@c-69-181-42-237.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  415. # [14:46] * Joins: myakura (n=myakura@p4050-ipbf3009marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp)
  416. # [14:47] <hsivonen> maikmerten: does Cortado provide enough scripting surface to JScript to be able to support the HTML5 video API in IE?
  417. # [14:48] <maikmerten> hsivonen, actually right now I'm not 100% sure the IE-Java scripting bridge works at all ;-)
  418. # [14:48] <maikmerten> but anyway, right now Cortado is just exposing bare essentials somewhat HTML5-compliant
  419. # [14:49] * Joins: nessy (n=nessy@203.166.253.89)
  420. # [14:49] <maikmerten> no events, no fancy stuff, mostly just play and pause and a bit of broken seeking
  421. # [14:49] * Joins: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@pat-tdc.opera.com)
  422. # [14:50] <maikmerten> does IE still support ActiveX? If it does I guess the best idea may be to develop an ActiveX-thingie 100% targeted at doing HTML5-video in IE
  423. # [14:50] <hsivonen> maikmerten: is the IE-Java bridge a Cortado thing or something in IE or the Sun plug-in?
  424. # [14:50] <hsivonen> maikmerten: any plans to expose scripting API in cortado to support HTML5 emulation shims?
  425. # [14:51] <hsivonen> maikmerten: can sites easily autoinstall ActiveX anymore?
  426. # [14:52] <maikmerten> hsivonen, I assume in worst case it would be the usual "click yes to install this security hole" thingie
  427. # [14:52] <maikmerten> hsivonen, currently Cortado just declares some methods/fields public in its main applet class
  428. # [14:53] <maikmerten> there's no bridge whatsoever to e.g. do events
  429. # [14:53] <maikmerten> and I've found Java <-> browser communication to be rather unreliable
  430. # [14:53] <hsivonen> I wonder if having a JS shim doing polling from timeout in order to emulate events would kill perf
  431. # [14:53] <maikmerten> (browsers/applets hanging and stuff)
  432. # [14:54] <hsivonen> Well, I hope someone writes a Theora ActiveX control for IE with an accompanying JS shim
  433. # [14:54] <maikmerten> hsivonen, here's a demo demonstrating one use case for the (limited) HTML5 media API support in Cortado: http://people.xiph.org/~oggk/elephants_dream/elephantsdream.html
  434. # [14:55] <maikmerten> hmmm... actually, no, doesn't demonstrate that really
  435. # [14:56] <maikmerten> (I supposed it would read the time to display a fitting subtitle with DOM-manipulation, but it's just "all Java subtitles")
  436. # [14:57] <maikmerten> hsivonen, another possibility would perhaps be to do a Vorbis/Theora player in Flash, but I have no idea how performant that would be
  437. # [14:58] <othermaciej> probably not very
  438. # [14:58] <othermaciej> the Flash H.264 codec is native code, and even that uses shocking amounts of CPU
  439. # [14:58] <maikmerten> right. The interesting question would be "how much slower than Java is it" ;-)
  440. # [14:59] <othermaciej> I'd expect ActionScript is a lot slower than Java
  441. # [14:59] <maikmerten> (after all Java *is* fast enough to decode video, audio and do all the scaling for ~ SD video on common rigs)
  442. # [14:59] <othermaciej> it's actually slower than the fastest current JS implementations, for many kinds of code
  443. # [14:59] <maikmerten> well, it depends on how effective their JIT is - but getting that fast is easier on statically typed languages...
  444. # [15:00] <hsivonen> cool. the applet loads reasonably fast on the elephants dream demo
  445. # [15:00] <hsivonen> much faster than a random JavaFX demo
  446. # [15:01] <maikmerten> http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/demos/bigbuckbunny-applet.html <-- another demo with a higher resolution video
  447. # [15:01] <maikmerten> (no fancy subtitles, though)
  448. # [15:01] <MikeSmith> I think a significant blocking issue with codecs will always remain what is implemented in hardware level on mobile devices
  449. # [15:02] <maikmerten> that indeed is an issue - and to make matters worse this is a moving target (quite literally, too)
  450. # [15:02] <jgraham> MikeSmith: Alays is a long time
  451. # [15:02] <jgraham> *Always
  452. # [15:02] <MikeSmith> well, in general, implementing XYZ in flash does not solve problems for mobile handsets
  453. # [15:02] <hsivonen> maikmerten: your demo showed an unverifiable signature warning in IE8/Java6
  454. # [15:03] <MikeSmith> for browsing from mobile devices, I mean
  455. # [15:03] <maikmerten> hsivonen, aye, it's a signed applet with a Xiph.org certificate without official blessing
  456. # [15:03] <maikmerten> downside: User nag, upside "does play remote video"
  457. # [15:04] <MikeSmith> jgraham: "always" meaning until CPU and RAM resources on mobile handsets approach same level as PCs
  458. # [15:04] <hsivonen> maikmerten: yeah, the actual video performs well
  459. # [15:05] <maikmerten> MikeSmith, one would have to have a close look on what mobile devices are relevant, what hardware capabilities they have (hardwired decoders like in 1997 or programmable DSP stuff) and (in case DSPs are common) get DSP implementations done
  460. # [15:05] <hsivonen> this stuff really needs to be packaged for dummies so that one can use one script in head and then <video src=foo.ogg> in body and have things Just Work
  461. # [15:05] <maikmerten> hsivonen, that would be http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/demos/bigbuckbunny.html ;-)
  462. # [15:06] <maikmerten> hsivonen, (advanced version of this at http://www.celt-codec.org/presentations/ )
  463. # [15:09] <maikmerten> anyway, as for making-IE-do-HTML5-media I guess something slammed together using liboggplay and and an additional DirectShow hook (for additional codec coverage) may be best
  464. # [15:09] * Joins: mgrdcm (n=mgrdcm@65.111.247.194)
  465. # [15:10] <maikmerten> I develop Java software every day, I'm pretty fond of Java - but *applets* are something always giving me a "don't use unless necessary"-feeling
  466. # [15:11] <maikmerten> after all the Java plugin used to be a great annoyance to basically everyone (slow, crashy) and the from-scratch-new plugin isn't thaaat common, I'd guess
  467. # [15:11] <hsivonen> maikmerten: ooh. excellent. re: celt-codec video
  468. # [15:12] <hsivonen> I like Java, too, but I browse the Web without applets
  469. # [15:12] <hsivonen> maikmerten: you should do more marketing for the script
  470. # [15:13] <hsivonen> maikmerten: thanks. I need to study the script some more
  471. # [15:13] <maikmerten> hsivonen, I hope we can put author's instructions of how to use that sort of scripting into the support resources of HTML5-media supporting browser vendors
  472. # [15:14] <maikmerten> hsivonen, be warned, *I* initially wrote that script, so parts are crude and DOM-API usage at worst
  473. # [15:15] <maikmerten> hsivonen, (gmaxwell from Wikimedia cleaned it somewhat, so it still may give pain but the bleeding is gone)
  474. # [15:15] * Quits: pmuellr (n=pmuellr@nat/ibm/x-2e46903b00c314eb) (Success)
  475. # [15:16] * hdh is now known as makfa-hdh
  476. # [15:16] * makfa-hdh is now known as hdh
  477. # [15:19] <maikmerten> hmmm... anybody from Chrome/Chromium here?
  478. # [15:19] <maikmerten> apparently Chrome (dev channel build) exactly duplicates this Firefox bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=480058
  479. # [15:22] <gsnedders> Yay! Swedish accommodation contracts that mean nothing to me!
  480. # [15:22] <jgraham> gsnedders: Me neither. And I signed two
  481. # [15:23] <gsnedders> "Since I don't know how much swedish you know…"
  482. # [15:23] <hsivonen> duplicating a bug exactly is called interop :-)
  483. # [15:23] * Quits: othermaciej (n=mjs@c-69-181-42-237.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  484. # [15:24] * Joins: virtuelv_ (n=virtuelv@213.236.208.247)
  485. # [15:24] * Joins: webben (n=benh@nat/yahoo/x-052246d1d3fd2e7b)
  486. # [15:24] * Joins: pmuellr (n=pmuellr@nat/ibm/x-7185a70c070dd6f0)
  487. # [15:25] <gsnedders> jgraham: one of you and zcorpan lives west from the office, right?
  488. # [15:25] <MikeSmith> bugwards compatibility
  489. # [15:27] * Joins: arve__ (n=virtuelv@213.236.208.247)
  490. # [15:27] <gsnedders> 1.6km more or less
  491. # [15:28] <MikeSmith> hmm, is "bugwards compatibility" not a familiar term?
  492. # [15:28] <MikeSmith> (google seems to suggest it's not)
  493. # [15:28] <maikmerten> hsivonen, okay, I just installed an ActiveX control in IE (Bitdefender online virus scanner) to see what the experience is like (the wonders of having Windows caged in a virtual machine)
  494. # [15:29] <gsnedders> Also, apparently the flat comes with a bunch of things with Swedish names :P
  495. # [15:29] <maikmerten> hsivonen, it involves clicking "yup, install that thing" twice, that's it
  496. # [15:29] * Joins: wakaba_ (n=wakaba@EM114-51-48-242.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  497. # [15:29] <maikmerten> (first is a yellow "web page wants to install bla bla bla" in the web-browser - not unlike the Mozilla pop-up blocker)
  498. # [15:30] <hsivonen> maikmerten: ok
  499. # [15:30] <maikmerten> (when allowing this it'll ask again on installation)
  500. # [15:31] <maikmerten> the program keeps installed even after reboots, so I guess this *would* be a two-click solution for IE to install basically anything
  501. # [15:33] * Quits: wakaba (n=wakaba@EM114-51-133-112.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  502. # [15:34] <maikmerten> however, no applet (that for sure) or ActiveX control (well, that one could exchange the rendering engine ;-) ) will be able to e.g. properly layer HTML content on top of the video, do transparency and whatnot
  503. # [15:34] <maikmerten> but then again there's a chance most people want "just video, thank you"
  504. # [15:37] <Philip`> I think most people really do want their videos to be translucent and embedded in a rotating SVG triangle
  505. # [15:38] <hsivonen> can laying an iframe on top of an ActiveX control punch a rectangular hole in the rendering of the ActiveX control?
  506. # [15:38] <Philip`> otherwise they'd still be happy with Flash
  507. # [15:38] * Quits: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@pat-tdc.opera.com) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  508. # [15:38] <maikmerten> (hmmm... this whole pimp-your-browser talk makes me think writing a (signed) applet downloading and installing XiphQT on Safari may be something workable)
  509. # [15:39] * Quits: danbri (n=danbri@unaffiliated/danbri) (Excess Flood)
  510. # [15:40] * Joins: danbri (n=danbri@s5590d015.adsl.wanadoo.nl)
  511. # [15:41] <hsivonen> maikmerten: except Mac users run with Java off
  512. # [15:41] <maikmerten> hsivonen, by default?
  513. # [15:41] <hsivonen> maikmerten: by experience of instability and slowness and now due to unpatched security holes
  514. # [15:41] <maikmerten> hsivonen, I don't believe in the casual Mac user noticing how badly their Java is maintained ;-)
  515. # [15:43] <maikmerten> (this may be a vastly inaccurate opinion based on no numbers whatsoever)
  516. # [15:43] * Quits: nessy (n=nessy@203.166.253.89) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  517. # [15:44] * Quits: virtuelv_ (n=virtuelv@213.236.208.247) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  518. # [15:46] * Quits: doublec (n=doublec@118-92-133-45.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  519. # [15:46] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@118-92-151-16.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz)
  520. # [15:49] * Joins: tantek (n=tantek@adsl-63-195-114-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
  521. # [15:56] * Quits: tantek (n=tantek@adsl-63-195-114-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  522. # [15:57] * Joins: billyjackass (n=MikeSmit@EM114-48-177-221.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  523. # [15:59] * Quits: zcorpan (n=zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  524. # [16:00] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@EM114-48-208-84.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) (Nick collision from services.)
  525. # [16:00] * billyjackass is now known as MikeSmith
  526. # [16:08] <gsnedders> ezyang: ping
  527. # [16:08] * Joins: mpilgrim (n=mark@rrcs-96-10-240-189.midsouth.biz.rr.com)
  528. # [16:08] <ezyang> pong
  529. # [16:09] <gsnedders> ezyang: Trying to get a single emitToken in Tokenizer, what do you think of adding a callback function and calling call_user_func in Tok?
  530. # [16:09] <ezyang> That'll be slower. Why are you trying to get a single emitToken?
  531. # [16:10] <gsnedders> ezyang: So we don't need handling like setting PCDATA on end tag in every emitToken we have, nor removing duplicate attributes, etc.
  532. # [16:12] <ezyang> I was under the impression that's why it was a function call
  533. # [16:12] * Joins: billyjackass (n=MikeSmit@EM114-48-233-238.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  534. # [16:12] <gsnedders> I mean for the tokenizer tests we have an entirely separate emitToken, quite possibly with different bugs to the real tokenizer.
  535. # [16:12] <gsnedders> Which is kinda bad.
  536. # [16:13] <ezyang> Oh, I see.
  537. # [16:14] <gsnedders> I want to have a single emitToken in Tokenizer which calls another function, normally the emitToken method in TreeConstructor, but could be something else for the tests etc.
  538. # [16:14] * Joins: allanmac1 (n=allanmac@dsl017-091-222.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net)
  539. # [16:14] <ezyang> So, with SimpleTest, you don't have to write any extra code: you just partially mock emitToken in TreeConstructer and do the wraparound
  540. # [16:15] <gsnedders> But that impls TreeConstructor class which makes it impossible to run the whole test suite as then TreeConstructor is already defined.
  541. # [16:15] <ezyang> No, you make a new TreeConstructer, and then you use our $builder parameter to inject the mock
  542. # [16:16] <Lachy> sigh. The same old arguments are being rehashed again about the summary attribute on public-html. :-(
  543. # [16:16] * Quits: webben (n=benh@nat/yahoo/x-052246d1d3fd2e7b) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  544. # [16:17] * gsnedders wonders how that avoids defining two classes of the same name
  545. # [16:18] <ezyang> SimpleTest does all the hairy stuff for you.
  546. # [16:18] <ezyang> It's just a line or two of code
  547. # [16:19] <Philip`> Lachy: Maybe somebody should write them all down for easy reference when the discussion comes up again in another few months
  548. # [16:21] * Joins: billmason (n=billmaso@ip106.unival.com)
  549. # [16:21] * Parts: billmason (n=billmaso@ip106.unival.com)
  550. # [16:22] <hsivonen> aaargh! Astral non-characters!
  551. # [16:22] * Quits: doublec (n=doublec@118-92-151-16.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz) ("Leaving")
  552. # [16:22] <ezyang> Hooray!
  553. # [16:22] <hsivonen> UTF-16 sucks
  554. # [16:23] * hsivonen goes resurrect code from SVN
  555. # [16:24] <jgraham> Philip`: You would have to find someone who understood all the issues but was not percieved as biased
  556. # [16:25] * Joins: billmason (n=billmaso@ip106.unival.com)
  557. # [16:31] * Parts: allanmac1 (n=allanmac@dsl017-091-222.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net)
  558. # [16:32] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@EM114-48-177-221.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  559. # [16:34] * Joins: takoratta (n=takoratt@114.150.47.76)
  560. # [16:49] <hsivonen> yay. down to one tokenizer test failure and that's only because I get a parse error between characters
  561. # [16:50] * Joins: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@69.181.143.54)
  562. # [16:53] * Joins: virtuelv_ (n=virtuelv@pat-tdc.opera.com)
  563. # [16:53] * Joins: tantek (n=tantek@adsl-63-195-114-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
  564. # [16:55] * Quits: arve__ (n=virtuelv@213.236.208.247) (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
  565. # [16:57] <hsivonen> sigh. it's diffecult to get the right character and error ordering when CR causes an early flush
  566. # [17:01] * Parts: hdh (n=hdh@hdh-1-pt.tunnel.tserv20.hkg1.ipv6.he.net) ("Konversation terminated!")
  567. # [17:02] * Quits: ZombieLoffe (n=e@unaffiliated/zombieloffe)
  568. # [17:05] * Quits: pesla (n=retep@procurios.xs4all.nl) ("( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.21 :: www.esnation.com )")
  569. # [17:05] * Quits: Rik|work (n=Rik|work@fw01d.skyrock.net)
  570. # [17:06] * Quits: Mau`werk (n=ano@a80-101-46-164.adsl.xs4all.nl) ("Disconnected...")
  571. # [17:06] * Joins: webben (n=benh@nat/yahoo/x-59500058ffb730bd)
  572. # [17:07] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@69.181.143.54)
  573. # [17:07] * Parts: Mrmil (n=ut_ollie@host-77-236-204-8.blue4.cz)
  574. # [17:12] * Quits: maikmerten (n=merten@ls5dhcp196.cs.uni-dortmund.de) (Remote closed the connection)
  575. # [17:12] * Joins: Rik|work (n=Rik|work@fw01d.skyrock.net)
  576. # [17:13] <mpilgrim> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=html+5+elements
  577. # [17:14] <annevk42> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=w3c
  578. # [17:15] <Philip`> mpilgrim: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090604#l-8 - old news :-p
  579. # [17:15] <annevk42> hmm, http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=WHATWG and http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=whatwg are different
  580. # [17:15] <mpilgrim> damn it
  581. # [17:18] <Philip`> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=polygons
  582. # [17:18] <Philip`> Apparently the internal angle of a circle is 20 degrees
  583. # [17:18] <hsivonen> LOL. add column "Status" to squaring "W3C"
  584. # [17:20] <hsivonen> (XForms is "unsupported")
  585. # [17:20] <hsivonen> (but then HTML is "closed")
  586. # [17:20] <hsivonen> (Semantic Web is "resolved: (list of) uris")
  587. # [17:21] * Philip` tries adding the column "color"
  588. # [17:21] <Philip`> Apparently HTML is green, and CSS is red
  589. # [17:22] <hsivonen> I get "purple" for HTML
  590. # [17:22] * Joins: mlpug (n=mlpug@a88-115-171-214.elisa-laajakaista.fi)
  591. # [17:22] <mpilgrim> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=w3c+standards
  592. # [17:23] <hsivonen> and CSS is "black;" for me
  593. # [17:23] <mpilgrim> google has recreated the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge!
  594. # [17:24] <mpilgrim> ( cf http://www.themodernword.com/borges/borges_quotes.html )
  595. # [17:25] <Philip`> It's like Wolfram Alpha, except instead of giving you either useful answers or "I don't know", it always gives you complete rubbish
  596. # [17:26] * Joins: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@nat/google/x-5665013563e12816)
  597. # [17:26] <mpilgrim> it's powered by FACTS! from the INTERNET!
  598. # [17:26] <mpilgrim> (bugzilla bug #1: there are no facts on the internet)
  599. # [17:27] <annevk42> HTML is '#000"/>' for me
  600. # [17:27] <annevk42> in the 'color' column
  601. # [17:27] <annevk42> lol, DOM's Type is a "String"
  602. # [17:27] <hsivonen> annevk42: apparently the facts are different for everyone
  603. # [17:27] <annevk42> and for HTML it's "Security"
  604. # [17:28] <Philip`> That's the great thing about facts
  605. # [17:28] <hsivonen> perhaps google adapts them to the profile of your past searches
  606. # [17:28] <annevk42> I'm not signed in
  607. # [17:28] <mpilgrim> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=natural+language+processing
  608. # [17:28] <hsivonen> annevk42: Google knows you even when you aren't
  609. # [17:29] <hsivonen> maybe Google Squared could be more accurate if it mined RDF
  610. # [17:29] <annevk42> when I search for uppercase planets the Pluto image is from Disney :)
  611. # [17:30] <mpilgrim> hsivonen: http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=rdf
  612. # [17:30] <Philip`> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=programming+languages - apparently Pascal died in Paris, France
  613. # [17:30] <hsivonen> Philip`: and Prolog died in 2000
  614. # [17:31] <Philip`> hsivonen: Hmm, I get "no value found" there
  615. # [17:31] * Quits: aroben (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben) ("Leaving")
  616. # [17:31] <Philip`> but JavaScript died in "Nissan 300zx z32 ConZult Diagnostics OBDII Fault Codes Engine ECU Computer Software"
  617. # [17:31] <hsivonen> Philip`: it's the 'Year of Death' column
  618. # [17:31] <mpilgrim> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=operating+systems <-- won't linus be surprised that O'Reilly Media wrote Linux
  619. # [17:32] <jgraham> mpilgrim: I was just looking at that. I this MS will be surprised windos is Free
  620. # [17:32] <mpilgrim> "Author: DOS"
  621. # [17:33] <mpilgrim> there's a kernel of truth in that somewhere
  622. # [17:33] * Quits: mat_t (n=mattomas@nat/canonical/x-d0514395d6c0527a) ("Leaving")
  623. # [17:33] <Philip`> I think one might conclude that parsing unstructured data is very much an unsolved problem
  624. # [17:36] <mpilgrim> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=things+to+do+on+a+saturday yields exactly 1 result: "The Circus Starring Britney Spears"
  625. # [17:36] <mpilgrim> well, i know what *I'M* doing this saturday
  626. # [17:38] <annevk42> $128
  627. # [17:38] * annevk42 added a column cost that came back with some random value from a seemingly unrelated site
  628. # [17:39] <annevk42> squared is a lot of fun
  629. # [17:39] <annevk42> cost of HTML is apparently $49.95
  630. # [17:39] <hsivonen> more fun that the pre-scripted fun on Wolfram|Alpha
  631. # [17:40] <annevk42> "css properties" is sort of good
  632. # [17:41] <annevk42> it copies the applies to/inherited data
  633. # [17:41] <annevk42> to compare, the cost of <frame> is $9,881,575
  634. # [17:41] <annevk42> and class is 137,802,000 JPY
  635. # [17:41] <annevk42> table is "FREE!"
  636. # [17:42] <mpilgrim> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=microformats says VoteLinks is $1250
  637. # [17:42] <mpilgrim> also, rel-nofollow is depicted by scantily clad women
  638. # [17:43] <annevk42> all the good things are forbidden :p
  639. # [17:43] * Joins: weinig (n=weinig@c-67-180-35-124.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  640. # [17:44] <mpilgrim> it's not even like the quality degrades linearly
  641. # [17:45] <mpilgrim> http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=dog+breeds is one of the front-page suggestions
  642. # [17:45] <mpilgrim> but i change it to http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=cat+breeds and it tells me that President George Bush is Persian
  643. # [17:45] <tantek> mpilgrim - wow that is wacky
  644. # [17:45] <tantek> (the microformats "square")
  645. # [17:45] <mpilgrim> hey tantek
  646. # [17:45] <mpilgrim> i'm guessing your irc client flashed on "microformats"
  647. # [17:46] <tantek> actually on VoteLinks
  648. # [17:46] <mpilgrim> ha
  649. # [17:46] <mpilgrim> you should make them less expensive if you want people to adopt them
  650. # [17:46] <tantek> LOL
  651. # [17:46] <tantek> as this channel knows, using the "rev" attribute is quite expensive
  652. # [17:47] <tantek> what's the going pay-for-play rate on HTML5 features again?
  653. # [17:47] <annevk42> tens of millions?
  654. # [17:48] <mpilgrim> apparently $600: http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=html+5+features
  655. # [17:48] * annevk42 forgot
  656. # [17:48] <annevk42> regardless, you can buy HTML for 49.95USD
  657. # [17:50] <Philip`> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/square-your-search-results-with-google.html - "This technology is by no means perfect." - gosh
  658. # [17:50] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@nat/google/x-5665013563e12816) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  659. # [17:51] * Joins: mat_t (n=mattomas@nat/canonical/x-e06646505734a2fe)
  660. # [17:52] <mpilgrim> i submitted a bunch of bugs when it was strictly internal
  661. # [17:52] <jgraham> Philip`: Well at least they haven't gone all Wolfram on us proclaiming that they have invented world-changing technology only for it to be revealed as something rather less
  662. # [17:53] <mpilgrim> they don't seem to be fixed, but it's hard to tell
  663. # [17:53] * Joins: arun__ (n=arun@adsl-76-200-191-109.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net)
  664. # [17:53] <Philip`> jgraham: Indeed, but it does still seem surprisingly useless
  665. # [17:54] * Joins: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@nat/google/x-5d052dfa2b883c29)
  666. # [17:54] * Joins: aroben (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben)
  667. # [18:05] * Joins: webben_ (n=benh@nat/yahoo/x-23884ef36eeb1c09)
  668. # [18:09] * Quits: mgrdcm (n=mgrdcm@65.111.247.194)
  669. # [18:16] * Quits: webben (n=benh@nat/yahoo/x-59500058ffb730bd) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  670. # [18:21] * Quits: dbaron (n=dbaron@193.51.208.72) ("8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.")
  671. # [18:22] * Joins: Maurice (i=copyman@5ED548D4.cable.ziggo.nl)
  672. # [18:28] * Joins: mgrdcm (n=mgrdcm@65.111.247.194)
  673. # [18:41] * Quits: drry (n=drry@dd25.opt2.point.ne.jp)
  674. # [18:45] * Quits: weinig (n=weinig@c-67-180-35-124.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  675. # [18:52] * Joins: rubys1 (n=rubys@cpe-075-182-092-038.nc.res.rr.com)
  676. # [18:54] <rubys1> Hixie: ping?
  677. # [18:54] * rubys1 is now known as rubys
  678. # [19:05] * Quits: jruderman (n=jruderma@c-98-248-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) ("Leaving...")
  679. # [19:07] * Joins: onar_ (n=onar@17.244.68.213)
  680. # [19:07] * Quits: onar_ (n=onar@17.244.68.213) (Remote closed the connection)
  681. # [19:08] * Joins: onar_ (n=onar@17.226.23.106)
  682. # [19:13] * Joins: atwilson (n=atwilson@74.125.59.1)
  683. # [19:15] * Quits: mat_t (n=mattomas@nat/canonical/x-e06646505734a2fe) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  684. # [19:16] * Joins: maikmerten (n=maikmert@BAE0d32.bae.pppool.de)
  685. # [19:16] * Quits: slightlyoff_ (n=slightly@204.14.154.228)
  686. # [19:17] * Joins: mat_t (n=mattomas@nat/canonical/x-2a04a78789cf0ec4)
  687. # [19:21] * Joins: drry (n=drry@dd25.opt2.point.ne.jp)
  688. # [19:23] * Quits: virtuelv_ (n=virtuelv@pat-tdc.opera.com) ("Ex-Chat")
  689. # [19:29] * Joins: maikmerten_ (n=maikmert@Zb7e9.z.pppool.de)
  690. # [19:30] * Quits: maikmerten (n=maikmert@BAE0d32.bae.pppool.de) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  691. # [19:30] * Quits: myakura (n=myakura@p4050-ipbf3009marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp) ("Leaving...")
  692. # [19:31] * Joins: slightlyoff (n=slightly@72.14.229.81)
  693. # [19:31] * Quits: slightlyoff (n=slightly@72.14.229.81) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  694. # [19:31] * Joins: slightlyoff (n=slightly@72.14.229.81)
  695. # [19:32] * Quits: ciaran_lee (n=ciaran_l@83-70-243-34-dynamic.b-ras1.prp.dublin.eircom.net)
  696. # [19:32] * Quits: mat_t (n=mattomas@nat/canonical/x-2a04a78789cf0ec4) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  697. # [19:36] * Joins: jruderman (n=jruderma@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com)
  698. # [19:46] * Quits: mpt (n=mpt@canonical/launchpad/mpt) (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
  699. # [19:55] * aroben is now known as aroben|lunch
  700. # [19:57] * Joins: shelleyp (n=shelleyp@adsl-70-237-128-195.dsl.stlsmo.sbcglobal.net)
  701. # [19:58] <mpilgrim> shelleyp: did you want a serious answer to your question on twitter?
  702. # [19:58] * rubys would like a serious answer to that question
  703. # [19:58] <shelleyp> Yes, I did.
  704. # [19:59] <mpilgrim> ok. tip: if you want to directly engage me, try not to lead off with "yanked" next time
  705. # [19:59] <mpilgrim> but anyway
  706. # [19:59] <mpilgrim> my opinion on accessible markup has changed since i wrote "dive into accessibility"
  707. # [19:59] <shelleyp> Why?
  708. # [20:00] <mpilgrim> partly having seen usability studies
  709. # [20:00] <mpilgrim> partly having worked directly with screenreader vendors (while i was at ibm)
  710. # [20:00] <shelleyp> Do you have a link to the studies?
  711. # [20:00] <mpilgrim> partly from having access to real-world data on what the web looks like (from google's cache)
  712. # [20:00] <mpilgrim> they were mentioned on the list a while back
  713. # [20:01] <mpilgrim> lemme check...
  714. # [20:01] <shelleyp> Thanks
  715. # [20:01] <shelleyp> I don't know that's a good idea to base anything on Google cahe
  716. # [20:01] <shelleyp> sorry, cache
  717. # [20:02] <mpilgrim> google's cache gives a view into how markup scales
  718. # [20:02] <mpilgrim> on a global scale
  719. # [20:02] <mpilgrim> which mistakes are common
  720. # [20:02] <mpilgrim> etc.
  721. # [20:02] <shelleyp> But it's a snapshot of a point in time, not necessarily a directive for the future
  722. # [20:02] <rubys> mpilgrim: your opinion has changed, got it; care to state what your opinion now is?
  723. # [20:02] <mpilgrim> you can't get that from anecdotes or accessibility tutorials
  724. # [20:03] <mpilgrim> shelleyp: that is absolutely true
  725. # [20:03] <mpilgrim> it's only a cache of the now
  726. # [20:03] <shelleyp> Sam's impatient -- what is your view now?
  727. # [20:05] <mpilgrim> i can't find the link to the usability studies
  728. # [20:05] <mpilgrim> perhaps someone can jump in?
  729. # [20:05] <mpilgrim> it was mentioned here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0059.html
  730. # [20:06] <mpilgrim> it was just 1 study, IIRC
  731. # [20:06] <mpilgrim> as for my view, i thought i spelled it out pretty well in http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/03/21/accessibility-is-a-harsh-mistress
  732. # [20:06] <mpilgrim> "The accessibility orthodoxy does not permit people to question the value of features that are rarely useful and rarely used."
  733. # [20:06] <Philip`> Do you mean the http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Sep/0103.html videos?
  734. # [20:06] <mpilgrim> indeed, thanks Philip`
  735. # [20:07] * gsnedders is somewhat scared by how quickly Philip` can find any email on the list
  736. # [20:07] <mpilgrim> i think that there has to be some cost-benefit analysis of proposed accessibility features
  737. # [20:07] <mpilgrim> in fact, of existing accessibility features
  738. # [20:07] <mpilgrim> and there just isn't
  739. # [20:07] <Philip`> gsnedders: It's not exactly hard - I just Bing some words and click the links
  740. # [20:07] <mpilgrim> (that i know of)
  741. # [20:08] <mpilgrim> Philip`++ for using Bing (or at least claiming to)
  742. # [20:08] <mpilgrim> and you can say, "oh, if we can allow just 1 blind person to use the internet, how can you put a price on that?"
  743. # [20:08] * Philip` just wanted to verb its name
  744. # [20:08] <mpilgrim> well that's crap
  745. # [20:08] <mpilgrim> we (as a society) can put a price on anything
  746. # [20:08] <gsnedders> £42.
  747. # [20:08] <mpilgrim> we put a price on a child's life
  748. # [20:09] <mpilgrim> (seatbelt laws)
  749. # [20:09] <rubys> ok, so mpilgrim doesn't care for the "accessibility orthodoxy", got it; still curious as to what mpilgrim's opinion now is...
  750. # [20:09] <mpilgrim> actuaries can put a price on anything
  751. # [20:09] <mpilgrim> but nobody ever has
  752. # [20:09] <mpilgrim> the only effort has been in defining markup (usually, accessibility-specific markup) that purports to solve certain problems
  753. # [20:10] <mpilgrim> but there's no followup to determine if those particular solutions actually DO solve those particular problems
  754. # [20:10] <mpilgrim> long descriptions are a real problem
  755. # [20:10] <rubys> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE/SummarySpecification
  756. # [20:10] <mpilgrim> navigating complex tables is a real problem
  757. # [20:11] <mpilgrim> rubys: i've read all that
  758. # [20:11] <mpilgrim> and i agree with everything except the conclusion
  759. # [20:11] <mpilgrim> because they're missing something
  760. # [20:11] <mpilgrim> the something is "does it actually fucking work?"
  761. # [20:12] <mpilgrim> nobody checks
  762. # [20:13] <mpilgrim> every time somebody does check, the answer is "no"
  763. # [20:13] <mpilgrim> nobody likes that answer, so they ignore it
  764. # [20:13] <mpilgrim> and we go round and round
  765. # [20:13] <rubys> help me prepare the right question, and I'll make sure that it is not ignored.
  766. # [20:13] <mpilgrim> it's been asked
  767. # [20:13] <mpilgrim> it's been explained
  768. # [20:14] <rubys> url?
  769. # [20:14] <shelleyp> philip: All of the links in that one site are dead - I guess hypertext links don't work, either
  770. # [20:14] <mpilgrim> um, most recently, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0173.html
  771. # [20:14] <mpilgrim> yeah, shelleyp: that's exactly the kind of rhetorical attitude that other people make fun of you for
  772. # [20:15] <mpilgrim> if you want a real discussion, stick around
  773. # [20:15] <mpilgrim> if you just want to take cheap shots, tell me now
  774. # [20:15] <mpilgrim> i can do that, too
  775. # [20:15] <shelleyp> But that wasn't a snarky comment -- if you look at things at specific points in time, you can find that nothing really works
  776. # [20:16] <mpilgrim> i'm not sure what that means
  777. # [20:16] <shelleyp> What I'm trying to say is that maybe the real problem with accessible markup is we haven't given it enough time to work
  778. # [20:17] <shelleyp> Our sampling size, in this case based on time, is too small -- same as judging links by one page
  779. # [20:18] <mpilgrim> html 4 is almost 10 years old now
  780. # [20:18] <mpilgrim> it was published when google had 40 employees
  781. # [20:18] <mpilgrim> how much more time do you suggest we give it?
  782. # [20:18] <shelleyp> If i remember correctly, it took decades for wheelchair ramps to be added to commercial buildings
  783. # [20:19] <rubys> mpilgrim: would you agree that the key question from Ian's note is """ Could you elaborate on why you believe summary="" serves its purpose well?" """, and acceptable answers would be stated in a form like http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_20_providing_a_summary_for_tables.html does ?
  784. # [20:19] * Joins: jwalden (n=waldo@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com)
  785. # [20:19] <mpilgrim> there's a difference: every single physical building you've ever entered in your lifetime was built by a professional and inspected/regulated by a government
  786. # [20:20] <mpilgrim> unless you're suggesting we apply that same standard to building a web site, there will always be infinitely more sites built by amateurs than by professionals
  787. # [20:20] <shelleyp> So? We can't control what amateurs do, but the government is stepping up to commercial site development
  788. # [20:20] <mpilgrim> esp. professionals who give a shit (or are forced by law to give a shit) about small niche audiences like accessibility
  789. # [20:21] <shelleyp> People don't have to have ramps for their homes, either
  790. # [20:21] <mpilgrim> i heard a "joke" (in rather poor taste, but whatever) at an accessibility conference i went to a few years ago
  791. # [20:21] <rubys> Isn't """ When JAWS encounters your calendar, Jackie hears "Summary: Monthly calendar with links to each day's posts." """ a reasonable response to "does it actually fucking work?" ?
  792. # [20:21] <mpilgrim> "if you want accessibility to be taken seriously, stab 100 million people in the eyes"
  793. # [20:22] <mpilgrim> no, the "does it actually fucking work" question needs to apply to the entire web
  794. # [20:22] <mpilgrim> that's the point
  795. # [20:22] <mpilgrim> does it work on a web scale?
  796. # [20:22] * Quits: Amorphous (i=jan@unaffiliated/amorphous) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  797. # [20:22] <rubys> what sort of answer are you looking for?
  798. # [20:22] <mpilgrim> of course you can design a special-purpose system within a general-purpose system that "works"
  799. # [20:22] <shelleyp> mpilgirm: you're setting a "standard" that none of us have agreed to -- has to have web scale?
  800. # [20:22] <mpilgrim> when you author it correctly
  801. # [20:23] <mpilgrim> and pay vendors to support it correctly
  802. # [20:23] <mpilgrim> and educate the user about it before you turn on the camera in the usability study
  803. # [20:23] <mpilgrim> but it doesn't fucking scale
  804. # [20:23] <shelleyp> mpilgrim: I would imagine there is more use of @summary than there is local database storage or web workers
  805. # [20:23] <mpilgrim> another category error
  806. # [20:23] <hober> shelleyp: Of course it has to have web scale--we're talking about the language of the web.
  807. # [20:24] <hober> if html features don't work at web scale, they're not features at all, they're bugs.
  808. # [20:24] <mpilgrim> if people try to use local storage and they're stupid, it won't work
  809. # [20:24] <mpilgrim> nothing is lost; it just doesn't work
  810. # [20:24] <shelleyp> mpilgrim: But who determines what web scape is? Something like SVG isn't used as widely as a div element
  811. # [20:24] <mpilgrim> maybe they give up and publish their site without oflfine capabilities
  812. # [20:24] <shelleyp> Does that mean SVG is failed?
  813. # [20:25] <mpilgrim> SVG is wildly successful
  814. # [20:25] <mpilgrim> i believe both gnome and KDE use it now
  815. # [20:25] * Joins: Amorphous (i=jan@unaffiliated/amorphous)
  816. # [20:25] <mpilgrim> to provide scalable icons and graphics on linux desktops
  817. # [20:25] <mpilgrim> on the web, not so much usage
  818. # [20:25] <mpilgrim> no
  819. # [20:25] <hober> Hopefully, the outcome of the SVG-in-HTML effort allows SVG to succeed *on the Web*. It's succeeded elsewhere, as markp just said.
  820. # [20:25] <shelleyp> mpilgrim: but it doesn't have the same scale on the web as div
  821. # [20:25] <mpilgrim> although you may have heard that we (google) pre-announced our make-SVG-work-in-IE javascript library
  822. # [20:26] <rubys> ... built on flash
  823. # [20:26] <mpilgrim> yes
  824. # [20:26] <mpilgrim> as a shim for a browser that will likely never support it natively
  825. # [20:26] <shelleyp> @hober: I don't agree with you. You're saying that unless an arbitrary percentage of sites use @summary, it's "failed"
  826. # [20:26] <mpilgrim> no
  827. # [20:26] <mpilgrim> that is not what we're saying
  828. # [20:27] <mpilgrim> you have to look at the percentage of people who use it
  829. # [20:27] <mpilgrim> the percentage of people who use it properly
  830. # [20:27] <mpilgrim> and the percentage of people who should use it, but aren't
  831. # [20:27] <mpilgrim> that's the problem with @summary and @longdesc
  832. # [20:27] <mpilgrim> it's not useful for most images
  833. # [20:27] <mpilgrim> it's frequently abused (i.e. wikipedia abused it for many years)
  834. # [20:27] <mpilgrim> it's frequently misused
  835. # [20:27] <shelleyp> But people are capable of learning, both from mistakes and from other people's successful efforts
  836. # [20:28] <mpilgrim> yes
  837. # [20:28] <mpilgrim> individuals are capable of learning
  838. # [20:28] <mpilgrim> groups are not
  839. # [20:28] <mpilgrim> (much)
  840. # [20:29] <mpilgrim> and (finishing my thought on @summary) most of the images that should be using it, don't
  841. # [20:29] <shelleyp> Returning to the topic, specifically @summary, where is the "harm" in its use?
  842. # [20:29] <mpilgrim> even if you educated every single blind person (the alleged target audience for the feature), they wouldn't ever run into a proper use of it
  843. # [20:29] <mpilgrim> except in accessibility tutorials
  844. # [20:30] <mpilgrim> the harm has also been explained
  845. # [20:30] <mpilgrim> i'll ignore the cost to implementers and other non-blind people for now
  846. # [20:30] <mpilgrim> focusing strictly on blind web users
  847. # [20:31] <rubys> summarizing:" summary has been around for a number of years, by this point whether it works or not should not be a matter of assertion from first principles, but from actual measurements. Key questions to be answered: who should use summary? are they? If not, why not? what should user agents do with summary? are they? If not, why not?" Is that a fair summary?
  848. # [20:31] <mpilgrim> if the feature is frequently abused or misused, then blind people are just being bombarded with crap
  849. # [20:31] <mpilgrim> accessi-spam, as it were
  850. # [20:32] <shelleyp> Unfortunately, blind people are most likely bombarded with crap on a regular basis -- including tables for layout
  851. # [20:32] <mpilgrim> if there is a real problem (navigating complex tables), and if @summary is put forth as the ONE TRUE WAY to solve that problem,
  852. # [20:32] <mpilgrim> then blind people are being harmed by the missed opportunity of a better solution
  853. # [20:32] <shelleyp> So what's your solution?
  854. # [20:32] <rubys> I am serious about wanting to find the right question, in today's HTML WG conference call, it looks like it is time to create a vote...
  855. # [20:32] <mpilgrim> i'm not saying i have an easy solution
  856. # [20:32] <hober> rubys: basically, yes. after ten years, we can be empiricists. as tantek said, http://twitter.com/t/status/318565892
  857. # [20:32] <mpilgrim> i'm still trying to get people to understand the problem
  858. # [20:33] * rubys thanks hober
  859. # [20:33] <mpilgrim> read the last sentence of http://blog.whatwg.org/the-longdesc-lottery
  860. # [20:33] <shelleyp> But if you don't have an alternative, can't we at least let those most committed have the tools they need?
  861. # [20:33] <mpilgrim> "So can we please get past the grandstanding and start talking about a better solution?"
  862. # [20:34] <rubys> forgive me, mpilgrim, but different people have different perceptions as to exactly who is doing the grandstanding. I want to get beyond that question.
  863. # [20:34] <mpilgrim> that would actively dissuade people from attempting a better solution
  864. # [20:34] <mpilgrim> my point is, i acknowledge that some images are complex enough to require further explanation
  865. # [20:34] * Joins: dave_levin (n=dave_lev@72.14.227.1)
  866. # [20:34] <mpilgrim> beyond a short phrase
  867. # [20:35] <mpilgrim> i acknowledge that some tables are complex enough to warrant a description of their structure
  868. # [20:35] <rubys> the problem is that there is a growing perception that no matter how good the answers given are, they will never be "good enough" as the goalposts are always being raised.
  869. # [20:35] <mpilgrim> but for many years, the only people trying to solve these problems were only interested in solving them for themselves
  870. # [20:35] <mpilgrim> with accessibility-specific markup
  871. # [20:35] <mpilgrim> which doesn't scale
  872. # [20:35] <mpilgrim> across the world wide web of authors
  873. # [20:36] <mpilgrim> (unless you're serious about stabbing 100 million people in the eyes)
  874. # [20:36] <shelleyp> @mpilgrim, forgive me (and no snark) but that is a very circular argument
  875. # [20:36] <mpilgrim> that mindset is the problem
  876. # [20:36] <mpilgrim> it's why we're talking past each other
  877. # [20:36] <mpilgrim> one side says "if the image is so complex, wouldn't everyone benefit from a longer description of it?"
  878. # [20:37] <mpilgrim> and the other side says "YOU STOLE MY @LONGDESC!"
  879. # [20:37] <mpilgrim> "YOU HATE BLIND PEOPLE!"
  880. # [20:37] <shelleyp> If we're talking past each other, isn't there a chance that you might be wrong?
  881. # [20:37] <mpilgrim> of course
  882. # [20:37] <mpilgrim> i have been wrong about many things
  883. # [20:37] <mpilgrim> but you asked how my opinion had changed
  884. # [20:37] <mpilgrim> and that's it
  885. # [20:37] <mpilgrim> when i wrote "dive into accessibility", i believed (as the w3c believed) that accessibility-specific markup could ever be a solution to accessibility problems
  886. # [20:38] <shelleyp> But in the case of HTML5, "being wrong" and removing attributes that have existed in the past could have far reaching consequences
  887. # [20:38] <mpilgrim> and now i don't believe that
  888. # [20:38] <mpilgrim> in fact, i believe that accessibility-specific markup is actively harmful to accessibility
  889. # [20:38] <rubys> ah, now I finally see an answer to the question shelley actually asked
  890. # [20:38] <mpilgrim> and the more specific the use case, the more harmful it gets
  891. # [20:38] <shelleyp> rubys raised a point: there is a growing perception that no matter how many answers are provided, they'll never enough
  892. # [20:39] <mpilgrim> no one has demonstrated why accessibility-specific markup is the right solution
  893. # [20:39] <mpilgrim> they just keep repeating it
  894. # [20:39] <mpilgrim> they take it on faith that it is
  895. # [20:39] <hober> I think something slightly weaker is true: accessibility-specific markup whose contents aren't shown to users not using AT, that's the harmful kind of markup
  896. # [20:39] <inimino> would that include @alt?
  897. # [20:39] <hober> E.g., seems like @aria-describedby would be much better than @summary
  898. # [20:39] <shelleyp> But you're taking it on faith that enough time has passed that we can determine that accessibility markup has "failed"
  899. # [20:39] <mpilgrim> @alt is the most successful of a very weak lot
  900. # [20:39] <hober> (assuming the element pointed at is visible to everyone)
  901. # [20:40] <mpilgrim> measured in absolute terms, it has been a miserable failure
  902. # [20:40] <shelleyp> What absolute terms?
  903. # [20:40] <mpilgrim> despite being easy to grasp, and REQUIRED FOR VALIDATION
  904. # [20:40] <mpilgrim> and short
  905. # [20:40] <hober> It's been a decade! Half of the lifetime of the Web! How has not enough time passed?
  906. # [20:40] <mpilgrim> and, in many cases, easy for tool vendors to build in (at least images within templates)
  907. # [20:40] <shelleyp> No, I just got through saying it took decades just to get ramps for commercial buildings
  908. # [20:40] <shelleyp> It takes time to do things right
  909. # [20:40] <mpilgrim> (these are the cases i targeted in "dive into accessibility")
  910. # [20:41] <shelleyp> But if you change the game, frequently, nothing ever has a chance to succeed
  911. # [20:41] <mpilgrim> that may be true
  912. # [20:41] <mpilgrim> but that's a weak argument for sticking with solutions that aren't working
  913. # [20:41] <inimino> it seems reasonable to expect that the next decade will see more new HTML authors than the previous decade
  914. # [20:41] <shelleyp> A better approach would to leave the markup in, increase education, and then look at alternatives
  915. # [20:41] <mpilgrim> ("stay the course", etc.)
  916. # [20:42] <shelleyp> But now, we'll have nothing. Nothing at all. How can that be the best solution?
  917. # [20:42] <mpilgrim> that's not true
  918. # [20:42] <mpilgrim> there have been proposals put forth for how to describe structurally complex tables for everyone
  919. # [20:42] <mpilgrim> and the response from the accessibility community is always the same
  920. # [20:43] <mpilgrim> "YOU STOLE OUR @SUMMARY!"
  921. # [20:43] <mpilgrim> "YOU HATE BLIND PEOPLE!"
  922. # [20:43] <mpilgrim> "don't take away what little we have"
  923. # [20:43] <shelleyp> But I'm not saying that mpilgrim
  924. # [20:43] <mpilgrim> (even if the little we have isn't working)
  925. # [20:43] <mpilgrim> what they're really saying is "we're not thinkers interested in solving problems, we're just fans"
  926. # [20:43] <mpilgrim> "go team"
  927. # [20:43] <mpilgrim> "yay mets, boo yankies"
  928. # [20:43] <mpilgrim> whatever
  929. # [20:44] <shelleyp> mpilgrim, but what you're response is, is more of the same "grandstanding" you seem to deplore
  930. # [20:45] <hober> shelleyp: what did you think of my proposal to use @aria-describedby instead of @summary?
  931. # [20:45] <rubys> what's the status of aria in html5?
  932. # [20:45] <mpilgrim> i acknowledge that you are not saying that
  933. # [20:45] <mpilgrim> shelleyp
  934. # [20:45] <hober> It avoids the "<caption> isn't the same as @summary" rathole, and it ensures (to the extent reasonable) that the summary is visible to all users...
  935. # [20:45] <mpilgrim> so, did i answer your question?
  936. # [20:46] <Hixie> rubys: here now
  937. # [20:47] <shelleyp> mpilgrim: Yes, I understand where you're coming from, which helps. Thank you.
  938. # [20:47] <mpilgrim> i acknowledge that i tend to grandstand when talking about so-called accessibility experts
  939. # [20:48] <mpilgrim> i also acknowledge that they have put a lot of work into their answers on @summary and related features
  940. # [20:48] <mpilgrim> i still think they're not asking vital questions ("does it fucking work?")
  941. # [20:49] <rubys> hixie: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20090604#l-452
  942. # [20:49] <mpilgrim> and i still think that all of their work starts from a fundamentally incorrect premise ("let's add accessibility-specific features to solve accessibility-related problems")
  943. # [20:49] <tantek> mpilgrim, but is calling someone out for grandstanding itself grandstanding? Just as pointing out an ad hominem attack is not itself ad hominem, neither is pointing out grandstanding itself grandstanding. Both are a criticisms of the level of dialog taking place, with the (perhaps optimistic) hope that the level of the dialog can be improved.
  944. # [20:49] <rubys> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20090604#l-468
  945. # [20:50] <mpilgrim> tantek: i don't want to get into a meta-discussion about it
  946. # [20:50] <mpilgrim> everyone has strong opinions
  947. # [20:50] <mpilgrim> and strong personalities
  948. # [20:50] <Hixie> rubys: what would the vote be? "Should we include a technology that has been proven to not work repeatedly and to actually harm accessibility, or should we include a technology that is recommended by the US gov't and might actually solve the problem?"
  949. # [20:51] <shelleyp> mpilgrim: You're putting forth a solid argument. I don't agree, but it's an argument one can work with?
  950. # [20:51] <rubys> I'd like help in formulating the question. I don't think that's it :-)
  951. # [20:51] <shelleyp> Sorry, forget the question mark -- I'm not especially good at IRC
  952. # [20:51] <tantek> mpilgrim, I've found it difficult to escape conversational loops without raising exceptions to suboptimal conversational behaviors. YMMV.
  953. # [20:52] <mpilgrim> tantek: if i did that, i'd never finish a conversation
  954. # [20:52] <Hixie> rubys: why are we even asking a question? this isn't something where there are two valid views. There's one group asking for something that is technically inferior, and there's one group who has suggested something (that's also suggested by the very gov't agencies the former group is saying are important!) that actually addresses key questions like "does it actually improve accessibility"
  955. # [20:52] <Hixie> rubys: isn't the right technical choice obvious?
  956. # [20:53] * Joins: sbublava (n=stephan@77.118.146.106.wireless.dyn.drei.com)
  957. # [20:53] * Quits: slightlyoff (n=slightly@72.14.229.81)
  958. # [20:53] * Joins: slightlyoff (n=slightly@72.14.229.81)
  959. # [20:53] <Hixie> rubys: i'm happy to have a vote, assuming the vote fairly outlines the actual options
  960. # [20:53] <Hixie> rubys: but i don't think it's possible to fairly outline the possible options without summary="" advocates thinking they are being shafted
  961. # [20:53] <rubys> No. hearing that " When JAWS encounters your calendar, Jackie hears "Summary: Monthly calendar with links to each day's posts"" is something that I consider compelling.
  962. # [20:54] <hober> I think the same would happen were that text in <caption>, rubys
  963. # [20:54] <tantek> rubys, which version of JAWS, which platform, with which example URL on the Web, and do you have an MP3 of the audio recording?
  964. # [20:55] <rubys> tantek: EXCELLENT questions. those are the ones I'm looking for.
  965. # [20:55] <mpilgrim> he's talking about http://diveintoaccessibility.org/20
  966. # [20:55] <shelleyp> hober: but isn't caption supposed to be visible? In fact, isn't caption more of a table title?
  967. # [20:55] <Hixie> rubys: for every web page that you can find that actually uses summary="" in a way that actually helps surse of screen readers, i can find you a page that actually _harms_ accessibility of the page.
  968. # [20:55] <Hixie> rubys: and i can also find you two more that harm screen-reader users specifically
  969. # [20:55] <Hixie> rubys: support for the attribute is disabled by expert users because it's so badly used
  970. # [20:56] <Hixie> rubys: and the information should just be included for all users most of the time anyway
  971. # [20:56] <tantek> rubys, those questions MUST be answered for us to actually form a scientific hypothesis that can be tested and corroborated with reproducible results by someone other than those that formed the hypothesis.
  972. # [20:56] <shelleyp> Hixie: I believe the question on the floor is, will you support a vote and abide by the vote decision?
  973. # [20:57] <rubys> tantek: agreed. My (unexpert impression) is that Hixie simply is making alternate assertions.
  974. # [20:57] <Hixie> shelleyp: as an htmlwg member i will support any correct use of process, yes, of course
  975. # [20:57] <Hixie> rubys: when this issue first came up (and second, and third, and fourth, and fifth came up) i included detailed analyses including referencing which studies i was talking about and what the results were
  976. # [20:57] <tantek> Hixie, I don't think you can "fairly outline the actual options" without answering questions such as I posed for each of the options. And any such vote on options without the answers to such empirical questions is no better than randomly voting on theoretical options.
  977. # [20:58] <hober> shelleyp: re: caption and visibility, yes, it is visible, which is the whole point. @summary suffers from metacrap partially because it isn't visible.
  978. # [20:58] <Hixie> rubys: for cases 6 through 139 i stopped doing that because i am tired of repeating myself in the face of "experts" who ignore research and just demand particular solutions that have been proven to not work
  979. # [20:58] <rubys> I'm new to this, but a URL to the analysis (or to your link to the analysis) would be helpful.
  980. # [20:58] <Hixie> look through the archives
  981. # [20:58] <Hixie> i really don't have the inclination to go through this again
  982. # [20:59] <rubys> I plan to put forward a cogent question and a process to resolving this. Anybody who has the inclination to participate will be welcome to do so.
  983. # [21:00] <shelleyp> rubys: I'm no longer part of the HTML WG, but I'd like to participate
  984. # [21:00] <rubys> rejoin!
  985. # [21:00] <shelleyp> Maybe I should
  986. # [21:00] <shelleyp> I can't stop myself from getting involved, anyway
  987. # [21:00] <rubys> there is no "has to participate n hours a month" requirement.
  988. # [21:00] <rubys> well, there is, but it is really, really low.
  989. # [21:01] <mpilgrim> some data: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Apr/0243.html
  990. # [21:01] <shelleyp> It's not the requirement, it's the fact that I just can't seem to pull away
  991. # [21:01] <mpilgrim> some questions: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0173.html
  992. # [21:02] * Joins: zcorpan (n=zcorpan@c83-252-196-43.bredband.comhem.se)
  993. # [21:02] <rubys> data is anecdotal; questions aren't to tantek's level of precision
  994. # [21:02] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0610.html
  995. # [21:02] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0738.html
  996. # [21:02] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0735.html
  997. # [21:02] <shelleyp> rubys has a good point, the data is anecdotal
  998. # [21:02] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0732.html
  999. # [21:02] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0727.html
  1000. # [21:02] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0726.html
  1001. # [21:02] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0723.html
  1002. # [21:02] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0722.html
  1003. # [21:02] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0721.html
  1004. # [21:02] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0720.html
  1005. # [21:02] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0695.html
  1006. # [21:02] * Quits: webben_ (n=benh@nat/yahoo/x-23884ef36eeb1c09) (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
  1007. # [21:03] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0693.html
  1008. # [21:03] <Hixie> rubys: there is actually no minimal requirement for participation at all
  1009. # [21:03] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0690.html
  1010. # [21:03] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0680.html
  1011. # [21:03] <mpilgrim> important one: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0601.html
  1012. # [21:03] <mpilgrim> (that last url contains comments on various examples of "good summary usage" put forth by others)
  1013. # [21:03] <shelleyp> mpilgrim: thanks for the links. Does anyone know if these are recorded in a wiki somewhere? Luckily logs are kept of the page
  1014. # [21:04] <rubys> ok, I like the three questions in the last link mpilgrim posted
  1015. # [21:04] <rubys> still not scientifically testable, but relevant questions nevertheless
  1016. # [21:05] <tantek> This issue appears to provide an overview with many more links: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32
  1017. # [21:05] <tantek> "table-summary / how to provide a summary of a table, e.g. for unsighted navigation?"
  1018. # [21:06] <mpilgrim> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0505.html
  1019. # [21:06] <rubys> tantek: the goal is to get http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE/SummarySpecification to the point where it contains the right question.
  1020. # [21:08] <shelleyp> rubys, if I've read the wiki entries correctly, the action going forward is to frame the options into a question and then put it to a vote, correct?
  1021. # [21:08] <shelleyp> Sorry, IRC entries
  1022. # [21:09] <tantek> rubys, IMHO Hixie's analysis in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0601.html is the most thorough/scientific so far, and asks many of the tough questions that rigor demands we ask (his 1,2,3 under "several things to consider when evaluating possible solutions")
  1023. # [21:09] <rubys> I try really, really, really hard to avoid votes, but unfortunately, it looks like it can't be avoided this time.
  1024. # [21:10] <shelleyp> rubys: not unless you want the issue to arise, over and over again
  1025. # [21:10] <mpilgrim> here's hixie giving his opinion after watching that usability study: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0058.html
  1026. # [21:10] <mpilgrim> i don't think there are any earlier links that give hixie's opinion
  1027. # [21:10] <mpilgrim> hth
  1028. # [21:11] <tantek> rubys, IMHO voting on this issue won't get you a better scientific (ergo technical) result, but merely a representation of who's dogma has better propagated or who can rally the most sports fans to their side.
  1029. # [21:11] <Hixie> indeed
  1030. # [21:11] <shelleyp> mpilgrim: does anyone know where working links to the videos can be found?
  1031. # [21:11] <mpilgrim> i do not know
  1032. # [21:12] <tantek> s/who's/whose - ahem.
  1033. # [21:12] <mpilgrim> i don't believe i still have them
  1034. # [21:12] <rubys> The two sides I see are "I'm not listening" and "I'm not listening".
  1035. # [21:12] <shelleyp> mpilgrim: I'll see if I can find them somehow
  1036. # [21:12] <Hixie> woah
  1037. # [21:12] <Hixie> woah
  1038. # [21:12] <Hixie> woah
  1039. # [21:12] <Hixie> i'm listening
  1040. # [21:12] <Hixie> i've done nothing but listen
  1041. # [21:12] <Hixie> did you see the e-mail i sent yesterday?
  1042. # [21:13] <Hixie> i even read there dozens-of-pages-long advocacy material
  1043. # [21:13] <Philip`> shelleyp: Probably http://www.cfit.ie/html5_video/
  1044. # [21:13] <Hixie> their
  1045. # [21:13] * Parts: ezyang (n=ezyang@VINEGAR-POT.MIT.EDU)
  1046. # [21:13] <rubys> I want to see a concrete question that, if answered, would get you to change your mind. Not an abstract or untestable theory, but something tangible.
  1047. # [21:13] <Hixie> i've looked at their videos
  1048. # [21:13] <Hixie> rubys: anything showing that summary="" actually improves accessibility more than it hurts it
  1049. # [21:13] <rubys> untestable. try again.
  1050. # [21:13] <tantek> rubys, "two sides" is a false dichotomy IMHO that does not actually help the discussion move forward, and it is inaccurate to characterize requests for answers to scientific questions as "I'm not listening" (unclear if you intended that or not).
  1051. # [21:14] <Hixie> rubys: no, it's not untestable
  1052. # [21:14] <rubys> propose a test?
  1053. # [21:14] <Hixie> rubys: it's exactly what my opinion is based on and it is the ONLY thing that really matters!
  1054. # [21:14] <Hixie> rubys: did you read the e-mail mark just cited?
  1055. # [21:15] <rubys> this one? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0601.html
  1056. # [21:15] <shelleyp> Hixie: Are you saying then that it doesn't matter what's said, asked, or a vote-you won't change your mind, or include @summary
  1057. # [21:15] <Hixie> rubys: we looked at how summary="" is used on the large samples of data, how it's used on small samples representing pages by people who are compelled by law to use it correctly, we looked at videos of blind users using screen readers, we looked at gov't papers on the topic, what more do you want?
  1058. # [21:15] <Philip`> I guess you could test how it directly affects users (ignoring costs to authors and implementors) by finding a group of people who use the web with a screen reader and who know how to enable/disable summary support in it, and then see how many choose to enable it and how many disable it
  1059. # [21:15] <Hixie> shelleyp: no, i'm saying the exact opposite
  1060. # [21:15] <rubys> hixie: which email?
  1061. # [21:15] <Hixie> all the ones mark just pasted into irc
  1062. # [21:16] <Hixie> rubys: what would it take to change the summary="" advocates' minds?
  1063. # [21:16] <rubys> at various times, yes.
  1064. # [21:16] <shelleyp> Hixie, are you responding to me publicly or privately?
  1065. # [21:16] <tantek> rubys, IMHO Hixie's request for "anything showing that summary="" actually improves accessibility more than it hurts it" provides you with a far wider array of options than your request for a concrete question from him.
  1066. # [21:16] <mpilgrim> here's an early discussion about accessibility-specific markup vs. universal markup solutions: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0962.html
  1067. # [21:16] <Hixie> rubys: have the summary="" advocates indicated whether they would stop asking for summary="" if the vote supported <caption> rather than summary=""?
  1068. # [21:17] <mpilgrim> (read the whole thing, or at least search for "This argues for having accessibility features be implicit")
  1069. # [21:17] <Hixie> rubys: have the summary="" advocates said what it would take to change _their_ minds?
  1070. # [21:17] <shelleyp> Wait a sec -- folks are setting conditions on the vote, that could undermine the integrity of the vote
  1071. # [21:17] <shelleyp> A vote is a vote
  1072. # [21:17] * Quits: philipj__ (n=philipj@pat.se.opera.com) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  1073. # [21:17] <Hixie> i'm merely asking of the "other side" as rubys put it the same questions as have just been asked of me
  1074. # [21:17] <rubys> tantek: the peception I want to squash is "go Mets". Where any answer that doesn't match the orthodoxy is discounted. From my perception, that applies to "summary adocates" as well as "summary detractors".
  1075. # [21:17] <rubys> hixie: that's a given
  1076. # [21:17] <rubys> I will follow through on that.
  1077. # [21:17] <Hixie> then why are you asking me the same question?
  1078. # [21:18] <mpilgrim> and an early thread about solving problems vs. rooting for your favorite solution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/1052.html
  1079. # [21:18] * Quits: zcorpan (n=zcorpan@c83-252-196-43.bredband.comhem.se) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1080. # [21:18] <tantek> rubys, if you are viewing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0601.html as a "summary detractor", then I have yet to see anything even close to that level of scientific questioning/rigor from any other position (whether "summary advocate" or some other position)
  1081. # [21:19] <rubys> I want everybody to agree on some sort of scientific test by which we can determine the answer. Yes, Hixie: I'd like your input on that.
  1082. # [21:19] * Hixie waves to the people on twitter enjoying the discussion :-)
  1083. # [21:19] <Hixie> rubys: i have already given you my input on that
  1084. # [21:19] <Hixie> repeatedly
  1085. # [21:19] <tantek> rubys, perhaps you should put a call out for scientific tests first, maybe on the mailing list.
  1086. # [21:20] <shelleyp> rubys now I have to disagree: I don't think "scientific test" is necessarily the appropriate approach
  1087. # [21:20] <tantek> perhaps providing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0601.html as a starting point - in other words, any scientific tests proposed should be at least as good as the analysis in that email to be worthy of consideration.
  1088. # [21:20] <rubys> I do plan to put out a question on the mailing list, I just wanted to gather some input on IRC first.
  1089. # [21:20] <shelleyp> After all, we can't put the web in a petri dish, and turn on a microscope
  1090. # [21:21] <rubys> tantek: agreed.
  1091. # [21:21] * Quits: dolske (n=dolske@firefox/developer/dolske)
  1092. # [21:24] <shelleyp> Then I think it's only fair to say that every last bit of the HTML5 spec be subjected to the same form of scientific tests, to be fair
  1093. # [21:24] <Hixie> it has been
  1094. # [21:24] <Hixie> that's been one of the cornerstones of html5's development
  1095. # [21:24] * Philip` doesn't remember having seen suggested tests for summary that are actually scientific (like with numbers) rather than being subjective judgements on the relative importance of various benefits and costs
  1096. # [21:24] <shelleyp> Hixie: Most have been subjected to your interpretation, and a couple of test apps -- that's not a 'scientific test'
  1097. # [21:25] <Philip`> (...like the cost of bad summary text vs the value of good summary text)
  1098. # [21:25] <Hixie> Philip`: yup, just like the rest of the spec :-)
  1099. # [21:25] <Hixie> Philip`: (it's been subject to the same form of scientific tests)
  1100. # [21:25] <shelleyp> Philip: Thank you for clarification
  1101. # [21:26] <Philip`> Hixie: You mean the unscientific form of scientific tests?
  1102. # [21:26] <Hixie> shelleyp: it's language design. interpretation is the name of the game.
  1103. # [21:26] <Hixie> Philip`: yup
  1104. # [21:26] <shelleyp> In other words, not based on empirical measurements, but the reason and logic of the arguments
  1105. # [21:26] <Hixie> based on both
  1106. # [21:26] <Hixie> empirical measurements isn't science
  1107. # [21:26] <Hixie> but it's still better than nothing
  1108. # [21:26] <shelleyp> Hixie you're not designing a language, you're improving a language
  1109. # [21:27] <Hixie> why thank you
  1110. # [21:27] <tantek> Hixie, empirical measurements are used in some science. And yes, better than nothing.
  1111. # [21:27] <Hixie> tantek: empirical measurements is necessary but insufficent to have science
  1112. # [21:27] <Hixie> er, s/is/are/
  1113. # [21:28] <shelleyp> Philip: can you suggest a specific scientific question/test on a specific component of the HTML spec I can look at in order to ensure my interpretation of "scientific test"?
  1114. # [21:29] * tantek provides "Science is a process" http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/nature_05 as hopefully a good overview.
  1115. # [21:30] <Hixie> (just to clarify, i don't think i ever said that we needed scientific tests. i said we need to base our judgements on research rather than on unqualified opinions.)
  1116. # [21:30] <shelleyp> tantek: thank you, but I meant specifically as has been applied in the past to HTML5
  1117. # [21:30] <shelleyp> I work best with given examples of past success
  1118. # [21:30] <Hixie> (research shows that summary="" isn't actually solving the problem that needs solving here; therefore we need something better. various people, including some from the US gov't's accessibility teams, have concluded that <caption> is an overall better solution.)
  1119. # [21:31] <tantek> Hixie, basing judgments on research rather than unqualified opinions *is* a scientific method.
  1120. # [21:31] * Joins: wakaba (n=wakaba@EM114-51-131-151.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  1121. # [21:32] <Hixie> tantek: to some extent, yes; but some people (e.g. rubys earlier) believe that it means you can come up with a single test the result of which can directly drive language design without a subjective component
  1122. # [21:32] <Hixie> which is clearly not the case
  1123. # [21:32] <Hixie> you have to interpret the results of any study
  1124. # [21:32] <tantek> shelleyp, Hixie certainly applied "scientific thinking ... observations, questions, multiple hypotheses, and more observations." to the table summary issue, per the cited 601.html email.
  1125. # [21:32] <tantek> (quote excerpted from "Science is a progress" link above)
  1126. # [21:33] <shelleyp> tantek, thank you, I was looking for an example of a specific test where the result was to add to the HTML5 spec. For instance, what scientific test was used with the microdata section?
  1127. # [21:33] <tantek> Hixie, I'm not sure of the "single test" hypothesis either - that's why I simply asked for alternative scientific analyses, at least as rigorous as your 601.html
  1128. # [21:33] <Hixie> tantek: right
  1129. # [21:34] <Hixie> shelleyp: no one test could be used for something that big, the microdata section involved hundreds of individual decisions each of which had to be based on research, implementation experience, discussions with authors, etc
  1130. # [21:35] <Hixie> shelleyp: for example, to test whether the microdata features as described actually solved the problems they set out to solve, i explicitly used them to do so
  1131. # [21:35] <Hixie> shelleyp: (most of that isn't documented in the list, i just did it in scratch files)
  1132. # [21:35] <Hixie> shelleyp: (some of it became the examples in the spec)
  1133. # [21:35] <tantek> shelleyp, it may be that the evaluation process for adding new features (e.g. microdata) is different than the evaluation process for dropping existing features, since existing features can be better evaluated based on observations in the wild.
  1134. # [21:36] <shelleyp> Hixie: So an instance of implementation is a successful test of a given component of the HTML5?
  1135. # [21:36] <Hixie> tantek: certainly the evaluation process for features for which we have a decade of experience can be far more rigorous
  1136. # [21:36] <Hixie> shelleyp: it's a data point, of course. certainly not the only one. it is necessary but not sufficient.
  1137. # [21:37] <shelleyp> OK, good, that's something tangible I can work with
  1138. # [21:37] * Hixie thought it was pretty obvious that you had to evaluate whether proposals actually solved the problems they set out to solve
  1139. # [21:37] <Hixie> shelleyp: for example one use case was to take the events on livebrum.co.uk and make them into paragraphs that can be copied and pasted into blogs while still being drag-and-droppable to calendars
  1140. # [21:37] <Hixie> shelleyp: so i worked with the guy who runs that site to come up with something that would satisfy his need
  1141. # [21:37] <shelleyp> Yes, but interpretation of whether a problem is "solved" are frequently based on biased, subjective viewpoints
  1142. # [21:38] <Hixie> you can see this example in the spec, it's one of those that made it in
  1143. # [21:38] <Hixie> shelleyp: if so, then your problem description is far too vague
  1144. # [21:38] <Hixie> shelleyp: problem descriptions should be objectively testable
  1145. # [21:40] <shelleyp> Hixie: Of course, there's another issue: that you seem to be the one person making a determination of what is, or is not, a viable test
  1146. # [21:40] * Joins: codedread (i=88b60219@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-324620d431c27a7c)
  1147. # [21:40] <Hixie> the vast majority of the problem descriptions for microdata were in fact written by other people
  1148. # [21:41] * rubys agrees with Philip`
  1149. # [21:41] <shelleyp> Hixie: yeeesss, but as I pointed out in a later document, you were incorrect in your assessment of the some of the problem descriptions
  1150. # [21:41] <shelleyp> Your interpretation was in error
  1151. # [21:42] <Hixie> shelleyp: i am not infallible, hopefully you raised such errors to my attention on the list
  1152. # [21:42] * Quits: sbublava (n=stephan@77.118.146.106.wireless.dyn.drei.com)
  1153. # [21:42] <shelleyp> Hixie: Yes, I did. Unfortunately, you've been quite busy since. I still am reviewing your work, for a longer writing
  1154. # [21:43] <rubys> hixie: what's the status/plans for aria?
  1155. # [21:44] <Hixie> rubys: unchanged since my last "input on the agenda" e-mail
  1156. # [21:49] * Quits: wakaba_ (n=wakaba@EM114-51-48-242.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1157. # [21:49] * Joins: ZombieLoffe (n=e@unaffiliated/zombieloffe)
  1158. # [21:51] * Quits: mlpug (n=mlpug@a88-115-171-214.elisa-laajakaista.fi) (Remote closed the connection)
  1159. # [21:52] * Quits: tantek (n=tantek@adsl-63-195-114-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
  1160. # [21:54] * Quits: codedread (i=88b60219@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-324620d431c27a7c) ("http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client")
  1161. # [21:55] * Quits: shelleyp (n=shelleyp@adsl-70-237-128-195.dsl.stlsmo.sbcglobal.net)
  1162. # [22:06] * Joins: weinig (n=weinig@17.203.15.151)
  1163. # [22:06] * Quits: maikmerten_ (n=maikmert@Zb7e9.z.pppool.de) (Remote closed the connection)
  1164. # [22:20] * Quits: Kuruma (n=Kuruman@114.166.101.85) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1165. # [22:21] * Joins: Kuruma (n=Kuruman@p2101-ipbf204hodogaya.kanagawa.ocn.ne.jp)
  1166. # [22:23] * aroben|lunch is now known as aroben
  1167. # [22:24] <Hixie> gsnedders: yt?
  1168. # [22:24] * gsnedders wonders what now…
  1169. # [22:24] * Hixie looks for the sample anolis doc
  1170. # [22:24] <Hixie> do you have the link to that again?
  1171. # [22:24] <Hixie> we should put it on pimpmyspec.net
  1172. # [22:25] <gsnedders> <http://hg.gsnedders.com/anolis/raw-file/tip/example.src.html>
  1173. # [22:25] <gsnedders> <http://hg.gsnedders.com/anolis/raw-file/tip/example.html>
  1174. # [22:25] <gsnedders> Message-Id: <699948DD-6166-4F55-8171-44D81108A898@gmail.com>
  1175. # [22:27] * Quits: pmuellr (n=pmuellr@nat/ibm/x-7185a70c070dd6f0)
  1176. # [22:28] * Quits: jruderman (n=jruderma@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com)
  1177. # [22:28] <Hixie> awesome thanks
  1178. # [22:32] * Quits: billyjackass (n=MikeSmit@EM114-48-233-238.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1179. # [22:40] * gsnedders just searched his sent box for to:hixie
  1180. # [22:40] <gsnedders> :P
  1181. # [22:44] * Joins: zcorpan (n=zcorpan@c83-252-196-43.bredband.comhem.se)
  1182. # [22:46] * Quits: ROBOd (n=robod@89.122.216.38) ("http://www.robodesign.ro")
  1183. # [22:52] * Quits: ap (n=ap@194.154.88.37)
  1184. # [22:52] * Quits: zcorpan (n=zcorpan@c83-252-196-43.bredband.comhem.se) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  1185. # [22:54] * Joins: dolske (n=dolske@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com)
  1186. # [22:57] * Joins: jruderman (n=jruderma@corp-241.mountainview.mozilla.com)
  1187. # [23:04] * Parts: michaeln (n=michaeln@nat/google/x-b3f5843f37a1de7b)
  1188. # [23:06] * Joins: tantek (n=tantek@c-76-126-173-220.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  1189. # [23:11] * Parts: hobo (n=hobo@aboutnerd.com)
  1190. # [23:16] * Joins: jorlow (n=jorlow@nat/google/x-d65fce0703b906f7)
  1191. # [23:18] * Joins: roc (n=roc@202.0.36.64)
  1192. # [23:19] <jgraham> Hixie: Added links to those docs to pms.net
  1193. # [23:25] * Quits: tantek (n=tantek@c-76-126-173-220.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  1194. # [23:27] * Quits: drostie (n=hopkins@5ED17066.cable.ziggo.nl) (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
  1195. # [23:30] * Quits: Maurice (i=copyman@5ED548D4.cable.ziggo.nl) ("Disconnected...")
  1196. # [23:39] * Joins: webben (n=benh@dip5-fw.corp.ukl.yahoo.com)
  1197. # [23:41] <Hixie> jgraham: sweet thanks
  1198. # [23:42] <gsnedders> Weee…
  1199. # [23:43] <gsnedders> just got a SPARQL query down from using 1GB RAM in rdflib to around 12MB RAM.
  1200. # [23:43] <gsnedders> (It is really, really, really inefficient on some queries)
  1201. # [23:44] <Philip`> I think you should rewrite the query to just use grep
  1202. # [23:44] <gsnedders> That would be very hard.
  1203. # [23:54] * Quits: weinig (n=weinig@17.203.15.151)
  1204. # [23:55] * Parts: billmason (n=billmaso@ip106.unival.com)
  1205. # [23:58] * Joins: tantek (n=tantek@c-67-180-202-79.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  1206. # [23:59] * Joins: nessy (n=nessy@203.166.253.89)
  1207. # Session Close: Fri Jun 05 00:00:00 2009

The end :)