/irc-logs / freenode / #whatwg / 2009-10-16 / end

Options:

  1. # Session Start: Fri Oct 16 00:00:00 2009
  2. # Session Ident: #whatwg
  3. # [00:01] * Quits: BlurstOfTimes (n=blurstof@168.203.117.66) ("Leaving...")
  4. # [00:01] <Philip`> I can understand his paragraphs fine, by inferring sentence breaks
  5. # [00:01] <Philip`> I think I just don't understand his underlying points or perspective
  6. # [00:01] * Joins: mikekelly (i=mookid@ROFL.name)
  7. # [00:02] <mikekelly> hi fans
  8. # [00:02] <mikekelly> :P
  9. # [00:03] * Quits: Super-Dot (n=Super-Do@sjs-130-65-104-238.sjsu.edu) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  10. # [00:03] * Super-Dot_ is now known as Super-Dot
  11. # [00:03] <mikekelly> Hixie: guess what I've been discussing again.. :D
  12. # [00:04] <Philip`> mikekelly: Does it begin with "con" and end with "tent negotiation"?
  13. # [00:06] <daedb> Philip`: How do you negotiate with tents anyway? :)
  14. # [00:07] <mikekelly> it *might* do
  15. # [00:07] <mikekelly> yeah it does
  16. # [00:07] <TabAtkins> daedb: Have you ever been to a con? Tents are srs bznss.
  17. # [00:07] <mikekelly> I need help
  18. # [00:07] <mikekelly> but first, I have to help you sort out this poopy hyperlink problem you have
  19. # [00:08] <mikekelly> I keep giving up on you and then thinking about better ways to explain it and coming back
  20. # [00:08] <daedb> TabAtkins: I have, but not recently... it was before the tents took over.
  21. # [00:09] <Philip`> daedb: It's basically the same as negotiating with terrorists, only ... uh, tentier
  22. # [00:10] <TabAtkins> We have a hyperlink problem? I only hyperlink with friends! It's social hyperlinking!
  23. # [00:11] <mikekelly> don't be ridiculous being social is a centralised process
  24. # [00:11] <mikekelly> you need accurate ratings for this shit
  25. # [00:11] <mikekelly> it's serious stuff.
  26. # [00:12] <mikekelly> so anyway I think I've found some hint of support for what I was going on about before
  27. # [00:12] <mikekelly> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/13858 - read on from there, if you dare!
  28. # [00:12] * Quits: miketaylr (n=miketayl@38.117.156.163)
  29. # [00:13] * Joins: franksalim (n=frank@adsl-76-221-202-115.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net)
  30. # [00:13] <Philip`> s/dare/care/
  31. # [00:14] <mikekelly> I was going to put that but it's just asking for it
  32. # [00:15] <mikekelly> smarty pants.
  33. # [00:15] <mikekelly> I would seriously like someone to take a read of that and give the official line
  34. # [00:16] * Joins: aroben_ (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben)
  35. # [00:16] <Philip`> The WHATWG doesn't do "official"
  36. # [00:16] <mikekelly> on the mailing list or on here I don't care I just want to know where we stand because I've had nothing further back on the bug since it was insta-resolved by Ian
  37. # [00:16] * Joins: doublec (n=doublec@203.97.204.82)
  38. # [00:16] <mikekelly> well I've had something back since then but I have un-addressed replies
  39. # [00:17] <mikekelly> if necessary I'd like to escalate this to the chair
  40. # [00:18] <hober> IIRC the WHATWG doesn't have a chair
  41. # [00:18] <mikekelly> Ian suggested that as the next course of action
  42. # [00:18] <mikekelly> oh wait.
  43. # [00:18] <Philip`> We all have to stand up
  44. # [00:18] <hober> there are people in the WHATWG charter who can override Ian, but that's never happened.
  45. # [00:18] <TabAtkins> HTMLWG, of course, has a chair. It has three of them!
  46. # [00:18] * Quits: aroben (i=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben) (Connection timed out)
  47. # [00:18] <TabAtkins> We all share.
  48. # [00:18] <Philip`> If he said that in the W3C Bugzilla, it was probably in the context of the HTML WG
  49. # [00:19] <mikekelly> joking aside.. what is actually the next steps here
  50. # [00:20] <TabAtkins> (Officially I have no position on this issue. I'm not certain if it solves a worthwhile problem, but if it does, then I'm not opposed to the proposed solution.)
  51. # [00:20] <TabAtkins> (Officially I have no more authority than you, though.)
  52. # [00:20] <TabAtkins> Well, was it in the w3c bugtracker?
  53. # [00:20] <TabAtkins> We have a whole Process now. It's official.
  54. # [00:20] <Philip`> mikekelly: The recently-proposed (not yet accepted, but generally uncontroversial) HTML WG process is at http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
  55. # [00:21] <mikekelly> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7697
  56. # [00:22] <mikekelly> for guys looking to stick to HTTP and be strict on resource identification
  57. # [00:22] <mikekelly> html is a serious limitation
  58. # [00:23] <mikekelly> The XInclude spec [1] defines the accept and accept-language attributes for links: http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#include_element
  59. # [00:23] <TabAtkins> All right, so by the flow-chart you can either take path 5c or 5d. Be careful, though, as you may be eaten by a Grue.
  60. # [00:23] * Joins: SamerZ (n=SamerZ@CPE00222d5410b8-CM00222d5410b5.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com)
  61. # [00:24] <TabAtkins> Without further information (which it doens't look like exists from the bug), 5c is probably not the way to go. So 5d, escalate to Issue, would probably be the correct path.
  62. # [00:24] * Quits: cying (n=cying@70.90.171.153)
  63. # [00:25] <mikekelly> lovely warm robotic feeling to this process
  64. # [00:25] <TabAtkins> Most robots are warm due to their steam engines. It is indeed lovely.
  65. # [00:25] <mikekelly> you the man.
  66. # [00:28] * Quits: borismus (n=borismus@CMU-348674.WV.CC.CMU.EDU)
  67. # [00:28] * Philip` has fun writing a fourth SpiderMonkey<->C++ bridge in his game
  68. # [00:28] <TabAtkins> What game?
  69. # [00:29] <Philip`> Just some unfinished RTS game
  70. # [00:30] <mikekelly> serious project or just something to impress the ladies?
  71. # [00:30] <TabAtkins> ?_? Team Foundation Server is marking the wrong lines as changed in this diff. How strange.
  72. # [00:31] <scherkus> quick clarification... when the spec says "when the media element has no src attribute" does that imply that it was never set, or that it was set to something like "" (empty string)
  73. # [00:31] <Philip`> Supposedly serious, and I doubt it will have the latter effect
  74. # [00:32] <Hixie> scherkus: it implies that the element at the time of the check does not have a src attribute at all
  75. # [00:32] <Hixie> scherkus: (the attribute could have been set and then removed, and it would match this)
  76. # [00:32] <Hixie> scherkus: (but setting it to "" counts as it being present)
  77. # [00:32] <scherkus> Hixie: ok, so then we should expect an error because loading "" is not a valid URL
  78. # [00:33] <Hixie> "" is a valid URL
  79. # [00:33] <Hixie> it's a relative URL that resolves to the same thing as the base URL
  80. # [00:33] <Hixie> (typically the web page, but not necessarily)
  81. # [00:33] <scherkus> Hixie: er.. right but to the underlying media engine it will probably throw an error heh
  82. # [00:34] <scherkus> Hixie: it looks like webkit gets stuck in NETWORK_LOADING because the "" case slips through the cracks
  83. # [00:35] <Hixie> scherkus: typically it should end up trying to use an HTML page as a video, and that would fail, yeah
  84. # [00:35] <Hixie> scherkus: but the base URL could be set to a video
  85. # [00:35] <Hixie> scherkus: or the server could return an HTML file the first time and a video the second
  86. # [00:35] <Hixie> i've written similar test cases for CSS
  87. # [00:36] * Joins: yatil (n=Adium@78.104.102.186)
  88. # [00:36] <mikekelly> hi Ian
  89. # [00:37] <scherkus> Hixie: yeah that makes sense.. it says right there that the url gets resolved and loaded.. don't see a reason why "" would be excepted
  90. # [00:37] <scherkus> thanks! I'll plug away
  91. # [00:38] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@EM114-48-141-217.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp)
  92. # [00:40] <TabAtkins> I wonder if there's any way to make a polyglot video/html page? Do any of the video formats accept arbitrary data in a header or something?
  93. # [00:42] <Philip`> TabAtkins: It's easy when the HTML doesn't have to be valid
  94. # [00:44] <TabAtkins> Yeah, that'd probably be the idea.
  95. # [00:52] <nessy> TabAtkins: you can throw arbitrary data into Ogg headers - either in skeleton (for the complete file) or in vorbiscomment (per track)
  96. # [00:56] * Quits: jwalden (n=waldo@64.9.242.63) ("back to office")
  97. # [00:59] * Quits: smaug_ (n=chatzill@82.181.150.24) ("ChatZilla 0.9.85 [Firefox 3.7a1pre/20091015073430]")
  98. # [01:00] <mikekelly> isn't that what chunked encoding is for?
  99. # [01:03] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@nat/google/x-jqrebmsozgxsribx)
  100. # [01:11] * Joins: jwalden (n=waldo@63.245.220.240)
  101. # [01:16] * Quits: yatil (n=Adium@78.104.102.186) ("Leaving.")
  102. # [01:31] * Joins: sicking (n=chatzill@63.245.220.240)
  103. # [01:59] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@EM114-48-141-217.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp) ("Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.")
  104. # [02:03] * Quits: SamerZ (n=SamerZ@CPE00222d5410b8-CM00222d5410b5.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com)
  105. # [02:05] * Joins: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@c-67-188-0-62.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  106. # [02:09] * Joins: yutak_home (n=kee@61.117.6.79)
  107. # [02:12] * Quits: sicking (n=chatzill@63.245.220.240) (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
  108. # [02:12] * Quits: Rik` (n=Rik`@pha75-2-81-57-187-57.fbx.proxad.net) (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
  109. # [02:19] * Joins: sicking (n=chatzill@nat/mozilla/x-rcdvgprripxeozhp)
  110. # [02:20] * Quits: weinig (n=weinig@17.246.17.253)
  111. # [02:24] * Quits: yutak_home (n=kee@61.117.6.79) ("Ex-Chat")
  112. # [02:27] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@c-67-188-0-62.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  113. # [02:30] * Quits: aroben_ (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  114. # [02:30] * Quits: othermaciej (n=mjs@17.203.15.228)
  115. # [02:34] * Joins: SamerZ (n=SamerZ@CPE00222d5410b8-CM00222d5410b5.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com)
  116. # [02:44] * Quits: tndH (n=Rob@cpc2-leed18-0-0-cust427.leed.cable.ntl.com) ("ChatZilla 0.9.85-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.1/2008072406]")
  117. # [02:49] * Parts: ojan (n=ojan@72.14.229.81)
  118. # [02:55] * Joins: cfq (n=cfq@94-194-98-91.zone8.bethere.co.uk)
  119. # [03:03] * Quits: jwalden (n=waldo@63.245.220.240) ("ChatZilla 0.9.85-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.1.3/20090909051541]")
  120. # [03:05] * Quits: fishkandy (n=conrad@134.EC0183.cyberhome.ne.jp) ("Pike!")
  121. # [03:05] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@dhcp-247-64.mag.keio.ac.jp)
  122. # [03:08] * lmorchard is now known as lmorchard|away
  123. # [03:10] * lmorchard|away is now known as lmorchard
  124. # [03:11] * lmorchard is now known as lmorchard|away
  125. # [03:14] * Quits: ap (n=ap@17.246.19.174)
  126. # [03:40] * lmorchard|away is now known as lmorchard
  127. # [03:40] * Joins: wakaba_ (n=wakaba_@122.221.184.68)
  128. # [03:44] * Quits: dbaron (n=dbaron@nat/mozilla/x-ungvlkhirllzdhne) ("8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.")
  129. # [03:56] * Quits: Amorphous (i=jan@unaffiliated/amorphous) (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
  130. # [03:58] * Quits: svtech (n=stanv@83.228.56.37)
  131. # [04:05] * Joins: borismus (n=borismus@c-98-219-161-78.hsd1.pa.comcast.net)
  132. # [04:06] * Joins: Amorphous (i=jan@unaffiliated/amorphous)
  133. # [04:08] * Joins: weinig (n=weinig@17.246.17.253)
  134. # [04:16] * Quits: weinig (n=weinig@17.246.17.253)
  135. # [04:21] * Quits: cfq (n=cfq@94-194-98-91.zone8.bethere.co.uk)
  136. # [04:25] * Quits: Super-Dot (n=Super-Do@66-240-27-50.isp.comcastbusiness.net) ("Colloquy more like Coolloquy")
  137. # [04:30] * Quits: gavin_ (n=gavin@firefox/developer/gavin) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  138. # [04:30] * Joins: gavin_ (n=gavin@firefox/developer/gavin)
  139. # [04:36] * Joins: cohitre (n=cohitre@c-24-18-158-106.hsd1.wa.comcast.net)
  140. # [04:37] * Parts: cohitre (n=cohitre@c-24-18-158-106.hsd1.wa.comcast.net)
  141. # [04:46] * Quits: sicking (n=chatzill@nat/mozilla/x-rcdvgprripxeozhp) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  142. # [04:48] * Joins: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@c-67-188-0-62.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  143. # [05:00] * Joins: aroben (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben)
  144. # [05:02] * Joins: dglazkov_ (n=dglazkov@72.14.224.1)
  145. # [05:05] * Joins: paul_irish (n=paul_iri@12.182.97.5)
  146. # [05:13] * Quits: SamerZ (n=SamerZ@CPE00222d5410b8-CM00222d5410b5.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com)
  147. # [05:20] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@c-67-188-0-62.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  148. # [05:20] * dglazkov_ is now known as dglazkov
  149. # [05:26] * Quits: JoePeck (n=JoePeck@cpe-74-69-85-249.rochester.res.rr.com) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  150. # [05:26] * Joins: JoePeck_ (n=JoePeck@cpe-74-69-85-249.rochester.res.rr.com)
  151. # [05:32] * Joins: jwalden (n=waldo@c-98-248-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  152. # [05:46] * Joins: yatil (n=Adium@78.104.102.186)
  153. # [05:49] * Joins: othermaciej (n=mjs@69.181.42.237)
  154. # [05:52] * Joins: cedricv (n=cedric@116.197.229.151)
  155. # [05:52] * Quits: cedricv (n=cedric@116.197.229.151) (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer))
  156. # [05:53] * Joins: cedricv (n=cedric@112.199.141.65)
  157. # [06:01] * Joins: dbaron (n=dbaron@c-98-234-51-190.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  158. # [06:03] * Quits: cedricv (n=cedric@112.199.141.65) (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer))
  159. # [06:03] * Joins: cedricv (n=cedric@112.199.215.35)
  160. # [06:06] * Joins: cardona507 (n=cardona5@c-67-180-160-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  161. # [06:06] * Joins: onar_ (n=onar@c-67-180-87-66.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  162. # [06:06] <cardona507> does anyone know of a page that shows what support safari mobile has for html5?
  163. # [06:14] * Joins: svtech (n=stanv@83.228.56.37)
  164. # [06:18] * Quits: cedricv (n=cedric@112.199.215.35) (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer))
  165. # [06:34] * Joins: erikvvold (n=erikvvol@S01060024012860e9.gv.shawcable.net)
  166. # [06:38] * Joins: erikvold (n=erikvvol@S01060024012860e9.gv.shawcable.net)
  167. # [06:42] * Quits: tantek (n=tantek@adsl-69-106-237-47.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net)
  168. # [06:50] * Quits: doublec (n=doublec@203.97.204.82) ("Leaving")
  169. # [06:51] * Quits: erikvvold (n=erikvvol@S01060024012860e9.gv.shawcable.net)
  170. # [07:01] * Joins: lazni (n=lazni@123.16.136.142)
  171. # [07:05] * Joins: weinig (n=weinig@c-67-180-35-124.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  172. # [07:11] * Joins: fishd (n=darin@72.14.224.1)
  173. # [07:21] * JoePeck_ is now known as JoePeck
  174. # [07:21] * Quits: cardona507 (n=cardona5@c-67-180-160-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  175. # [07:22] * Joins: cardona507 (n=cardona5@c-67-180-160-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  176. # [07:22] * Quits: yusukes (n=yusukes@220.109.219.244) ("Leaving")
  177. # [07:23] * Quits: roc (n=roc@121.74.160.0)
  178. # [07:27] * Joins: dglazkov_ (n=dglazkov@c-67-188-0-62.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  179. # [07:36] * Quits: yatil (n=Adium@78.104.102.186) ("Leaving.")
  180. # [07:38] * Joins: dimich_ (n=dimich@98.203.252.208)
  181. # [07:43] * Quits: dbaron (n=dbaron@c-98-234-51-190.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) ("8403864 bytes have been tenured, next gc will be global.")
  182. # [07:44] * Quits: lazni (n=lazni@123.16.136.142) ("Leaving.")
  183. # [07:45] * Joins: dimich__ (n=dimich@72.14.224.1)
  184. # [07:45] * Joins: mitnavn (n=mitnavn@unaffiliated/mitnavn)
  185. # [07:46] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@72.14.224.1) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  186. # [07:46] * dglazkov_ is now known as dglazkov
  187. # [07:54] * Quits: dimich_ (n=dimich@98.203.252.208) (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
  188. # [07:55] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@c-67-188-0-62.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  189. # [08:01] * Quits: cardona507 (n=cardona5@c-67-180-160-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  190. # [08:03] * Joins: sicking (n=chatzill@c-69-181-197-163.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  191. # [08:04] * Joins: maikmerten (n=merten@ls5dhcp196.cs.uni-dortmund.de)
  192. # [08:06] * Joins: tantek (n=tantek@adsl-69-106-237-47.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net)
  193. # [08:06] * Joins: kristallpirat (n=kristall@c-base/crew/kristall)
  194. # [08:08] * Quits: onar_ (n=onar@c-67-180-87-66.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  195. # [08:13] * Joins: SuperDot_iPod (n=superdot@adsl-76-231-44-247.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net)
  196. # [08:18] * Joins: tndH (n=Rob@cpc2-leed18-0-0-cust427.leed.cable.ntl.com)
  197. # [08:26] * Quits: SuperDot_iPod (n=superdot@adsl-76-231-44-247.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net) ("Get Colloquy for iPhone! http://mobile.colloquy.info")
  198. # [08:27] * Quits: svtech (n=stanv@83.228.56.37)
  199. # [08:28] * Quits: erikvold (n=erikvvol@S01060024012860e9.gv.shawcable.net)
  200. # [08:36] * Joins: annevk42 (n=annevk@c-c604e353.13-500-64736c15.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se)
  201. # [08:36] * Joins: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@125.175.251.212.customer.cdi.no)
  202. # [08:45] * Joins: Maurice (n=ano@a80-101-46-164.adsl.xs4all.nl)
  203. # [08:46] * Joins: cedricv (n=cedric@124.197.89.167)
  204. # [08:52] * Quits: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@125.175.251.212.customer.cdi.no) ("Ex-Chat")
  205. # [08:54] * Quits: jwalden (n=waldo@c-98-248-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) ("ChatZilla 0.9.85-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.1.3/20090909051541]")
  206. # [08:55] * Quits: kristallpirat (n=kristall@c-base/crew/kristall) ("Wünsche weiterhin guten Flug")
  207. # [08:58] <jgraham> gsnedders: It is way less ugly (and probably less inefficient) than your code
  208. # [08:58] * Joins: cardona507 (n=cardona5@c-67-180-160-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  209. # [09:01] * Quits: othermaciej (n=mjs@69.181.42.237)
  210. # [09:03] * Joins: lazni (n=lazni@123.16.136.142)
  211. # [09:04] * Quits: cardona507 (n=cardona5@c-67-180-160-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  212. # [09:09] * Joins: fishd_ (n=darin@c-67-180-164-209.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  213. # [09:13] * Quits: fishd (n=darin@72.14.224.1) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  214. # [09:15] * Joins: fishd__ (n=darin@72.14.224.1)
  215. # [09:16] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@dhcp-247-64.mag.keio.ac.jp) ("Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.")
  216. # [09:19] * Joins: cardona507 (n=cardona5@c-67-180-160-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  217. # [09:22] * Quits: annevk42 (n=annevk@c-c604e353.13-500-64736c15.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se)
  218. # [09:27] * Joins: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@dhcp-247-64.mag.keio.ac.jp)
  219. # [09:27] * Joins: yusukes (n=yusukes@220.109.219.244)
  220. # [09:28] * Joins: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@125.175.251.212.customer.cdi.no)
  221. # [09:33] * Joins: lazni1 (n=lazni@113.22.67.149)
  222. # [09:33] * Quits: GPHemsley (n=GPHemsle@pdpc/supporter/student/GPHemsley) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  223. # [09:33] * Quits: sicking (n=chatzill@c-69-181-197-163.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  224. # [09:34] * Quits: Lachy (n=Lachlan@85.196.122.246) ("Leaving")
  225. # [09:34] * Quits: fishd_ (n=darin@c-67-180-164-209.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  226. # [09:34] * Joins: Lachy (n=Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
  227. # [09:37] * lmorchard is now known as lmorchard|away
  228. # [09:37] * Quits: GarethAdams|Home (n=GarethAd@pdpc/supporter/active/GarethAdams)
  229. # [09:40] * Quits: aroben (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben) (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
  230. # [09:41] * Quits: lazni (n=lazni@123.16.136.142) (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
  231. # [09:43] * fishd__ is now known as fishd
  232. # [09:48] * Quits: dave_levin (n=dave_lev@72.14.224.1)
  233. # [09:51] * Quits: tantek (n=tantek@adsl-69-106-237-47.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net)
  234. # [09:52] * Quits: cardona507 (n=cardona5@c-67-180-160-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  235. # [09:52] * Joins: ROBOd (n=robod@89.122.216.38)
  236. # [09:54] * Quits: dimich__ (n=dimich@72.14.224.1)
  237. # [09:57] * Quits: lazni1 (n=lazni@113.22.67.149) (Remote closed the connection)
  238. # [09:58] * Joins: lazni (n=lazni@123.16.136.142)
  239. # [10:05] * Joins: foolip_ (n=philip@pat.se.opera.com)
  240. # [10:15] * Quits: Prest0 (n=pflake@cpe-66-69-170-206.sw.res.rr.com)
  241. # [10:16] * Quits: fishd (n=darin@72.14.224.1) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  242. # [10:30] * Quits: gsnedders (n=gsnedder@c83-252-235-100.bredband.comhem.se)
  243. # [10:37] * Quits: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@125.175.251.212.customer.cdi.no) ("Ex-Chat")
  244. # [10:38] * Joins: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@125.175.251.212.customer.cdi.no)
  245. # [10:41] <annevk2> it seems Microsoft is using the DOM consistency principle in the opposite direction
  246. # [10:41] <annevk2> I thought it was only about HTML documents giving a DOM that is as close as possible to what XHTML would generate for equivalent input?
  247. # [10:43] * Joins: mpt (n=mpt@canonical/mpt)
  248. # [10:47] <hsivonen> annevk2: I guess I should reply, but first, I'm doing to debug some software to avoid a situation where I get tarpitted writing too much public-html mail
  249. # [10:50] <hsivonen> s/doing/going/
  250. # [10:55] * Quits: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@125.175.251.212.customer.cdi.no) (Remote closed the connection)
  251. # [10:57] * Joins: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@125.175.251.212.customer.cdi.no)
  252. # [11:01] * Joins: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B01660A.dip.t-dialin.net)
  253. # [11:01] * Joins: virtuelv_ (n=virtuelv@pat-tdc.opera.com)
  254. # [11:03] <hsivonen> what was the right gesture for getting the inverse link menu on the spec?
  255. # [11:04] <hsivonen> option-doubleclick seems to be the annotation UI
  256. # [11:04] * Quits: MikeSmith (n=MikeSmit@dhcp-247-64.mag.keio.ac.jp) ("Tomorrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.")
  257. # [11:04] <Hixie> inverse link menu?
  258. # [11:04] <Hixie> oh
  259. # [11:04] <Hixie> click on a dfn
  260. # [11:04] <Hixie> has to be index or complete.html
  261. # [11:07] <hsivonen> Hixie: thanks. got it after reloading and waiting for some beach balling
  262. # [11:07] * hsivonen tries to locate the processing model for <base> but is failing
  263. # [11:08] <mikekelly> Hi Ian
  264. # [11:08] * Joins: zcorpan_ (n=zcorpan@c83-252-193-59.bredband.comhem.se)
  265. # [11:09] * zcorpan_ notes that http://www.w3.org/standards/techs/css at the bottom includes abandoned WDs
  266. # [11:10] <hsivonen> does the CSS WG ever bother to tombstone abandoned WDs as Notes?
  267. # [11:10] <hsivonen> it seems to me that WGs still in charter don't bother to bury their abandoned docs
  268. # [11:11] <hsivonen> just before the site update, the TR page had various obviously old "requirements" WDs
  269. # [11:11] <hsivonen> where the stuff the requirements were for was already at REC
  270. # [11:12] * Joins: mat_t (n=mattomas@91.189.88.12)
  271. # [11:13] <mikekelly> Hixie: I think I can make a good case for either changing the significance of @type for out-going links or adding in new attributes for conneg
  272. # [11:13] * Quits: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B017DAC.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  273. # [11:13] * Quits: lazni (n=lazni@123.16.136.142) ("Leaving.")
  274. # [11:14] * Joins: Phae (n=phaeness@gatea.mh.bbc.co.uk)
  275. # [11:14] <mikekelly> I'm not the only person running into this problem: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/13871 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/13866
  276. # [11:15] <mikekelly> I mean - if you look at the HTTP spec and the way that @type is defined
  277. # [11:16] <mikekelly> it really doesn't make sense that @type isn't used to modify the Accept header
  278. # [11:17] * Quits: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@125.175.251.212.customer.cdi.no) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  279. # [11:18] <mikekelly> since the purpose of @type is to infer what should be expected from a response in a non-authoratative way.. then it seems to make sense to also modify the out-going request accordingly so that the Accept header indicates this context to the destination server
  280. # [11:18] * Quits: Lachy (n=Lachlan@85.196.122.246) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  281. # [11:19] <mikekelly> there's nothing authorative about the Accept header - the server is free to disregard it completely and return whatever content-type it pleases, this doesn't break clients or HTTP spec
  282. # [11:20] <mikekelly> what it does do is give the ability for me to chose whether or not I want to use HTTP conneg in my html driven applications
  283. # [11:20] <zcorpan_> mikekelly: have you lobbied browser vendors whether they're interested in implementing?
  284. # [11:21] <mikekelly> I would prefer to do that after the HTML spec was changed
  285. # [11:21] <hsivonen> hi, mookid
  286. # [11:21] <mikekelly> hello
  287. # [11:22] <zcorpan_> why?
  288. # [11:22] <mikekelly> because that is the most efficient path to the objective
  289. # [11:22] <mikekelly> I don't know anything about who's who in browsers
  290. # [11:23] <mikekelly> this is an issue with HTML first and foremost
  291. # [11:23] <zcorpan_> my experience is different; in many cases specs don't change until browsers have changed
  292. # [11:23] <zcorpan_> see http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F
  293. # [11:24] <mikekelly> so there's no parts of HTML5 that have/are working this way
  294. # [11:24] <mikekelly> ?
  295. # [11:25] <mikekelly> it's pretty crazy that browsers have so much control of this situation
  296. # [11:25] <zcorpan_> in general, and especially at this stage, things are only added to html5 if it's clear that browsers are interested in implementing
  297. # [11:25] <mikekelly> that's pretty sad state of affairs for something this important.
  298. # [11:25] <zcorpan_> if it turns out later that browsers haven't implemented something, it'll be dropped
  299. # [11:26] <gsnedders|work> mikekelly: You can add it to the spec… and if browsers don't implement it, you've gained nothing.
  300. # [11:26] <zcorpan_> indeed
  301. # [11:26] <mikekelly> at least if it is changed in the spec
  302. # [11:26] <mikekelly> I have something to reference bugs against
  303. # [11:26] <mikekelly> rather than just have browsers go 'well wtf is this I dont care what you want its not in the spec go away'
  304. # [11:27] <mikekelly> which is exactly what will happen and you know it.
  305. # [11:27] <zcorpan_> that's not how opera react at least
  306. # [11:27] <gsnedders|work> mikekelly: Whether something is in a spec has little relevance to whether we will support it or not
  307. # [11:27] <mikekelly> oh well that's ok then
  308. # [11:27] <zcorpan_> if we see something useful, we'll want to implement it regardless of whether it's in a spec or not
  309. # [11:27] <zcorpan_> if we're going to implement it, we want it specced, too
  310. # [11:28] <mikekelly> yeah - it's not practical to expect uptake unless these mechanisms are implemented across the board
  311. # [11:28] * Joins: webben (n=benh@nat/yahoo/x-hdqjvduytyshogee)
  312. # [11:28] <mikekelly> it doesn't work like that
  313. # [11:28] <mikekelly> which is the WHOLE REASON for specs in the first place
  314. # [11:28] <mikekelly> otherwise what is the need for gimpy specs
  315. # [11:28] <mikekelly> if all that matters is what the general consensus is..?
  316. # [11:29] <zcorpan_> the reason for specs is interop and reduce need for expensive reverse engineering :)
  317. # [11:29] <annevk2> hsivonen, I think the requirements for <base> were removed from the spec and Hixie expected them to be covered by iri-bis or some such
  318. # [11:29] <mikekelly> interop.. well content negotiation is a pretty big deal in terms of interop
  319. # [11:29] <annevk2> hsivonen, however that seems somewhat wrong, I recall I emailed about that, but I'm not sure given that Hixie recently went all the way to zero
  320. # [11:29] * Joins: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B013FF5.dip.t-dialin.net)
  321. # [11:30] <mikekelly> this is actually pretty sad - how long is the human race expected to put up the mess you guys are going to produce?
  322. # [11:31] <mikekelly> it's all very clever for you to be like "well if we add it to the spec and it doesnt get implemented it doesnt matter - so go get it implemented first"
  323. # [11:31] <mikekelly> very smart - I see what you're doing there
  324. # [11:32] <zcorpan_> that's how most new features in html5 were added
  325. # [11:32] <mikekelly> well that's bs quite frankly
  326. # [11:32] <mikekelly> the spec should be adjusted to suit applicability of the markup
  327. # [11:32] <mikekelly> if browsers don't conform they are BROKEN
  328. # [11:32] <mikekelly> and bugs should be logged against that
  329. # [11:34] <mikekelly> browsers are *just* a client, the fact that you have your little oligopoly shouldn't give you the right to strong-arm features in and out
  330. # [11:36] <zcorpan_> certainly there are other implementors other than browsers
  331. # [11:36] <mikekelly> well then - the spec should say what is most appropriate in the context of web architecture
  332. # [11:36] <zcorpan_> if you can get your feature implemented somewhere, then that might be good enough to get it added to html5
  333. # [11:36] <mikekelly> and if browsers fail to comply then they are broken
  334. # [11:36] <mikekelly> it's really very simple.
  335. # [11:36] * Joins: Lachy (n=Lachlan@pat-tdc.opera.com)
  336. # [11:37] <zcorpan_> the spec is not of much use if it says to do something that implementors don't want to do
  337. # [11:37] <mikekelly> bullshit.
  338. # [11:37] <mikekelly> the clients are not much use if they don't conform to the spec
  339. # [11:37] <mikekelly> you have that totally the wrong way round
  340. # [11:38] <zcorpan_> well, clearly we have different points of view on the matter :)
  341. # [11:38] <mikekelly> I wonder why..
  342. # [11:38] <mikekelly> what a joke.
  343. # [11:38] <zcorpan_> specs and implementations should converge on a single behavior
  344. # [11:38] <mikekelly> no
  345. # [11:38] * Quits: tkent (n=tkent@220.109.219.244) ("Leaving...")
  346. # [11:38] <zcorpan_> no?
  347. # [11:39] <mikekelly> the spec provides the convergence
  348. # [11:39] <mikekelly> that is its purpose
  349. # [11:39] * jgraham wonders what the use of deliberatly speccing something that no one will implement is
  350. # [11:39] <mikekelly> if you don't converge
  351. # [11:39] <mikekelly> you are BROKEN
  352. # [11:39] <mikekelly> jgraham: because if 'no one' will implement it
  353. # [11:39] <mikekelly> then 'no one' is a client that actually works
  354. # [11:39] * Joins: adactio (n=adactio@host86-163-206-16.range86-163.btcentralplus.com)
  355. # [11:40] <jgraham> That was a word game not a reason
  356. # [11:40] <mikekelly> yeah yeah
  357. # [11:40] <mikekelly> word game
  358. # [11:40] <mikekelly> whatever if you are seriously trying to tell me you don't understand what I am saying then you definitely shouldn't be at the level of responsibility you apparently have
  359. # [11:41] <jgraham> It seems like the main reason is so that you can have a feeling of self-satisfaction about being on the self-stated moral high ground
  360. # [11:41] <mikekelly> that is not a coherent form of governance
  361. # [11:41] * jgraham has no responsibility for anything much
  362. # [11:41] <mikekelly> it's just appealing to your insufficiecies
  363. # [11:41] <mikekelly> guess what
  364. # [11:41] <mikekelly> progress hurts
  365. # [11:42] <mikekelly> if you get accomodated you will continue, as a group, to take the piss and do whatever you want
  366. # [11:42] <mikekelly> which is a bullshit situation, you should read the fking spec and implement it properly
  367. # [11:42] <mikekelly> I fail to see how and why it should be any other way
  368. # [11:43] <mikekelly> at least from the perspective of society
  369. # [11:43] <mikekelly> rather than
  370. # [11:43] <mikekelly> 'the guys who work for browsers and want things they way they think it should be'
  371. # [11:43] <zcorpan_> my job is to read the fking spec and make sure opera implements it properly (for <video> atm)
  372. # [11:43] <mikekelly> yeah - those all important video tags
  373. # [11:43] <mikekelly> thank god for them
  374. # [11:43] <mikekelly> can't wait for video in web pages
  375. # [11:44] <zcorpan_> glad to hear it :)
  376. # [11:44] <mikekelly> ...
  377. # [11:45] <mikekelly> jgraham: it's not moral it's common sense
  378. # [11:45] <mikekelly> the spec should be there to serve as a guide - once a descision is made the spec changes and clients have to conform
  379. # [11:45] <mikekelly> if tha twas actually respected maybe a descision could be made on codecs
  380. # [11:45] <mikekelly> and you guys can get your act togather
  381. # [11:46] <mikekelly> rather than bitching and pulling hair and getting the world NOWHERE
  382. # [11:46] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, the problem is, clients can't be forced to conform.
  383. # [11:46] * Parts: zcorpan_ (n=zcorpan@c83-252-193-59.bredband.comhem.se)
  384. # [11:46] <AryehGregor> And the reality is they won't unless they want to.
  385. # [11:46] <AryehGregor> This was demonstrated pretty conclusively by, e.g., XHTML .
  386. # [11:46] <AryehGregor> 2.
  387. # [11:46] <mikekelly> yes they can that's what bugs are supposed to be logged for
  388. # [11:46] <AryehGregor> XHTML 2.
  389. # [11:47] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, can be closed WONTFIX.
  390. # [11:47] <AryehGregor> The W3C can't force anyone to follow its specs.
  391. # [11:47] <mikekelly> yeah XHTML2 doesn't work in the context of
  392. # [11:47] <AryehGregor> Historically, browsers often ignore parts of specs they don't want to implement.
  393. # [11:47] <mikekelly> browser guys going
  394. # [11:47] * Quits: virtuelv_ (n=virtuelv@pat-tdc.opera.com) ("Ex-Chat")
  395. # [11:47] <mikekelly> "hmm... HTML5 is a gang bang where we just do what we want.. XHTML seems like a painin the arse and my opinion won't be importan.."
  396. # [11:47] <mikekelly> hmm...
  397. # [11:47] <mikekelly> I wonder..
  398. # [11:48] * Joins: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@pat-tdc.opera.com)
  399. # [11:48] <mikekelly> that is why
  400. # [11:48] <AryehGregor> . . .
  401. # [11:48] <mikekelly> dress it up how you want that's the blatant reality
  402. # [11:48] <AryehGregor> The reality is there's no point in speccing something that won't be implemented.
  403. # [11:48] <mikekelly> in the context of some slut called HTML5
  404. # [11:48] <AryehGregor> Browser implementers can and do say "no, we won't implement that because the spec is stupid".
  405. # [11:48] <AryehGregor> They don't blindly follow specs.
  406. # [11:48] <AryehGregor> So there's no point in writing a spec unless you think they'll follow it.
  407. # [11:48] <mikekelly> ok well then thye are shockingly bad clients
  408. # [11:49] <mikekelly> that is not an acceptable situation
  409. # [11:49] <mikekelly> given how much social responsibility they have
  410. # [11:49] <AryehGregor> Okay, well, so what do you propose we do?
  411. # [11:49] <mikekelly> DEFINE A SPEC
  412. # [11:49] <mikekelly> AND STICK TO IT
  413. # [11:49] <AryehGregor> "We" as in spec writers.
  414. # [11:49] <AryehGregor> We can't "stick to it" if we aren't writing the browsers.
  415. # [11:49] <mikekelly> if clients don't stick to it
  416. # [11:49] <mikekelly> log bugs
  417. # [11:49] <AryehGregor> And if they refuse to fix them?
  418. # [11:49] <mikekelly> they are buggy clients
  419. # [11:50] <AryehGregor> Okay, great, so then what?
  420. # [11:50] <AryehGregor> You haven't gained anything except the right to call them buggy.
  421. # [11:50] <AryehGregor> That doesn't help anyone much.
  422. # [11:50] <mikekelly> that's something
  423. # [11:50] <mikekelly> at least that gives some leverage
  424. # [11:50] <mikekelly> whether that is ever resolved is another issue
  425. # [11:50] <mikekelly> not for HTML spec to worry about
  426. # [11:50] <AryehGregor> Surely the only important one?
  427. # [11:50] <mikekelly> nol..
  428. # [11:50] <mikekelly> that is a practicality
  429. # [11:51] <mikekelly> and a completely differnet governance issue
  430. # [11:51] <AryehGregor> So you're saying specs should spec what's right in theory, while totally ignoring practical utility?
  431. # [11:51] <mikekelly> there is no need for them to be coupled together
  432. # [11:51] <mikekelly> other than your desire to be powerful
  433. # [11:51] <AryehGregor> Okay, well, we're going to have to just agree to disagree.
  434. # [11:51] <mikekelly> oh OK THEN
  435. # [11:51] <mikekelly> nevemrind your social responsibility
  436. # [11:51] <mikekelly> we'll just disagree.
  437. # [11:52] <mikekelly> good grief.
  438. # [11:52] * Quits: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B01660A.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  439. # [11:53] <AryehGregor> <zcorpan_> that's not how opera react at least <-- So how does Opera react to bug reports? Because I filed one a while back on how input validation is unusable on password fields in Opera (prints the entered value in plaintext), but never got a response.
  440. # [11:53] <mikekelly> do you not even understand how some people might read you saying that and take exception to it?
  441. # [11:54] <jgraham> AryehGregor: Do you have a bug number?
  442. # [11:54] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, I understand, and think they're simply wrong. Anyone who thinks specs have moral authority, rather than merely being useful tools that improve consistency and thereby help out users and authors, is living in a fantasy world.
  443. # [11:55] <mikekelly> a fantasy world where browser developers have some level of humility?
  444. # [11:55] <mikekelly> I see how that works
  445. # [11:55] <AryehGregor> A fantasy world where browser developers have no right to an independent opinion on what's best for their users.
  446. # [11:55] <mikekelly> what?
  447. # [11:55] <AryehGregor> Where they won't ignore specs that they think are bad.
  448. # [11:56] <AryehGregor> jgraham, DSK-262266
  449. # [11:56] <mikekelly> they have no right to that but yet they can opt to completely ignore the spec they are supposed to conform to?
  450. # [11:56] <mikekelly> that doesnt make any sense
  451. # [11:56] <AryehGregor> Who says they're supposed to conform to it?
  452. # [11:56] <AryehGregor> Is the W3C invested with God-given moral authority?
  453. # [11:56] <mikekelly> good lord.
  454. # [11:56] <AryehGregor> Are you ready to agree to disagree yet? :)
  455. # [11:56] <mikekelly> I'd rather they have authority than a bunch of uppity browser devs
  456. # [11:56] <mikekelly> at least there's some collective process invovled
  457. # [11:56] <AryehGregor> Why?
  458. # [11:57] <mikekelly> because other parties can direct the technology
  459. # [11:57] <AryehGregor> Why is that better than competition?
  460. # [11:57] <mikekelly> and not just dorks on the client side
  461. # [11:57] <mikekelly> HTML is releveant to server side
  462. # [11:57] <mikekelly> and to intemediaries aswell
  463. # [11:57] <mikekelly> because HTML governs the behaviour between client and server
  464. # [11:57] <mikekelly> so if you're building intermediaries like caches
  465. # [11:57] <mikekelly> that has a direct effect on how the systems behave
  466. # [11:57] <mikekelly> and what you can achieve with your technology
  467. # [11:58] <mikekelly> but you, as a browser vendor, are very unlikely to appreciate that
  468. # [11:58] <mikekelly> you need guidance
  469. # [11:58] <mikekelly> and help
  470. # [11:58] <AryehGregor> Well, whatever. This is pointless. I'd tell you to go join the XHTML Working Group, except the W3C has recognized that approach is pointless and is discontinuing it.
  471. # [11:58] <mikekelly> it's completely impractical to expect you to appreciate these itricacies
  472. # [11:58] <mikekelly> yeah POINTLESS
  473. # [11:58] <mikekelly> oh well
  474. # [11:58] <AryehGregor> I'm not a browser vendor, by the way.
  475. # [11:58] <AryehGregor> I'm a web developer.
  476. # [11:58] <mikekelly> right ok
  477. # [11:58] <mikekelly> well then your response to my explanation there is
  478. # [11:58] <mikekelly> "this is pointless"
  479. # [11:58] <mikekelly> terrific.
  480. # [11:59] <mikekelly> this is not some stupid little dork game we are playing - this is directly affecting society
  481. # [12:00] <mikekelly> I think, if what youa re describing is true, that the governance around HTML5 is seriously wrong
  482. # [12:00] <mikekelly> from a societal perspective
  483. # [12:00] <mikekelly> not from a browser vendor perspective.
  484. # [12:01] <mikekelly> and that is a pretty big assertion so you'd do well to provide evidence that is not the case.
  485. # [12:02] <mikekelly> pelase.
  486. # [12:02] <mikekelly> please^
  487. # [12:04] <AryehGregor> All I can say is that as a web developer, I think the HTML5 process has produced a drastically better standard much faster than any other standards process I've been involved with.
  488. # [12:04] <mikekelly> if you are referring to XHTML2 it is hardly suprising that struggled when HTML5 provided an excuse to follow a path of less resistence
  489. # [12:04] <mikekelly> that is what happened.
  490. # [12:05] <mikekelly> not only less resistence - more power
  491. # [12:05] <mikekelly> pretty sad.
  492. # [12:05] <mikekelly> but at least we have video tags, I guess.
  493. # [12:06] * Joins: svl (n=me@g227072226.adsl.alicedsl.de)
  494. # [12:06] <mikekelly> XHTML = organic food shop, HTML5 = McDonalds
  495. # [12:07] <mikekelly> guess where the kids go.
  496. # [12:08] * Joins: virtuelv_ (n=virtuelv@125.175.251.212.customer.cdi.no)
  497. # [12:13] * Quits: virtuelv (n=virtuelv@pat-tdc.opera.com) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  498. # [12:15] * Quits: webben (n=benh@nat/yahoo/x-hdqjvduytyshogee) (Remote closed the connection)
  499. # [12:15] * Joins: webben (n=benh@nat/yahoo/x-atkrlkperkhychhp)
  500. # [12:20] * Joins: mat_t_ (n=mattomas@91.189.88.12)
  501. # [12:22] <annevk2> lol
  502. # [12:24] <mikekelly> :)
  503. # [12:25] <mikekelly> so.. anyone want to explain why the current governance of HTML5 is actually in the best interests of society?
  504. # [12:25] * Philip` prefers inorganic food shops
  505. # [12:25] <Philip`> The plastic gives it a nice crunch
  506. # [12:25] <AryehGregor> Mmm, sodium chloride.
  507. # [12:26] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, you've made it abundantly clear that you violently disagree with us on all possible levels, and it's obvious that there's no point in discussing it. Sorry.
  508. # [12:26] <hsivonen> annevk2: OK. that's a bit of a problem. We got a bug report about <base> and I don't find spec text to refer to.
  509. # [12:26] <mikekelly> what? I'm asking you to make your point so I can understand it
  510. # [12:26] <annevk2> hsivonen, agreed
  511. # [12:26] <AryehGregor> (Oh, wait, am I not allowed to say that there's no point in discussing something? Or is that only verboten in the W3C? :) )
  512. # [12:26] * Quits: mpt (n=mpt@canonical/mpt) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  513. # [12:26] <annevk2> damn it, Opera IRC doesn't know /ignore
  514. # [12:27] <mikekelly> I disagree because nothing has been explained
  515. # [12:27] <mikekelly> annevk2: don't be pathetic.
  516. # [12:27] <jgraham> irssi ftw :)
  517. # [12:27] * Joins: mpt (n=mpt@canonical/mpt)
  518. # [12:28] <mikekelly> what exactly is so unreasonable about that question? if you can't answer it you might have some reflecting to do
  519. # [12:28] <AryehGregor> . . .
  520. # [12:28] * Quits: mat_t (n=mattomas@91.189.88.12) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  521. # [12:28] <AryehGregor> Wait, no one has registered #whatwg?
  522. # [12:28] <AryehGregor> That seems like a bad idea?
  523. # [12:28] <hsivonen> AryehGregor: we haven't had ops here in years
  524. # [12:29] <jgraham> HAve we ever>
  525. # [12:29] <Philip`> AryehGregor: It's bad if somebody else is able to register it and get ops, despite there being lots of non-ops in here
  526. # [12:29] <jgraham> s/>/?/
  527. # [12:29] <AryehGregor> Well, but what if everyone is forced out of the channel somehow, and someone takes it over? I guess freenode would sort it out by request in that case, practically speaking.
  528. # [12:29] <Philip`> (Apparently that's possible on QuakeNet)
  529. # [12:29] <hsivonen> jgraham: surely the first person who /joined #whatwg became an op for a while?
  530. # [12:29] <AryehGregor> Interesting.
  531. # [12:30] <mikekelly> why exactly do you feel the need for ops?
  532. # [12:30] <mikekelly> :)
  533. # [12:30] <Philip`> AryehGregor: That seems very unlikely, given the number of people here :-)
  534. # [12:30] <jgraham> hsivonen: Dunno
  535. # [12:30] <AryehGregor> Philip`, could be some server problem.
  536. # [12:30] <Philip`> AryehGregor: People here are on lots of servers
  537. # [12:30] <AryehGregor> But I guess ultimately you do have ops, you could just ask an IRCop.
  538. # [12:30] <AryehGregor> A server software bug, then, maybe. Whatever.
  539. # [12:30] <Philip`> AryehGregor: We could always move to #whatwg2 anyway
  540. # [12:30] <jgraham> #secret0treehouse
  541. # [12:30] <AryehGregor> Anyway, IRCops here are actually friendly and helpful and sane, unlike on QuakeNet, so it's probably not an issue.
  542. # [12:30] <Philip`> It's not the channel name has any importance
  543. # [12:31] <AryehGregor> Deliciously anarchic, really. A quite big channel working with no ops.
  544. # [12:31] <AryehGregor> That's better than the Wikipedia-related channels.
  545. # [12:31] <Philip`> It's survived longer than the open Twitter account
  546. # [12:31] <gsnedders|work> mikekelly: The practical good that will come out of the existence of the HTML 5 spec is the ability for new browsers to emerge that are compatible with the existing web content without having to spend years reverse-engineering other browsers.
  547. # [12:32] <mikekelly> .. lol
  548. # [12:32] <mikekelly> :)
  549. # [12:32] <Philip`> gsnedders|work: Does that mean if nobody creates a new browser in the future, because Gecko and WebKit are good enough, that HTML 5 will provide no practical good?
  550. # [12:32] <mikekelly> bingo!
  551. # [12:33] <jgraham> Philip`: Was that just a thinly veiled way of saying that Presto isn't good enough?
  552. # [12:33] <AryehGregor> jgraham, was that just a thinly-veiled way of saying that Trident isn't good enough?
  553. # [12:34] <AryehGregor> Or would you prefer to say that explicitly? :P
  554. # [12:34] <jgraham> AryehGregor: Nah, I will say that explicitly
  555. # [12:34] <jgraham> With demos if need be
  556. # [12:34] <mikekelly> it's hardly suprising Trident has such distain for the specs
  557. # [12:34] <mikekelly> they just have unfashionable disdain
  558. # [12:34] <Philip`> jgraham: No, just saying that if someone wants to make a new browser-like thing in the future, Presto isn't useful as a base for them to build it on, whereas Gecko and WebKit are (since they're open source)
  559. # [12:35] <Philip`> (I probably should have said "if nobody creates a new browser engine in the future")
  560. # [12:35] <AryehGregor> Well, except if you want to write something closed-source.
  561. # [12:35] <AryehGregor> Then you can't look at the source code too closely.
  562. # [12:35] <mikekelly> well then you pay the price
  563. # [12:35] <mikekelly> 'tough shit' is the technical phrase for that I think
  564. # [12:35] <AryehGregor> Or if you want to write something BSD-licensed. Or whatever.
  565. # [12:35] <Philip`> and given the complexity of building browser engines (regardless of whether you've got a spec to follow), people probably won't build browser engines when they can reuse the free ones that are already available
  566. # [12:35] <AryehGregor> (okay, I don't like the BSD license either, so I'm not going to cry over that)
  567. # [12:35] <jgraham> Philip`: Hmm? It's not obvious why the opensourciness of existing browser engines is a big factor when creating a novel browser engine
  568. # [12:36] <AryehGregor> jgraham, well, practically speaking, the last two major new browsers to be deployed just used existing open-source browser engines.
  569. # [12:36] <mikekelly> :)
  570. # [12:36] <jgraham> Yeah I agree that existing browser engines may cause you to not bother crating a new one
  571. # [12:36] <gsnedders|work> mikekelly: In that case HTML 5 will lead to browsers becoming interoperable, which should reduce the abundance of pages that only work in the browser they are designed for.
  572. # [12:36] <AryehGregor> Even though Apple would not have been predisposed a priori to use an open-source rendering engine.
  573. # [12:36] <Philip`> jgraham: It seems like a factor when building a new browser front-end (reusing an engine), because it's easier and cheaper than sorting out complex licensing deals
  574. # [12:37] <jgraham> Either by licensing a commercial one or reusing an open source one
  575. # [12:37] <mikekelly> gsnedders|work: isn't that what the doctype is for?
  576. # [12:37] <Philip`> hence loads of people writing WebKit-based mobile browsers
  577. # [12:37] <mikekelly> it's ridiculous - HTML5 wont be backwards compatible so what point are you trying to make here?
  578. # [12:37] <AryehGregor> The last time anyone actually wrote a serious new HTML renderer from scratch was sometime in the 1990s, I suspect.
  579. # [12:38] <AryehGregor> ("serious" meaning "eventually saw significant adoption in web browsers", just to make it clear how much I'm hedging here)
  580. # [12:38] <mikekelly> exactly
  581. # [12:38] <gsnedders|work> mikekelly: The DOCTYPE merely defines the valid structure of the document — it says nothing about how to process the document, or what things mean, or how to display them, or how they map onto DOM APIs…
  582. # [12:38] <jgraham> Philip`: Hmm I think I was misunderstanding you a bit
  583. # [12:38] <AryehGregor> But practically speaking, HTML5 aims to improve consistency among existing browsers too.
  584. # [12:38] <Philip`> jgraham: I was probably misunderstanding and misexplaining myself, too
  585. # [12:38] <AryehGregor> In regards to, e.g., parsing, which has been an undocumented and non-interoperable mess forever.
  586. # [12:38] <mikekelly> gsnedders|work: what point are you making?
  587. # [12:39] <mikekelly> that we have to live in the shadow of crappy old html forever?
  588. # [12:39] <hsivonen> wow mookid has caused quite a discussion again
  589. # [12:40] <gsnedders|work> mikekelly: Unless you can see an viable way of getting rid of crappy old html, yes.
  590. # [12:40] <mikekelly> lol.
  591. # [12:40] <Philip`> jgraham: I think my idea was: Writing browser engines is hard (despite HTML5 helping). People want to write browsers, not engines. There are free, good-enough engines (Gecko, WebKit) they can reuse. So they will probably use those, instead of writing their own, and HTML5 won't help them much
  592. # [12:40] <gsnedders|work> I'm sure most, and probably all, browser vendors would love to do so.
  593. # [12:41] <mikekelly> gsnedders|work: so why not have a way to let applications be specific
  594. # [12:41] <mikekelly> by having an internet media type assigned for strict html5
  595. # [12:41] <jgraham> hsivonen: Yeah it seems that it is hard to protect against this sort of discussion growing beyond reasonable bounds
  596. # [12:41] <Philip`> jgraham: and so the argument about HTML5 helping people write new browser engines seems a bit theoretical
  597. # [12:41] <jgraham> Philip`: Agreed
  598. # [12:42] <mikekelly> jgraham: yeah you shuold just ban me for 'being a douche'
  599. # [12:42] <jgraham> But it becomes non-theoretical the first time it happens
  600. # [12:42] <mikekelly> cmon..
  601. # [12:42] <gsnedders|work> mikekelly: We already have that with the XML serialization of HTML 4.01, and of the XML serialization of HTML 5
  602. # [12:42] <mikekelly> so what is the problem?
  603. # [12:42] <Philip`> (Lots of stuff in HTML5 is useful for non-browser UAs, which people write frequently, but lots more (like all the script-related stuff) is only really useful for browsers)
  604. # [12:43] <jgraham> (and the argument about it helping existing browsers come closer to interoperability is non-theoretical)
  605. # [12:43] <Philip`> jgraham: That's assuming it ever happens a first time :-)
  606. # [12:43] <Philip`> jgraham: (That's true, but it's a different argument)
  607. # [12:43] <mikekelly> gsnedders|work: my proposal involve new attributes or just an updating of the signficance of the existing type attribute
  608. # [12:44] <mikekelly> I still don't understand the point you are making
  609. # [12:44] <jgraham> (I think it's not really a different argument. A novel browser engine is just a special case of "helps UAs become more interoperable")
  610. # [12:45] <AryehGregor> jgraham, Philip`: well, people have written *browsers* mostly from scratch recently. They just haven't written *renderers* from scratch. A lot of Safari's and Chromium's actual browser-y code, including some stuff that HTML5 specs, was written from scratch, right?
  611. # [12:45] <mikekelly> if you reject every change on the basis that it might potentially cause pain somewhere - would you ever change anything at all?!
  612. # [12:45] <AryehGregor> Also, for that matter, Gecko looks like it will be switching to a new parser written from scratch, based precisely on HTML5.
  613. # [12:46] <AryehGregor> So actually this seems like a somewhat practical argument.
  614. # [12:46] <mikekelly> it's a blanket excuse for not having to implement changes you don't think are necessary
  615. # [12:47] <mikekelly> important word being *think*
  616. # [12:47] <Philip`> AryehGregor: Adding/updating features to/in existing browser engines seems like quite a different way of framing the argument than talking about helping people write new browser engines
  617. # [12:48] <AryehGregor> Chrome and Safari are new browser engines. Except for certain (rather large) components.
  618. # [12:48] <AryehGregor> Like the entire parsing and rendering part.
  619. # [12:48] <Philip`> e.g. it doesn't result in ideas about increasing competition in the browser engine space, because there's always going to be the same handful of engines
  620. # [12:48] <AryehGregor> Well, it remains to be seen.
  621. # [12:49] <AryehGregor> Maybe HTML5 will prompt more new engines to be written.
  622. # [12:49] <AryehGregor> It lowers the bar drastically.
  623. # [12:49] <Philip`> AryehGregor: I'm using the term "[browser] engine" to mean the entire parsing and rendering etc part
  624. # [12:49] * AryehGregor notes "etc"
  625. # [12:50] <Philip`> (not the front-end UI stuff, and not the back-end OS-dependent stuff like HTTP implementations and whatever)
  626. # [12:50] <hsivonen> AryehGregor: I Chrome to use the same engine as Safari
  627. # [12:50] * Philip` wonders how drastic the reduction really is, because implementing the whole spec still seems really really hard even when it's all written down
  628. # [12:51] <AryehGregor> hsivonen, parse error, unexpected noun immediately following pronoun.
  629. # [12:51] <hsivonen> *I consider
  630. # [12:51] <AryehGregor> Well, it uses the same parsing and rendering engine, so . . . yeah, most of what HTML5 actually specs.
  631. # [12:51] <AryehGregor> . . . anyway, who knows.
  632. # [12:51] <AryehGregor> There are other reasons to spec things carefully.
  633. # [12:51] <AryehGregor> Even existing vendors often find themselves reverse-engineering other browsers.
  634. # [12:52] <AryehGregor> HTML5 should hopefully get all the reverse-engineering done in one place for good, for the sake of old and new browsers alike.
  635. # [12:52] * Philip` isn't talking about other reasons, just about the claimed reason that it will greatly help competitive new browser[ engine]s
  636. # [12:52] <hsivonen> Philip`: btw, what's your guess on how the IE9 mode of IE9 is being developed?
  637. # [12:53] <Philip`> hsivonen: I guess they're not starting from scratch
  638. # [12:53] <jgraham> AryehGregor: That seems like the wrong parse error because you could say "I, James, am a fish" and, admittedly that requires commas but if you don't have the level of error correcting needed to fix that you will never understand IRC
  639. # [12:53] <AryehGregor> Hmm.
  640. # [12:54] <AryehGregor> Yeah, you're right, the parse error really occurs at "to".
  641. # [12:54] <hsivonen> Philip`: I wonder, though, if their delta to IE8 mode is reverse-engineering-based or spec-based
  642. # [12:54] <AryehGregor> Except of course it doesn't occur at any specific place.
  643. # [12:54] <mikekelly> gsnedders|work: so, ignoring the stuff about browsers willing to implement a change, what exactly is the problem create by the change in signficance of the type header to be more inline with HTTP and/or adding optional attributes for conneg ?? Please can someone answer this
  644. # [12:54] <jgraham> :)
  645. # [12:54] <AryehGregor> It's more of a general failure of error-correction mechanisms.
  646. # [12:55] <AryehGregor> Crazy unparseable human language.
  647. # [12:55] <jgraham> Except that I error corrected to the right result but with low confidence
  648. # [12:55] <jgraham> But high enough not to bother asking
  649. # [12:55] <AryehGregor> hsivonen, I hope they can use the same CSS engine for both, and mostly deploy JS/parsing fixes. CSS seems to be nailed down pretty well in IE8.
  650. # [12:55] <mikekelly> the last thing I got on this was Ian's invalid reference to the HTTP spec about the Accept header being inteended to represent a UA's generic preference
  651. # [12:55] <mikekelly> which is clearly not if you read the spec.
  652. # [12:55] <AryehGregor> I mean, they don't implement as much as I'd like, but what they do implement seems sane.
  653. # [12:56] <AryehGregor> MediaWiki doesn't need any IE8Fixes.css so far.
  654. # [12:56] <AryehGregor> Apparently there are still huge JS incompatibilies, though.
  655. # [12:56] <AryehGregor> I mostly avoid JS, so I don't know personally.
  656. # [13:04] <AryehGregor> $ cd skins/monobook/; ls *Fixes.css
  657. # [13:04] <AryehGregor> FF2Fixes.css IE50Fixes.css IE55Fixes.css IE60Fixes.css IE70Fixes.css IEMacFixes.css Opera6Fixes.css Opera7Fixes.css Opera9Fixes.css
  658. # [13:04] <AryehGregor> No FF3, no WebKit, no IE8, no Opera 10. <3 standards.
  659. # [13:07] * Joins: myakura (n=myakura@p2102-ipbf6805marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp)
  660. # [13:10] <Dashiva> AryehGregor: Well, maybe wikipedia is on the compat list?
  661. # [13:11] <AryehGregor> All the other MediaWiki sites wouldn't be.
  662. # [13:11] <AryehGregor> Probably.
  663. # [13:11] <AryehGregor> Unless it's autodetecting MediaWiki somehow, like WebKit does for our old broken KHTMLFixes.css.
  664. # [13:11] <hsivonen> AryehGregor: do you mean API incompatibilities or JS language incompatibilities?
  665. # [13:11] <AryehGregor> I have no idea.
  666. # [13:11] <AryehGregor> I don't do much JS, as I said.
  667. # [13:18] * Joins: michaelforrest (n=michaelf@91.189.88.12)
  668. # [13:19] * Quits: cedricv (n=cedric@124.197.89.167) (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
  669. # [13:24] * Quits: drunknbass_work (n=aaron@pool-71-107-253-243.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net) ("Leaving...")
  670. # [13:26] <Philip`> http://www.w3.org/News/2009#entry-6526
  671. # [13:26] <Philip`> Hmm, did nobody post about that in public-html?
  672. # [13:27] * Quits: tndH (n=Rob@cpc2-leed18-0-0-cust427.leed.cable.ntl.com) ("ChatZilla 0.9.85-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.1/2008072406]")
  673. # [13:29] <annevk2> don't think so
  674. # [13:29] <hsivonen> Philip`: I got a patent exclusion email in my HTML WG / WHATWG folder
  675. # [13:30] <hsivonen> http://www.w3.org/mid/42366A9C-A6ED-4188-8DB2-CCB777EC5448@w3.org
  676. # [13:32] * Joins: smaug_ (n=chatzill@82.181.150.24)
  677. # [13:33] * Quits: smaug (n=chatzill@82.181.150.24) (Remote closed the connection)
  678. # [13:33] * Philip` can't help but feel that half the RDFa people don't understand levels of abstraction properly, and mix up serialisations and abstract models, e.g. thinking that RDF/XML is relevant when discussing the canonicalisation of RDF literals produced by an RDFa parser
  679. # [13:33] <Philip`> (which also causes confusion when thinking about HTML vs XHTML)
  680. # [13:34] <mikekelly> I don't think there's need for RDFa if HTTP Link header works out ok
  681. # [13:34] <Dashiva> It's okay, because it works
  682. # [13:35] <Philip`> hsivonen: I got that too, but didn't really consider it to be an announcement
  683. # [13:35] <hsivonen> mikekelly: have you expressed that to the RDFa TF?
  684. # [13:35] * Joins: zdobersek (n=zan@cpe-92-37-67-51.dynamic.amis.net)
  685. # [13:35] <mikekelly> no - I discussing this with swig - there's issues like
  686. # [13:35] <mikekelly> you can't do bnodes or literals with Link headers
  687. # [13:36] <mikekelly> but that doesn't massively concern me because I don't think that either of those has value or should exist
  688. # [13:37] <Philip`> You don't need literals anyway, just use resources like http://purl.org/integers/42 instead of literals like "42"
  689. # [13:37] <mikekelly> I'm pretty new to all the semweb stuff though and a lot of the tooling isn't built for distributed approach
  690. # [13:38] <Philip`> (Then there's the bonus that somebody can use OWL to define that 42 is the same as 48)
  691. # [13:38] <Philip`> (which you couldn't do with boring old literals)
  692. # [13:38] <Dashiva> How's that trust coming along?
  693. # [13:39] * hsivonen wonders if algebra can flow out of RDF inference if you figure out the right kind of recursive definition of integers as chains of triples
  694. # [13:40] <Dashiva> So what do we do if Philip` poisons the web with 42 = 48?
  695. # [13:41] <Dashiva> It would ruin everything related to RDF algebra
  696. # [13:41] * Quits: annevk2 (n=annevk@pat.se.opera.com)
  697. # [13:41] <Dashiva> In general, how do you handle triples that are untrue?
  698. # [13:42] * Quits: virtuelv_ (n=virtuelv@125.175.251.212.customer.cdi.no) ("Ex-Chat")
  699. # [13:45] <hsivonen> Dashiva: implementation detail
  700. # [13:46] <Philip`> Dashiva: Maybe you only load inferences from trusted sources
  701. # [13:46] <Philip`> (and then apply it to data loaded from anywhere)
  702. # [13:48] <Dashiva> So now we need decentralized trust too?
  703. # [13:48] <jgraham> Maybe you do inferer trust and then use that to decide how much to trust other things
  704. # [13:48] <jgraham> s/things/statements/
  705. # [13:49] <jgraham> Dashiva: The impression I get is that distributed trust is the holy grail for people who are into such things
  706. # [13:49] <Dashiva> So in other words, it doesn't exist, but would be really nice if it did?
  707. # [13:50] <jgraham> It seems that way to me. At least I don't recall ever actually using anything that would be described as distributed trust. But I do recall lots of talks about it
  708. # [13:50] <gsnedders|work> It's far from impossible to infer trust, but it does more or less have to be calculated on a per-application basis
  709. # [13:51] <gsnedders|work> (You can't really distribute the trust network unless you can trust the source of that network)
  710. # [13:51] <gsnedders|work> (Equally, different applications have different ideal means of calculating trust)
  711. # [13:52] <Dashiva> Is it possible to infer trust on the same level as the data, without meta?
  712. # [13:54] <mikekelly> distributed trust seems pretty simple if you have semantics for linking trusted objects together
  713. # [13:55] <mikekelly> you'd have to be able to dereference all the URIs though
  714. # [13:58] <Dashiva> And you'd need to trust DNS
  715. # [13:59] * Joins: annevk2 (n=annevk@static-88.131.66.111.addr.tdcsong.se)
  716. # [13:59] <hsivonen> http://lost-contact.mit.edu/afs/cern.ch/w3.org/www/Architecture/Letter_1.html
  717. # [13:59] <hsivonen> (via www-archive)
  718. # [14:09] * Quits: murr4y (n=murray@103.84-49-64.nextgentel.com) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  719. # [14:11] * Philip` likes the definition "a trusted system or component is one whose failure can break the security policy"
  720. # [14:12] <Philip`> since it highlights that trust is dangerous and should be minimised
  721. # [14:12] <Dashiva> Single point of betrayal
  722. # [14:13] <Dashiva> >> Huh? There are tons of cases not addressed by microformats (at least, not addressed easily). That's the entire reason stuff like RDFa *exists*.
  723. # [14:13] <Dashiva> > No actually it isn't RDFa exist because people want to embed "specifically" RDF in X/HTML
  724. # [14:17] * Philip` wishes Opera had better multi-monitor support (on Linux at least)
  725. # [14:17] <hsivonen> Philip`: for media queries?
  726. # [14:17] <Dashiva> Hmm
  727. # [14:17] <Dashiva> Non-draconian namespaces, better or worse than draconian namespaces?
  728. # [14:17] <Philip`> hsivonen: No, for stuff like not opening menus that are much taller than the monitor they're on
  729. # [14:18] <hsivonen> multi-monitor is one reason why media queries shouldn't be allowed to query the screen--only the window.
  730. # [14:18] <hsivonen> Dashiva: IIRC, Gecko has non-Draconian namespaces in XML, but I could remember wrong
  731. # [14:19] <Philip`> A while ago it was popping up tab preview thumbnails on the wrong monitor too, but it seems to have got that fixed after I restarted it
  732. # [14:21] <Dashiva> I guess by non-draconian I mean that namespaces coexist with e.g. foo:bar with no xmlns:foo in scope
  733. # [14:22] <hsivonen> Dashiva: doesn't that "work" in Gecko for some definition of "work"?
  734. # [14:22] <hsivonen> in XML
  735. # [14:25] <Dashiva> http://dashiva.net/test/noxmlns.xhtml
  736. # [14:28] * Quits: wakaba_ (n=wakaba_@122.221.184.68) ("Leaving...")
  737. # [14:31] * Joins: zcorpan_ (n=zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  738. # [14:33] <Dashiva> I wonder how "dumb RDF" processors cope with typed RDF
  739. # [14:35] <zcorpan_> hendry: you can't have content inside <source>
  740. # [14:35] * Quits: paul_irish (n=paul_iri@12.182.97.5) ("Leaving...")
  741. # [14:35] <mikekelly> Dashiva: re DNS - http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20091015/dnssec-certs-as-a-replacement-for-ssls-transport-security/
  742. # [14:36] <Philip`> Dashiva: What's a ""dumb RDF" processor"?
  743. # [14:36] <Dashiva> Philip`: one that doesn't understand the ^^ syntax
  744. # [14:36] <Philip`> Dashiva: RDF doesn't have ^^ syntax
  745. # [14:37] <Philip`> (Some serialisations of RDF do, but they're different from RDF)
  746. # [14:37] <Dashiva> One that doesn't know about data types, I mean
  747. # [14:38] <mikekelly> wouldn't it make more sense to just have a mechnaism by which you can include a link element with type="application/rdf+xml" in the header?
  748. # [14:39] <mikekelly> rather than trying to embed it in html..
  749. # [14:39] * Joins: csarven (n=csarven@ip42-80-212-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl)
  750. # [14:39] * Joins: pmuellr (n=pmuellr@nat/ibm/x-fwvuwqprwvfmgrpy)
  751. # [14:39] <Dashiva> mikekelly: That's risky because the metadata can easily get out of sync
  752. # [14:39] * Parts: zcorpan_ (n=zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  753. # [14:40] <mikekelly> ? don't understand what you mean by that
  754. # [14:40] <Dashiva> Embedded metadata is more reliable because it reflects the visible content
  755. # [14:40] <mikekelly> that's an artificial benefit
  756. # [14:40] <mikekelly> I don't think that is actually the case
  757. # [14:41] <Philip`> Dashiva: They ought to know enough about datatypes to preserve the datatypes that are associated with literals, but they can treat literals as opaque blobs or manipulate them as strings without having to understand the meaning of the datatype
  758. # [14:41] <Dashiva> I see
  759. # [14:41] <Dashiva> mikekelly: It's not artificial at all
  760. # [14:42] * Parts: annevk2 (n=annevk@static-88.131.66.111.addr.tdcsong.se)
  761. # [14:42] <Dashiva> When you have two copies of the same data, they can disagree. If there's only one, no disagreement is possible.
  762. # [14:42] <mikekelly> I don't think that embedding metadata makes it any more or less likely to reflect content
  763. # [14:43] <Philip`> It's not just about embedding, it's about reusing data
  764. # [14:44] <Dashiva> <span itemprop=author>Your name</span> seems highly likely to reflect
  765. # [14:45] <mikekelly> but that is probably generated from some model
  766. # [14:45] <mikekelly> which is shared
  767. # [14:45] <mikekelly> and the data persisted between the two
  768. # [14:46] <Dashiva> Well, first you have to assume it's generated. And then you have to assume nobody introduces redundancies by entering a name directly instead of using ${author}
  769. # [14:48] <mikekelly> yeah people can break good technology with bad practice
  770. # [14:48] <Philip`> Lots of it isn't generated from some model - it's stuff like licensing information copied-and-pasted into static HTML pages
  771. # [14:49] <mikekelly> ok well fair enough if you want to accomodate that kind of system then good luck to you
  772. # [14:49] <Dashiva> That's kind of what the web is for
  773. # [14:49] <Dashiva> Accomodating people
  774. # [14:49] <mikekelly> not rreeeeaaally
  775. # [14:50] <mikekelly> well actually if that's the case can we get the type attribute definition changed so I can do HTTP conneg?
  776. # [14:50] * Joins: murr4y (n=murray@103.84-49-64.nextgentel.com)
  777. # [14:50] <mikekelly> since we're all about accomodation
  778. # [14:50] <Dashiva> No, because that's accomodating quirky experts, not people
  779. # [14:51] <mikekelly> yeah
  780. # [14:51] <mikekelly> I'm not people
  781. # [14:51] <mikekelly> and the people who use my systems arent people
  782. # [14:51] <mikekelly> makes perfect sense.
  783. # [14:52] <mikekelly> anyway - back to the RDF thing
  784. # [14:52] <mikekelly> you're kind of stretching the definition of a resource is your RDF representation is not directly tied to the content it is augmenting
  785. # [14:52] <mikekelly> s/is/if
  786. # [14:53] <Philip`> Oh no, not the definition of resource :-(
  787. # [14:54] <Dashiva> The precious definition of a resource
  788. # [14:54] <Philip`> (There was a fun thread on public-html about the definition of resource recently)
  789. # [14:54] * Joins: annevk2 (n=annevk@pat.se.opera.com)
  790. # [14:54] <Dashiva> You call that fun?
  791. # [14:54] <mikekelly> didn't read it
  792. # [14:54] <mikekelly> probably full of The Stupid(tm)
  793. # [14:56] <mikekelly> why was that being discussed?
  794. # [14:56] <Philip`> Dashiva: Ironically
  795. # [14:56] <Dashiva> Because the precious definition of a resource was under attack
  796. # [14:58] <jgraham> Ironically the real-world definition of a resource is practically "that which is precious"
  797. # [14:59] <mikekelly> actually it's just "a concept that can be represented by some (internet) media type"
  798. # [15:00] <mikekelly> by some/at least one
  799. # [15:02] <mikekelly> the choice over resource identification and conneg should be up to system implementors
  800. # [15:04] <mikekelly> there isn't any practical choice at the moment, all your representations have to be resources in their own right - *because* html and browsers force you to do it that way
  801. # [15:05] <annevk2> wow, conneg bs is still going on?
  802. # [15:05] <annevk2> way to go
  803. # [15:05] <mikekelly> well I'm yet to get a coherent response
  804. # [15:05] <mikekelly> and the only hint of consideration came from someone last night who said they wouldn't be opposed to accomodating this approach
  805. # [15:06] <mikekelly> recent conversation on another mailing list provided evidence that others have had to find ways to get around this restriction, and would be much better off if the problem was solved
  806. # [15:07] <mikekelly> the issue was raised against the HTML5 spec and Ian instantly resolved it for no apparent reason
  807. # [15:07] <mikekelly> he then gave a response in which he completely misrepresented the HTTP spec in his justification
  808. # [15:08] <mikekelly> which I pointed out, and his only constructive response was 'you have to escalate this to the chair if you want to go any further'
  809. # [15:08] <mikekelly> not very helpful.
  810. # [15:09] * Quits: nessy (n=Adium@203-158-45-196.dyn.iinet.net.au) ("Leaving.")
  811. # [15:09] <Philip`> annevk2: There was a detour through RDFa before getting back to conneg
  812. # [15:09] <annevk2> ah I see
  813. # [15:09] <annevk2> RDFa is fun too of course
  814. # [15:10] <annevk2> and slightly less theoretical than the whole conneg nonsense
  815. # [15:10] <Philip`> Exceedingly
  816. # [15:10] <mikekelly> why are you calling it nonsense?
  817. # [15:10] <mikekelly> if it's nonsense
  818. # [15:10] <mikekelly> why don't you drop the rhetoric and explain why that is the case
  819. # [15:10] <AryehGregor> Wow, this is still going on?
  820. # [15:10] * Philip` is also trying to work out why the SpiderMonkey API doesn't have anything equivalent to the "new" operator
  821. # [15:11] <hsivonen> AryehGregor: isn't it awesome how this same discussion repeats itself and always at length?
  822. # [15:11] <mikekelly> what the hell am I supposed to do in this situation.. I've explained myself several times, had no response as to why that perspective is wrong and..
  823. # [15:11] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, you disagree with the whole WHATWG on a completely fundamental level. Try the W3C, like the public-html mailing list.
  824. # [15:11] <mikekelly> nothing happens
  825. # [15:12] <hsivonen> AryehGregor: nooooo!
  826. # [15:12] * Quits: borismus (n=borismus@c-98-219-161-78.hsd1.pa.comcast.net)
  827. # [15:12] <AryehGregor> hsivonen, yeah, I shouldn't be surprised, I guess. This discussion has really been going on for several years now, so it shouldn't be remarkable that one particular instance goes on for a couple of hours.
  828. # [15:12] <mikekelly> well if that is the case you should have lots of counter points to make
  829. # [15:12] <Philip`> AryehGregor: This discussion only goes on when mikekelly is here
  830. # [15:12] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, this is called "we disagree and can't come to an agreement". It happens sometimes in real life, sadly.
  831. # [15:12] <mikekelly> of which you've currently provided a big fat 0
  832. # [15:13] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, we did, you just ignored them or rejected them.
  833. # [15:13] <mikekelly> such as..?
  834. # [15:13] <mikekelly> feel free to comment on the bug
  835. # [15:13] * Philip` suggests not going through them all again on IRC
  836. # [15:13] <mikekelly> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7697
  837. # [15:13] <daedb> I'm gonna need more popcorn
  838. # [15:13] <mikekelly> why don't you just give the top 2 reasons
  839. # [15:14] <mikekelly> why its a bad idea
  840. # [15:14] * annevk2 finds that pretending Opera has /ignore works pretty well
  841. # [15:14] <mikekelly> ...?
  842. # [15:14] * Joins: smaug (n=chatzill@82.181.150.24)
  843. # [15:14] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, I don't know about the specific issue, I can only talk about the philosophical questions you raised here just now.
  844. # [15:15] <mikekelly> ok well forget that I don't care that much, I think it's pretty immoral but it's not important
  845. # [15:15] <AryehGregor> Okay, hmm.
  846. # [15:15] <mikekelly> so going back to this conneg thing..
  847. # [15:15] <mikekelly> if you guys want me to stop
  848. # [15:15] <mikekelly> why don't you actually give a coherent response
  849. # [15:16] <AryehGregor> So you're saying that you should be able to do <img src="foo" type="image/jpeg"> <img src="foo" type="image/png"> and have the first one be JPEG and the second PNG based on content negotiation?
  850. # [15:16] <mikekelly> correct.
  851. # [15:16] <jgraham> Philip`: It doesn't have anything called construct?
  852. # [15:16] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, FWIW, I think you'd have gotten a coherent response much earlier if you hadn't launched into tirades about moral responsibility and so on.
  853. # [15:17] <mikekelly> well we launched straight into 'you cant raise that with the spec until you convince browser vendors its a good idea'
  854. # [15:17] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, what you're suggesting doesn't seem to be the intended purpose of content negotiation. conneg is supposed to allow the server to provide one of several resources that are interchangeable, in whatever format is most convenient for it.
  855. # [15:17] <AryehGregor> What's the advantage to doing what you suggest instead of <img src="foo.jpg"><img src="foo.png">?
  856. # [15:17] <mikekelly> :)
  857. # [15:17] <mikekelly> there's a huge difference
  858. # [15:17] <mikekelly> one is representations of a resource
  859. # [15:17] <mikekelly> the other is two resources
  860. # [15:17] <AryehGregor> Ah.
  861. # [15:17] <mikekelly> a better example
  862. # [15:18] <AryehGregor> If it's really the same resource, why would you want to force particular versions of it to be used? That suggests they aren't really interchangeable and are different resources to begin with.
  863. # [15:18] <mikekelly> <a href="/blog" type="application/atom+xml"> and <a href="/blog" type="text/html">
  864. # [15:18] <AryehGregor> Although, for what it's worth, HTML5 deliberately ignores the entire concept of resources as a pointless abstraction.
  865. # [15:18] <mikekelly> no in the context of a particular application flow
  866. # [15:18] <mikekelly> not ^
  867. # [15:18] <mikekelly> so if I have a homepage and want to link to blog and atom feed as above
  868. # [15:18] <jgraham> Philip`: JS_ConstructObject?
  869. # [15:19] <mikekelly> atom/html are representations of my blog
  870. # [15:19] <Philip`> jgraham: It has JS_ConstructObject, but that's for native C classes and not for calling JS constructors
  871. # [15:19] <AryehGregor> Atom and HTML are totally different formats. They can't possibly represent the same resource, that just makes no sense. Reading the HTML and reading the feed are very different operations.
  872. # [15:19] <mikekelly> you're wrong
  873. # [15:19] <AryehGregor> Also FWIW, though, HTML5 gives an algorithm allowing HTML to be used as a feed format, so you could just serve HTML for both when that's supported.
  874. # [15:19] <jgraham> Philip`: Oh.
  875. # [15:20] <mikekelly> atom and html are supposed to be distinct otherwise they wouldnt be distinct representations
  876. # [15:20] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, tip: saying things like "you're wrong" rather than "I think you're mistaken" is likely to get people to ignore you.
  877. # [15:20] <mikekelly> atom and html are supposed to be distinct otherwise they wouldnt be distinct representations
  878. # [15:20] <AryehGregor> Diplomacy helps.
  879. # [15:20] <mikekelly> how can you have distinct representations that are the same?
  880. # [15:20] <mikekelly> that doesnt make any sense.
  881. # [15:20] <jgraham> Philip`: Is JS_NewObject wrong too?
  882. # [15:20] <AryehGregor> They can be the same logical "thing" encoded in two different formats, like JPEG and PNG.
  883. # [15:20] <Philip`> jgraham: The documentation for JS_ConstructObject* says "Neither of these functions is quite like the JavaScript new keyword."
  884. # [15:20] <AryehGregor> Both of those are the same image.
  885. # [15:21] <mikekelly> a blog in html as opposed to a blog in atom *are* the same thing!
  886. # [15:21] <Philip`> jgraham: Yes, that doesn't call constructors at all
  887. # [15:21] <mikekelly> you are making wild assumptions it's difficulat to know what to say other than 'you are wrong'
  888. # [15:21] <jgraham> Philip`: How silly
  889. # [15:21] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, then why do you care which one you serve?
  890. # [15:21] <mikekelly> because in the context of application flow
  891. # [15:21] <AryehGregor> Just serve text/html if it's supported, else application/xml+atom.
  892. # [15:21] <mikekelly> you may need 2 links which are specific
  893. # [15:22] <AryehGregor> "you are making wild assumptions it's difficulat to know what to say other than 'you are wrong'" Again not productive.
  894. # [15:22] <mikekelly> i.e. links to the atom feed or the actual html page
  895. # [15:22] <AryehGregor> I'm going to stop responding again if you aren't going to be polite.
  896. # [15:22] <mikekelly> from your homepage
  897. # [15:22] <Philip`> jgraham: (My current approach is to use JS_GetProperty("prototype") and JS_GetParent, pass those to JS_NewObject, then call JS_CallFunctionValue on the constructor function, which seems to work okay but isn't very elegant)
  898. # [15:22] <AryehGregor> mikekelly, but if they're functionally the same thing, why would you have separate links to each?
  899. # [15:22] <mikekelly> because the distinction between the representations is relevant to *application flow*
  900. # [15:23] <mikekelly> which is the primary concen of hypermedia formats like HTML
  901. # [15:23] <AryehGregor> Then they're distinct enough that they represent different resources, IMO. If there's a visible difference to the user, they deserve to be different resources.
  902. # [15:23] <AryehGregor> If you believe in the idea of "resources" at all, which I don't.
  903. # [15:23] * Parts: csarven (n=csarven@ip42-80-212-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl)
  904. # [15:23] <mikekelly> you don't believe in resources?!
  905. # [15:24] <mikekelly> are you trolling me?
  906. # [15:24] <AryehGregor> No. They're a pointless abstraction.
  907. # [15:24] <AryehGregor> No.
  908. # [15:24] <AryehGregor> See recent discussions on public-html about this.
  909. # [15:24] <mikekelly> pointless?
  910. # [15:24] <mikekelly> how are they pointles
  911. # [15:24] <AryehGregor> Okay, I'm using /ignore for the first time in a very, very long time. Sorry.
  912. # [15:24] <mikekelly> the smenatics of HTTP only make sense *because* of the notion of resources and representation
  913. # [15:25] <mikekelly> why are you ignoring me because I'm making sense?
  914. # [15:26] <mikekelly> it's a bit rich to get involved in a discussion over resources and representations and then when you get towards the end proclaim 'well I dont even believe in resources'
  915. # [15:26] <mikekelly> wtf is that about..
  916. # [15:26] <AryehGregor> Ignoring people makes me sad. I just lack the restraint not to respond, apparently.
  917. # [15:26] <AryehGregor> http://xkcd.com/386/
  918. # [15:27] <mikekelly> some of you people are umbelievably weak.
  919. # [15:29] <mikekelly> what a joke :)
  920. # [15:31] <mikekelly> so.. still lacking a coherent explanation - "resources are a pointless abstraction" doesn't cut it for me, sorry.
  921. # [15:37] * annevk2 is now known as annevk
  922. # [15:38] * Joins: cedricv (n=cedric@112.199.222.172)
  923. # [15:38] <mikekelly> that resource discussion looks like it could be quite a good laugh
  924. # [15:41] <mikekelly> wow, pretty disgusting.
  925. # [15:41] * Joins: cedric_ (n=cedric@112.199.192.72)
  926. # [15:42] <TabAtkins> mikekelly: I told you what the next step is for you. You created a bug, it was resolved, you weren't happy with the resolution, you don't have new information to cause the editor to reconsider, so you *raise it as an Issue*.
  927. # [15:42] <Philip`> Or you drop it
  928. # [15:43] <TabAtkins> That's the appropriate response, as detailed in the new HTMLWG decision policy, and as explained to you yesterday.
  929. # [15:43] * Joins: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B016DEA.dip.t-dialin.net)
  930. # [15:48] * Joins: jacobolus (n=jacobolu@dhcp-0059871802-99-6d.client.student.harvard.edu)
  931. # [15:48] * Joins: BlurstOfTimes (n=blurstof@168.203.117.66)
  932. # [15:49] <mikekelly> fair enough
  933. # [15:52] * Quits: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B013FF5.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  934. # [15:56] <mikekelly> this is pure craziness: RFC2616's terminology is more abstract than is useful for most Web
  935. # [15:57] <mikekelly> developers, and therefore this kind of terminology confuses people.
  936. # [15:57] * Quits: cedricv (n=cedric@112.199.222.172) (Connection timed out)
  937. # [16:02] * Joins: cardona507 (n=cardona5@c-67-180-160-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  938. # [16:04] * Joins: borismus (n=borismus@CMU-348674.WV.CC.CMU.EDU)
  939. # [16:06] * Joins: miketaylr (n=miketayl@38.117.156.163)
  940. # [16:11] * Joins: fishd (n=darin@c-67-180-164-209.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  941. # [16:14] * miketaylr is now known as miiiiiketaylr
  942. # [16:14] * miiiiiketaylr is now known as iketaylr
  943. # [16:15] <mikekelly> how do I raise an issue?
  944. # [16:15] <mikekelly> :(
  945. # [16:15] <Dashiva> Talk to someone with issue tracker access
  946. # [16:15] * iketaylr is now known as miketaylr
  947. # [16:15] <mikekelly> can someone point me in the right direction here then please
  948. # [16:15] <Dashiva> Or just post to public-html and it should happen during the flow of discussion
  949. # [16:16] <mikekelly> hmm ok fair enough
  950. # [16:16] <Dashiva> Just make it clear from the mail that you've tried bugzilla and wish to raise an issue
  951. # [16:16] <mikekelly> ok will do, thanks
  952. # [16:20] * Joins: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@67.188.0.62)
  953. # [16:22] <mikekelly> I have to be invited in order to participate in that list right?
  954. # [16:23] <Dashiva> No
  955. # [16:23] <Dashiva> You have to be a member to subscribe to it, but anyone can send email and read the archives
  956. # [16:23] <TabAtkins> (Make sure to indicate in the email if you aren't subscribed, so people will keep you in the cc lists.)
  957. # [16:24] <mikekelly> ah ok that makes sense
  958. # [16:25] * Joins: yutak_home (n=kee@61.117.6.79)
  959. # [16:25] * Joins: zcorpan_ (n=zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  960. # [16:30] * Quits: mitnavn (n=mitnavn@unaffiliated/mitnavn) ("Leaving...")
  961. # [16:31] * lmorchard|away is now known as lmorchard
  962. # [16:34] * Quits: maikmerten (n=merten@ls5dhcp196.cs.uni-dortmund.de) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  963. # [16:42] * Quits: fishd (n=darin@c-67-180-164-209.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  964. # [16:42] * Quits: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@67.188.0.62)
  965. # [16:42] * Quits: yutak_home (n=kee@61.117.6.79) ("Ex-Chat")
  966. # [16:43] * Joins: cedric__ (n=cedric@116.197.239.157)
  967. # [16:52] * Quits: cedric_ (n=cedric@112.199.192.72) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  968. # [17:06] * Joins: dglazkov (n=dglazkov@nat/google/x-dxakwsfotctdgxnd)
  969. # [17:08] * Quits: Maurice (n=ano@a80-101-46-164.adsl.xs4all.nl) ("Disconnected...")
  970. # [17:11] * Joins: remysharp (n=remyshar@vinov2.gotadsl.co.uk)
  971. # [17:14] * Joins: mitnavn (n=mitnavn@unaffiliated/mitnavn)
  972. # [17:14] * Joins: svtech (n=stanv@83.228.56.37)
  973. # [17:17] * Quits: zcorpan_ (n=zcorpan@pat.se.opera.com)
  974. # [17:24] * Quits: svtech (n=stanv@83.228.56.37)
  975. # [17:26] * Quits: JoePeck (n=JoePeck@cpe-74-69-85-249.rochester.res.rr.com) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  976. # [17:26] * Joins: JoePeck (n=JoePeck@cpe-74-69-85-249.rochester.res.rr.com)
  977. # [17:28] * Joins: GPHemsley (n=GPHemsle@pdpc/supporter/student/GPHemsley)
  978. # [17:34] * Joins: fishd (n=darin@67.180.164.209)
  979. # [17:45] * Joins: fishd_ (n=darin@72.14.224.1)
  980. # [17:46] * Joins: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B016F4B.dip.t-dialin.net)
  981. # [17:49] * lmorchard is now known as lmorchard|away
  982. # [17:53] * Joins: sbublava (n=stephan@77.117.202.117)
  983. # [17:53] * Quits: fishd (n=darin@67.180.164.209) (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
  984. # [17:55] * Quits: remysharp (n=remyshar@vinov2.gotadsl.co.uk) ("Gotta shoot - peeyaow!")
  985. # [18:06] * Quits: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B016DEA.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  986. # [18:07] * Joins: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B016928.dip.t-dialin.net)
  987. # [18:15] * Quits: borismus (n=borismus@CMU-348674.WV.CC.CMU.EDU)
  988. # [18:15] * Joins: dave_levin (n=dave_lev@72.14.224.1)
  989. # [18:18] * lmorchard|away is now known as lmorchard
  990. # [18:20] * Quits: Phae (n=phaeness@gatea.mh.bbc.co.uk)
  991. # [18:21] <mikekelly> done and sent
  992. # [18:22] <mikekelly> TabAtkins: thanks for the guideance, sorry for being douche :)
  993. # [18:24] * Quits: Creap (n=Creap@vemod.brg.sgsnet.se) ("nu fkt")
  994. # [18:25] * Quits: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B016F4B.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  995. # [18:27] <AryehGregor> The WHATWG FAQ needs an entry like "Your attitude toward web standards is short-sighted/irresponsible/uninformed/evil/insane/etc." We get that so much.
  996. # [18:27] <AryehGregor> Culture conflict.
  997. # [18:28] * Joins: Maurice (i=copyman@5ED548D4.cable.ziggo.nl)
  998. # [18:29] <TabAtkins> mikekelly: We're all douches sometime. It's cool. Just don't make it a habit.
  999. # [18:29] <TabAtkins> AryehGregor: I agree!
  1000. # [18:29] * TabAtkins might write it this weekend.
  1001. # [18:30] <AryehGregor> It needs to say something like 1) it's not helpful to get upset about people with different attitudes toward the web's future, 2) the WHATWG is mostly composed of people who have a lot of web standards experience and know what they're doing, 3) justification for the major philosophical differences (e.g., concreteness and pragmatism).
  1002. # [18:31] <TabAtkins> Expand on how (1) might read?
  1003. # [18:34] * Quits: fishd_ (n=darin@72.14.224.1) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1004. # [18:35] <webben> "Explaining the reasons for your beliefs is more effective than castigating other people for holding different beliefs. We welcome alternate points of view." ?
  1005. # [18:35] <TabAtkins> Hehe, excert from just-written code: array("name"=>$name->name)
  1006. # [18:35] <AryehGregor> Well, just general advice when encountering opinions that seem crazy to you, you know.
  1007. # [18:35] <AryehGregor> I wouldn't say we welcome alternate points of view, but we're sure going to ignore you if you're only capable of ranting and calling us names.
  1008. # [18:35] <webben> *more likely to effect changes to our specifications
  1009. # [18:36] <TabAtkins> webben, that's helpful.
  1010. # [18:36] <webben> rather than "more effective"
  1011. # [18:37] * Joins: othermaciej (n=mjs@c-69-181-42-237.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  1012. # [18:38] <TabAtkins> Arlag;hes;lageh I keep screwing up the order of arguments in this function. Damn my bad API design!
  1013. # [18:38] * Quits: vvv (n=vvv@mediawiki/VasilievVV) ("KVIrc Insomnia 4.0.0, revision: 3410, sources date: 20090703, built on: 2009/08/12 22:29:13 UTC http://www.kvirc.net/")
  1014. # [18:38] * Joins: Midler (n=midler@212.37.124.243)
  1015. # [18:44] * Quits: GPHemsley (n=GPHemsle@pdpc/supporter/student/GPHemsley) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  1016. # [18:46] <TabAtkins> AryehGregor: Your idea of <a onlyreplace="foo"> is intriguing. It's essentially browser-supported AJAX that decays into perfectly serviceable links.
  1017. # [18:46] * Joins: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B01455F.dip.t-dialin.net)
  1018. # [18:46] <AryehGregor> TabAtkins, yes, but the problem of authors relying on it and not actually making the pages the same is very troublesome.
  1019. # [18:46] <TabAtkins> Or, rather, AJAH, in the simple form where it just retrieves content and plugs it straight in.
  1020. # [18:46] <AryehGregor> Better than AJAX in that regard, to be fair.
  1021. # [18:47] <AryehGregor> At least this somewhat encourages working links.
  1022. # [18:47] <AryehGregor> Maybe some tweak could make them more or less mandatory, but I'm not sure what.
  1023. # [18:47] <TabAtkins> Yeah, that's what I like best. It seems to decay with the most ease and usefulness.
  1024. # [18:48] <TabAtkins> Plus you don't have to mess around with listeners and such dying on page reloads, and possibly persisting them (I don't know how)...
  1025. # [18:48] <TabAtkins> Honestly I like it a *lot*.
  1026. # [18:49] <TabAtkins> Worst case, authors will produce a single static page and then all the "linked" pages will contain just the bit of content they'll want to swap in. That will break search engine and bookmarking spectacularly, though, so it'll probably be pretty obvious when it happens.
  1027. # [18:49] <AryehGregor> You could say the same of frames.
  1028. # [18:50] <TabAtkins> Nah, frames break that by design, and in a different way (you just always return to the 'main' page). In this, if you bookmarked deep into the site, you'll just get an unstyled chunk of content, which is much worse.
  1029. # [18:50] * Quits: Rik|work (n=Rik|work@193.93.127.141) (Remote closed the connection)
  1030. # [18:50] <TabAtkins> Which gives correspondingly greater pressure to *not* take that sort of shortcut, and just do it right (produce full pages).
  1031. # [18:51] <AryehGregor> It could be made to fail somehow if there were serious problems with the retrieved thingie.
  1032. # [18:51] <AryehGregor> But I'm not sure how to do that elegantly, if it's possible.
  1033. # [18:51] <TabAtkins> Like some kind of check that, if it fails, will ignore the @onlyreplace and just swap the entire page out (with obvious bad effects if you're doing it wrong).
  1034. # [18:52] <TabAtkins> That should have ended with a ?.
  1035. # [18:53] <AryehGregor> The trick is making it so the error can kick in quickly, so you don't get the page loading partially and then reloading.
  1036. # [18:53] <AryehGregor> Also I'm not sure what to trigger off.
  1037. # [18:53] <TabAtkins> Yeah, not sure either. We can do some basic stuff, like it having a doctype and <title>. That'll at least require a *little* bit more than just the content chunk.
  1038. # [18:53] * Joins: Rik|work (n=Rik|work@193.93.127.141)
  1039. # [18:55] <AryehGregor> Neither a doctype nor a <title> are required to exist in a working page.
  1040. # [18:55] <AryehGregor> Although both are required in a valid page, of course.
  1041. # [18:55] <TabAtkins> Exactly. Requiring some form of validity doesn't hurt.
  1042. # [18:55] <AryehGregor> Well, it does if you want the feature to not be the one thing in HTML5 to totally break for no apparent reason because you don't have a doctype.
  1043. # [18:56] <AryehGregor> Quirks mode is one thing, that's another.
  1044. # [18:56] * Joins: fishd_ (n=darin@nat/google/x-eqblrxivvweezjey)
  1045. # [18:56] <AryehGregor> The differences between rendering modes should be minimized if possible.
  1046. # [18:56] <AryehGregor> Remember that if possible, we wouldn't require a doctype at all.
  1047. # [18:56] <TabAtkins> The great thing about this idea, why I think it has serious potential, is that it also cleanly addresses the "permanent script" idea that got bandied about a while back. Doing the "single-page app" was a suggested solution, but people balked at the difficulty of doing that with AJAX.
  1048. # [18:56] <TabAtkins> This is true.
  1049. # [18:57] <AryehGregor> I guess you could argue that my proposal is more or less strictly better than AJAX for this use-case.
  1050. # [18:57] <TabAtkins> Also, this would presumably update history/url accordingly, so bookmarking worked properly without any effort.
  1051. # [18:57] <TabAtkins> It is strictly better.
  1052. # [18:57] <TabAtkins> It is a wonderfully automatic solution to a problem that is currently being solved by a much more general (and thus harder to use) tool.
  1053. # [18:57] <cardona507> does the iphone safari support <audio> ?
  1054. # [18:59] <AryehGregor> TabAtkins, another question is how much benefit there is to implementing something so specific in a declarative fashion. We could try mimicking lots of behavior without JS; is it worth it?
  1055. # [18:59] <AryehGregor> Maybe the new behavior would make more sense if it were JS-based instead of declarative?
  1056. # [18:59] * Quits: webben (n=benh@nat/yahoo/x-atkrlkperkhychhp) (Remote closed the connection)
  1057. # [18:59] <AryehGregor> cardona507, I think the very latest ones do, but I don't know for sure offhand.
  1058. # [19:00] <cardona507> thanks
  1059. # [19:02] <AryehGregor> I wonder if the functionality is complicated enough from a JS perspective to really justify a new function, if it's okay to require JS.
  1060. # [19:02] <AryehGregor> I guess nobody would do it manually if it weren't a built-in function, because it seems wasteful.
  1061. # [19:03] <AryehGregor> Which it is, without SDCH or such.
  1062. # [19:03] * Quits: weinig (n=weinig@c-67-180-35-124.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  1063. # [19:03] * Joins: gratz|home (n=gratz@cpc3-brig15-2-0-cust237.3-3.cable.virginmedia.com)
  1064. # [19:04] * Quits: mat_t_ (n=mattomas@91.189.88.12) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  1065. # [19:04] * Joins: borismus (n=borismus@CMU-348674.WV.CC.CMU.EDU)
  1066. # [19:04] <TabAtkins> AryehGregor: Yes, I think this is absolutely worth it. This is already a common pattern; it's being held back by concerns about accessibility and the simple difficulty of doing it right.
  1067. # [19:04] <TabAtkins> I really think this will revolutionize html applications.
  1068. # [19:04] <AryehGregor> Now you're getting into hyperbole.
  1069. # [19:04] * Quits: cedric__ (n=cedric@116.197.239.157) (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer))
  1070. # [19:04] * Joins: jennb (n=jennb@74.125.59.73)
  1071. # [19:05] <AryehGregor> It would make one part of the AJAX pattern easier.
  1072. # [19:05] <TabAtkins> No, seriously, I had to go walk around the living room to calm down over how awesome this would be.
  1073. # [19:05] <AryehGregor> Yes, but that's because you're very excitable.
  1074. # [19:05] <TabAtkins> Beside the point!
  1075. # [19:06] <TabAtkins> It's already a common pattern, it's a solution to some real and persistent problems going forward (like globalScript), and it's just so unbelievably trivial to use.
  1076. # [19:06] * Joins: KevinMarks (n=KevinMar@216.239.45.19)
  1077. # [19:06] * Quits: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B016928.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1078. # [19:06] * Joins: mat_t (n=mattomas@91.189.88.12)
  1079. # [19:07] <TabAtkins> And it's trivially accessible. Win-win-win.
  1080. # [19:07] * Joins: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B015476.dip.t-dialin.net)
  1081. # [19:07] <AryehGregor> What use cases would greatly benefit from it, concretely? From the point of view of a conventional app like MediaWiki, or static pages, it mostly just prevents flicker on navigation.
  1082. # [19:07] <AryehGregor> It only seems really useful if you have very script-intensive stuff that you don't want to vanish on navigation.
  1083. # [19:08] <TabAtkins> The author just has to write a perfectly normal site, unchanged from how they've done so for the past 10 years. Add this one little attribute to your links, and suddenly you've got the new hotness of AJAX.
  1084. # [19:08] <AryehGregor> Concretely, I said.
  1085. # [19:08] <AryehGregor> "the new hotness of AJAX" does not count as a concrete use-case.
  1086. # [19:08] <TabAtkins> Aryeh: Yup, and that's very valuable. Script-heavy apps will get more and more prevalent.
  1087. # [19:08] <AryehGregor> Yes, but they're already script-heavy, and probably using giant libraries. Isn't using an AJAX library good enough for them?
  1088. # [19:08] * Joins: sicking (n=chatzill@c-69-181-197-163.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  1089. # [19:09] <TabAtkins> No, it's still more difficult than it needs to be, *and* you have to architect around it.
  1090. # [19:09] <TabAtkins> This requires *no* architecture changes at all.
  1091. # [19:09] <AryehGregor> Relative to a set of static pages.
  1092. # [19:09] <TabAtkins> Yes.
  1093. # [19:09] <TabAtkins> Which are still the default.
  1094. # [19:10] <AryehGregor> Relative to a totally JS-driven app, which is the only place where there seems to be a lot of benefit, lack of architecture changes isn't really relevant.
  1095. # [19:10] <TabAtkins> I'd love to not have to reload jQuery on every pageload of my company's sites.
  1096. # [19:10] <AryehGregor> Hmm, that's a point.
  1097. # [19:10] <AryehGregor> It might significantly improve performance to avoid rerendering and so on.
  1098. # [19:10] <TabAtkins> Yup.
  1099. # [19:10] <AryehGregor> And reexecuting script.
  1100. # [19:10] <TabAtkins> Yup.
  1101. # [19:10] <TabAtkins> This is why I'm excited about it.
  1102. # [19:11] <TabAtkins> The best solution to "I don't want to reload libraries" *is* a single-page app, but that's difficult right now, and will always be annoying. This solves it trivially.
  1103. # [19:11] <TabAtkins> And you don't have to worry about SEO hits from bots not executing JS, etc.
  1104. # [19:11] <TabAtkins> They'll just see a static site.
  1105. # [19:12] <mikekelly> did my email hit the list?
  1106. # [19:13] <TabAtkins> I don't see it yet.
  1107. # [19:13] <mikekelly> hmmm
  1108. # [19:13] <mikekelly> I sent it a while ago
  1109. # [19:13] * Quits: mpt (n=mpt@canonical/mpt) ("Ex-Chat")
  1110. # [19:13] <mikekelly> I had to approve my address do I need to resend it?
  1111. # [19:13] <Philip`> mikekelly: If it's the first time you've posted to the list, you'll need to respond to the confirmation it sends back to you, and then wait a few days
  1112. # [19:13] <mikekelly> a few days?! :(
  1113. # [19:13] <Philip`> mikekelly: No need to resend
  1114. # [19:14] <Philip`> mikekelly: Yeah, I'm not sure why but the W3C lists have a delay the first time you post a message
  1115. # [19:14] <AryehGregor> It took me like two weeks to get approved to be a public-html member.
  1116. # [19:14] <Philip`> (I guess it needs human approval or something)
  1117. # [19:14] * Quits: mat_t (n=mattomas@91.189.88.12) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  1118. # [19:15] * Joins: drunknbass_work (n=aaron@pool-71-107-253-243.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net)
  1119. # [19:16] * Joins: maikmerten (n=maikmert@U22e3.u.pppool.de)
  1120. # [19:16] <mikekelly> :(
  1121. # [19:17] <mikekelly> what's the difference between html-public and the whatwg list?
  1122. # [19:17] * Joins: mat_t (n=mattomas@91.189.88.12)
  1123. # [19:17] * Quits: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B01455F.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1124. # [19:17] <Philip`> The whatwg list is older, and has more members, and anyone can subscribe
  1125. # [19:18] <TabAtkins> whatwg was original. htmlwg was commandered when the w3c took html5 in.
  1126. # [19:19] <Philip`> public-html is the W3C list, and only HTML WG members can subscribe, and it's the appropriate place for W3C-related discussions (like the W3C Issue Tracker and the W3C Chairs)
  1127. # [19:20] * Quits: mat_t (n=mattomas@91.189.88.12) (Client Quit)
  1128. # [19:21] <Philip`> mikekelly: Oh, it's on the list now
  1129. # [19:22] <othermaciej> the HTML WG was actually created before the W3C decided to adopt HTML5 as the spec the HTML WG would be working on
  1130. # [19:22] <othermaciej> though adopting HTML5 was one of our few actual Working Group decisions
  1131. # [19:24] <Philip`> I remember it seeming totally obvious that the HTML WG was created for the purpose of adopting HTML5, so the "decision" was a formality and never really in question
  1132. # [19:29] <cardona507> what is the browser support for <audio> ? I don't see the controls in firefox and I see the controls but can't get it to play back in safari
  1133. # [19:29] <AryehGregor> You need to do <audio controls>, are you doing that?
  1134. # [19:29] <AryehGregor> What version of Firefox, and what format of audio are you using?
  1135. # [19:30] <mikekelly> ah nice one
  1136. # [19:31] <mikekelly> maybe if we have the ability to specify conneg controls for hyerlinks Ian won't be quite so confused about what a resource is
  1137. # [19:31] <cardona507> aryehgregor - I have <audio src="grace.mp3" controls=""></audio> and I am using firefox 3.5.3 and safari 4 -
  1138. # [19:32] <AryehGregor> Firefox and Opera don't support any patent-encumbered audio formats, including MP3. You have to use Ogg Vorbis for them.
  1139. # [19:32] * Joins: aroben (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben)
  1140. # [19:32] <AryehGregor> Safari should support whatever codecs are installed, AFAIK.
  1141. # [19:32] * Quits: myakura (n=myakura@p2102-ipbf6805marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp) ("Leaving...")
  1142. # [19:32] * Quits: michaelforrest (n=michaelf@91.189.88.12) (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
  1143. # [19:32] <AryehGregor> Ugh, where's a non-retarded <audio> tutorial?
  1144. # [19:32] <mikekelly> is that like some hippt protest by them or is there a practical reason for that?
  1145. # [19:32] <mikekelly> hippy^
  1146. # [19:33] <Philip`> mikekelly: The reason is not having to pay licensing fees and not getting sued
  1147. # [19:33] <mikekelly> hippy.
  1148. # [19:33] <mikekelly> :D
  1149. # [19:33] <Philip`> and being portable across all platforms
  1150. # [19:34] <mikekelly> I know, I'm kidding I'm all for open standards
  1151. # [19:34] <AryehGregor> It's a principled stand, it's not about licensing fees.
  1152. # [19:34] <AryehGregor> Mozilla and Opera could get reasonable licensing fees if they wanted them.
  1153. # [19:35] <AryehGregor> The various consortia involved aren't stupid, they want the exposure.
  1154. # [19:35] <mikekelly> dork fight!
  1155. # [19:35] <Philip`> AryehGregor: What is the principle, if it's not about no-fee usage?
  1156. # [19:36] <mikekelly> I agree with athat principal - those formats should be public domain
  1157. # [19:36] <AryehGregor> Well, you made it sound like they don't want to have pay licensing fees, personally.
  1158. # [19:36] <AryehGregor> They don't want anyone to have to pay licensing fees anywhere on the web.
  1159. # [19:36] <AryehGregor> *They* could pay them if they wanted, I'm sure.
  1160. # [19:36] <mikekelly> we shouldn't pander to crusty dinosaurish nonsense any more
  1161. # [19:36] <mikekelly> we don't need to
  1162. # [19:36] <Philip`> AryehGregor: Ah, I think I agree with you
  1163. # [19:37] <mikekelly> yeah good for them :)
  1164. # [19:37] <mikekelly> fight the powa!
  1165. # [19:38] <mikekelly> what's the best ipod alternative that plays all the stinky hippy formats?
  1166. # [19:39] <Philip`> mikekelly: Just connect some speakers to a laptop
  1167. # [19:39] <mikekelly> yeah it's a toss up between that and a boombox
  1168. # [19:39] <Philip`> Works fine as long as you don't want to do anything crazy like walking outside
  1169. # [19:40] <AryehGregor> You could use one of the ones with full-fledged Linux, like the N900 or something, I guess.
  1170. # [19:40] <TabAtkins> Worked great for me while I was doing work on my house. Could compete with the construction works using actual radios next door.
  1171. # [19:40] <Philip`> You could memorise all the songs and then hum them
  1172. # [19:41] <mikekelly> yeah I do that anyway
  1173. # [19:41] <mikekelly> quite hard to hum my type of music though
  1174. # [19:41] * Quits: Lachy (n=Lachlan@pat-tdc.opera.com) ("This computer has gone to sleep")
  1175. # [20:02] * Joins: aroben_ (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben)
  1176. # [20:02] * Joins: aroben__ (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben)
  1177. # [20:05] * Joins: weinig (n=weinig@17.246.17.253)
  1178. # [20:07] * Quits: svl (n=me@g227072226.adsl.alicedsl.de) ("And back he spurred like a madman, shrieking a curse to the sky.")
  1179. # [20:08] * Joins: tantek (n=tantek@70-36-139-108.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net)
  1180. # [20:08] * Quits: othermaciej (n=mjs@c-69-181-42-237.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  1181. # [20:10] <TabAtkins> AryehGregor: I promoted your <a onlyreplace> to a top-level post with more commentary.
  1182. # [20:10] <AryehGregor> It was already promoted to a top-level post within like the last day, but oh well.
  1183. # [20:11] * Quits: drunknbass_work (n=aaron@pool-71-107-253-243.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net)
  1184. # [20:12] * Joins: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B014D5C.dip.t-dialin.net)
  1185. # [20:13] * Joins: drunknbass_work (n=aaron@pool-71-107-253-243.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net)
  1186. # [20:15] <TabAtkins> Nah, your top-level post was about several things, and only mentioned <a onlyreplace> in an offhand manner. I think it deserves more attention than that.
  1187. # [20:17] <daedb> TabAtkins: which post is that?
  1188. # [20:18] <TabAtkins> Something with "<a onlyreplace>" in the subject. On the whatwg list.
  1189. # [20:18] * Quits: aroben (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1190. # [20:19] <TabAtkins> Man, *every* thread started by a google employee gets itself flagged as spam by gmail due to possible spoofing. then I'm all confused by the second post arriving in my inbox and talking about stuff that I can't see.
  1191. # [20:20] * Quits: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B015476.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  1192. # [20:21] * Quits: aroben_ (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1193. # [20:21] <Philip`> How is <a onlyreplace> better than <iframe seamless> and <a target>?
  1194. # [20:21] <daedb> ah, now I found it :)
  1195. # [20:21] <AryehGregor> Philip`, it updates URLs, for one thing.
  1196. # [20:22] <AryehGregor> So bookmarking actually works.
  1197. # [20:22] <AryehGregor> It also keeps everything in one page, so more natural to use.
  1198. # [20:22] <Philip`> AryehGregor: It seems like bookmarking usually wouldn't work, because you'll be viewing some complex combination of browsing history and it couldn't be re-retrived by a single URL
  1199. # [20:23] <AryehGregor> Philip`, it could be used that way, but that's not the idea. The idea is you take a normal set of static pages and just add in onlyreplace where you know the next page only has a few parts significantly different.
  1200. # [20:24] <AryehGregor> So it works well with bookmarking then. iframes can never work well with bookmarking, AFAICT, unless maybe you hook all links with JS and use the history push thing.
  1201. # [20:24] <TabAtkins> Philip`: it also doesn't require architecting your page into a series of snippets that are linked from an iframe.
  1202. # [20:24] <Philip`> AryehGregor: If it's solely intended as an optimisation, it seems better for browsers to focus on optimising page load times, rather than forcing authors to do something weird and fragile
  1203. # [20:24] <AryehGregor> I'm not the one enthusiastically advocating it, don't look at me. :)
  1204. # [20:25] <AryehGregor> On the other hand, I don't see what optimizations will permit pages to be loaded without at least flickering.
  1205. # [20:25] <TabAtkins> Philip`: As far as I know, there is *no* way for browsers to optimize stuff like js library load/execution time sufficiently, which is why proposals like GlobalScript exist.
  1206. # [20:25] <AryehGregor> The browser can't assume that the new page bears any resemblance to the old, so it has to render it from scratch . . . hmm. Maybe not.
  1207. # [20:25] <TabAtkins> (Which this solves.)
  1208. # [20:25] <AryehGregor> It could strategically delay things, but not very effectively without messing up progressive rendering.
  1209. # [20:25] <Philip`> AryehGregor: They'd just need to delay rendering the page until enough of it has loaded
  1210. # [20:26] <AryehGregor> MediaWiki has sidebars at the bottom of the HTML source. You'd have to delay until the whole page was loaded.
  1211. # [20:26] * Joins: svtech (n=stanv@83.228.56.37)
  1212. # [20:26] <Philip`> which they try to do already, and if they loaded pages faster then they'd be more likely to have enough of it loaded before first rendering
  1213. # [20:26] <AryehGregor> (having sidebars at the bottom of the source is good practice for good fallback to non-CSS UAs, in theory)
  1214. # [20:26] * Quits: foolip_ (n=philip@pat.se.opera.com) ("Ex-Chat")
  1215. # [20:26] <Philip`> (Opera even has a preference for how many seconds to wait before redrawing a newly-loaded page)
  1216. # [20:26] <AryehGregor> I agree that this technique seems dubious as an optimization effort, but the fact is, lots of places go to a lot of trouble to do something even more fragile and much harder to do using AJAX.
  1217. # [20:27] <AryehGregor> For the same effect, I mean.
  1218. # [20:27] * Joins: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B0162C3.dip.t-dialin.net)
  1219. # [20:27] <Philip`> When you're doing it with AJAX, you get the benefit that you're only transmitting the content that's needed, and not tens of kilobytes of irrelevant unchanging page content
  1220. # [20:28] <Philip`> (with the server-side delays needed to compute all that content before transmitting it)
  1221. # [20:28] <TabAtkins> In what I imagine is the typical use-case, you're mainly replacing content, so the only irrelevant content is the relatively small (in comparison) template.
  1222. # [20:28] <AryehGregor> Also, this is what SDCH is for, in theory.
  1223. # [20:29] <Philip`> How would <script> and document.write() interact with onlyreplace?
  1224. # [20:29] <AryehGregor> Same as if they had been inserted by script, presumably.
  1225. # [20:29] <Philip`> (Would you execute all scripts? no scripts? only scripts in the elements that are being replaced? what if those elements are written by scripts?)
  1226. # [20:29] * Quits: borismus (n=borismus@CMU-348674.WV.CC.CMU.EDU)
  1227. # [20:29] <TabAtkins> In terms of the requested page having <script>s and document.write()?
  1228. # [20:29] <TabAtkins> I'd execute no scripts.
  1229. # [20:30] <AryehGregor> The proposal doesn't suggest anything that doesn't have a pretty clear mapping to JS already.
  1230. # [20:30] <TabAtkins> The existing page can hook the links and execute something equivalent itself.
  1231. # [20:30] <Philip`> Wouldn't people want to e.g. re-execute their Google Ad scripts on each new page, so it shows ads relevant to the content?
  1232. # [20:30] <AryehGregor> I wouldn't add special handling for script.
  1233. # [20:30] <AryehGregor> Just let it do whatever it normally does if you insert it in the DOM.
  1234. # [20:30] <AryehGregor> Which I guess is execute.
  1235. # [20:31] <AryehGregor> You can always just not include any <script>s if you don't like that.
  1236. # [20:31] <TabAtkins> Philip`: I think there's a way to reload Google Ads anyway?
  1237. # [20:31] <TabAtkins> Aryeh: Executing all scripts, though, kills a lot of the 'optimization'.
  1238. # [20:31] <AryehGregor> Executing all scripts in the snippet you loaded.
  1239. # [20:31] <AryehGregor> Which might contain no scripts at all.
  1240. # [20:31] <AryehGregor> Typically wouldn't, I'd think.
  1241. # [20:31] <TabAtkins> If some way doesn't currently exist to reload Google Ads, it will once this becomes common.
  1242. # [20:32] <AryehGregor> Google Ads are JS-based and should be able to reload themselves occasionally if they feel like it, I assume.
  1243. # [20:32] <TabAtkins> AryehGregor, oh. Eh, sure.
  1244. # [20:32] <Philip`> Hooray, my code no longer gives segmentation faults and stack smashing errors
  1245. # [20:32] <AryehGregor> Nor does mine, because I only write in scripting languages.
  1246. # [20:33] <AryehGregor> . . . Of course, that's no guarantee for PHP.
  1247. # [20:33] <AryehGregor> <?php function f() { f(); } f();
  1248. # [20:33] * Quits: maikmerten (n=maikmert@U22e3.u.pppool.de) (Remote closed the connection)
  1249. # [20:33] <AryehGregor> $ echo '<?php function f() { f(); } f();' | php
  1250. # [20:33] <AryehGregor> Segmentation fault
  1251. # [20:33] <AryehGregor> Yay PHP!
  1252. # [20:33] <TabAtkins> Heh.
  1253. # [20:34] <TabAtkins> Strange that that segfaults rather than throwing with OutOfStack or whatever.
  1254. # [20:34] <Philip`> I'm trying to write in scripting languages, but the interface between the scripting language and native code is what crashes
  1255. # [20:34] <AryehGregor> $ echo -e "def f():\n f()\n\nf()" | python 2>&1 | tail -n1
  1256. # [20:34] <AryehGregor> RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded
  1257. # [20:34] <AryehGregor> TabAtkins, not a bug, according to them. Duh, a segfault is the only reasonable answer if you hit infinite recursion.
  1258. # [20:35] <TabAtkins> O...k?
  1259. # [20:35] * AryehGregor likes how Python helpfully prints the call stack here, which is of course 1000 lines long
  1260. # [20:36] <AryehGregor> To be fair: $ echo -e "import sys\nsys.setrecursionlimit(1000000000)\ndef f():\n f()\n\nf()" | python 2>&1
  1261. # [20:36] <AryehGregor> Segmentation fault
  1262. # [20:36] <AryehGregor> Python lets you shoot yourself in the foot too, but at least you have to opt in.
  1263. # [20:37] <TabAtkins> Philip`: How often is page 10s of k when just considering content? That sort of weight is relatively typical when you include scripts and css and such, but actual html is usually relatively small.
  1264. # [20:37] <TabAtkins> At least, I think.
  1265. # [20:37] <TabAtkins> Does C segfault on infinite recursion?
  1266. # [20:37] <AryehGregor> $ wget -qO- http://www.cnn.com/ | wc -c
  1267. # [20:37] <AryehGregor> 98818
  1268. # [20:37] <TabAtkins> Both PHP and Python are built on C, so shrug.
  1269. # [20:37] * Quits: sbublava (n=stephan@77.117.202.117)
  1270. # [20:37] <Philip`> TabAtkins: The mean size of HTML pages from a few sources (dmoz.org, dotnetdotcom) was about 25KB, if I remember correctly
  1271. # [20:38] <TabAtkins> All right. I wonder how much of that is content, and how much is template?
  1272. # [20:39] <TabAtkins> That'd tell us the inefficiency with respect to a simple AHAH with content chunks.
  1273. # [20:40] <TabAtkins> AryehGregor: CNN's front page probably isn't a good example, as it's full of tons of stuff. I'd want to hit an inner page instead.
  1274. # [20:43] <AryehGregor> TabAtkins, C has no opinion on the matter. It's platform-dependent. Typically, yes, the operating system will kill the process if the stack grows too large, for user-mode code, but in principle it doesn't have to.
  1275. # [20:44] * Joins: aroben (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben)
  1276. # [20:45] <AryehGregor> On Unix, SIGSEGV can be caught, if you like.
  1277. # [20:47] <AryehGregor> C is fun. Assembly is even funner.
  1278. # [20:47] <AryehGregor> In their own way.
  1279. # [20:48] * Quits: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B014D5C.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1280. # [20:48] <TabAtkins> Hmm, okay. In my own site, the template is 16kb, while the content for the homepage (representative of most pages) is 17kb total. Those are all uncompressed numbers.
  1281. # [20:49] * Joins: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B017F52.dip.t-dialin.net)
  1282. # [20:49] <TabAtkins> I mean, the whole homepage is 17kb. So that's roughly 1kb of content.
  1283. # [20:50] <TabAtkins> Now, of course, those 17kb or so are currently being delivered on every pageload, plus jQuery has to be reloaded and scripting applied to a few interface elements.
  1284. # [20:51] <AryehGregor> The 17 KB would still be loaded in the proposal you like so much.
  1285. # [20:51] <TabAtkins> So, worst case, I'm still getting a better experience, since the page doesn't ever flicker and jQuery can stay loaded the whole time.
  1286. # [20:51] * Quits: aroben__ (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1287. # [20:51] <AryehGregor> How long does jQuery take to load?
  1288. # [20:51] <TabAtkins> AryehGregor: Yup.
  1289. # [20:51] <TabAtkins> AryehGregor: Dunno! I'd have to test.
  1290. # [20:52] * Joins: cying (n=cying@70.90.171.153)
  1291. # [20:53] <TabAtkins> I suppose to do so I'd alter the jQuery source to record the time before and after the rest of the code was executed?
  1292. # [20:53] * Joins: SuperDot_iPod (n=superdot@adsl-76-231-44-247.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net)
  1293. # [20:54] * Quits: SuperDot_iPod (n=superdot@adsl-76-231-44-247.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net) (Client Quit)
  1294. # [20:57] * Quits: smaug_ (n=chatzill@82.181.150.24) ("ChatZilla 0.9.85 [Firefox 3.7a1pre/20091015073430]")
  1295. # [20:57] <AryehGregor> Or add <script>s before and after.
  1296. # [20:57] * Quits: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B0162C3.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1297. # [20:58] <TabAtkins> Looks like I'm averaging about 13ms?
  1298. # [20:59] <TabAtkins> + however much time it takes to wait for document.ready, and apply stuff to the nav.
  1299. # [21:02] <AryehGregor> 13ms is fairly far below the level of perceptibility.
  1300. # [21:02] <TabAtkins> I purposely avoid heavier manipulation of the page, to avoid FOUC (the U is for "unscripted", in this case).
  1301. # [21:02] <TabAtkins> Aryeh: I'm also loading *only* jQuery, not anything like jQuery UI which can get *enormous*.
  1302. # [21:03] <TabAtkins> And it's not 13ms by itself. It's 13ms added to the page load time.
  1303. # [21:03] <TabAtkins> (I think 50ms or so is the general point at which we perceive a delay?)
  1304. # [21:06] <TabAtkins> Also interesting: applying this to a form submission.
  1305. # [21:09] <TabAtkins> Point, though, is that currently whatever benefits I can gain from making a single-page site are *far* outweighed by the difficulties of actually *implementing* it correctly right now. This would put single-page apps in the hands of the average webdev who doesn't know the esoterica of js and accessibility.
  1306. # [21:10] <TabAtkins> Without costing me a thing, especially if I can activate it just by adding onlyreplace="left-nav bc" to my <base> tag.
  1307. # [21:11] <AryehGregor> It's not obvious to me that the potential pitfalls and the implementation difficulty would be worth the benefit.
  1308. # [21:12] <TabAtkins> Then solutions can be built on top of this to allow better optimization, such as the browser specifically requesting only those elements, and the server returning only what's necessary.
  1309. # [21:12] * Joins: jwalden (n=waldo@63.245.220.240)
  1310. # [21:12] <TabAtkins> What pitfalls do you see besides the already-mentioned one of authors being stupid and writing subpages that are just content chunks?
  1311. # [21:13] * Quits: jacobolus (n=jacobolu@dhcp-0059871802-99-6d.client.student.harvard.edu) (Remote closed the connection)
  1312. # [21:13] <TabAtkins> (Re optimizations: that's why I love declarative mechanisms! When you state what you want, rather than how you want it, you can do a lot of transparent optimization behind the scenes without ever affecting anything visibly.)
  1313. # [21:30] * Quits: pmuellr (n=pmuellr@nat/ibm/x-fwvuwqprwvfmgrpy)
  1314. # [21:38] * Joins: Lachy (n=Lachlan@85.196.122.246)
  1315. # [21:58] * Quits: cardona507 (n=cardona5@c-67-180-160-250.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  1316. # [21:59] * Quits: ROBOd (n=robod@89.122.216.38) ("http://www.robodesign.ro")
  1317. # [21:59] <cying> how is WHATWG pronounced?
  1318. # [21:59] <cying> "what working group" ?
  1319. # [22:00] <tantek> or "what double you gee"
  1320. # [22:01] <cying> ahhh
  1321. # [22:01] * Joins: jennb_ (n=jennb@74.125.59.65)
  1322. # [22:02] <Hixie> i pronounce it "whatwuhjee"
  1323. # [22:03] <cying> Hixie: interesting... wuhjee?
  1324. # [22:04] <tantek> Hixie, makes sense, like "wuh wuh wuh dot ..."
  1325. # [22:04] <Hixie> yeah
  1326. # [22:04] <Hixie> or wuhwuhstyle for www-style
  1327. # [22:06] * Quits: svtech (n=stanv@83.228.56.37)
  1328. # [22:06] <gavin> weird!
  1329. # [22:06] * Quits: aroben (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1330. # [22:08] * Joins: dbaron (n=dbaron@12.130.118.23)
  1331. # [22:09] * Quits: weinig (n=weinig@17.246.17.253)
  1332. # [22:14] * Quits: mitnavn (n=mitnavn@unaffiliated/mitnavn)
  1333. # [22:15] * Joins: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B016362.dip.t-dialin.net)
  1334. # [22:16] * Quits: tantek (n=tantek@70-36-139-108.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net)
  1335. # [22:16] * Joins: weinig (n=weinig@17.246.17.253)
  1336. # [22:17] * Quits: jennb (n=jennb@74.125.59.73) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1337. # [22:17] * jennb_ is now known as jennb
  1338. # [22:18] * Quits: jennb (n=jennb@74.125.59.65)
  1339. # [22:19] <Hixie> i wonder whether we should drop the reversed DNS labels
  1340. # [22:19] <Hixie> from microdata
  1341. # [22:20] <AryehGregor> "www" is remarkable, as an abbreviation that takes like twice as long to say as the thing it ostensibly abbreviates.
  1342. # [22:20] <Hixie> it's an abbreviation for writing
  1343. # [22:20] <Hixie> not talking
  1344. # [22:21] <Philip`> AryehGregor: How do you get "twice"?
  1345. # [22:21] <Philip`> given that "w" is three syllables
  1346. # [22:24] * Quits: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B017F52.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
  1347. # [22:25] <AryehGregor> "like"
  1348. # [22:25] <AryehGregor> Closer to three times, it's true.
  1349. # [22:25] <Philip`> Two is not much like three
  1350. # [22:28] <TabAtkins> I pronounce WHATWG as "what"+"wig".
  1351. # [22:28] * Joins: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B013B8B.dip.t-dialin.net)
  1352. # [22:28] <TabAtkins> And when pronouncing "www" I say "dub dub dub".
  1353. # [22:29] * Joins: gsnedders (n=gsnedder@c83-252-237-255.bredband.comhem.se)
  1354. # [22:29] <TabAtkins> (A shortening of "dubya", the texan way to pronounce that letter.)
  1355. # [22:29] * Philip` pronounces WHATWG as "what"+mumble, because he never actually says it out loud and in his own brain he doesn't need to pronounce the entire word to know what he's thinking of
  1356. # [22:30] <TabAtkins> I pronounce all of my acronyms as words. HTML is "heh teh mul", CSS is "sess es", etc.
  1357. # [22:32] * Quits: gratz|home (n=gratz@cpc3-brig15-2-0-cust237.3-3.cable.virginmedia.com) ("Leaving")
  1358. # [22:34] <Philip`> Hixie: The advantages that I remember (slightly shorter since you don't have to write "http://", and can't be accidentally deferenced) don't really seem compelling compared to the disadvantages (more complex to explain, more unnecessary choices when designing vocabularies, ambiguous ownership of identifiers, can't be intentionally dereferenced, ugly)
  1359. # [22:34] <Philip`> s/deferenced/dereferenced/
  1360. # [22:34] * Philip` wonders if he's forgetting advantages
  1361. # [22:35] <Philip`> TabAtkins: You're weird
  1362. # [22:35] <Philip`> I thought everyone said "HTML" as four letters :-)
  1363. # [22:36] <TabAtkins> Philip`: I save a syllable, and the leftover syllables are easier to say quickly too.
  1364. # [22:36] <Philip`> TabAtkins: If the primary requirement is saving syllables, you could just grunt
  1365. # [22:37] <TabAtkins> But then other people don't have a chance of understanding me. Plus my language organ isn't trained to recognize or produce meaningfully grunting beyond the existing near-primal sounds we all make.
  1366. # [22:38] <TabAtkins> If I set an element's innerHTML with a chunk of code that includes a <script> block, does the script run?
  1367. # [22:40] <Hixie> Philip`: yeah that was my conclusion too
  1368. # [22:40] <gsnedders> TabAtkins: yes
  1369. # [22:40] <Hixie> they're a bitch to remove from the spec though
  1370. # [22:40] <Hixie> sheesh
  1371. # [22:41] <TabAtkins> gsnedders: I thought so. Thanks. I don't muck about with innerHTML often.
  1372. # [22:41] <TabAtkins> (At least not manually - I think jQuery uses it a lot.)
  1373. # [22:41] * Quits: weinig (n=weinig@17.246.17.253)
  1374. # [22:41] * Quits: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B016362.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1375. # [22:42] * Joins: jennb (n=jennb@74.125.59.73)
  1376. # [22:43] <Hixie> didn't shelley say she rejoined the group?
  1377. # [22:43] <Hixie> i don't see her on the list of members
  1378. # [22:43] <TabAtkins> She did, yes.
  1379. # [22:43] <gsnedders> Maybe she left.
  1380. # [22:49] * Philip` attempts to confuse himself horribly by using versioned Mercurial queues
  1381. # [22:50] <Philip`> so now I've got a remote repository, a local repository, and a local patch repository, and I'm sure I'll forget what changes I've got where
  1382. # [22:52] <TabAtkins> This is a bad idea, Philip`.
  1383. # [22:52] * TabAtkins just keeps all his repos always updated to the same level.
  1384. # [22:57] * Joins: ap (n=ap@17.246.19.174)
  1385. # [22:59] * Quits: gsnedders (n=gsnedder@c83-252-237-255.bredband.comhem.se)
  1386. # [23:06] * Quits: ThunderSchunked (i=43f00ab4@gateway/web/freenode/x-sanazuidlouamfja) (Client Quit)
  1387. # [23:16] * Quits: BlurstOfTimes (n=blurstof@168.203.117.66) ("Leaving...")
  1388. # [23:17] * Joins: gsnedders (n=gsnedder@83.252.237.255)
  1389. # [23:26] * Quits: miketaylr (n=miketayl@38.117.156.163)
  1390. # [23:27] * Joins: mat_t (n=mattomas@80-225-22-182.dynamic.dial.as9105.com)
  1391. # [23:28] * Joins: weinig (n=weinig@17.246.17.253)
  1392. # [23:28] * Quits: jwalden (n=waldo@63.245.220.240) ("Reconnecting…")
  1393. # [23:28] * Joins: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B01682F.dip.t-dialin.net)
  1394. # [23:29] * Joins: jwalden (n=waldo@63.245.220.240)
  1395. # [23:29] * Quits: mat_t (n=mattomas@80-225-22-182.dynamic.dial.as9105.com) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
  1396. # [23:29] * Joins: mat_t_ (n=mattomas@80-225-22-182.dynamic.dial.as9105.com)
  1397. # [23:39] * Joins: aroben (i=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben)
  1398. # [23:41] * Joins: tantek (n=tantek@32.155.51.219)
  1399. # [23:41] * Joins: aroben_ (n=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben)
  1400. # [23:43] * Quits: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B013B8B.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1401. # [23:44] * Joins: ttepasse (n=ttepas--@p5B015EE7.dip.t-dialin.net)
  1402. # [23:48] * Quits: zdobersek (n=zan@cpe-92-37-67-51.dynamic.amis.net) ("Leaving.")
  1403. # [23:49] * Quits: Maurice (i=copyman@5ED548D4.cable.ziggo.nl)
  1404. # [23:51] * Joins: nessy (n=Adium@203-158-45-196.dyn.iinet.net.au)
  1405. # [23:52] * Joins: SamerZ (n=SamerZ@CPE00222d5410b8-CM00222d5410b5.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com)
  1406. # [23:55] * Joins: roc (n=roc@121.72.201.77)
  1407. # [23:56] * Quits: ttepass- (n=ttepas--@p5B01682F.dip.t-dialin.net) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1408. # [23:56] * Quits: cying (n=cying@70.90.171.153) (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
  1409. # [23:58] * Quits: kinetik (n=kinetik@121.98.132.55) (Remote closed the connection)
  1410. # [23:58] * Joins: kinetik (n=kinetik@121.98.132.55)
  1411. # [23:59] * Quits: aroben (i=aroben@unaffiliated/aroben) (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
  1412. # Session Close: Sat Oct 17 00:00:00 2009

The end :)