| 00:03 | Philip` | sees that we are second on http://www.google.com/search?q=irc+log |
| 00:03 | <Philip`> | or fourth, if I use a different browser |
| 00:04 | <Philip`> | Hooray for personalised search results |
| 00:04 | <Philip`> | I'm not sure this is the best place to find out about IRC logging, though |
| 00:08 | <Fiboknight> | thanks |
| 20:15 | <krijnh> | Philip`: Yeah, I should put Google Ads on the logs ;) |
| 21:40 | <hsivonen> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2008Feb/0014.html |
| 21:40 | <hsivonen> | what's the actionable feedback? |
| 21:44 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: what lens you use for those two photos you just put on Flickr? |
| 21:48 | <webben> | hsivonen: Hmm. Well, Frank appears to want to be able to force a mime type in the validator. He also seems to want validator to test URIs are URIs not IRIs. |
| 21:50 | <hsivonen> | would Validator.nu users be better off in general if I made the XHTML 1.0 schemas really require URIs instead of IRIs? |
| 21:51 | <webben> | if XHTML 1.0 requires URIs not IRIs and validator users are trying to validate XHTML 1.0 then yes. |
| 21:53 | <hsivonen> | I guess it depends on whether you consider external refs to be independently updateable |
| 21:54 | <hsivonen> | like the it wouldn't do anyone any good if Validator.nu used Unicode 2 insteado of Unicode 5 |
| 21:54 | <hsivonen> | although W3C specs in general haven't yet been updated to point to Unicode 5.0 |
| 21:57 | <webben> | you mean the IRI requirement is set in a different spec? |
| 21:58 | <webben> | I guess that would depend on the spec. |
| 21:58 | <webben> | If it's debatable, then you'd need to give users an option. |
| 21:58 | <webben> | or seek clarification from whoever's responsible for the spec in question |
| 21:58 | <hsivonen> | webben: I mean if a spec points to URIs when IRIs weren't specified, should software developers treat IRI as an update of URI as far as markup language attribute values go |
| 21:59 | <annevk> | hsivonen, I don't think it's worth bothering about details that should've been errated in specs long ago |
| 21:59 | <annevk> | (and where the spec in fact hints that the situation is going to change) |
| 21:59 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Cannon 60mm EF-S 2.8 Macro |
| 22:00 | <webben> | hsivonen: only the group responsible for maintaining the XHTML 1.0 spec people are trying to validate to can answer that one way or the other. |
| 22:00 | <webben> | I guess that's Pemberton's lot atm. |
| 22:00 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: I was thinking of getting that sometime (in a while, as I want a telephoto lens first) |
| 22:01 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: I guess the practical answer depends on whether any software depends on URIs-only |
| 22:02 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: really old browsers do |
| 22:02 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: You should consider the 100mm Macro too; I didn't get it because this one was cheaper and someone else was paying |
| 22:02 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: I really don't do much macro photography, so I really wouldn't want to get a very expensive one |
| 22:03 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: s/software/current software/ then. |
| 22:03 | <hsivonen> | I'm inclined to fix this in documentation and claim that the schema isn't XHTML 1.0 but XHTML 1.0 plus IRI |
| 22:04 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Well with lenses "expensive" means very different things to different people :) |
| 22:04 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: that's true :) |
| 22:12 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: for a start: L lenses are madly expensive :) |
| 22:37 | <Hixie> | i have way too much fun making my examples in the spec refer to things i like |
| 22:41 | <Lachy> | Hixie, what examples are you adding to the spec now, and what do they refer to? |
| 22:41 | <Hixie> | <m> (now called <mark>) |
| 22:41 | <hsivonen> | http://omniplex.blogspot.com/2007/05/fictitious-u1e9e-character-endorsed-by.html |
| 22:41 | <Hixie> | and you'll have to see if you can guess them :-) |
| 22:41 | <Lachy> | ok |
| 22:42 | <hsivonen> | Unicode needs a mechanism that stops the implementation cost of a new character from being an externality from the proposer point of view |
| 22:43 | <Lachy> | I still never figured out that ΑΒΓ company alt text example |
| 22:44 | <Lachy> | though, I found out the XYZ company example is possibly a reference to one of your old test cases on your site |
| 22:47 | <Hixie> | that's all it was iirc |
| 22:49 | <Lachy> | the ΑΒΓ company one too? I haven't seen that test case yet. Though, it'll probably show up in spartan one day |
| 22:49 | <Hixie> | i think it's just a different company with the same kind of name |
| 22:49 | <Hixie> | but i could be mistaken |
| 23:01 | Hixie | checks in the new <mark> element |
| 23:01 | <webben> | is that m with a longer name? |
| 23:02 | <Hixie> | yes |
| 23:02 | <Hixie> | the list of people bcc'ed on this e-mail is basically the list of people who contribute to the spec on a regular basis |
| 23:02 | <Hixie> | it's quite a long list |
| 23:02 | <Hixie> | like, 20+ names |
| 23:03 | <Hixie> | woot, that cleared out 74 e-mails in one go |
| 23:03 | <Lachy> | woah, that's one long email! |
| 23:04 | <Lachy> | anything worth reading in it? |
| 23:04 | <Hixie> | it's basically summarised at the top |
| 23:04 | <Hixie> | i didn't add much commentary |
| 23:05 | Hixie | optimistically deletes the "input-for-whatwg-semantics-phrasing-m" folder |
| 23:17 | <Hixie> | so the next topic is <Cite> |
| 23:17 | <Hixie> | should it be only for citations, or for any title of work? |
| 23:17 | <annevk> | you could add an example that uses the irc logs which are hilited in exactly the suggested way |
| 23:17 | <annevk> | Hixie, only titles of work? |
| 23:18 | <Hixie> | is that a vote or a question? :-) |
| 23:19 | <Lachy> | people use it for titles of work in practice. I see no reason to restrict that |
| 23:19 | <annevk> | Hixie, it's what hsivonen and DanC want I think |
| 23:19 | <Hixie> | (and yeah, irc might be a good thing to add) |
| 23:20 | <Hixie> | brb, intermission shift |
| 23:20 | <annevk> | I've used it for citations, but only because I wanted to comply to HTML4... |
| 23:20 | Dashiva | is shocked |
| 23:21 | Lachy | giggles at yet another Stargate reference in the spec :-) |
| 23:22 | <Dashiva> | Will the conspiracy of light manage to sneak itself in there? |
| 23:22 | <Lachy> | Hixie, s/just under 39 minutes/just over 38 minutes/ |
| 23:24 | <Lachy> | the only ones to last longer than a few seconds past 38 minutes had powerful energy sources keeping them open |
| 23:26 | <Lachy> | Hixie, s/and a large gravity well/or a large gravity well/ |
| 23:36 | csarven | reads Hixie's email |
| 23:39 | <csarven> | "The semantic in question isn't the kind of thing I would imagine would fit the microformat ethos." -- which is correct |
| 23:40 | <tantek> | which semantic? |
| 23:41 | <csarven> | <mark> (which was <m>) |
| 23:43 | <csarven> | tantek http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-mark |
| 23:44 | <tantek> | hmm.. last time i tried viewing the html5 spec it locked up firefox. not sure i want to click that link ;) |
| 23:51 | jgraham | wonders what the use case of marking titles is |
| 23:54 | <Lachy> | tantek, here's the multipage version http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-phrase.html#the-mark |
| 23:56 | <Lachy> | but even the single page version shouldn't lock up firefox. I look at it all the time without any problems. It generally loads in about 5-10 seconds for me |
| 23:58 | <jgraham> | At one point I was having an issue with the spec and a ff extension, but I don't recall which one |