| 00:27 | <annevk> | I don't get rsayre |
| 00:27 | <annevk> | "Disagree. If they are valuable, they will get done by someone." |
| 00:28 | <annevk> | DOM Level 0 and all is very useful, yet nobody did anything with it for years |
| 00:28 | <annevk> | where is evidence that valuable stuff does get documented? |
| 00:28 | <SadEagle> | well, who would document it, and why? |
| 00:32 | <jgraham> | I think there is plenty of evidence of valuable stuff that is not getting done e.g. the XUL-like box model in CSS which, AFAIK, has a stagnant spec |
| 00:33 | <SadEagle> | Spec writing is hard.. And DOM0 also requires reverse-engineering |
| 00:33 | <annevk> | I agree, so I wonder why he states that valuable stuff will get specified somehow where there's plenty of evidence to the contrary |
| 00:35 | jgraham | wonders if it's worthwhile to reply |
| 00:37 | <SadEagle> | plus, there is a big difference between spec existing and it being sufficiently precise to help creation of interoperable implementations. |
| 02:13 | <sayrer> | annevk, just saying that the really valuable stuff will get done |
| 02:13 | <sayrer> | annevk, lots of standards organizations think they are doing valuable work |
| 02:14 | <sayrer> | the WHATWG should not pretend it is immune to this hazard |
| 02:17 | <sayrer> | I should rephrase. I meant lots of standards organizations think everything they do is valuable. |
| 02:18 | <sayrer> | I certainly think some WHATWG work is valuable and high quality |
| 02:18 | <sayrer> | and I am not against all new features. just the ones that are big and distracting, or superfluous |
| 02:19 | <sayrer> | it doesn't seem like the WHATWG has a good way to propose cutting things, which is worrying |
| 03:19 | <Hixie> | sayrer is gone, but for what it's worth, the way to get rid of things is twofold |
| 03:19 | <Hixie> | one way is to just ask for it to be removed. We've dropped quite a lot of stuff that way. |
| 03:19 | <Hixie> | Another way is that when the spec reaches near-zero major feedback, i do a run through and cut stuff out. we did this with wf2, for instance, and cut a bunch of crap out. |
| 03:20 | <Hixie> | and another way, of course, is if no browsers implement it, it drops pretty much automatically.. |
| 03:21 | <Hixie> | it should be noted that i recently proposed getting rid of <event-source>, and people screamed (with good arguments to back up their screams) |
| 03:21 | <Hixie> | i am also planning on dropping the <dfn> cross-ref crap |
| 03:21 | <Hixie> | no-one has screamed about that :-) |
| 03:21 | <Hixie> | teh data templates and repetition blocks stuff is going to go out too |
| 03:22 | <Hixie> | (those three areas are marked up in the spec as being considered for removal) |
| 03:31 | <csarven> | Hixie Is <dfn> even necessary? |
| 03:32 | <Hixie> | the element, or the cross-ref feature of it? |
| 03:33 | <csarven> | The element. If the cross-ref exists I can see some use for it (even though it is a little redundant). |
| 03:34 | <Hixie> | the element is used correctly by many people. the spec itself uses it a lot. |
| 03:35 | <csarven> | Don't most of those cases contain <abbr> within? |
| 03:37 | <Hixie> | no |
| 03:37 | <Hixie> | i don't know that <abbr> is used at all in the spec, in fact |
| 03:39 | <csarven> | Okay, I see how the spec makes a pretty good use of it. |
| 04:54 | <Hixie> | heh, he closed comments on his blog |
| 04:54 | <Hixie> | http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2008/02/21/thoughts-on-whatwg/#comment-7671 |
| 05:18 | <csarven> | Hixie I agree with your "Progress on the Web is a higher priority than spec size idealism." |
| 05:21 | <csarven> | Is there supposed to be a due date and max size for the spec? Heh. Better do it properly and cover what needs to be covered for today instead of releasing a recommendation every few years or something. |
| 07:21 | <sayrer> | Hixie, the issue is closed, right? |
| 07:21 | <sayrer> | I mean, you sounded like you closed it |
| 08:43 | <Hixie> | like i said in #mozilla, i wasn't trying to close the issue, i was just saying i don't know what you want us to do |
| 08:43 | <Hixie> | or #developers, or wherever it was |
| 08:45 | <Hixie> | i'd encourage you to send e-mail to the whatwg list with concrete things i can do to fix the issues you're seeing |
| 08:59 | Hixie | notices that on the list of things sayrer wanted removed includes a number of DOM Level 0 things, despite the fact that he later said he wanted us to focus only on DOM Level 0 |
| 09:14 | <jruderman__> | what does "DOM Level 0" mean to you? |
| 11:48 | <annevk> | plenty of spam on the forums again |
| 17:03 | <zcorpan> | annevk: spam removed, please let me know if i missed something |
| 17:04 | <annevk> | looks fine |
| 20:02 | <Hixie> | jruderman__: well, things like window.alert(), for one... and setTimeout... |
| 20:03 | <annevk> | window in general... |
| 20:05 | <Hixie> | yeah but rsayrer specifically said he wanted to drop window.alert() and window.setTimeout() despite them being on his list of things to keep |
| 20:06 | jwalden | <3 public IRC logs |
| 22:40 | gsnedders | wonders why on earth Prince is inserting a pagebreak where page-break-after: avoid; and doing so wouldn't stop any other page-break from being satisfied |