| 05:03 | <zcorpan> | nessy: http://simon.html5.org/sandbox/bookmarklets/reveal-comments |
| 06:34 | <zcorpan> | nobody fancy writing an april fools blog post this year? |
| 06:43 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: I retweeted your tweet as WHATWG |
| 06:43 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: thanks |
| 06:45 | <tw2113> | i'm not that creative lately |
| 07:25 | <hsivonen> | Boo. Sam presents Open Graph Protocol as RDFa to students: http://intertwingly.net/slides/2011/unc-inls-520/html5-6 |
| 07:29 | <othermaciej> | also has an inaccurate claim about violating http |
| 07:31 | <othermaciej> | many of the "violates" statements are… creative |
| 08:52 | <foolip> | http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/07/06/nfc is still funny |
| 09:46 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: You around? |
| 09:46 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 09:48 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: So, thinking about travel plans, it's probably easiest to meet with either myself or jgraham, and not both :) |
| 09:49 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith & (gsnedders ^ jgraham) |
| 09:50 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Now people will think we are the same person |
| 09:50 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 09:51 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: stop talking to yourself |
| 09:51 | <MikeSmith> | :D |
| 09:51 | <MikeSmith> | I'll talk to plh and see what he thinks |
| 09:52 | <hsivonen> | if plh thinks gsnedders and jgraham are the same person? |
| 09:52 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 09:52 | <MikeSmith> | about my travel plans |
| 09:53 | <MikeSmith> | the idea was that since I'll be traveling to Europe in May anyway, it would be good to try to d some face-to-face discussion about details of the testing effort |
| 09:54 | <jgraham> | Yes, I think that is a good idea |
| 09:55 | <MikeSmith> | so I'll figure something out |
| 09:55 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: You could always come to Glasgow/Edinburgh ;P |
| 09:56 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 09:57 | <MikeSmith> | it's not out of the realm of possibility that I could go there and Linköping too in May |
| 09:57 | <MikeSmith> | just a small matter of money |
| 09:57 | <MikeSmith> | and timing |
| 10:00 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: Basically prior to the 20th, excepting the 13th (and likely the 12th) and 16th, I can probably take a day out |
| 10:01 | <MikeSmith> | ok |
| 10:03 | <zcorpan> | xkcd has nice pseudo-3d effects today |
| 10:03 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: Was there anyone apart frm myself/jgraham you wanted in that discussion, BTW? |
| 10:04 | <MikeSmith> | gsnedders: no, just had in mind the two of you, since you've been most actively involved in the HTML WG Testing TF |
| 10:08 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: The other point I was going to make was that it isn't impossible I'll end up in Tokyo first week of June |
| 10:08 | <MikeSmith> | huh? |
| 10:08 | <MikeSmith> | really? |
| 10:08 | <MikeSmith> | that'd be great |
| 10:09 | <gsnedders> | MikeSmith: CSS WG F2F |
| 10:09 | <gsnedders> | I really need to work out when I intend on leaving Glasgow before I really commit to anything, though |
| 10:10 | <zcorpan> | idea for an april fools: whatwg has decided to rename HTML again, this time to SGML (with the XML version being called XSGML) |
| 10:11 | <Peter-> | I like XSGML, haha |
| 10:11 | <jgraham> | Super Good MArkup Language and eXtra Super Good Markup Language? |
| 10:11 | <jgraham> | s/A/a/ |
| 10:12 | <zcorpan> | something like that :) feel free to write a post on the blog, and claim that the spec hasn't been updated yet because it's waiting for Hixie to regen the spec |
| 10:12 | <zcorpan> | or maybe Hixie can actually rename the spec |
| 10:12 | <jgraham> | That would be much better indeed |
| 10:13 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: ^ |
| 10:14 | <zcorpan> | perfect timing with w3c making their html5 logo official |
| 10:14 | <zcorpan> | can add some reference to that as well |
| 10:17 | <zcorpan> | and take a step further with not using versions by stop using version control and just updating the spec, like the good old days |
| 10:22 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: where can I find the legalese for submitting tests to w3c-test.org? |
| 10:25 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Testing/Submission/ |
| 10:27 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: there's a company name for vendors other than Mozilla but then there's DavidBaron. Should I use Mozilla or HenriSivonen? |
| 10:27 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: I would use Mozilla, but honestly I don't think it matters |
| 10:27 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: OK. |
| 14:25 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: yt? |
| 14:27 | <micheil> | Hixie: yt? (as well) |
| 14:30 | jgraham | wonders if Hixie has suddently become the sort of person thet gets up at 6:30am |
| 14:31 | <micheil> | jgraham: do you think it'd make sense to have WebSocket objects have a connect() method? |
| 14:31 | <micheil> | so, if the connect gets closed, rather then creating a whole new websocket object, you could just call ws.connect() |
| 14:31 | <micheil> | where ws is a WebSocket object |
| 14:33 | <zcorpan> | micheil: what's the problem with creating a new object? |
| 14:33 | <micheil> | more memory allocation, object creation, etc |
| 14:33 | <jgraham> | micheil: It's not obviously a bad idea |
| 14:33 | <jgraham> | Although I think the efficiency argument is pretty bogus |
| 14:33 | <micheil> | true, modern computers have plenty of memory, etc, but I think it'd be a nice api to have. |
| 14:34 | <jgraham> | (since presumably applications will have ~1 websocket object and the time to init it will be a tiny fraction of the time to set up the connection) |
| 14:35 | <micheil> | but then if you have a connection interruption, you get disconnected |
| 14:55 | <micheil> | jgraham: what would the appropriate channels be for suggesting / requesting features to the W3C WebSocket API? |
| 14:55 | <jgraham> | micheil: You could try public-webapps |
| 14:55 | <jgraham> | The mailing list |
| 14:56 | <jgraham> | Or the whatwg list |
| 14:56 | <micheil> | is that with much optimism? |
| 14:56 | <jgraham> | You can try it with as much optimisim as you like |
| 14:57 | <jgraham> | In either case your input will be considered |
| 14:57 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: i've sent you an email with a blog entry |
| 14:57 | <micheil> | well, are suggestions actually taken seriously from people that are not within the webapps group? |
| 14:57 | <jgraham> | Yes |
| 20:27 | <zcorpan> | so Hixie can't edit the spec today. maybe i should blog anyway |
| 20:27 | <zcorpan> | how do i log in to the blog again? |
| 20:31 | <zcorpan> | http://simon.html5.org/temp/sgml-is-the-new-html.txt - anyone feel free to post that on the blog, and edit as you see fit |
| 20:32 | <zcorpan> | nn |
| 22:53 | <hober> | The ISSUE-27 poll closes today; get your responses in beforehand! :) |
| 22:54 | <TabAtkins> | Could you link to it? |
| 22:59 | <Lachy> | Philip`, you're too trusting of people. What if someone posts a link to some shock site? |
| 23:00 | <jgraham> | Lachy: You're too trusting of Philip` :) |
| 23:03 | <Lachy> | TabAtkins, I was just about to say that :-) |
| 23:03 | <hober> | TabAtkins: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-27-objection-poll |
| 23:03 | jgraham | has just had a shocking experience with hg pull --rebase |
| 23:03 | <jgraham> | Which is all text |
| 23:03 | <jgraham> | :( |
| 23:06 | <jgraham> | hober: I don't think I could fill that survey in right now without using the words "IETF" and "idiotic" all in the same sentence |
| 23:06 | <TabAtkins> | Argleblarg, *why* is the w3c so obsessed with dated urls? Really? 2002/09, in a poll posted 2011/03? |
| 23:07 | <jgraham> | So I trust that you will say the obvious things about registries that have some reflection on reality being better than ones with self-appointed expert gatekeepers |
| 23:08 | <zewt> | i don't mind dates in URLs, but totally wrong dates are, uh ... |
| 23:08 | <zewt> | well, wrong |
| 23:08 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, dates in a blog post link are okay, because they're, you know, correct and topical (it's sometimes useful to know precisely when a post was made, so you understand context). |
| 23:10 | <AryehGregor> | www-archive is such a clever idea. |
| 23:10 | AryehGregor | waits for his mail to show up in the archive |
| 23:11 | <jgraham> | Argh. Too much git has made my hg fy grow weak |
| 23:11 | <jgraham> | *fu |
| 23:12 | <AryehGregor> | You know, I'm not sure any issue where I wrote a Change Proposal has ever wound up being decided against my position. |
| 23:12 | <zewt> | heh |
| 23:12 | <AryehGregor> | Maybe I should check, to fuel my ego. |
| 23:12 | <zewt> | it took me a *long* time to switch from "cvs com" to "svn ci" |
| 23:12 | <AryehGregor> | But it would just make me more conservative in writing objections, if it were true, so maybe it's a bad thing. |
| 23:12 | <AryehGregor> | (Or maybe that's a good thing.) |
| 23:19 | <hober> | jgraham: with my apple hat off, I'd love for you to reply to the survey with "IETF" and "idiotic" in the same sentences :) |
| 23:19 | <AryehGregor> | What's an example of a notable page that uses lots of table-based markup? |
| 23:20 | <hober> | jgraham: and with regard to making that point (matching reality being better than self-appointed gatekeepers), I think I made that point in the CP, so won't repeat it in my poll response |
| 23:20 | <AryehGregor> | ("notable" meaning "a site people actually have heard of and visit", not a high bar) |