| 00:10 | <othermaciej> | Wayne Carr's objection to CC0 and MIT license is interesting |
| 00:12 | <Hixie> | did you see the comments on it earlier in #whatwg? |
| 00:12 | <Lachy> | Wayne's objection ignores the fact that specs like http://developers.whatwg.org/ are also forks, and yet I don't see anyone complaining about forks like that. |
| 00:12 | <Hixie> | wayne's objection is fractacally wrong |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | even if we grant the premises of the objection, which are certainly not a given, the conclusion still does not follow |
| 00:13 | <Lachy> | who is he? Does he represent some organisation or just an invited expert? |
| 00:15 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: earlier discussion started at http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110429#l-793 |
| 00:16 | <othermaciej> | the part I find fascinating is - he thinks an authoritarian country would want fork HTML to control what its citizens can see, but yet would be dissuaded byc copyright law |
| 00:16 | <Hixie> | yeah, that was the point i raised earlier |
| 00:17 | <Lachy> | Hixie, surely, no government would ever ignore copyright... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080730/1120081839.shtml :-) |
| 00:18 | <Hixie> | indeed |
| 00:18 | <Lachy> | An interesting and slightly more plausible scenario like this was given to me earlier today. |
| 00:19 | <zewt> | "it is an open organization, so we do not want the specs to be open" |
| 00:19 | <zewt> | a fascinating combination |
| 00:21 | <Lachy> | This came from Chaals, so I hope I remember it correctly. Say some company, like Philips or Samsung or whoever wanted to create their own derivative version of HTML, and set up a certification group to certify implementations of that spec. Then they demand that for Opera to be deployed on those devices, we have to get certified, for a significant cost that just helps them get money for no other reason. |
| 00:22 | <Lachy> | It was claimed that preventing forks would help stop that, by being able to send them a cease and desist letter, or other legal measures, for violating copyright. |
| 00:22 | <zewt> | they could create their own spec unrelated to HTML to do the same thing, though; say, an alternate <script> language or a plugin |
| 00:22 | <Hixie> | or you could tell them to take a running jump |
| 00:22 | <Hixie> | preventing forks doesn't stop that at all |
| 00:22 | <Hixie> | they could just write a diff spec |
| 00:22 | <Lachy> | zewt, yeah, they could create a delta spec or whatever they like, really. |
| 00:22 | <Hixie> | delta spec |
| 00:22 | <Hixie> | and opera can't write a c&d for a w3c spec anyway |
| 00:23 | <zewt> | or they could say "give us money if you want your application on our platform" without any spec make-believe--same thing |
| 00:23 | <Hixie> | and since the deal would probably be under NDA, you couldn't tell the w3c about it |
| 00:23 | <Hixie> | so nobody could send a c&d |
| 00:23 | <Hixie> | so basically that example is bogus :-) |
| 00:23 | <Hixie> | zewt: indeed |
| 00:23 | <Lachy> | If I understand the situation correctly, the DLNA does exactly that, since they just write specs that reference other W3C/IETF/Whatever specs and define profiles, and then require payment for certificatino |
| 00:24 | <Lachy> | Hixie, the idea is that ther W3C could write a C&D letter |
| 00:24 | <Hixie> | how would the w3c know to do so? |
| 00:24 | <Lachy> | since the W3C seems so intent on stopping forks |
| 00:24 | <Hixie> | EvilCorp would just keep everything under NDA so you couldn't tell them |
| 00:24 | <Lachy> | well, presumably Chaals would raise the issue with the advisory board or something |
| 00:24 | <Hixie> | anyway, as it stands the W3C is the one publishing these forks (under the title "profile") |
| 00:24 | <Hixie> | so it's not clear they'd even want to stop it |
| 00:24 | <Hixie> | chaals couldn't raise it in the AC |
| 00:25 | <Hixie> | EvilCorp wouldn't do such a thing without an NDA |
| 00:25 | <zewt> | well, I'm not sure an NDA can legally require people to hide copyright infringement--but that's call-your-lawyer territory :) |
| 00:25 | <Lachy> | He compared the situation with CE-HTML, where he said they apparently did fork it. Yet the W3C did nothing then for whatever reasons |
| 00:25 | <Hixie> | the w3c didn't do anything when the ISO forked it either (via a delta spec in their case) |
| 00:25 | <wilhelm_> | Is “HTML” a trademark? If preventing pretender specs is a goal, that might be a more efficient tool. “EvilCorpML” is significantly harder to sell. (c: |
| 00:26 | <Lachy> | wilhelm_, no trademark on HTML |
| 00:26 | <Lachy> | Hixie, chaals was just arguing with me as he informed me that Opera's official company policy is that we don't want to permit forks |
| 00:27 | <zewt> | frankly all of the "people might do evil things if we let them fork" arguments just seem thin contravances to hide other rationales, like "we want to own HTML, nobody else can have it" |
| 00:28 | <wilhelm_> | Lachy: Indeed. You're right: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/trademarks-20021231.html |
| 00:31 | <Lachy> | besides, all arguments against preventing forks of W3C HTML are moot, since they can just fork WHATWG HTML, ironically under a copyright licence written and supported by Opera |
| 00:31 | <Lachy> | so our policy against forking is self defeating in this case |
| 00:38 | <zewt> | gmail may be the only website I'm aware of that uses a big, empty textarea as a ... button |
| 00:39 | <Lachy> | zewt, wtf? |
| 00:39 | <Lachy> | where? |
| 00:41 | <zewt> | the empty box at the bottom of the thread view; it looks like a "quick reply" box, but when you click it it just opens up the full reply box |
| 00:41 | <zewt> | so it's really just a button |
| 00:42 | <zewt> | (i'm guessing it used to be a real quick-reply box, they removed the quick-reply feature and left the box in to accomodate user habits--but the resulting UI is bizarre) |
| 01:13 | <Dashiva> | I was just shown http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wsdatap/v3r8m1/index.jsp?topic=/xs40/convertingbetweenjsonandjsonx05.htm |
| 01:20 | <zewt> | is that satirical? |
| 01:21 | <ako> | http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/h0chx/need_more_enterprise_introducing_jsonx_an_ibm/ |
| 01:45 | <TabAtkins> | ...wut |
| 01:46 | <TabAtkins> | The PLIST vocabulary is a superset of JSON-in-XML already. |
| 01:47 | <ako> | the thing i like most about json is that it's not xml :> |
| 01:54 | <othermaciej> | JSONx can't possibly be real |
| 01:54 | <othermaciej> | can it? |
| 01:54 | <TabAtkins> | othermaciej: Welcome to the world. Shit just got real. |
| 01:55 | <TabAtkins> | Dammit, missed the opportunity to say "You've been living in a dream world, othermaciej. Welcome to the desert of the real." |
| 01:56 | <aho> | "Reminds me of the horror movie Jason X." |
| 01:56 | <othermaciej> | Whoah. |
| 01:56 | <aho> | heh |
| 01:56 | <aho> | also, yo dawg |
| 01:58 | <hober> | jsonx is so, so gross. |
| 02:00 | <zewt> | well there's only one thing it needs |
| 02:00 | <zewt> | a COM+ API to access it |
| 02:18 | <Hixie> | Lachy_: that wasn't opera's policy until a few months after chaals was hired, fwiw |
| 02:21 | <jwalden> | anyone aware of source code on the web somewhere that uses the reviver argument to JSON.parse? I'm searching in vain for anything that does so except an example in json2.js |
| 03:06 | <jamesr> | what i wanna know is how to write JXpathXJ - json xml representation of xpath json queries |
| 03:14 | <othermaciej> | One thing I wonder about is whether the W3C intends to take action against the ISO HTML, XHTML-MP, CHTML, XHTML Basic, XHTML 2, WML, WTVML, XHTML-Print, WHATWG HTML, or HDML forks of HTML |
| 03:47 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: indeed |
| 03:48 | <othermaciej> | oh, I forgot to mention CE-HTML (not to be confused with CHTML) |
| 03:50 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: also, the epub profile of xhtml |
| 03:52 | <othermaciej> | good point |
| 03:52 | <othermaciej> | the epub 3 dialect of HTML includes both removals and additions |
| 06:39 | <MikeSmith> | so, about the WG decision on http-equiv=Content-Language, and the related spec change |
| 06:40 | <MikeSmith> | the existing validator.nu behavior for http-equiv=Content-Language is to emit a message "The Content-Language state is obsolete. Consider specifying the language on the root element instead." |
| 06:40 | <MikeSmith> | as a warning (because this case was previously obsolete-but-conforming) |
| 06:41 | <MikeSmith> | should we still emit that message, but as an error instead? |
| 06:41 | <MikeSmith> | because if not, the error message will just be a generic "Bad value Content-Language for attribute http-equiv on element meta." |
| 06:41 | <MikeSmith> | with no additional guidance |
| 19:27 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: more guidance is always better |