| 00:08 | <karlcow> | AryehGregor: I didn't understand the breakdown by organizations. Because basically it is not really the voice of the organization but the voice of people inside the organization which is slightly different. |
| 00:08 | <karlcow> | I guess the AC vote is the real breakdown by organizations |
| 01:29 | <erlehmann> | AryehGregor, any rationale why non-implementors do not like free licenses in general? |
| 01:30 | erlehmann | just doesn't get it |
| 01:34 | <TabAtkins> | erlehmann: Based on the responses that were given, it's mostly because they dont' understand copyright law or history. |
| 01:34 | <TabAtkins> | It's possible that some of the people who voted but didn't give a response have some reasonable objections, but nobody who actually gave a response did. |
| 01:35 | <erlehmann> | how unfortunate. but based on my experience regarding voting on technical issues, it seems plausible. |
| 01:37 | <TabAtkins> | For example, several people seem to believe that by restricting forking with copyright they can actually prevent forking, which is obviously incorrect (it just makes it more difficult, as we saw with HTML5). |
| 01:38 | <TabAtkins> | Others seem to believe that the mere presence of a fork is automatically harmful, despite the fact that forks are only as strong as the implementors who support them, as evidenced by the multitude of existing forks that are completely irrelevant. |
| 01:38 | <TabAtkins> | Finally, one crazy person believes that forking the HTML spec may allow dictators to oppress their populace more effectively. I... I just don't know what that one's about. |
| 01:41 | <erlehmann> | Because, obviously, autocrats will respect copyright. |
| 01:41 | <TabAtkins> | Yes, that's certainly part of the reason why that objection is crazy. |
| 01:43 | <erlehmann> | There should be some “civilized” form to say that something is wrong in an entirely wrong way. |
| 01:43 | <TabAtkins> | "You're not even wrong."\ |
| 01:43 | <erlehmann> | Oh, I may use that :3 |
| 01:43 | <Hixie> | ah, pauli |
| 01:44 | <TabAtkins> | Yus. |
| 01:44 | <Hixie> | not entirely apropos here, but yeah |
| 01:44 | <Hixie> | i prefer "fractally wrong" for this kind of thing |
| 01:44 | <Hixie> | wrong at every level |
| 01:48 | <othermaciej> | those with Member access should look at the survey the Team actually posted to the AC |
| 01:50 | <TabAtkins> | Ooh, where? |
| 01:51 | <TabAtkins> | Unrelated: Yo, people in Japan, I've lost the super-convenient site for getting info/booking for the shinkansen. Any help? |
| 01:59 | <stefan-_> | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXtOv0QlYao |
| 02:01 | <TabAtkins> | Japanese people: found it, it was hyperdia.com |
| 08:34 | <hsivonen> | does anyone happen to have a demo with a a long WebM file for testing if seeking works over HTTP Range requests? |
| 08:34 | <hsivonen> | it's supposed to work, right? |
| 08:39 | <hsivonen> | testing with http://lachy.id.au/log/2010/05/webm seems to work if Firefox and Opera |
| 08:40 | <hsivonen> | also Chrome 12 |
| 08:40 | <hsivonen> | not in Chromium 11 |
| 08:56 | <hsivonen> | what's the deal with it appearing that Range request-based seeking is in Chrome 12 but not in Chromium 11. Were they really this late to add it, am I testing wrong or do Chrome and Chromium have very different video code paths? |
| 08:56 | <hsivonen> | I tested Google-provided Chrome and Canonical-provided Chromium |
| 08:58 | <nessy> | maybe ask over in #chrome channel? |
| 08:58 | <hsivonen> | nessy: does the result that Firefox and Opera support Range-based seeking seem correct to you? |
| 08:59 | <nessy> | I know they do |
| 08:59 | <hsivonen> | nessy: ok. thanks |
| 08:59 | <nessy> | and yes, from what you are describing it seems chromium doesn't |
| 08:59 | <nessy> | which I find strange |
| 08:59 | <nessy> | like you :-) |
| 09:00 | <hsivonen> | I just tried Chrome 11 on Mac |
| 09:01 | <hsivonen> | it seems to support range-based seeking |
| 09:05 | <nessy> | (ups, channel is #chromium) |
| 09:36 | <hsivonen> | nessy: thanks for offending people about what is "Web content". Now I'm not the only one. :-) See also http://hsivonen.iki.fi/web-stack/ |
| 09:37 | <nessy> | hsivonen: I was hoping there were some people that support my view :-) |
| 09:37 | <nessy> | I was very amused at that discussion |
| 09:39 | <hsivonen> | folks at the W3C can be pretty sensitive about getting called on doing stuff that's not Webby in the sense of being part of the interoperable platform implemented in browsers |
| 09:43 | <doublec> | I'd be surprised if chromium didn't support range requests with video |
| 09:44 | <hsivonen> | nessy: seen this? http://schepers.cc/webmandering |
| 09:45 | <hsivonen> | doublec: I'm just guessing here, but it's plausible that getting the index data out of WebM into the browser requires some ffmpeg API that's not in the system ffmpeg |
| 09:45 | <doublec> | hsivonen: ah,right. possibly. |
| 09:45 | <hsivonen> | doublec: based on how the Chromium packaging in Ubuntu is structured, it seems that ffmpeg is still involved |
| 09:46 | <hsivonen> | I wonder if they'll drop ffmpeg and use the Xiph libs and libvpx directly when they drop H.264 |
| 09:47 | <doublec> | I think ffmpeg's webm decoder is faster than libvpx |
| 09:47 | <doublec> | or at least, that was the claim at one point |
| 09:47 | <doublec> | http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/499 |
| 09:47 | <hsivonen> | doublec: is Chrome using the ffmpeg VP8 decoder or libvpx-wrapped-in-ffmpeg? |
| 09:49 | <hsivonen> | wow. Dark Shikari's blog has been really quiet for a year now |
| 09:49 | <doublec> | hsivonen: there's a post in april |
| 09:50 | <doublec> | hsivonen: or february - depending on what date format he's using |
| 09:50 | <hsivonen> | doublec: yeah, but that one doesn't say much |
| 09:50 | <doublec> | true |
| 09:50 | <doublec> | maybe he's working on some super secret project |
| 10:02 | <hsivonen> | doublec: I was wishing Dark Shikari was working on a VP8 encoder |
| 10:02 | <hsivonen> | doublec: but, curiously, he broke the news that another person was |
| 10:13 | <hsivonen> | I wonder why the git and release activity around the WebM QuickTime Component has ceased |
| 10:23 | <Lachy> | If Microsoft really does by Skype, then I wonder what will happen to the support for VP8 currently in Skype 5? |
| 10:26 | <jgraham> | It will go the same way as the Linux client? |
| 10:27 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: which way is that? |
| 10:27 | <jgraham> | Well, I can't imagine that Microsoft buying skype is going to *improve* the already third-rate linux support |
| 10:28 | <jgraham> | (the latest download for linux is a version of 2 labelled beta) |
| 10:29 | <jgraham> | (although cynical people might point out that 2-anything is a win over 5-anything) |
| 10:29 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: I thought the 2.x Mac version was first-rate, Linux was second-rate and Windows was third-rate |
| 10:29 | <Lachy> | the Mac Skype 5 sucks. 2.8 is still superior for usability. |
| 10:29 | <jgraham> | Well I haven't really used it on windows much |
| 10:30 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: at least the Mac and Linux versions don't stick junk into Firefox |
| 10:30 | <jgraham> | Well that kind of behaviour seems to be more tolerated on Windows in general |
| 10:30 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: unfortunately, yes |
| 10:41 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: if they bought Skype for the userbase, it would be silly to drop support for various platforms, since availability on pretty much all platforms is what drives the network effects |
| 10:41 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: They would be insane to drop Mac for that reason |
| 10:42 | <jgraham> | But Linux is already pretty much unsupported |
| 10:42 | <jgraham> | and likely has a negligible fration of the users |
| 10:44 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: hard to tell what effect dropping Linux support would have on userbase |
| 10:47 | <hsivonen> | jgraham: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/05/microsoft-will-invest-and-support-skype-on-linux/ |
| 10:48 | <hsivonen> | anyway, it's pretty clear that the world needs VOIP that's not tied to a particular app vendor |
| 10:48 | <hsivonen> | too bad SIP sucks |
| 10:48 | <hsivonen> | what happened to libjingle? why didn't it go anywhere? |
| 10:48 | <jgraham> | Hard to tell what "non-Microsoft platforms" menas |
| 10:49 | <jgraham> | I mean they won't drop OSX support |
| 10:49 | <jgraham> | That would be insanity |
| 10:51 | <hsivonen> | one of the big problems with getting cross-vendor VOIP is that if you leave e.g. the mobile part to traditional vendors in that space, they will want to use a proprietary codec and will let carriers impose ridiculous restrictions |
| 10:52 | <hsivonen> | the other big problem is addressing |
| 10:53 | <hsivonen> | do you require a phone number (what about desktops?), do you require an XMPP ID (how you make people get one)? |
| 11:30 | <nessy> | hsivonen: those graphics from before make for a fun read :-) not that I really care: for every purpose you can draw something else |
| 14:59 | <jgraham> | Why is HTMLPropertiesCollection.namedItem a caller and a getter? |
| 15:06 | <AryehGregor> | erlehmann, although you aren't here anymore: I'd hazard a guess that implementers like free licenses because it means the W3C has no control over the specs in the end, which means the implementers will have de facto control. Non-implementers will have no control over the spec outside the W3C. Also, one or two of the implementers are ideologically committed to open-source type stuff, which practically no companies are. |
| 15:07 | <AryehGregor> | What's this survey that the Team submitted to the AC that Maciej mentioned? |
| 15:08 | <AryehGregor> | Hmm, visited links on this W3C page are lighter than unvisited links. How incredibly confusing. |
| 15:09 | <AryehGregor> | Oh, is this it? http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/doclic201105/ |
| 15:09 | <Lachy> | yes |
| 15:12 | <AryehGregor> | Oh, the Intel AC rep is Wayne Carr? Like, the guy who said we shouldn't adopt free licenses because it will allow dictators to suppress their citizens' Internet access? That's a shame. |
| 15:12 | <Lachy> | wtf? |
| 15:13 | <Lachy> | oh, are you referring to his comments about governements forking the spec and stuff? |
| 15:13 | <AryehGregor> | Yeah. |
| 15:14 | <Lachy> | oh, yeah. Perhaps he doesn't realise that governements can and do pass crazy laws all the time without forking specs |
| 15:15 | <jgraham> | That is one possibility |
| 15:15 | <AryehGregor> | Seriously, what stake does Intel have in HTML5 anyway? |
| 15:15 | <Philip`> | Pentiums make the web faster, if I remember the adverts |
| 15:17 | <AryehGregor> | Then they should have left the W3C when they stopped making Pentiums, surely? |
| 15:17 | <jgraham> | There are a large number of Members with no obvious stake in the web |
| 15:17 | <jgraham> | ]I assume that is why W3C does so many non-Web things |
| 15:18 | <AryehGregor> | Which is why it's kind of a puzzle how they get to run the W3C. Or really it's not, it's because they give the W3C money. |
| 15:18 | AryehGregor | keeps the AC survey results open in a tab to look at occasionally as they progress, although being unable to talk about them publicly is kind of annoying |
| 15:19 | <Lachy> | AryehGregor, it's useful to keep such members in the W3C even if they have no obvious stake in current specifications, since a) the W3C gets membership fees from them, and b) such companies with large patent portfolios continue to be bound by the patent policy |
| 15:19 | <AryehGregor> | They're only bound by the patent policy for WGs that they're members of. |
| 15:20 | <AryehGregor> | But even non-HTMLWG members are voting on the HTML5 license. |
| 15:20 | <AryehGregor> | So that part is weak. |
| 15:20 | <Lachy> | Intel is a WG member |
| 15:20 | <AryehGregor> | I know. |
| 15:20 | <AryehGregor> | That's how Wayne Carr answered the HTMLWG survey. |
| 15:20 | <AryehGregor> | As for (a), maybe if the W3C were less bureaucratic, it wouldn't need so much money. |
| 15:21 | <AryehGregor> | Or maybe implementers would be willing to pay more of the bill if they were the ones that controlled the organization. |
| 15:21 | <Lachy> | they need to cover operational costs somehow. |
| 15:22 | <AryehGregor> | What's the W3C's budget? A few tens of millions of dollars, probably? That would be a pretty small burden if split between Microsoft, Apple, and Google. |
| 15:22 | <AryehGregor> | Plus they could get rid of a lot of the operational costs if they didn't have to have decision-making structures independent of implementer consensus. |
| 15:24 | <Philip`> | All companies have a stake in the web to the extent that they are heavy users of it and benefit from improvements to the platform - I assume that's largely why Google started Chrome (they're not doing it to sell an OS, they're doing it to drive progress in the technology their business depends on) but other companies that haven't bothered doing their own browser development may have a similar desire for improvements |
| 15:24 | <jgraham> | To be fair giving even more control to those with the deepest pockets doesn't sound like a winning move |
| 15:26 | <AryehGregor> | It's not about deep pockets, it's about market share. Mozilla has very shallow pockets compared to Apple or Google, but it has more clout in web standards. |
| 15:27 | <AryehGregor> | Look at WebSQL. Apple+Google+Opera = more money than Microsoft+Mozilla, but nowhere close to enough market share to make it tenable to ignore them, so they lose. |
| 17:55 | <TabAtkins_> | lazyirc, what's the correct behavior when a <script> has both a @src and content? Which is run? |
| 17:56 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins_: @src |
| 18:00 | <TabAtkins_> | gsnedders: Cool, thanks. |
| 18:47 | <AryehGregor> | Ah, so the Chromebook announcement has finally come. |
| 18:48 | <AryehGregor> | Seems there's no firm pricing info. |
| 18:50 | <TabAtkins> | "Chromebook" is the most natural-sounding name my wife and I came up with. Glad they went with it. |
| 18:59 | <reggna> | AryehGregor: I think they said $28 per user monthly subscription, for businesses. |
| 20:35 | <TabAtkins> | Ooh, we announced ChromeVox too, cool! |
| 20:35 | <smaug____> | TabAtkins: what is ChromeVox? |
| 20:35 | <TabAtkins> | browser-native screen reader. |
| 20:36 | <bga_> | nice |
| 20:43 | <jgraham> | Hmm, there seem to be posts about that from before today |
| 20:43 | <jgraham> | http://www.rightnow.com/accessibility/uncategorized/accessibility-and-google-chrome-os/ |
| 20:45 | <jgraham> | Sounds cooler than a web-only device though |
| 20:46 | <jgraham> | (I mean I like the vision of a web-only device but I expect it is a few years early yet) |
| 20:52 | <TabAtkins> | It works pretty well for me, actually, especially now that I have a desktop to pick up the slack. |
| 20:53 | <TabAtkins> | The fact that it's light and has extra-long battery life makes it a good bathroom computer, personally. ^_^ |
| 20:57 | <jgraham> | Three hundred dollars for a device that is best used on the toilet? |
| 21:00 | <TabAtkins> | We also use it in the kitchen, for non-toilet-related purposes. |
| 21:00 | <TabAtkins> | Come eat at our house! |
| 21:02 | TabAtkins | needs to learn to use colons better, instead of just overusing dashes. |
| 21:26 | <jamesr> | Hixie: i don't fully grok the difference between the os ring and the custom ring apis |
| 21:29 | <jamesr> | the difference is that drawCustomRing will not draw a "normal" focus ring if the u-a would normally render one, only a "special" ring? |
| 21:33 | <zcorpan> | jamesr: that's my understanding |
| 21:34 | <jamesr> | that's very weird |
| 21:34 | <zcorpan> | why? |
| 21:39 | <cgcardona> | TabAtkins: can I send you a pm? |
| 21:40 | <TabAtkins> | Yes, of course. |
| 22:49 | <jamesr> | Hixie: around? |
| 22:49 | <Hixie> | yo |
| 22:49 | <Hixie> | sup |
| 22:50 | <jamesr> | what about ctx.strokeStyle="focusRing"; ctx.beginPath(); // build path; ctx.somethingElement = e; ctx.stroke(); |
| 22:51 | <jamesr> | not sure exactly what to call the element associated with the stroke |
| 22:52 | <Hixie> | how do you avoid drawing with the system style if you would rather use your own? |
| 22:52 | <jamesr> | that case is a little weirder, but maybe we could define a fallback system for the stroke style so you could say ctx.strokeStyle="systemFocusRing, mystyle" |
| 22:52 | <jamesr> | i haven't fully understood why you would want to do that |
| 22:53 | <Hixie> | say that what i want is to have the focused menu item be in a bigger font size, or some such |
| 22:54 | <Hixie> | actually that's a bad example |
| 22:54 | <Hixie> | since you would just draw nothing |
| 22:54 | <Hixie> | say that i want to indicate focus by drawing a big arrow |
| 22:54 | <jamesr> | but only if the OS wasn't indicating focus itself? |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | how do i do that, while still using the high-constrast focus ring if necessary instead, and while still indicating to the accessibility API that the menu item is the one focused, even though it's next to, not inside, the arrow? |
| 22:55 | <Hixie> | (the latter part being needed to make sure the text gets magnified) |
| 22:56 | <jamesr> | i think it's the "using the high-contrast focus ring if necessary _instead_" part that i'm hung up on |
| 22:56 | <jamesr> | why is it not inaddition to? |
| 22:56 | <jamesr> | IOW why not just draw the arrow, then stroke the focus ring? |
| 22:56 | <jamesr> | if that gets you a high-contrast focus ring and tells the AX api to do something else, that's fine |
| 22:56 | <jamesr> | but i'm not sure why you would want to avoid drawing the arrow in that case |
| 22:56 | <Hixie> | fair enough |
| 22:57 | <Hixie> | the problem is authors aren't going to bother calling this api if it doesn't give them anything |
| 22:57 | <Hixie> | and they don't think of accessibility as anything |
| 22:57 | <Hixie> | the idea is to trick the author into using the api for reasons unrelated to accessibility and get accessibility as a side-effect |
| 22:57 | <jamesr> | what if they get native looking focus rings? that seems nice |
| 22:58 | <Hixie> | most games don't do anything native |
| 22:58 | <jamesr> | yeah, but do you expect games to use this? |
| 22:58 | <Hixie> | one can hope |
| 22:58 | <Hixie> | the other problem is that if you do it as a style the author has to check the focus of each element |
| 22:58 | <Hixie> | instead of just calling the api |
| 22:59 | <Hixie> | plus, it means that the focus ring can only ever be a stroke, and not some other kind of indicator |
| 22:59 | <Hixie> | basically i don't really see the problem that using a strokeStyle solves |
| 22:59 | <jamesr> | what other sort of focus ring could you get using a path as input? |
| 22:59 | <jamesr> | other than a stroke + some metadata about the geometry? |
| 23:00 | <Hixie> | e.g. the effect used in mac os x preferences to indicate search results |
| 23:01 | <jamesr> | you mean the white fuzzy area around the matching element(s)? |
| 23:01 | <jamesr> | that effect doesn't change focus |
| 23:01 | <Hixie> | no, but you could use that for focus |
| 23:01 | <Hixie> | my point is just that we shouldn't close doors unncessarily |
| 23:01 | <Hixie> | what's the problem with the method? |
| 23:10 | <TabAtkins> | Hixie: I wonder if you should make it clear that a UA which allows you to apply styling directly to WebVTT content (rather than applying to via an HTML page that embeds a <video> with <track>) should just use the selectors directly, rather than doing something weird with ::cue(), as ::cue() is only used to jump from the HTML doc to the embedded WebVTT doc. |
| 23:11 | <Hixie> | given that there's no way to associate a style sheet with a webvtt resource directly currently, that seems rather theoretical :-) |
| 23:13 | <TabAtkins> | Eh, I think they'll arise. Providing a user stylesheet for your video player seems reasonable. Heading off future trouble at no real cost is nice. ^^; |
| 23:15 | <TabAtkins> | I'm just thinking about the organization of the section from a layering standpoint. It should just involve you defining how to map a WebVTT document into an element-tree, and then defining ::cue() as a way to style into the embedded WebVTT doc that <video> has. |
| 23:16 | <TabAtkins> | Essentially an editorial change. I could even suggest text. |
| 23:17 | <Hixie> | well if you provide a style sheet for a video, as opposed to a particular track, it seems better to use ::cue |
| 23:17 | <Hixie> | that way you can reuse styles from HTML |
| 23:18 | <TabAtkins> | It's several characters of unnecessary clutter if you're authoring the stylesheet directly for your player, though. |
| 23:19 | <Hixie> | who does that |
| 23:19 | <TabAtkins> | Nobody yet, because no players support styling your WebVTT tracks. |
| 23:20 | <Hixie> | ping me again when it's a real problem :-P |
| 23:20 | <TabAtkins> | Bah. |
| 23:21 | <TabAtkins> | You won't be able to straight re-use an HTML stylesheet anyway, if you style the tracks of different videos differently (as the selector will then by necessity involve more stuff before ::cue()). |
| 23:21 | <Hixie> | i don't expect anyone to ever write a style sheet for a player that they don't also want to use for the web (for some definition of nobody that is zero plus or minus epsilon) |
| 23:23 | <TabAtkins> | Eh, that's easy. s/}\n/}\n::cue(/ and s/{/){/. |
| 23:23 | <Hixie> | exactly |
| 23:23 | <Hixie> | so why bother with having two different styles |
| 23:23 | <Hixie> | just use the one file for both |
| 23:24 | <TabAtkins> | Because it's theoretically impure! ^_^ |
| 23:25 | <Hixie> | define text/webvtt-css which is text/css plus the transformation you just said applied |
| 23:25 | <Hixie> | then it's just a differnet syntax |
| 23:25 | <Hixie> | and is theoretically pure |
| 23:25 | <TabAtkins> | You're basically reaching into a shadow on the video. With shadows currently, styling from within the shadow looks slightly different than styling from outside the shadow, in precisely the way I'm saying cue styling should. |
| 23:25 | <Hixie> | problem solved |
| 23:26 | <Hixie> | man, you and dimitri have been taken hostage by shadow trees and developed stockholm syndrome :-P |
| 23:26 | <TabAtkins> | Dude, the platform uses shadows everywhere, in some form or another. |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | if only that were true in an author-visible sense |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | anyway |
| 23:27 | <TabAtkins> | It will be once we're done! |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | this is similar to xbl shadow trees, sure |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | i don't think it's similar enough to be important |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | and i think the differences are such that it doesn't require the unfortunate difference in styles that xbl does |
| 23:28 | <Hixie> | in particular, it's only ever one level deep |
| 23:29 | <Hixie> | also, spec writers trump implementation purity. :-P |
| 23:29 | <Hixie> | er |
| 23:29 | <Hixie> | theoretical purity |
| 23:29 | <erlehmann> | shadow elements! |
| 23:29 | <erlehmann> | next we have a shadow spec edited by a shadow working group. |
| 23:29 | <TabAtkins> | Aren't we the shadow working group? |
| 23:30 | <erlehmann> | oh wait, yes.j |
| 23:30 | <erlehmann> | :D |
| 23:30 | <Hixie> | no we're the LIGHT working group, silly |
| 23:30 | <Hixie> | the w3c group is the shadow group :-P |
| 23:30 | <TabAtkins> | And the shadow spec? You know, the real spec that is used to render the web, but not what authors see unless they look for it. |
| 23:30 | <erlehmann> | hehehe |
| 23:31 | <erlehmann> | habari goes all the way and just calls the inner circle “cabal” directly. |
| 23:31 | <erlehmann> | am i not right, gsnedders? :> |
| 23:31 | <TabAtkins> | Well, so do we, though we're joking. |
| 23:55 | <gsnedders> | erlehmann: Jokingly. The official name is still the Project Management Committee. |
| 23:55 | <erlehmann> | pah. everyone knows committees don't get anything done. |
| 23:55 | <erlehmann> | %) |
| 23:56 | <gsnedders> | [Insert comment about speed of development drastically slowing down over the past couple of years.] |
| 23:56 | <erlehmann> | C is for Conspiracy! |