| 04:43 | <sephr> | Hixie: what'd the reasoning behind using language-XXX class for programming languages? ( http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/text-level-semantics.html#the-code-element ) |
| 04:43 | <sephr> | that's so ambiguous |
| 04:43 | <sephr> | why not use media types? |
| 04:43 | <sephr> | s/what'd/what's/ |
| 04:45 | <sephr> | some programming languages don't have registered media types, but type="application/x-pascal" seems much more appropriate than piggybacking on class |
| 04:59 | <Hixie> | sephr: there's no type="" attribute, and the use case isn't important enough to add one just for this |
| 04:59 | <Hixie> | sephr: the idea of using class="language-*" is just a suggestion for people who need some mechanism anyway |
| 04:59 | <sephr> | sure yeah |
| 04:59 | <sephr> | what is the standards legality of x-programming-x-{language}? |
| 05:00 | <Hixie> | you mean as a mime type? |
| 05:00 | <sephr> | no, as a language code |
| 05:00 | <Hixie> | as in lang=""? |
| 05:00 | <sephr> | for example, <code lang="x-programming-x-python"> |
| 05:00 | <sephr> | yeah |
| 05:00 | <sephr> | it's valid, but it seems a little wrong to do |
| 05:00 | <Hixie> | programming languages aren't the same as natural languages |
| 05:00 | <Hixie> | they're orthogonal concepts |
| 05:00 | <sephr> | yeah |
| 05:00 | <Hixie> | you can have java with french variables, for instance |
| 05:01 | <sephr> | then you'd do x-programming-x-java-fr heh |
| 05:01 | <sephr> | actually I think you'd start with the fr tag |
| 05:01 | <Hixie> | no better than class="language-java", except for being more verbose and being of dubious validity :-) |
| 05:02 | <sephr> | I wish you didn't have to put x- before every single subtag |
| 05:02 | <sephr> | if you start the first tag off with x- |
| 05:02 | <Hixie> | it's supposed to remind you that you're doing something bad :-) |
| 05:02 | <sephr> | heh |
| 05:02 | <sephr> | Hixie: oh btw, this is a little off-topic, but what are your thoughts on stripping x- internally? |
| 05:03 | <sephr> | for localization packages |
| 05:03 | <Hixie> | hm? |
| 05:03 | <sephr> | like en-US-x-Hixie and en-US-Hixie being the same |
| 05:03 | <Hixie> | wouldn't that violate the rules of the language tag processing model? |
| 05:04 | <sephr> | I know, but if x-Hixie is ever standardized, would it be reasonable to assume it'd be the same as x-Hixie or do you think it would change? |
| 05:04 | <Hixie> | it'd never be standardised |
| 05:04 | <sephr> | I strip the x-s in my l10n.js lib (https://github.com/eligrey/l10n.js) |
| 05:04 | <sephr> | if I put enough money behind it I'm sure you could get it standardized ;) |
| 05:05 | <sephr> | just formalize the spec more and be a little more verbose |
| 05:05 | <Hixie> | if a subtag is ever usefully standardised, the usage of the experimental subtag would be dwarfed by the usage of the official subtag, such that there'd be no reason to care about the experimental one |
| 05:05 | <Hixie> | anyway |
| 05:05 | <Hixie> | it seems clearly in violation of the rules and to be missing the point |
| 05:05 | <Hixie> | but you do what you like :-) |
| 05:05 | <sephr> | yeah I think I'll stop stipping the private use tags |
| 05:06 | <sephr> | if only we had a prog top tag |
| 05:07 | <sephr> | (was unrelated to the other message) |
| 05:55 | <heycam> | does CSS define whether text decorations are drawn under or over text? |
| 05:55 | <Hixie> | CSS 2.1 Appendix E would be where that would be defined |
| 05:55 | <Hixie> | if it's defined |
| 05:56 | heycam | takes a look |
| 05:56 | <heycam> | it does, thanks Hixie |
| 05:57 | <heycam> | and in an order consistent with SVG text, too. happy day. :) |
| 06:02 | <Hixie> | well that's lucky |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: I'm reading http://hsivonen.iki.fi/aria-html5-bis/ while working on the ARIA schema updates, and I'm wondering if you ever got responses to the comments and questions you posted to the PFWG comments list |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | e.g, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2008JanMar/0043.html |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | about whitespace trimming |
| 09:29 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: same question for you |
| 09:29 | <MikeSmith> | about aria-level |
| 09:39 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: I can't find any evidence I got responses to those specific comments although I did to some other ones. But I may just be missing something |
| 09:46 | <AugustoF> | Sup |
| 09:49 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: there were some responses. I still suggest implementing the ARIA datatypes as HTML5 microsyntaxes rather than XSD datatypes |
| 09:49 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: well, frankly, they should have responded to you directly in some way, with a public record of the response |
| 09:49 | <AugustoF> | I'm working in a project for a video social network in html5, someone aqui working with Video conferencing or peer-to-peer communication? |
| 09:49 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: OK |
| 09:49 | <hsivonen> | I still don't believe anyone really wants the XSD behaviors in a browser |
| 09:49 | <AugustoF> | here* |
| 09:49 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, I tend to agree with you there |
| 09:50 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: do you recall where you got the responses? |
| 09:50 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., was it private e-mail, or archived on a list |
| 09:50 | <MikeSmith> | and if so, which list? |
| 09:51 | <payman> | AugustoF: Ask your question and find out? |
| 09:51 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: I am not sure but I believe it's a requirement that LC comments have to be publicly archived somewhere |
| 09:52 | <MikeSmith> | it is definitely a requirement that all LC comments must be responded to |
| 09:52 | <MikeSmith> | but even if your comments were not LC comments, the spirit of the process at least requires some formal response |
| 09:53 | <AugustoF> | payman I don't have just one question, btw I'm searching people to working in my project |
| 09:53 | <jgraham> | I think those were maybe not LC comments? |
| 09:53 | <jgraham> | I got some responses to some LC comments |
| 09:53 | <jgraham> | But nothing abour aria-level |
| 09:55 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: I think the responses were in their LC comment tracking app |
| 09:58 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: … which I think there is no public facet of… |
| 09:58 | <MikeSmith> | but I will check |
| 09:59 | <MikeSmith> | if they are using Dom's comment-tracker app, I am pretty sure it has a way to expose a public view while keeping some fields private to the WG |
| 09:59 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: OK |
| 10:02 | <Facetalk> | Would anyone be interested in working on a project for make a social video network made ??partly in html5? |
| 10:02 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen, jgraham : the specific problem with aria-level is that it's now mentioned in the HTML5 spec |
| 10:02 | <MikeSmith> | http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/content-models.html#table-aria-strong |
| 10:02 | <MikeSmith> | for hgroup |
| 10:02 | <MikeSmith> | as is the "heading" role |
| 10:02 | <MikeSmith> | and, by design, neither aria-level nor the "heading" role are valid in the validator.nu ARIA schema |
| 10:03 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen, jgraham: and so I would like to know what response if any PFWG gave to you about your comments and questions on those, and on any other ARIA features which are by design not supported in the validator.nu ARIA schema |
| 11:34 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: you're going full frontal willful violation against ARIA? |
| 11:35 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: think of the blind people! |
| 11:35 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: nothing like that |
| 11:37 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: only partial willful violation? |
| 11:38 | <MikeSmith_> | if, after reviewing the patch and seeing whether PFWG made changes to address his comments, he agrees that the schema needs to be changed, we can do it then |
| 11:38 | <MikeSmith_> | and/or we file HTML5 spec bugs to not require those attiributes |
| 11:38 | <MikeSmith_> | which actually, I think the spec may not at this point |
| 11:39 | <MikeSmith_> | in the case of aria-level and role=heading |
| 11:39 | <MikeSmith> | I thought it did when I first started putting the patch together but it seems now that the spec may not actually be requiring them |
| 11:45 | jgraham | doesn't entirely like the words "MikeSmith" and "full frontal" appearing in the same sentence |
| 11:46 | <MikeSmith> | heh |