| 00:51 | <Hixie> | Dashiva: yeah, i put it back for that reason... was wondering why i'd dropped it in the first place |
| 02:40 | <MikeSmith> | AryehGregor: about privacy in Japan, maybe valued more than in US |
| 02:40 | <MikeSmith> | in some ways at least |
| 02:41 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., there was a bigger fuss about Google Streetview here |
| 06:26 | <hober> | "Why would Google, Bing, and Yahoo! choose Microdata rather than doing what Facebook did and use a simpler RDFa?" -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2011Jun/0032.html |
| 06:26 | <hober> | hahahahaha. |
| 06:47 | <Hixie> | hober: "making order of attributes significant" o_O |
| 06:48 | <Hixie> | hober: the opinion in that criticism would have more weight if the facts in that criticism were correct... |
| 06:54 | <hober> | Hixie: my eyes did o_O pretty literally when I read that |
| 06:57 | <othermaciej> | Hixie: I was wondering about that - didn't sound right to me |
| 06:58 | <Hixie> | you know, when i first did the work on what became these item* attributes, i did a ton of research on microformats, rdfa, rdf, and a raft of other ideas in the space |
| 06:59 | <Hixie> | some of the rdfa guys have returned the favour and even given quite useful feedback |
| 07:00 | <Hixie> | others, though, i get the impression they're quite happy to throw stones without even trying to understand what we're doing here |
| 07:00 | <Hixie> | not that it matters at the end of the day, but it seems disrepectful, somehow |
| 07:02 | <zewt> | (can we boot this guy that's filled up the last 10 pages with join/excess flood? he doesn't appear likely to stop, heh) |
| 07:03 | <Hixie> | eh, it's not like we're having much of a conversation |
| 07:04 | <zewt> | fills up the log with noise |
| 07:10 | <KevinMarks> | I understand what you're doing, Hixie, it's the schema.org crew I don't really follow |
| 07:10 | <Hixie> | what i was talking about above was mostly about the e-mail hober linked to, which was someone criticising microdata, not schema.org |
| 07:11 | Hixie | wasn't involved in schema.org, and doesn't really know anything about it |
| 07:11 | <Hixie> | KevinMarks: sup, btw? i hear you on twig occasionally, good stuff :-) |
| 07:12 | <Hixie> | KevinMarks: grats on your recent job change |
| 07:12 | <KevinMarks> | well, schema.org saying only microdata and FUDing use of microformats and RDFa alongside microdata is tacky |
| 07:12 | <KevinMarks> | thanks - hoping to do some open standards good there |
| 07:13 | Hixie | looks at schema.org to see what it says about rdfa |
| 07:13 | <KevinMarks> | but the real oddness is the 'we just made up a buncha vocabularies without talking to anyone in public, and we might invite you later' |
| 07:14 | <KevinMarks> | http://schema.org/docs/faq.html is the bit that needs a Pilgrim 'high as a kite' translation |
| 07:15 | <Hixie> | the "why microdata" question? doesn't seem fuddy, what's wrong with it? |
| 07:18 | <KevinMarks> | hm, did they remove the bit about 'don't mix types' ? |
| 07:25 | <Hixie> | can't disagree that openly developed standards are the better way to go, but microdata was always meant to be mainly used by private vocabularies, so it doesn't really surprise me |
| 07:26 | <Hixie> | i don't see anything about mixing types, not sure what you mean |
| 07:27 | <KevinMarks> | when I read the site yesterday it said "don't mix microdata and microformats on the same page, it will confuse our parsers" |
| 07:27 | <othermaciej> | lame |
| 07:27 | <Hixie> | that would certainly be lame if it's there |
| 07:27 | <Hixie> | i don't see anything like that there now |
| 07:28 | <KevinMarks> | I wonder where the repository of the edit history is |
| 07:28 | <KevinMarks> | oh, wait |
| 07:28 | <othermaciej> | micro data the feature could be a building block for micro formats in the sense of defined conventions on using standard HTML attributes |
| 07:29 | <othermaciej> | damnmit, autocorrect doesn't like the words "microdata" or "microformat" |
| 07:32 | <othermaciej> | it is sad for the W3C that the schema.org members did not feel the W3C was a good venue for their work |
| 07:36 | <hober> | othermaciej: indeed |
| 07:37 | <othermaciej> | KevinMarks: I'm curious if pilgrim himself would do that on a piece of writing that Google was partially or fully responsible for |
| 07:38 | <KevinMarks> | I suspect not; I migjt have to do it... |
| 07:38 | <KevinMarks> | ah, here's the quote: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/06/introducing-schemaorg-search-engines.html If you’ve already done markup on your pages using microformats or RDFa, we’ll continue to support it. One caveat to watch out for: while it’s OK to use the new schema.org markup or continue to use existing microformats or RDFa markup, you should avoid mixing the formats together on the same web page, as this |
| 07:38 | <KevinMarks> | can confuse our parsers. |
| 07:39 | <othermaciej> | KevinMarks: that just sounds like Google saying they are bad programmers |
| 07:39 | <othermaciej> | (which honestly I'm surprised to hear) |
| 07:40 | <Hixie> | yeah that seems lame |
| 09:04 | <MikeSmith> | kinda surprised schema.org doesn't have a mailing list |
| 09:04 | <MikeSmith> | maybe nobody thought to set one up yet |
| 09:06 | <MikeSmith> | oh |
| 09:06 | <MikeSmith> | http://groups.google.com/group/schemaorg-discussion |
| 09:17 | <MikeSmith> | the answer to the "Is schema.org a standards body like the W3C or IETF ?" question in the FAQ is interesting |
| 09:17 | <MikeSmith> | every new standards body seems to start out with an assertion that it's not a standards body |
| 09:19 | <MikeSmith> | but it's hard to see how an organization set up to provide and maintain a standard set up schemas is not actually a de facto standards body |
| 09:21 | <MikeSmith> | "Changing to the new markup format could be helpful over time because you will be switching to a standard that is accepted across all three companies" |
| 09:26 | <othermaciej> | http://manu.sporny.org/2011/false-choice/ |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | as far as I can see at this point, it seems like schema.org is not any more of a formal organization that whatwg.org is |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | in particular, it has no patent policy nor any documented organizational process for deciding things |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | yes, Microsoft is participating in it |
| 09:29 | <MikeSmith> | s/yes/yet/ |
| 09:31 | <MikeSmith> | so that would seem to indicate that Microsoft can, if the choose to, participate in work on developing standards within a relatively informal organization that does not have a patent policy |
| 09:31 | <MikeSmith> | *if they choose to |
| 10:09 | <Onderhond> | Hi guys, asked this before but might've missed the answer |
| 10:10 | <Onderhond> | If data- attributes can't be used for external scripts, what would be a good alternative? |
| 10:10 | <Onderhond> | In other words, what would be the best way to include data for an external script that isn't user-content? |
| 10:11 | <Onderhond> | fe: <div class="movie review" data-imdbid="0267287"> |
| 10:13 | <erlehmann> | microformats? |
| 10:16 | <Onderhond> | Isn't that just adding classes for html-content? |
| 10:16 | <Onderhond> | Thing is that I don't want the imdb-code as content. |
| 10:16 | <Onderhond> | It's only purpose is meta-data for scripts, so no point in making it show up if fe you would disable css. |
| 11:31 | <Philip`> | Onderhond: If the content and the scripts are controlled by separate people then you ought to write some standard they should both follow so they can interoperate, and I guess that standard could be built on top of microdata with a standard vocabulary URL |
| 11:32 | <Philip`> | like in http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html#global-identifiers-for-items |
| 11:35 | <Onderhond> | But doesn't that mean you're limited to just one property? |
| 11:35 | <Onderhond> | Or could you tuck away multiple data properties in one itemid ? |
| 11:36 | <Philip`> | You can use itemprop to specify more properties |
| 11:37 | <Philip`> | (You may or may not want to put the ISBN in an itemprop instead of using itemid, I guess) |
| 11:37 | <Onderhond> | Myeah, but that would put the data in the html as content again, no? |
| 11:37 | <Philip`> | You can do <meta itemprop="isbn" content="whatever"> |
| 11:38 | <Philip`> | for hidden metadata |
| 11:38 | <Onderhond> | Oh, now that is cool. |
| 11:38 | <Onderhond> | I thought <meta> elements could only be used within the <head> of a page. |
| 11:39 | <Philip`> | http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/semantics.html#the-meta-element has special rules for where <meta itemprop> is permitted |
| 11:41 | <Onderhond> | Thanks for the info!! |
| 11:41 | <Onderhond> | Very useful indeed :) |
| 11:43 | <Philip`> | (The problem with data-imdbid if you don't control both content and script is that you have way to know that other people's content is using data-imdbid in the way you expect, instead of using it for something totally different, whereas microdata (or RDFa etc) uses the itemtype URL to disambiguate) |
| 11:48 | <Onderhond> | Yeah, it's starting to dawn on me :) |
| 11:49 | <Onderhond> | I wonder if microdata will ever become a real standard though. |
| 11:49 | <Onderhond> | It's a bit complex for what it does. |
| 11:50 | <Onderhond> | It's okay for front-end devvers, but I still need to explain to back-end devvers why <p class="title"> is no good :p |
| 11:51 | <Philip`> | What does "real standard" mean? :-) |
| 11:51 | <Dashiva> | Onderhond: You can teach them through monoelement xml |
| 11:52 | <Onderhond> | Philip`: something that will actually be used and recognized as a working standard. |
| 11:52 | <Onderhond> | It's so much easier to just use a data- attribute and ignore the spec. |
| 11:53 | <Onderhond> | Hoping it will turn into a "paving the cowpath" situation. |
| 11:54 | <Philip`> | If you want to ignore the spec there's no need to even use data-, just use <div imdbid="..."> or whatever |
| 11:54 | <Onderhond> | Yeah, but I'll never do that because it won't validate. |
| 11:54 | <Onderhond> | It's like using the <address> element for an actual element. |
| 11:55 | <Onderhond> | It's not permitted, but at least the validator won't complain :D |
| 11:56 | <Dashiva> | What's wrong with <div class="imdbid:x">? :( |
| 11:56 | <Philip`> | It has a colon in it >:-( |
| 11:59 | <Dashiva> | I guess this is why we should be using xhtml |
| 12:00 | <Onderhond> | You can practically taste the awkward silence following that remark :p |
| 12:00 | <Onderhond> | But thanks for the info, at least now I know why you guys made the difference between internal/external scripts |
| 12:01 | <Dashiva> | It's okay, nobody here listens to me anyway :) |
| 12:01 | <Philip`> | Onderhond: You could just stick with the class attribute in a microformat-ish way, but then you have to define how to extract the metadata from an HTML page, which is complex if you have non-trivial data structures - the purpose of microdata is to define a single way of extracting generic structured data from HTML so you don't have to worry about that problem yourself |
| 12:03 | <Philip`> | (Your code doesn't have to care about <meta> or <link> or itemscope or itemprop or anything, it just uses a microdata parser library which returns a simple JSON-ish structure or whatever, or at least it would if such libraries existed yet) |
| 13:30 | <Ms2ger`> | So, which space characters need to be trimmed when parsing a text/uri-list file? |
| 13:56 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: why are you sad about the schema.org partners not using the W3C as their venue? the whole point of Distributed Extensibility is that the W3C enables the non-use of the W3C venue for coordination. |
| 13:56 | <The_8472> | Ms2ger`, doesn't that depend on the language used? the asians use a different space character for their scripts i think |
| 13:57 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: have you already tested if the schema.org participants implement microdata consumption correctly? |
| 13:57 | <Ms2ger`> | I though the point was to enable other WGs within the W3C to do their thing while ignoring the rest of the W3C? |
| 13:57 | <Ms2ger`> | The_8472, there is no human language involved |
| 13:58 | <Dashiva> | hsivonen: I think there's an implied "but it should be done at W3C if W3C wants to do it" in DE |
| 13:58 | <The_8472> | oh, i thought you were talking about IDN character blacklisting |
| 14:00 | <hsivonen> | Ms2ger`, Dashiva: you are probably right. However, DE is also OK for enterprise vendors. |
| 14:00 | <hsivonen> | maybe DE isn't OK for search engines. dunno. |
| 14:00 | <hsivonen> | but is for social networks |
| 14:01 | <hsivonen> | hard to infer how this is supposed to work |
| 14:02 | <Dashiva> | Let's not read too much into a single off-hand comment |
| 14:20 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: I haven't looked at that at all |
| 14:21 | Philip` | barely even knows what the current microdata syntax is |
| 16:03 | <nessy> | gah, my message is stuck in moderation for being 50KB long, when 40KB is the limit :( |
| 17:29 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: ok |
| 19:32 | <othermaciej> | hsivonen: I didn't say I am sad - I said that it is sad for the W3C |
| 20:09 | <salty-horse> | is there a reason why "data:text/html,<article><h1>H1</h1><h2>H2</h2></article>" should have H1 and H2 be the same size? (firefox nightly) |
| 20:23 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: I see |
| 21:26 | <otherarun> | Can anyone point to any part of the HTML spec. that discusses when exactly it is safe to access document.hash or onhashchange, etc.? Is it before the DOM tree is officially constructed? |
| 21:27 | <Dashiva> | What do you mean by safe? |
| 21:27 | otherarun | spends too little time looking at layout stuff in spec. |
| 21:27 | <otherarun> | Dashiva, I misspoke. Instead of "safe" I basically mean, *when* can you access document.hash or onhashchange, etc. |
| 21:27 | <otherarun> | Does a DOM tree need to be in place first, or is access to hash in script fairly instantaneous? |
| 21:28 | <otherarun> | And, does the spec govern any portion of this? |
| 21:28 | <Dashiva> | Unless there's an explicit restriction, I don't see why it would be limited |
| 21:28 | <Dashiva> | The hash is a property of the document location, which is set before the document begins to load |
| 21:31 | <otherarun> | Dashiva, I'm inclined to think so too |
| 21:32 | <otherarun> | Just checking to see if there's something within HTML that is explicit about *when* the fragment portion of the URL is applied. |
| 21:36 | <Dashiva> | Well, there is leniency in when the browser actually scrolls |
| 21:37 | <Dashiva> | "After creating the Document object, but before any script execution, certainly before the parser stops, the user agent must update the session history with the new page." |
| 21:37 | <otherarun> | Dashiva, cool :) |
| 21:37 | <otherarun> | Can you dump a ref here for me to read? |
| 21:38 | <Dashiva> | I don't think that affects .hash or hashchange, though |
| 21:38 | <Dashiva> | It's just for managing the history |
| 21:39 | <otherarun> | ~ Hmmm |
| 21:41 | <Dashiva> | If you check 6.4.3 The Location interface |
| 21:41 | <Dashiva> | The Location interface also has the complement of URL decomposition IDL attributes, protocol, host, port, hostname, pathname, search, and hash. These must follow the rules given for URL decomposition IDL attributes, with the input being the current address of the associated Document object, as an absolute URL |
| 21:42 | <Dashiva> | There's no condition about the document's load state |
| 21:46 | <otherarun> | thanks much. |
| 21:46 | otherarun | goes to contemplate Location interface, History, etc. |
| 23:20 | <nonge> | I need a field for entering a year (YYYY). Am I correct that I can't use the type "number" (because it's for floating integers) nor any of the date types (because there is none for year only)? |
| 23:27 | <Dashiva> | Hmm? |
| 23:29 | <Dashiva> | "The step scale factor is 1. The default step is 1 (allowing only integers, unless the min attribute has a non-integer value)." |
| 23:37 | <nonge> | Dashiva, mhh … when I set »min="2000" max="3000"«, Chromium converts (for example) the number 2011 to 2.011 |
| 23:42 | <Dashiva> | nonge: Are you sure that's not just a thousands separator? |
| 23:44 | <nonge> | Dashiva, ah yes -- that's it. Any chance to disable that display (of the thousand separator)? you wouldn't want one not only for years but for serial numbers or something like that, too … |
| 23:48 | <Dashiva> | I don't think there's CSS developed for input[number] presentation, but there might be some chrome/webkit-specific |