| 03:16 | <Hixie> | so... |
| 03:16 | <Hixie> | there's a problem with the spec splitter script |
| 03:16 | <Hixie> | it causes me to hit my CPU limit. |
| 03:16 | <Hixie> | I've tried 'nice'ing it but that doesn't help |
| 03:39 | <mpt_> | Hixie, that's easy to solve, just shorten the spec |
| 03:40 | mpt_ | ducks |
| 03:54 | <Lachy> | are there any comments in that slashdot article that actually respond to the issue? So far, all comments I've read are mostly off topic talk about stylesheet issues |
| 03:57 | <mpt_> | Not that I could see (but then, I browse at ≥3, so maybe the moderators weren't interested in on-topic discussion) |
| 03:59 | <Lachy> | I leave all comments visible. I find it annoying reading comments that respond to others that aren't shown |
| 03:59 | <Lachy> | and I don't particularly trust people I don't know to be able to choose what I should and shouldn't read |
| 03:59 | <mpt_> | It's great that you have that much time to read :-) |
| 04:00 | <Lachy> | ah, the benefits of being unemployed :-) |
| 04:01 | <mpt_> | You are, largely, trusting people you don't know to choose what you should and shouldn't read every time you do a Web search and don't go beyond the first page of results |
| 04:02 | <Lachy> | I often go beyond the first results page if I don't find what I want |
| 05:22 | <Hixie> | mpt_: not clear what I should drop that would make it shorter enough. The script that's failing is the one that MAKES it shorter :-P |
| 07:17 | <annevk> | Everyone should agree on this by now. Versioning debates are awesome! |
| 07:19 | <othermaciej> | I'm going to have to make my own entry in the versioning debate, I fear |
| 07:21 | <annevk> | The browsing sniffing from authors is a major pain though. |
| 07:22 | <othermaciej> | I do think what cwilso is asking for is not only a bad idea but also kind of insulting to the working group |
| 07:22 | <othermaciej> | "we won't ever conform to the spec because at some point we will freeze bugs, please change the spec to make it easier for us to not conform" |
| 07:22 | <annevk> | If a site uses features browser A and B equally support they can still render it differently because the author is uninformed |
| 07:23 | <Lachy> | Chris' fallicious arguments are starting to get annoying |
| 07:24 | <annevk> | (Because the site uses feature detection with a feature outside of the compatible rangebetween A and B.) |
| 07:24 | <annevk> | othermaciej, yeah, that's not very clear to me either. If they completely implement HTML5, there's no need for versioning in HTML6... |
| 07:25 | <othermaciej> | Chris has pretty much said they will never support it: "- support <!DOCTYPE html> as always-the-latest-version, |
| 07:25 | <othermaciej> | Not once it's widely used, as we will break back-compat." |
| 07:28 | <annevk> | Yeah, I didn't get that statement |
| 07:28 | <Lachy> | I wish Chris would join us in here or #html-wg |
| 07:31 | <annevk> | did David P. try to beat cwilso in the longest e-mail match? |
| 07:31 | annevk | quit reading it |
| 07:33 | <othermaciej> | I find it funny that he says no changes are acceptable for current content, but any IE changes to HTML5 support will be acceptable so long as less than 0.5% of the web uses that doctype |
| 07:33 | <othermaciej> | so which is it, absolutely 0, or up to 0.5%? |
| 07:33 | <othermaciej> | because I think "breaks less than 0.5% of sites" would be a fine threshold for anything in HTML5 |
| 07:33 | <othermaciej> | perhaps even too lenient |
| 07:34 | <annevk> | if done incrementally we could fix the web :) |
| 08:03 | <annevk> | That people still believed HTML5 was based on SGML |
| 08:03 | <annevk> | How about reading what type of effort you join... |
| 08:05 | <hsivonen> | annevk: I guess having Web Apps 1.0 and Patent Law for Dummies as required reading is too ambitious if people don't read the Charter, which is required reading that everyone had to affirmatively claim to have read |
| 08:05 | <othermaciej> | We need a FAQ |
| 08:05 | <othermaciej> | people won't read that either but at least you can point them to it |
| 08:08 | <othermaciej> | I may have to write an essay of my own to properly reply to Chris |
| 08:10 | <Lachy> | othermaciej, what questions would you like me to add to the WHATWG FAQ to deal with these issues? |
| 08:10 | <KevinMarks> | he basically syas people serve specific things to fucked up ie versions |
| 08:10 | <annevk> | Q: Am I an idiot? |
| 08:10 | <annevk> | A: Most likely. |
| 08:11 | <othermaciej> | Lachy: I guess one about the format not being based on SGML, and maybe one about the reasoning behind the doctype |
| 08:12 | <KevinMarks> | so, how about an ie version tag with a range |
| 08:12 | <KevinMarks> | and he can commit to which version he'll fix it in |
| 08:12 | <Lachy> | othermaciej, we already have those questions |
| 08:13 | <Lachy> | but they could be improved |
| 08:14 | <othermaciej> | Lachy: then I just need to read the FAQ so I know when to point people to it :-) |
| 08:14 | <Lachy> | http://blog.whatwg.org/faq/#doctype |
| 09:39 | <krijnhoetmer> | Lachy: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/latest/ |
| 09:40 | <hasather> | krijnhoetmer: great, thanks for that |
| 09:40 | <krijnhoetmer> | hasather: np |
| 09:44 | <krijnhoetmer> | More ideas? |
| 09:45 | <met_> | http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/ sould redirect to latest ? |
| 09:45 | <met_> | and not to the index |
| 09:45 | <krijnhoetmer> | Doh |
| 09:45 | <krijnhoetmer> | :) |
| 09:47 | <krijnhoetmer> | met_: Done |
| 09:47 | <met_> | thx |
| 09:47 | <met_> | and same for http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/ ? |
| 09:48 | <met_> | 8-) |
| 09:48 | <krijnhoetmer> | I did |
| 09:48 | <met_> | not workfor me |
| 09:48 | <met_> | http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/ still redirect to index |
| 09:48 | <krijnhoetmer> | Lies! |
| 09:48 | <krijnhoetmer> | :( |
| 09:49 | <met_> | sorry, but till 8-( |
| 09:49 | <met_> | now, the change |
| 09:49 | <met_> | ok mabe it was some cache |
| 09:50 | <met_> | ff cache, in IE it redirect thx and sorry for confusion 8-) |
| 09:50 | <krijnhoetmer> | Yeah, Fx sucks |
| 09:50 | <krijnhoetmer> | *runs* |
| 09:50 | krijnhoetmer | is going to erase that line from the logs :P |
| 09:51 | met_ | used to do ff propaganda in czech republic |
| 09:51 | <krijnhoetmer> | I hope you used 'Fx' for that propaganda then? ;) |
| 09:51 | met_ | sometime agree, but only sometime |
| 09:51 | <krijnhoetmer> | http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/faq.html#spell-abbreviate |
| 09:53 | met_ | will prefers ff for the end of his life |
| 11:13 | <Lachy> | krijnhoetmer, that FAQ entry is poor. FF is the most commonly used abbreviation, although FX does get used in SFX for SpreadFirefox |
| 11:14 | <Lachy> | although it's correcrt about not calling it FireFox - that just annoys me everytime I see it |
| 11:15 | <html6> | don't read, test sentance |
| 11:16 | <Lachy> | oops, sorry, I read the sentence and now it's too late :-( |
| 11:17 | <zcorpan_> | Lachy: "fx" or "Fx" is the preferred abbreviation according to Mozilla's FAQ |
| 11:18 | <Lachy> | yeah, like I said, that's wrong |
| 11:18 | <Lachy> | it's always been FF for as long as I've known it |
| 11:21 | <Toolskyn> | Lachy, as far as I know Mozilla made that FAQ entry as soon as the name Firefox was introduced, so how can it be wrong? ;) |
| 11:22 | <zcorpan_> | yeah, people naturally abbreviate it to FF, i don't know why the moz guys don't take a step back and say that it is ok |
| 12:54 | <krijnhoetmer> | Lachy: Ah, okay :) |
| 13:32 | <Ian_> | may i ask why you so choose HTML4 rather than XHTML1.1 to base your new idea on? |
| 13:34 | <Lachy> | XHTML 1.1 is a useless spec |
| 13:35 | <virtuelv> | worse than useless, in fact |
| 13:35 | <Lachy> | HTML4 is also useless, but still much closer to reality |
| 13:36 | <Ian_> | see, i think XHTML is quite good. For one thing it encourages that the webpage should centralise around content, and the CSS style sheet around styling.Rather useful for low-capacity low-bandwidth devices such as mobiles to just get the data. |
| 13:37 | <Lachy> | that's the zeldman myth, it's not true |
| 13:37 | <Lachy> | XHTML1 was just a reformulation of HTML4 as XML |
| 13:37 | <Lachy> | the semantics are idenitical |
| 13:37 | <Ian_> | well - i certainly think style stuff should not be in HTML tags but in style sheets |
| 13:38 | <virtuelv> | Ian_: there's _nothing_ preventing you from doing that to HTML4 |
| 13:38 | <Lachy> | it does not encourage the separation of content and presentation any more or less than HTML does. |
| 13:38 | <Ian_> | and what is so bad with XML? |
| 13:38 | <virtuelv> | or WA1.0 |
| 13:38 | <Lachy> | it's just a different syntax for the same vocabulary |
| 13:39 | <Ian_> | well - will this HTML5 idea remove things such as td height and width and leave that to style sheets |
| 13:39 | <virtuelv> | Ian_: what's so bad about sending user content as XML? read http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/11/draconian |
| 13:39 | <Lachy> | Ian_, HTML5 defines 2 serialisations: One HTML and one XML |
| 13:39 | <Lachy> | so there is both HTML5 and XHTML5 |
| 13:39 | <Lachy> | both are the same langauage, just different syntaxes |
| 13:40 | <Ian_> | okay |
| 13:41 | <Ian_> | it is just the styling element which concerns me |
| 13:41 | <annevk> | hey, a non-Hixie Ian |
| 13:41 | <jdandrea> | :) |
| 13:42 | <Ian_> | *) |
| 13:42 | <Ian_> | * 8) |
| 13:42 | <annevk> | FWIW: HTML5 is also based on XHTML 1.1 |
| 13:42 | <Ian_> | okay |
| 13:42 | <Ian_> | i should really look into some of the height, width and align etc tags to see if they remain - that would just be annoying :p |
| 13:42 | <annevk> | Ian_, http://simon.html5.org/html5-elements should give you an idea of what elements and attributes HTML5 will have |
| 13:43 | <Ian_> | thanks |
| 13:43 | <Ian_> | may i ask, i dont see it there, but will he style="" tag remain? |
| 13:44 | <Lachy> | hopefully not |
| 13:44 | <zcorpan_> | Ian_: that's not resolved yet. currently only <font style> is allowed by wysiwyg |
| 13:44 | <Lachy> | though, it will be defined, I hope it will remain non-conforming |
| 13:44 | <annevk> | Ian_, it's likely that the attribute will be added back, yes |
| 13:45 | <Lachy> | though, I think it's better than the alternative of <font style> |
| 13:45 | <hasather> | Lachy: agreed |
| 13:45 | <annevk> | Ian_, http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Changes_from_HTML4 lists some changes from HTML4 |
| 13:45 | <annevk> | Ian_, most of them, I think |
| 13:45 | <Ian_> | <font> is evil |
| 13:45 | <annevk> | <font> is the only thing that makes sense for WYSIWYG editors |
| 13:46 | <Ian_> | guess you should tell WYSIWYG editors to update themselves if they want to use HTML5 |
| 13:46 | <Ian_> | oh - scraping <br/> for the plain <br> |
| 13:47 | <annevk> | Ian_, <br/> is allowed |
| 13:47 | <Lachy> | does anyone know if javascript: URIs have ever been formally defined in any spec? |
| 13:47 | <Ian_> | hmm - i dont like the idea of a double standard |
| 13:47 | annevk | doesn't think syntax is worthy of much discussion though |
| 13:48 | <Ian_> | i think i may be much more constructive if i actuctly contributed to discussions :P |
| 13:48 | <zcorpan_> | Lachy: i think there's an rfc or i-d for it |
| 13:48 | <Lachy> | HTML5 has a reference to [JSURI], but there's no references in the spec yet |
| 13:48 | <annevk> | Ian_, specifically, the trailing slash is allowed as a symbol of faith |
| 13:48 | <annevk> | Ian_, or something in that direction, for people who believe in that sort of thing :) |
| 13:48 | <Ian_> | yey - all hail /> |
| 13:48 | <Lachy> | it's not listed here http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html |
| 13:49 | <zcorpan_> | Lachy: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoehrmann-javascript-scheme-00.txt |
| 13:50 | <Lachy> | awesome! |
| 13:50 | <jdandrea> | And on my birthday no less. :) |
| 13:51 | <jdandrea> | This post appears to have predated the Hoehrmann draft too: Lachy: See also - http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/discuss/current/msg00330.html |
| 13:51 | <Ian_> | http://www.w3.org/Help/Account/Request/Public - hmm , i never give my phone number online- no need to give it |
| 13:52 | <annevk> | i don't think it will be shown to non members |
| 13:52 | <annevk> | then again... |
| 13:52 | <Lachy> | jdandrea, I already found that email thread when I searched :-) |
| 13:52 | <jdandrea> | Lachy: Ahh, got it. |
| 13:53 | <Ian_> | ok - i will poke around on the site a bit |
| 13:53 | <Ian_> | cya |
| 14:09 | <Lachy> | html6, I have no idea what you were trying to say in this email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0694.html |
| 14:10 | <Lachy> | is anyone else able to comprehend it? |
| 14:11 | <jdandrea> | Lachy: I think it refers to wildcarding. |
| 14:11 | <Lachy> | wild carding in the browsers address bar? What for? |
| 14:11 | <jdandrea> | :) |
| 14:12 | <jdandrea> | To get a list of matching, previously visited links. (As Laurens replies, not something for an HTML spec.) |
| 14:13 | <annevk> | I think it's a feature request |
| 14:13 | <annevk> | for the UI of web browsers |
| 14:13 | <Lachy> | I realise that from reading the replies to it, but I don't understand what the feature request actually is |
| 14:13 | jdandrea | nods |
| 14:13 | <Lachy> | oh, like a histroy search feature |
| 14:14 | jdandrea | nods again |
| 14:27 | <Lachy> | oh my gosh, does anyone know what a "tag PACK" is? - another one of Dmitry Turin's emails. |
| 14:32 | <jdandrea> | Lachy: I'm reading the msg it supposedly replies to ... and - this is just a wild guess - I'm wondering if it refers to a related set of elements (table, thead, tfoot, et. al.) ??? |
| 14:33 | <Lachy> | I'll reply and ask him. |
| 14:34 | <jdandrea> | Lachy: A ha! Don't know if you've seen this yet, but: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0520.html |
| 14:34 | <jdandrea> | See <pack host="id1"> ... |
| 14:34 | <jdandrea> | It's literally a pack element. |
| 14:36 | <Lachy> | Do you think it would be rude if I suggested that he seek assistence from someone who is more fluent in english than he is? |
| 14:37 | <Lachy> | I still have no idea what a pack element is supposed to be |
| 14:38 | <jdandrea> | Neither do I. host .. ? Hmm. |
| 14:39 | <annevk> | i believe it's declaritive drawing with HTML |
| 14:39 | <annevk> | similar to the <line> proposal |
| 14:39 | <Lachy> | oh well, I'm going to add him to my growing list of people to ignore |
| 14:40 | <Lachy> | currently up to 3 people, I think |
| 14:40 | <annevk> | the problem with that is that some ideas might be good |
| 14:42 | <Lachy> | I'll skim the messages. If I can comprehend anything that's worthwhile, then I'll see it, but I'm not going to spend time trying to interpret any more |
| 14:43 | annevk | has 95 draft messages from started replies that never have been sent |
| 14:43 | <Lachy> | though, I've seen the ideas on his website. I doubt there will be any that are worthwhile |
| 14:43 | <Lachy> | wow! |
| 14:43 | <Lachy> | how long have those drafts been building up? |
| 14:43 | <annevk> | accumulated over some time |
| 14:43 | <annevk> | i won't be sending them btw |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | more things I can simply answer an then realize that someone else will probably do that |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | so I won't bother |
| 14:45 | <Lachy> | I have 6 in my drafts. 1 for whatwg, 1 for www-tag, 1 for Mike Schinkel (probably won't send) and one I'm writing now for public-html, and one personal |
| 14:45 | <Lachy> | s/6/5/ |
| 15:02 | <annevk> | see, jgraham just answered the e-mail I had a draft for |
| 15:02 | <annevk> | and better than my one liner |
| 15:03 | annevk | had something like "Take it up with your browser vendor. No need for interoperability on UI features." |
| 15:04 | <Lachy> | I was drafting a reply to that one too :-) |
| 15:05 | <annevk> | anyway, time to move places |
| 15:05 | <annevk> | s/places/somewhere else/ |
| 15:05 | <Lachy> | http://webstandardsgroup.org/features/lachlan-hunt.cfm is published! |
| 15:06 | <jdandrea> | Congrats! Reading. |
| 15:23 | <krijnh> | "I�ve heard rumours that you were once fired from a job for refusing to top post." - priceless :p |
| 15:31 | <Lachy> | yeah, it seems companies just can't stop thinking up pathetic reasons to fire me |
| 15:32 | <krijnh> | I got fired once, because I didn't want to wear a tie |
| 15:32 | <krijnh> | (and because I made fun of my boss, that as well) |
| 15:33 | <Lachy> | I got fired for: 1. Refusing to to replace all & with & in an XHTML document (even though it was text/html) and then publicly call my boss a moron |
| 15:33 | <Lachy> | 2. Refusig to top post |
| 15:34 | <Lachy> | 3. Not having any skills with Flash |
| 15:34 | <jdandrea> | Lachy: They wanted you to REPLACE & with &? |
| 15:34 | <Lachy> | yes! |
| 15:34 | jdandrea | shakes head |
| 15:34 | <krijnh> | Why would they want that? |
| 15:35 | <Lachy> | I had to remove the blog entry about it cause they threatened legal action and I couldn't be bothered fight it on free speech grounds |
| 15:36 | <Lachy> | but the reason was that on my boss' computer, an image was failing to load and he assumed that the cause was the use of & in the query string |
| 15:36 | <Lachy> | despite the fact that it worked on every other comptuer I tested |
| 15:39 | <krijnh> | Silly boss |
| 19:27 | <hendry> | anyone seen the OLPC? http://flickr.com/photos/hendry/457911926/ |
| 22:52 | <othermaciej> | jdandrea: "oh my" where? |
| 23:01 | <Philip`> | Hixie: Is the slowness in the spec splitter just the parsing phase? It would be much better if the spec was written in XHTML, so we could use existing fast XML parsing libraries instead of having to write and optimise an HTML5 one instead ;-) |
| 23:02 | <Philip`> | (Alternatively, I suppose it's a use case that provides some motivation to rewrite html5lib in C...) |
| 23:14 | <Hixie> | Philip`: no, it's the output phase as far as i can tell |
| 23:14 | <Hixie> | it's not slowness that's the problem |
| 23:15 | <Hixie> | it's cpu spiking |
| 23:15 | <Hixie> | i could probably just stick some sleep statements in there |
| 23:33 | <gsnedders> | othermaciej: manage to do anything about the t-shirts? |
| 23:37 | <othermaciej> | gsnedders: yes |
| 23:37 | <othermaciej> | http://five-gt-two.spreadshirt.com/ |
| 23:37 | <othermaciej> | should I send it to the whatwg list or would that be too inflammatory? |
| 23:38 | <gsnedders> | *giggles at the URL* |
| 23:38 | <hasather> | othermaciej: how many have you sold? |
| 23:38 | <gsnedders> | othermaciej: am I right seeing nothing more than 5 > 2 on it? |
| 23:39 | <zcorpan_> | othermaciej: you could blog about it on blog.whatwg.org |
| 23:40 | <hasather> | gsnedders: your eyes are just fine |
| 23:41 | <gsnedders> | yay. I needn't get my glasses. |
| 23:42 | <gsnedders> | othermaciej: is it possible to get any other colours? |
| 23:46 | <othermaciej> | gsnedders: yes |
| 23:47 | <othermaciej> | gsnedders: I tried to use the higher-quality t-shirts for it, which are available in a limited number of colors - do you have a specific request? |
| 23:48 | <othermaciej> | 3 orders so far btw |
| 23:48 | <zcorpan_> | #3c790a |
| 23:48 | <othermaciej> | if anyone wants to blog it, feel free, I don't want to promote it too much myself (I set it up but I'm not getting a cut of the sales or anything) |
| 23:48 | <zcorpan_> | ...is the whatwg green, i think |
| 23:49 | <othermaciej> | 2 white and one black so far |
| 23:49 | zcorpan_ | ordered a white one |
| 23:49 | <othermaciej> | zcorpan_: the set of available colors for printing is fixed - I tried to get the closest match I could find |
| 23:49 | <zcorpan_> | ok |
| 23:51 | <zcorpan_> | what should the blog post say? |
| 23:54 | <Hixie> | i love the t-shirts, but if you blog about it, remember that it's not in our best interests to piss off the xhtml2wg more than we already do... |
| 23:54 | <othermaciej> | if you blogged it, I would make it vague |
| 23:54 | <zcorpan_> | should i blog it at all, then? |
| 23:55 | <othermaciej> | like "T-Shirts for Fans of Obvious Mathematical Statements" |