10:37
<annevk>
hey
10:38
<annevk>
what's would be a good license?
10:38
<annevk>
for xml5?
10:38
<virtuelv>
annevk: the parser, I presume?
10:38
<virtuelv>
tokenizer*
10:39
<annevk>
the whole project as it stands now :)
10:40
<annevk>
I'll go with the Apache 2.0 for now
10:40
<annevk>
and maybe make it MIT later or something
10:54
<hsivonen>
annevk: Apache 2.0 is otherwise good except it isn't GPLv2-compatible
11:11
<annevk>
hmm ok
11:34
<annevk>
created http://code.google.com/p/xml5/
11:34
<annevk>
took some time to get all the SVN to play nicely :(
11:41
<MikeSmith>
question: Other than annevk, hsivonen, Hixie, Lachy, and WHATWG blog, is there anybody else who's blogging semi-regularly about the the topic of HTML5?
11:42
<MikeSmith>
(I ask because I'm setting up a planet aggregator and want to know what ought to aggregate)
11:44
<hsivonen>
MikeSmith: should I create an HTML5-specific feed for my site?
11:57
<hendry>
http://natalian.org/archives/2007/05/26/mobile-web-3/ # i'm having fun with the .mobi guys
12:01
<hsivonen>
Hixie: do you know how many bytes Gecko usually inspects using chardet? it seems to inspect the first buffer that is passed to the parser but I have no idea of the size of the buffer
12:17
<hsivonen>
hendry: apparently there are still mobile folks who believe supporting mobiles means catering to crappy browsers instead of making sure that Presto or WebKit or Gecko runs on the device
12:22
<hsivonen>
hendry: at XTech there was still one guy talking about "Mobile Ajax" on Pocket IE
12:29
<MikeSmith>
hendry - question: I wonder if you asked James Pearce whether it would be be OK to publish his private e-mail to you on your weblog
12:32
<hendry>
MikeSmith: I can't recall. This was a while back.
18:37
<gsnedders>
how does IE6's relative URL resolution work? scheme/authority/path+query/fragment?
18:42
<gsnedders>
and can anyone from Apple say whether Safari pays any attention to <ttl> in RSS?
19:32
<MikeSmith>
I mentioned this over on #public-html, but will give a heads-up about it here too -
19:32
<MikeSmith>
I've set up beginnings of a simple "Planet HTML5" aggregator -
19:32
<MikeSmith>
http://people.w3.org/mike/planet/html5/
19:32
<MikeSmith>
if anybody else on the channel has been blogging about (or planning to blog about) HTML5/WHATWG/HTMLWG and wants me to add your feed to the aggregator, just let me know
19:33
<MikeSmith>
either just paste in a URL here or /msg me or e-mail me at mike⊙wo
19:34
<MikeSmith>
part of the intent of setting up the aggregator is for people are not HTML WG members and/or who may not have time to read and follow public-html discussions
23:16
<SimonW>
does anyone know the reason that HTTP doesn't include a way of specifying the character set used in a POST?
23:16
<SimonW>
Or does it have a method that I don't know about?
23:17
<zcorpan_>
SimonW: you mean character encoding?
23:17
<SimonW>
yes, character encoding
23:17
<SimonW>
in fact, I can't find the bit of the spec that says "browsers shall submit forms using the same character encoding as the form was served up in"
23:17
<SimonW>
is that HTML spec instead?
23:17
SimonW
is pretty bad at specs
23:18
<othermaciej>
SimonW: you can't specify Content-Type on a request?
23:18
<othermaciej>
SimonW: I'd imagine Content-Type w/ a charset parameter would be it, but perhaps that is only allowed as a response header
23:19
<SimonW>
othermaciej: as far as I can tell you can't
23:19
<SimonW>
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec5.html#sec5
23:19
<SimonW>
you can say "Accept-Charset"
23:19
<SimonW>
common knowledge appears to be that you can't either
23:19
<SimonW>
which is ludicrous - it means that server side scripts have to either guess the character set
23:20
<SimonW>
or use statistical analysis to figure it out
23:20
<SimonW>
or just apply a heuristic: "try to decode as UTF 8, if that fails assume ISO-885-1"
23:20
<SimonW>
8859-1
23:20
<SimonW>
so I thought I'd pop in here and check my facts before ranting about it on my blag
23:21
<SimonW>
unless there's a more appropriate forum?
23:22
<zcorpan_>
dunno. i know that trackbacks usually don't leave hints about encoding, and come in different encodings
23:23
<webben>
Do you mean the transfer encoding or the content encoding?
23:23
<zcorpan_>
webben: content encoding
23:24
<SimonW>
content encoding - utf-8 v.s. iso-8859-1 etc
23:24
<SimonW>
it appears to be a huge gaping hole in HTTP which everyone has been ignoring for the past 15 years
23:25
<zcorpan_>
then we have anothing thing to fix for HTTP5... ;)
23:25
<webben>
Weird at http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.11
23:25
<webben>
it says: "If the content-coding of an entity in a request message is not acceptable to the origin server, the server SHOULD respond with a status code of 415 (Unsupported Media Type)."
23:26
<webben>
which would seem to imply that request messages must be able to specify content-coding.
23:26
<zcorpan_>
webben: yeah, but that's about gzip &c, not utf-8 &c
23:27
<zcorpan_>
a different level of "encoding"
23:27
<webben>
oh, a third level
23:28
<zcorpan_>
character encoding (utf-8) -> content encoding (gzip) -> transfer encoding (7bit)
23:29
<SimonW>
aah, so I care about character encodin
23:29
<zcorpan_>
SimonW: yeah
23:29
<SimonW>
I'm going to e-mail Roy Fielding
23:33
<othermaciej>
SimonW: I guess that's a bug in HTTP, though de facto you have to post in the page encoding and the server assumes that
23:33
<SimonW>
I've been trying to find where that de facto rule is written down
23:33
<othermaciej>
SimonW: I don't think it is
23:34
<othermaciej>
if you mean in the form of documentation or normative reference
23:34
<zcorpan_>
SimonW: a de facto rule is that iso-8859-1 pages will submit form content as windows-1252
23:34
<othermaciej>
there are no iso-8859-1 pages on the web
23:35
<othermaciej>
(the ones that claim to be are windows-1252)
23:35
<zcorpan_>
right
23:35
<Dashiva>
There was that "bug" earlier about webpage not "supporting" pure ASCII
23:35
<SimonW>
aha, http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.7.1 looks relevant
23:37
<zcorpan_>
annevk: hey
23:38
<zcorpan_>
annevk: found a blog software written in turbogears that i wanted to try out
23:39
<SimonW>
pah, turbogears :P
23:39
<annevk>
zcorpan_, don't talk about that with SimonW around :p
23:39
<zcorpan_>
why not?
23:39
annevk
is kidding
23:39
<zcorpan_>
SimonW: what's wrong with turbogears?
23:39
<SimonW>
it's not Django :)
23:40
SimonW
co-founded Django
23:40
<SimonW>
on a more practical note, it seems to be being eclipsed by Pylons these days
23:40
<SimonW>
the TurboGears team made a bunch of decisions at the start which were very sane then but haven't really held out over the long run
23:41
<SimonW>
their choices for the core components have mostly been replaced by better alternatives
23:41
<othermaciej>
just rename Django to Python in Pails or something
23:41
<SimonW>
which seems to have left the project in an awkward position
23:41
<SimonW>
personally I'm hoping TurboGears and Pylons will merge, and Django and Pylons will work towards a common API for core features
23:42
<Dashiva>
Pythons on Planes
23:42
<othermaciej>
heh :-)
23:59
<annevk>
SimonW, first step of http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#x-www-form-urlencoded defines what you're looking for