| 02:50 | <yod> | sweet sweet sweet sweet |
| 04:17 | <Lachy> | hey, anyone there? |
| 04:17 | <Lachy> | I'm looking for some use cases for datagrid. Something that I can talk about and describe in my presentation. Any suggestions? |
| 04:21 | <Lachy> | would a database application (like PHPMyAdmin) be a good use case for datagrid? |
| 04:46 | <othermaciej> | Lachy: look at anything that has a tree control |
| 04:47 | <othermaciej> | or something that's like a list box but needs multiple columns |
| 04:50 | <Lachy> | I thought of doing a web based mail client, since that can be represented as either a list or a tree in threaded view |
| 15:24 | <zcorpan> | Lachy: perhaps we should do s/15 years or more/year 2022 or later/ in the faq |
| 15:25 | <Lachy> | ok |
| 15:25 | <annevk> | "This CNN.com feature is optimized for Adobe Flash Player version 8 or higher. You are currently using Flash Player 0" |
| 15:34 | <Lachy> | zcorpan: how about this: "It is estimated that HTML5 will reach a W3C recommendation in the year 2022 or later. This is approximately 18-20 years of development, since beginning in mid-2004." |
| 15:35 | <zcorpan> | sounds good |
| 15:35 | <Lachy> | done |
| 15:37 | <zcorpan> | "This will approximately 18-20..." it says |
| 15:37 | <zcorpan> | "is" or "will be"? :) |
| 15:38 | <met_> | zcorpan: aby reason for changing the delay? |
| 15:38 | <zcorpan> | met_: 2007+15 is 2022? |
| 15:39 | <met_> | wasn't whatwg establish in 2004? |
| 15:39 | <zcorpan> | yes, but the 15 years estimate referred to from 2007 |
| 15:40 | <met_> | oh I see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2006Nov/0000.html |
| 15:41 | <met_> | there it is, ok |
| 15:41 | <Philip`> | What is the point of W3C Recommendation status? It's not like we don't recommend people use HTML5 before 2022... |
| 15:41 | <zcorpan> | Philip`: perhaps it's just a frequently asked question? |
| 15:41 | <zcorpan> | :) |
| 15:41 | <met_> | Philip`: couldn't it be necceserry for IE team? |
| 15:42 | <met_> | or will they adapt some HTML5 specification which is still "iin process"? |
| 15:42 | <zcorpan> | probably |
| 15:43 | <met_> | zcorpan: there wasn't any answer from IE-team, was it? |
| 15:43 | met_ | cannot find any |
| 15:44 | <Philip`> | Maybe the answer to that question should say that it's expected to be a Candidate Recommendation (or whatever status actually means something useful) in n years where n < 15, rather than scaring people away with talking about time periods that are as long as the whole life of the web |
| 15:45 | <met_> | Philip`: +1 |
| 15:47 | <annevk> | It should definitely say that HTML 5 is already being implemented / used / etc. otherwise it will just hopelessly confuse people |
| 15:47 | <annevk> | It is in fact one of the more common complaints |
| 15:48 | <met_> | e.g. many people thing that CSS2 was finished in 1998 (they do not count CSS2.1 as finishing CSS2), so if to tell HTML5 (not HTML5.1 will be winished in 15 or 18 years), people are scared |
| 15:52 | <zcorpan> | does it matter if people are scared at this point? |
| 15:52 | <met_> | yes 8-))) |
| 15:52 | <zcorpan> | i mean, even though i have advocated html5, it's not really ready to be used on a wide scale yet |
| 15:53 | <met_> | zcorpan: Does it matter if people believe more in HTML5, XHTML2 or even Microtoft Silverlight? I think yes, it does. |
| 15:54 | <zcorpan> | dunno |
| 15:54 | <Philip`> | Maybe it matters if people writing web applications see that HTML5 is decades away and so it will be totally irrelevant by the time it's finished, and so they choose a different platform to develop for |
| 15:54 | <met_> | even when I said HTML5 will be here in aproximatelly 3 years (which is what HTML WG has in charter and probably won't be fullfiled), people are scared - SO LOOOONG? |
| 15:55 | <met_> | And about 15 years, they said exactly what said Philip` - the whole web is so old, will be there same web after 15 years? |
| 15:56 | <met_> | or did you (anybody) 15 years ago expect web to same the as the web we now? the answer is no. |
| 15:58 | <met_> | maybe in the FAQ should be somethin that HTML5 will be implemented after (dunno) 4+5 years, and will be closed (?) after 18 years, the word "finished" people often understund as "will be start using" |
| 15:58 | <annevk> | zcorpan, yes, people should be enthusiastic about it |
| 15:59 | <annevk> | zcorpan, popular technologies win, not those that are good and unknown (based on historical precedents) |
| 15:59 | <zcorpan> | ok |
| 16:02 | <Philip`> | HTML5 is dragging along all of HTML's history with it, so it can't actually be good technology, but at least it has a chance of stealing HTML4/XHTML1's popularity and succeeding that way :-) |
| 16:03 | <met_> | zcorpan: and becouse HTML5 is (according to Hixie) Open process, people speak about it, and do not excuse any detail, beacause they are about any stupid and in open process thay can (different fro HTML4 or CSS) |
| 16:03 | <met_> | *becouse thay care about any stupid detail |
| 16:04 | <annevk> | Philip`, yeah, not sure if I was referring to HTML 5 as good... |
| 16:04 | <annevk> | obviously, technologies that are not good and unknown also lose |
| 16:19 | <annevk> | The FAQ also still talks about "Web Applications 1.0" |
| 16:20 | <annevk> | I would also suggest to remove Web Controls from the FAQ or maybe give it its own question and explain it's dead until XBL is adopted |
| 16:21 | <annevk> | "conformance checker" should point to http://validator.whatwg.org/ |
| 16:45 | <Lachy> | I think that FAQ entry does a reasonably good job of explaining that authors don't have to wait for the spec to be a REC before they can start using it. It even gives a couple of examples of features that will be implemented and usable relatively soon |
| 16:46 | <Lachy> | but if someone wants to revise it and email me their suggestions, I can update it |
| 22:45 | <Philip`> | It seems slightly odd to say that messages on #whatwg are "HTML5 Working Groups IRC discussion" |
| 22:47 | <gavin_> | I noticed that too |
| 22:47 | <gavins> | also [ While these may be seen as simply innocuous, "private" comments, the fact that they are publicly recorded and associated to the HTML-WG should be of concern. ] |
| 22:50 | <zcorpan> | gotta love when people dig up irc discussions |
| 22:54 | <gavin> | the discussion about smellovision was clearly tongue-in-cheek, I don't understand why people are taking such offense to it |
| 22:55 | <gavin> | it seems to me like it's being blown way out of proportion |
| 22:57 | <Philip`> | It was also more like half a dozen comments than an actual discussion |
| 22:59 | <Philip`> | krijnh: By the way, http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ seems to be getting significantly slower than it used to be - is it reading through the entire chat and search history every time it generates that page or something? (and would it be feasible to make it speedier somehow?) |
| 23:00 | <Lachy> | woah! http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2007JulSep/0010.html |
| 23:02 | <zcorpan> | yeah, JERK! |
| 23:02 | <Philip`> | Isn't the whole point with disabilities that humans are not equal? (but should be given equal opportunities regardless of that (where 'should' is obviously limited by the cost of doing that)) |
| 23:05 | <Lachy> | I'm just going to ignore them, it's not worth responding to such insults |
| 23:06 | <Lachy> | oh, he wrote a formal complaint to public-html |
| 23:07 | <Philip`> | Most of the comments are on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2007JulSep/ |
| 23:32 | zcorpan | -> bed |