| 00:04 | <Hixie> | Lachy_: re http://www.w3.org/mid/4566A744.7040406⊙lia -- i'm not adding it to the spec at this point, but feel free to add it to the wiki |
| 00:05 | <Hixie> | hmmm |
| 00:05 | <Hixie> | <a method="post" href="">... |
| 00:05 | <Lachy_> | Hixie, that value is being defined in the widgets spec anyway |
| 00:05 | <Hixie> | cool |
| 00:34 | <jacobolus> | jgraham, Hixie: you know, at some point in the next couple weeks, it might be possible to get something like http://orbited.org/livehelp.html running for this channel, if you need to talk to people unwilling to use IRC |
| 00:35 | <jacobolus> | that is, the code is open currently, if you want to try to run it on your own servers, but in a couple weeks we might be willing to host such a thing for you |
| 00:36 | <Lachy_> | jacobolus, isn't that just a web based IRC client? |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | i'd love to host a web-based IRC client (there are a number of them available) but I Dreamhost won't let me run IRC-related software |
| 00:37 | <jacobolus> | well, the usual reason to be reluctant to use IRC is unwillingness to download a client, configure it, etc. |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | though actually there's a web-based IRC client for the w3.org IRC network |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | so maybe we should tell ben about that |
| 00:38 | <Lachy_> | There are java applet clients available, which can be hosted on any web site and don't require the server itself to connect to the network |
| 00:38 | <jacobolus> | yeah, but java applet clients are truly terrible |
| 00:39 | <Lachy_> | I know |
| 00:40 | <Lachy_> | people could just install and use Chatzilla. It's one of the most simple to use and install clients available |
| 00:40 | <jacobolus> | yeah… but people have an amazing aversion to installing anything, sadly |
| 02:24 | <Hixie> | hmm |
| 02:24 | <Hixie> | the whole issue of making elements conforming when they're empty is a thorny one |
| 02:24 | <Hixie> | should <a></a> be conforming? what about <em></em> or <bdo></bdo>? |
| 02:29 | <takkaria> | will it make any real difference? |
| 02:29 | <Hixie> | to what? |
| 02:29 | <Hixie> | it'll make a difference to web authors who care about the specs |
| 02:30 | <Hixie> | there are _some_ |
| 02:30 | <takkaria> | well, I'd say that they seem non-conforming to me, just in that they don't make sense |
| 02:31 | <takkaria> | what is it to emphasise nothing? etc |
| 02:31 | <Hixie> | yeah, but there are cases where you have e.g. a template and you just haven't filled it in |
| 02:31 | <Hixie> | should it be invalid? |
| 02:31 | <Hixie> | what if you're going to use script later? |
| 02:31 | <Hixie> | to fill it in? |
| 02:31 | <Hixie> | hmm |
| 02:32 | <takkaria> | well, if you're going to use a script to fill it in, you're probably capable of using a script to create it in the first place |
| 02:33 | <takkaria> | having said that, I don't see empty elements causing any harm particularly other than not making sense |
| 02:33 | <Hixie> | you might not have the data yet |
| 02:33 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 02:33 | <takkaria> | it's probably the kind of thing a conformance checker should warn about |
| 02:33 | <Hixie> | i think i'm gonna allow them |
| 02:33 | <Hixie> | though maybe with a "should" or something |
| 02:34 | <takkaria> | btw, grats on getting the spec to more-or-less feature-complete. I never thought that would happen. P) |
| 02:34 | <takkaria> | :) |
| 02:34 | <Hixie> | hehe :-) |
| 02:35 | <Hixie> | well it's easy to get feature complete |
| 02:35 | <Hixie> | you just say you are :-) |
| 02:36 | <takkaria> | I noticed the increasing referrals to "v2", so it's obviously a little more planned than that ^_^ |
| 02:36 | <Hixie> | "v2" is just my codename for "later" |
| 02:36 | <Hixie> | some parts of the spec (canvas, video) are actually already at v2, technically |
| 02:40 | <takkaria> | section 11 has a ridiculously long name. I wonder if anyone will complain about that. :) |
| 02:41 | <Hixie> | probably. they complain about everything. :-) |
| 02:41 | <Hixie> | the trick is distinguishing the valid complaints from the meaningless whines |
| 02:50 | <Dewi> | Hixie: I've recently needed to do a little parsing of markup in ASP where tools are scarce... I've found your journal posts about unusual parsing behaviours quite useful. |
| 02:50 | <Hixie> | glad to be of help |
| 02:50 | <Hixie> | see also the spec |
| 02:50 | <Hixie> | http://whatwg.org/html5/ |
| 02:50 | <Hixie> | it has a full spec for parsing html5 now |
| 02:51 | <Dewi> | Hixie: but... (this is the part you don't want to hear) I have since realised you were the "XHTML considered harmful" guy :) |
| 02:51 | <Hixie> | yup |
| 02:51 | <Dewi> | Hixie: I just wanted to ask you... considering how poorly current browsers support real, strict, pedantic SGML-HTML behaviours... well, do you think current-day browsers are closer to a correct implementation of HTML, or of XHTML? |
| 02:52 | <Hixie> | i think current day browsers are closest to a correct implementation of html5 and xhtml5 |
| 02:52 | <Dewi> | I mean, to use a simple example, if you self-close a tag, browsers will ignore your "/" attribute and to me, that seems closer to an XHTML behaviour than a HTML one |
| 02:52 | <Hixie> | html5 defines that as the correct way to parse |
| 02:52 | <Hixie> | it's exactly what html5 requires |
| 02:53 | <Dewi> | Hixie: hehe, good answer. I haven't looked at html5 enough yet, but I like what I've seen so far :) |
| 02:53 | <Dewi> | so maybe I should concentrate on trying to parse html5 and assume that xhtml and html will "usually work"... |
| 02:53 | <Dewi> | "usually work as intended" |
| 02:54 | <Hixie> | really it's just about the mime type |
| 02:54 | <Hixie> | if it's text/html then html5 describes how you parse it |
| 02:55 | <Hixie> | if it's application/xml or another XML type, then XML defines how you parse it |
| 02:56 | <Dewi> | I must admit, re-reading the whole "considered harmful" debate I'm noticing things I didn't know about proper XHTML before... like I never realised document.write() was actually outlawed (although personally I dislike it). I also read somewhere that style elements require processing instructions and I've never done that either. |
| 02:56 | <Dewi> | it makes me unsure how to feel about XML tool chains |
| 02:56 | <Hixie> | xml is useful and all... but it has a lot of hype |
| 02:56 | <Hixie> | i'm trying to keep the hype for html5 at a minumum |
| 02:56 | <Hixie> | minimum |
| 02:57 | <Hixie> | anyway, time to go home |
| 02:57 | <Hixie> | bbl |
| 02:57 | <Dewi> | the only time I've felt comfortable with serverside development has been when I had access to a full XML tree I could really process freely... and yet now I'm thinking... if I used document.write() in that context... what did that XML tree really represent? |
| 02:58 | <Dewi> | maybe more html5 than anything... anyway, thanks for talking to me about this :) |
| 02:58 | <Dewi> | (I'm guessing you've probably discussed this a thousand times) |
| 03:07 | <jacobolus> | Hixie: I vote allow <em></em>, etc. what's the harm in leaving them? |
| 03:35 | <Hixie> | jacobolus: yeah |
| 08:28 | <Hixie> | what would you call an element, like <p> or <em> or <label>, that expects to have some element, textual, or embedded resource content? |
| 08:28 | <OmegaJunior> | Container |
| 08:29 | <Hixie> | as opposed to, say, <img>, or <div>, or <output>, which could be empty throughout their life without any likely problem |
| 08:29 | <OmegaJunior> | An empty div? |
| 08:30 | <OmegaJunior> | I'm sure it's allowed but I fail to see the use at this point |
| 08:30 | <Hixie> | hmm |
| 08:30 | <OmegaJunior> | One can have empty divs as placeholders for future content, which may or may not be added, for instance. |
| 08:31 | <OmegaJunior> | Then it's still a container. |
| 08:31 | <OmegaJunior> | I'd distinguish between containers that require child nodes and containers that don't. |
| 08:34 | <Dewi> | OmegaJunior: I style empty divs all the time |
| 08:34 | <Dewi> | OmegaJunior: sometimes there just isn't any content you can meaningfully attach styling to |
| 08:35 | <Hixie> | hmm |
| 08:35 | <Dewi> | (usually because of CSS limitations or bugs of course) |
| 08:35 | <OmegaJunior> | Makes sense. We do create html source to fit our graphical designs. |
| 08:36 | <Dewi> | the most common is probably this guy: <div class="clearer"></div> |
| 08:36 | <Dewi> | used to clear past floated blocks |
| 08:36 | <Hixie> | :after { clear: both; } |
| 08:36 | <Hixie> | mmm |
| 08:36 | <Dewi> | especially when you want the bottom of a box to do it, so styling the next thing isn't possible |
| 08:36 | <OmegaJunior> | :after not supported in some browsers |
| 08:37 | <Hixie> | ah, yes, true |
| 08:37 | <Dewi> | :after would probably be on the wrong side of the box border I'm talking about (though I haven't tried) |
| 08:38 | <Dewi> | although now that I think about it, there are probably other ways to trigger better boxing of a float container: like messing with 'overflow', that tends to make boxes quite "solid" |
| 08:39 | <Dewi> | (auto or hidden) |
| 08:39 | <Dewi> | and yes, there are many times an empty div or span sets you up for subsequent injection of content |
| 09:02 | Lachy | was hoping Hixie would reconsider dropping significant inline content! |
| 09:23 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 09:23 | <Hixie> | why? |
| 09:32 | <Lachy> | Hixie, just cause it would have been somewhat useful for conformance checking |
| 09:37 | <Hixie> | oh well i kept that |
| 09:37 | <Hixie> | there's still a SHOULD |
| 09:48 | <Hixie> | http://junkyard.damowmow.com/300 |
| 09:49 | <othermaciej> | what is that a graph of? |
| 09:49 | <Hixie> | number of outstanding e-mails in my imap folder |
| 09:49 | <othermaciej> | sparta? |
| 09:49 | <Hixie> | (html5 e-mails) |
| 09:50 | <othermaciej> | recent trend is good |
| 09:50 | <Hixie> | over the past 4 weeks |
| 09:51 | <Hixie> | the times where it's not going down, the uphill climb is pretty much the steady state |
| 09:51 | <Hixie> | (notice how it always seems to climb at the same rate) |
| 09:52 | <Hixie> | anyway |
| 09:52 | <Hixie> | bed time |
| 09:52 | <Hixie> | nn |
| 09:52 | <OmegaJunior> | G'night! |
| 13:29 | <Philip`> | Google Calendar would be so much better if it actually showed me my calendar, instead of "Not Found: Error 404" |
| 13:29 | <OmegaJunior> | Hah |
| 13:30 | <OmegaJunior> | Google GMail would be a lot better if it didn't try to force me into downgrading to their level of browser knowledge. |
| 13:34 | Philip` | hopes he didn't have any important events scheduled |
| 13:48 | <Dewi> | OmegaJunior: downgrade? |
| 13:48 | <OmegaJunior> | Yes. Why/ |
| 13:48 | <OmegaJunior> | ? |
| 14:36 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: from my point of view, r1115 removing "(required)" annotations from attribute lists made the spec less useful |
| 14:37 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: compare with http://html5.validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fhsivonen.iki.fi%2Ftest%2Fmoz%2Felaboration-demo.xhtml |
| 14:38 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: oh, and thanks for zapping significant inline content |
| 19:26 | Philip` | tries writing some canvas code that simply draws a few rectangles (for visualising some data), which surely isn't very complicated at all, and finds it's buggy in Opera 9.2 |
| 19:26 | <Philip`> | Also it's really slow doing anything fullscreen, so I think I'll just rewrite this in Python + OpenGL or something |
| 20:54 | jgraham | curses firefox 3's dislike for self-signed certificates |
| 21:01 | <gavin_> | you're not the only one! |
| 21:02 | <gavin_> | we're making some changes for beta 1 that will make your life a bit easier |
| 21:08 | <jgraham> | gavin_: good to know |
| 21:10 | <jgraham> | https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401575 I guess |
| 21:11 | <gavin_> | yeah, and the related bugs mentioned there |
| 21:28 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: yeah, removing (required) was a consistency thing. most of the attribute restrictions are more complex, and i need a more consistent way of summarising them. |
| 21:29 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: i'm thinking maybe putting an asterisk next to attribute names that are not independently optional |
| 21:53 | <Hixie> | so did the aria call conclude anything? |
| 21:55 | <Hixie> | or the forms task force call? |
| 23:33 | <Hixie> | http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1805709102&size=o is awesome |
| 23:38 | <bradee-oh> | Hixie: I knew which photo you were talking about before I clicked the link. it's incredible |
| 23:45 | <kingryan> | "mordorsoft" |
| 23:49 | <gsnedders> | someone has too much spare time on their hands, me things |
| 23:49 | <gsnedders> | *thinks |
| 23:56 | <jgraham> | That's like an ultra-geeky stanley donwood |
| 23:57 | <chipig> | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0 |
| 23:58 | <Hixie> | who the hell is 82.155.213.9 and why are they trying to download my entire site |
| 23:59 | <Hixie> | including every possible tic tac toe game possible on a 10x10 board |
| 23:59 | <Hixie> | (http://software.hixie.ch/fun/games/tic-tac-toe) |
| 23:59 | <gsnedders> | ce n'est pas moi |