| 00:01 | <othermaciej> | when does that happen |
| 00:03 | <Philip`> | othermaciej: It says things like "If the image argument is an HTMLImageElement object whose complete attribute is false, then the implementation must raise an INVALID_STATE_ERR exception." referring to drawImage one time, and createPattern another time |
| 00:04 | <Philip`> | and I associate test cases with bits of the spec by copying the relevant spec text, and it gets all confused when trying to work out where in the spec that text came from if it's there twice :-( |
| 00:05 | <roc> | crikey, the IE layout team is huge |
| 00:05 | <othermaciej> | how many people are on it? |
| 00:06 | <othermaciej> | ad how do you know? |
| 00:06 | <roc> | I'm just counting the number of Microsoft people who've popped up in www-style and w3c-css-wg |
| 00:06 | <Hixie> | Philip`: heh |
| 00:07 | <Hixie> | roc: i'm not sure it's really working in their favour, to be honest |
| 00:07 | <jcranmer> | roc: there are some people on /. who think that MS's IE people don't contribute to CSS/HTML AT ALL |
| 00:07 | <Hixie> | i still can't get the 7 months it took to get the IE team's feedback on XHR |
| 00:08 | <Hixie> | still can't get over, even |
| 00:08 | <jcranmer> | Hixie: that's probably their backlog ;-) |
| 00:08 | <Hixie> | they were promising it any time now the whole time along |
| 00:08 | <Hixie> | and at the end even put it out under a clickthrough license before finally sending it to the list |
| 00:09 | <Hixie> | it's not like they said "it'll take 2 years" or whatever |
| 00:09 | <othermaciej> | roc: probably a lot of them are "Program Managers", not actual developers |
| 00:09 | <hober> | I thought this was nice: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/0114.html |
| 00:10 | <roc> | maybe so, but still makes for a big team |
| 00:12 | <Hixie> | i really wish i could see inside their day to day workings to see what's really going on |
| 00:12 | <Hixie> | maybe someone can sue them and we can get some e-mails out in discovery like in comes vs microsoft |
| 00:12 | <Hixie> | (it's clear from those e-mails that they really were "evil" back in the late 90s) |
| 00:13 | <Philip`> | Hixie: That's why you should quit Google and get a job at Microsoft |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | uh huh |
| 00:16 | <Philip`> | It'd be much more productive to work from the inside |
| 00:16 | <roc> | I count 7 people who seem to be doing technical work appearing on the CSS lists |
| 00:16 | <roc> | of course that's neither an upper nor a lower bound, but still |
| 00:17 | <othermaciej> | there also seem to be totally separate AJAX and JScript teams |
| 00:17 | <Hixie> | how about the other lists? |
| 00:17 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 00:17 | <Hixie> | the "AJAX swat team" has been cc'ed multiple times on the webapps threads |
| 00:17 | <Hixie> | sometimes along with half a dozen other @microsoft.com addresses |
| 00:18 | <othermaciej> | and I'm like, "they have a whole team for XHR, and their main goal is not to change it in any way?" |
| 00:18 | <roc> | of course, if I was writing a new layout engine from scratch in 3 years I'd want a big team too |
| 00:18 | <othermaciej> | I wouldn't |
| 00:18 | <hober> | well, I bet it's more of an XDR team... |
| 00:18 | <othermaciej> | I would want 3 or 4 really good people |
| 00:18 | <roc> | I wouldn't at the start but I would at the end |
| 00:18 | <othermaciej> | maybe at the end |
| 00:18 | <jcranmer> | othermaciej: I don't that'd work for a 3-yr timeline |
| 00:19 | <othermaciej> | Safari was created in 1.5 years from project start |
| 00:19 | <jcranmer> | s/don't/doubt/ |
| 00:19 | <othermaciej> | with a surprisingly small team |
| 00:19 | <hober> | you had khtml to start with |
| 00:19 | <othermaciej> | of course, we were building on an existing engine |
| 00:19 | <jcranmer> | othermaciej: but didn't Safari take webkit from elsewhere? |
| 00:19 | <othermaciej> | and expectations were lower |
| 00:19 | <othermaciej> | but the khtml of those days was far away from what was needed for compatibility, standards compliance, performance, etc |
| 00:20 | <Hixie> | woot, finally finished annotating the spec for the url stuff |
| 00:20 | <othermaciej> | then again, Microsoft has the old IE engine to look at and borrow code from |
| 00:21 | <othermaciej> | I would guess it is lower in code quality than the KHTML of 7 years ago though |
| 00:21 | <othermaciej> | if higher in compatibility |
| 00:21 | <Hixie> | why are we assuming a rewrite? |
| 00:21 | <jcranmer> | othermaciej: that's not a big a boon as you might expect |
| 00:21 | <mcarter> | othermaciej, so are you a webkit developer, or are you on the safari team at apple, or are those the same thing? |
| 00:21 | <othermaciej> | well, that is how they described it |
| 00:21 | <jcranmer> | trust me, someone who's written the same code over three different times |
| 00:22 | <othermaciej> | but it sounds like the only major reworking was layout, not other things like scripting or the DOM |
| 00:22 | <othermaciej> | and I don't know how truly "from scratch" that was |
| 00:22 | <othermaciej> | mcarter: I'm the manager of the WebKit team at Apple |
| 00:23 | <othermaciej> | (and I sideline as a developer on the WebKit open source project) |
| 00:23 | <Hixie> | i would imagine their "rewrite" is no more expansive in scope than firefox3's gecko "rewrite" |
| 00:23 | <othermaciej> | the WebKit team is part of the Safari Team though |
| 00:24 | <Hixie> | that is, lots of new code, lots of code replaced, but still an evolutionary path |
| 00:24 | <mcarter> | othermaciej, oh hey, thats great! That means there is actually a chance of seeing WebSocket native in a browser in the forseeable future, right? |
| 00:26 | Hixie | renames the tcpconnection folder to "websocket" |
| 00:28 | <othermaciej> | mcarter: Apple doesn't comment on future product releases |
| 00:28 | <othermaciej> | I'm not sure I like the name WebSocket but I am not inclined to paint the bikeshed |
| 00:28 | <othermaciej> | I like that Web is in the name though :-) |
| 00:29 | <Hixie> | yeah basically i started from SocketConnection, added Web, then dropped Connection |
| 00:29 | <Hixie> | i'm open to better ideas |
| 00:30 | <mcarter> | I think WebSocket is pretty good. I mean, Web being in the name is nice. Socket implies that its a real duplex stream |
| 00:30 | <mcarter> | WebConnection sounds like a conference name or magazine or something |
| 00:31 | <Hixie> | hah |
| 00:37 | <roc> | othermaciej: there's one strange thing about not commenting on future product releases |
| 00:37 | <roc> | how does an open source project not make public comments about future plans? |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | webkit doesn't have releases |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | they do talk about plans, as far as i can tell |
| 00:37 | <Hixie> | at least that's my impression |
| 00:38 | <Hixie> | i think i'm going to restructure sections 2 and 3 so that instead of being DOM and Structure, they're, like, "infrastructure" stuff, and then "semantics" stuff |
| 00:38 | <Philip`> | mcarter: Why should WebSocket have Web in the name, when pretty much every other web technology doesn't? |
| 00:38 | <Philip`> | The webbiness is implicit in the context, since you're going to be using it in a web page |
| 00:39 | <Hixie> | the whatwg puts "web" in the name of everything it does |
| 00:39 | <mcarter> | Philip`, so as not to confuse a WebSocket with a Socket due to the protocol differences |
| 00:39 | <gavin> | I agree with Philip`. Also, just "Socket" is too long. It should be called "Sock". |
| 00:39 | <mcarter> | really we should name the protocol, and then name the api after the protocol |
| 00:39 | <Hixie> | Web Forms 2.0, Web Apps 1.0, Web Controls, Web Binding Language (the "whatwg internal name" for what is published as xbl2), etc |
| 00:40 | <Hixie> | the protocol is the Web Socket Something Protocol |
| 00:40 | <Hixie> | not sure what "Something" is. Not Transfer, not Transport, not Control |
| 00:40 | <mcarter> | given that the protocol name is the Web Socket Something Protocol, I think WebSocket sounds like a good name for the api |
| 00:40 | <mcarter> | Web Socket Stream Protocol? |
| 00:40 | <Hixie> | that works |
| 00:40 | <Hixie> | or Web Socket Streaming Protocol |
| 00:41 | <Hixie> | then again, that might make people think of streaming video |
| 00:41 | <mcarter> | yeah, thats a good point |
| 00:41 | <takkaria> | Web Socket Socket protocol? |
| 00:41 | <mcarter> | Web Socket Framing Protocol? |
| 00:41 | <Hixie> | Web Socket Duplex Framed Text And Binary Data Protocol |
| 00:41 | <Hixie> | WSDFTABDP |
| 00:42 | <takkaria> | just put a - after the WS and you can make people even more confused |
| 00:42 | <Hixie> | wsdftadbp://damowmow.com:81/news |
| 00:42 | <mcarter> | wow |
| 00:42 | <Hixie> | (though i think the scheme should just be ws:// actually) |
| 00:43 | <Hixie> | oh right, Web Socket Duplex Protocol is what i was thinking earlier |
| 00:43 | <Hixie> | WSDP |
| 00:43 | <Hixie> | or just Web Socket Protocol :-) |
| 00:43 | <Philip`> | Hixie: All those "Web"s are only in the names, not in the APIs |
| 00:44 | <hober> | I hope ws:// annoys soap people :) |
| 00:44 | <mcarter> | Philip`, really though, the reason that WebSocket should have the word web in it is that historically the Web hasn't had sockets. Calling something a web socket will be really good for establishing a strong recognition as to what the technology is and how it changes web applications |
| 00:44 | <Hixie> | what mcarter said |
| 00:44 | <Philip`> | Fair enough :-) |
| 00:45 | Philip` | wonders if he'll be able to use it for peer-to-peer communication in the future |
| 00:45 | <Hixie> | not the way the current protocol is set up |
| 00:45 | <mcarter> | Philip`, what are the use cases of peer-to-peer connections? |
| 00:46 | <mcarter> | I was trying to justify the need for peer connections last night |
| 00:46 | <roc> | games |
| 00:46 | <Philip`> | mcarter: Sharing music illegally |
| 00:46 | <roc> | well, some games |
| 00:46 | <Hixie> | peer to peer across multiple subnets would be interesting, though a whole different problem than what the Web Socket Protocol solves |
| 00:47 | <Hixie> | not clear we could even use the same handshaking mechanism |
| 00:47 | <Hixie> | you have to deal with NATting and all kinds of issues |
| 00:47 | <Hixie> | (as in NATting on both ends) |
| 00:47 | <roc> | content distribution |
| 00:48 | <roc> | I was talking to some friends who work at a peer to peer content distribution company, mostly video. They're distributing a browser plugin to do it |
| 00:48 | <Philip`> | PC games often seem to work around NATs by using a third server to help initiate the connection, and that sometimes seems to work alright |
| 00:48 | <roc> | it's always nice if we can avoid the need for plugins |
| 00:48 | <Hixie> | well opera has built in bittorrent support :-) |
| 00:49 | <roc> | I don't think we want to write bittorrent into HTML5 |
| 00:49 | <Philip`> | (though that probably only really works for UDP, not TCP, unless your NAT/firewall is dumb) |
| 00:50 | <Philip`> | (and I don't think HTML5 wants to reinvent TCP on top of UDP) |
| 00:50 | <Hixie> | that's all we need |
| 00:50 | <Hixie> | reaching even further down the stack to reinvent the web! |
| 00:50 | <Hixie> | maybe i can get vint to contribute |
| 00:51 | <Philip`> | Use case: I want to write an internet router in HTML |
| 00:51 | <Hixie> | feel free to file that in bugzilla |
| 00:52 | <Philip`> | Who needs fancy Cisco boxes when I could use a commodity PC running Firefox? |
| 00:56 | <takkaria> | I think a <scene> tag is more important than writing internet routers in HTML |
| 00:56 | <Philip`> | I want a <scone> tag |
| 00:56 | <hober> | I'm surprised Dmitry didn't beat Philip` to proposing one... |
| 00:57 | <jmb> | Philip`: that'd just open a huge bikeshed about how to pronounce it |
| 00:57 | <takkaria> | it wouldn't, you clearly pronounce it as "'s gone" |
| 00:59 | Philip` | fortunately agrees with takkaria |
| 01:14 | <Hixie> | don't look now, but the top of the spec right now is a mess. |
| 01:14 | <Hixie> | in case anyone is wondering what's going on |
| 01:15 | <Hixie> | i'm in the middle of reorganising everything again |
| 01:37 | <othermaciej> | roc: I can comment on project plans, but I can't comment on when or whether Apple will ship anything in a product |
| 01:38 | <othermaciej> | roc: although I don't have a formal authority role in the open source project or anything so I can only speak based on my knowledge, not as an official project representative |
| 02:04 | <roc> | the distinction seems rather fine |
| 02:07 | <mcarter> | Hixie, there may be some value to allowing the client to set headers on the WebSocket handshake |
| 02:18 | <othermaciej> | I can say "the WebKit project is interested in FooML, and John Doe might be working on it soon" but I can't say "Safari 5 will ship in 2 months with full FooML support" |
| 02:18 | <roc> | yeah |
| 02:22 | <othermaciej> | and yes, there could be confusing borderline cases, but that's the rough outline |
| 02:23 | <othermaciej> | the WebKit project is a technology provider, not a product organization |
| 02:23 | <othermaciej> | which I guess is somewhat unusual in the realm of open source projects |
| 02:23 | <roc> | not really |
| 02:23 | <roc> | the Linux kernel is the same |
| 02:24 | <othermaciej> | well I guess the fact that they ship releases is ultimately not very relevant to either what people get from Linux distros, or what totally bleeding edge fanboys run (which is probably straight out of someone's git tree) |
| 02:25 | <othermaciej> | so yeah, I can tell you we're working on the scheduler but not when Red Hat will ship those changes |
| 02:25 | <othermaciej> | to draw the analogy |
| 02:25 | <roc> | I'm actually surprised you haven't had to do some labelling of builds to indicate which ones are better than others |
| 02:26 | <othermaciej> | of nightly builds you mean? |
| 02:26 | <roc> | of any builds |
| 02:27 | <roc> | someone said you don't do releases |
| 02:28 | <othermaciej> | well we have release/update branches which are generally managed by a specific port/vendor, but the project as a whole just develops on trunk, and we try to keep it stable enough that nightlies or even trunk SVN builds are usuable |
| 02:29 | <othermaciej> | the only releases that count are done by vendors/packagers though |
| 02:29 | <roc> | how do they know when to branch? |
| 02:29 | <othermaciej> | (well I guess others might look at it differently and say HEAD is the only release that counts) |
| 02:30 | <othermaciej> | they know when to branch by whatever their release cycle is, and hopefully by participating in the project enough to know what revisions are relatively stable and what fixes may need to be merged from trunk |
| 02:30 | <roc> | I see |
| 02:31 | <roc> | thanks |
| 02:31 | <othermaciej> | in practice many (though not all) vendors try to branch from the same point as Apple's releases, but sometimes with different fixes on top of that |
| 02:42 | <takkaria> | there is now an up-to-spec C HTML5 tokeniser |
| 05:35 | <Hixie> | i'm amused with the people who are complaining about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0180.html |
| 05:35 | <Hixie> | e.g. in http://www.w3.org/mid/20080619005249.GI5647@sideshowbarker |
| 05:35 | <Hixie> | it's not clear to me what exactly the complaint is |
| 07:24 | <Dashiva> | "'quality of argument' is a qualitative statement, showing support for an argument reinforces the argument" |
| 07:24 | <Dashiva> | In other words, if you repeat it enough times it becomes true? |
| 07:35 | <takkaria> | I would have thought showing support for an argument is only a quantitive measure, not a qualitative one |
| 07:36 | <takkaria> | sounds like a category mistake to me |
| 07:49 | <gsnedders> | Hixie sure is doing well at not doing the URL section :) |
| 07:52 | <Dashiva> | It's like seeing myself procrastinate studying for exams, only way beyond my league |
| 08:41 | <shepazu> | takkaria: you're assuming that the number is attached merely statistically... in fact, each +1 is the result of a qualitative judgment by a person on the subject matter, not merely an iteration of an instance |
| 08:42 | <shepazu> | Dashiva, in other words, if enough people agree with it, it may be worth taking a further look at it |
| 08:43 | <shepazu> | this isn't physics, folks... it's not modeling the real world... it's an interactive exercise in what direction people want the web to move |
| 08:47 | <Dashiiiva> | And someone has to say stop when people are suggesting to move into brick walls :) |
| 08:50 | <takkaria> | shepazu: good counterargument |
| 08:51 | <shepazu> | Dashiiiva, agreed, but it's not being done correctly yet |
| 08:51 | <shepazu> | takkaria, thanks |
| 08:52 | <shepazu> | fwiw, I wasn't sitting here thinking of that the whole time... I just saw your comment :) |
| 08:53 | <shepazu> | mikesmith is doing good work in trying to impose a little order, mind you |
| 08:54 | <takkaria> | shepazu: I study philosophy, I'm in the business of arguing, not in the buisness of being right or wrong :) |
| 08:55 | <shepazu> | takkaria, then your qualitative assessment on my argument is worth even more :) |
| 08:55 | <shepazu> | ... or less |
| 08:55 | <shepazu> | ... or both! |
| 08:56 | <Dashiiiva> | Superposition until the specific judgement is observed |
| 08:58 | <shepazu> | one of my smartest friends studied philosophy as his major... he knows about 5 languages, including japanese and some chinese... he now writes pen-and-paper RPGs, and jokes that he's a "dozenaire" :) |
| 08:58 | <takkaria> | I don't know about all that, I just appreciate good arguments :) |
| 08:59 | <shepazu> | heh |
| 09:01 | <GDashiva> | takkaria: Philosophize on the futility of quantitative judgement in a self-selecting, non-representative group of people :) |
| 09:10 | <takkaria> | actually, I've spent a fair bit of time recently thinking about consensus vs. dictatorial decision-making |
| 09:10 | <shepazu> | what's your conclusion? |
| 09:11 | <takkaria> | well, for the individual, consensus is best, but for the organism as a whole, some dictatorship/domination is required |
| 09:11 | <takkaria> | not an earth-shattering conclusion by any means, really |
| 09:12 | <takkaria> | but a similar problem exists when thinking about freedom of expression; for the individual, no restrictions on it are best, but for a society as a whole, some may be justified |
| 09:12 | <takkaria> | as such, there is an inevitable and eternal conflict where some people will be beaten down at the expense of others |
| 09:12 | <takkaria> | er, s/be beaten down/the dominating voices/ |
| 09:13 | <takkaria> | and that there's not much one can do about it, really. bit pessimistic but there you go |
| 09:13 | <shepazu> | heh |
| 09:14 | <shepazu> | I prefer to think of it in terms of guides rather than controllers |
| 09:15 | <shepazu> | a smart leader knows when and how to follow the will of his constituents |
| 09:18 | <takkaria> | that only works in groups small enough, I'd say |
| 09:19 | <Hixie> | i wonder how to split the spec up in terms of defining documents and defining the HTMLDocument object and defining the actual members |
| 09:19 | <Hixie> | same with elements, content models, HTMLElement, and the actual members |
| 09:20 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: what would be the goal of splitting it in that way? |
| 09:21 | <Hixie> | which way? |
| 09:24 | <hsivonen> | how come it's OK for aptest.com to host the issue list of the XHTML2 WG but people complain about http://www.whatwg.org/issues/ being outside w3.org space? |
| 09:24 | <Hixie> | because i host whatwg.org, i guess |
| 09:25 | <Hixie> | same reason it wasn't ok for me to host the css issues list but fantasai can host it |
| 09:25 | <Hixie> | aha, this basic structure makes more sense |
| 09:25 | <hsivonen> | hmmkay. |
| 09:25 | Hixie | has added a top-level section to the spec |
| 09:26 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: (real answer is i've no idea, but i've long given up caring. though if you find out, do let me know.) |
| 09:26 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Maybe just because more people are involved with HTML5 than with XHTML2, so if a small fraction objects then that's 0 people in XHTML2 but >= 1 people in HTML5 |
| 09:27 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 09:31 | <othermaciej> | it's more because HTML5 is both successful and controversial |
| 09:31 | <othermaciej> | so people opposed to aspects of it are inclined to object |
| 09:31 | <othermaciej> | but people opposed to XHTML2 mostly just ignore it |
| 09:40 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: is there a published doc/spec somewhere that includes a link to that aptest.com list? |
| 09:40 | <MikeSmith> | or that otherwise reference it? |
| 09:40 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: same things for the CSS issues list? |
| 09:41 | <Hixie> | i linked to it from my blog |
| 09:41 | <MikeSmith> | are those just referenced in editor's drafts or other WG-internal docs |
| 09:41 | <Hixie> | fantasai's is linked to from the csswg home page |
| 09:41 | <Hixie> | iirc |
| 09:41 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: OK |
| 09:41 | <MikeSmith> | thanks |
| 09:41 | <Hixie> | (i'm absolutely fine with it myself) |
| 09:41 | <Hixie> | (and maybe people have complained, i don't know really. haven't heard of any complaints, but i don't follow css closely any more) |
| 09:42 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: I see references from Virtual F2F minutes |
| 09:42 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 09:45 | <hsivonen> | also in a draft Implemtation Report: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/implementation-report/ |
| 09:45 | <Hixie> | Philip`: just as a heads-up, when i'm done with this reorg, you'll probably want to update the spec splitter ids |
| 09:46 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: cool, thanks, that's even better |
| 09:46 | <Hixie> | hey did we ever hear back from the xhtml2wg about your request, mike? |
| 09:47 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: I have not heard a peep |
| 09:47 | <Hixie> | k |
| 09:47 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: I don't have a problem with the XHTML2 WG having a tracker outside w3.org |
| 09:47 | <Hixie> | and i assume the tag is still looking at my request and the svgwg still looking at the parsing issue |
| 09:47 | <MikeSmith> | I guess I could/should bring it up on the Hypertext CG call |
| 09:48 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: your TAG request is the one about the HTML features that affect Web architecture? |
| 09:48 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: only if you think you can't get away with saying "well i asked and got no reply" when we try to publish |
| 09:48 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: yeah |
| 09:48 | <Hixie> | the mathml wg was a breeze to work with |
| 09:48 | <Hixie> | i wish other wgs were that easy |
| 09:49 | <Hixie> | heck the mathml wg actually took over part of the html5 spec in an automated fashion (david carlisle, specifically, iirc) |
| 09:49 | <MikeSmith> | no idea of status on TAG thing. as far as SVG WG feedback on parsing issue, that's something else I can bring up on Hypertext CG call |
| 09:49 | <Hixie> | eh, don't worry about it |
| 09:49 | <Hixie> | there's no rush |
| 09:50 | <Hixie> | i'd rather they did a good thorough job, who knows, they might find some idea i missed |
| 09:50 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: I have no problem with the XHTML2 WG having a tracker outside w3.org either |
| 09:50 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: fwiw, I just implemented SVG-in-text/html according to Hixie |
| 09:50 | <hsivonen> | (parsing that is) |
| 09:50 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: yeah, saw that |
| 09:50 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: ok |
| 09:51 | <Hixie> | i expect one of the main browsers will do it at some point, and once they ship, well, too late |
| 09:51 | othermaciej | wonders if Hixie maybe hopes the SVG WG's feedback doesn't arrive until after HTML5 reaches REC with no SVG support |
| 09:51 | <Hixie> | if we get to LC and they still haven't replied, i'll just un-comment-out the svg bits |
| 09:51 | <Hixie> | and they can send lc comments |
| 09:51 | <Hixie> | that gives them more than a year, which should be plenty of time :-) |
| 09:51 | <shepazu> | we are working on it, and plan to make a proposal in the next couple weeks... we are posting something public this week to our list |
| 09:52 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: for the record, I think WGs should have the discretion to be able to link to outside resources in their specs if they care to |
| 09:52 | <Hixie> | shepazu: awesome |
| 09:52 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: i'm surprised few people have mentioned the normative links to the whatwg wiki in html5 so far |
| 09:53 | <MikeSmith> | well, given that the HTML WG charter specifically mentions WHATWG, I don't think anybody should be very surprised to see those links there |
| 09:54 | <Hixie> | logic doesn't always prevail so successfully |
| 09:56 | <Philip`> | The "normative links to a wiki" aspect seems like more of a problem than the "normative links to WHATWG-controlled sites" aspect |
| 09:57 | <Hixie> | yeah i haven't heard much about that either |
| 09:57 | <Hixie> | in fact i've heard more positive noises than negative noises |
| 09:57 | <Hixie> | which really surprises me, given how radical an idea this is for the w3c world |
| 09:57 | <Hixie> | (e.g. MikeSmith, contrast that idea to what rigo said) |
| 09:57 | <Hixie> | (about the copyright thing) |
| 09:59 | <Philip`> | It could be considered fine to have those references for now while the spec is under development, because it's just a way of delegating editorship to anyone who has a wiki account, as long as it's folded into the spec in the future so that there's a stable language to implement |
| 10:00 | Hixie | gets an internal error on v.nu |
| 10:00 | <Philip`> | so there's no need to complain about the wiki references now, but there will be if such a crazy idea makes it significantly further into the process towards REC |
| 10:00 | <Hixie> | Philip`: if people are expecting us to expect that to happen, i have news for them :-) |
| 10:00 | <Hixie> | but i think the spec is pretty clear about hte intent being permanent |
| 10:01 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: with what input? |
| 10:02 | <Hixie> | it said you were notified |
| 10:02 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: out of heap space |
| 10:02 | <Hixie> | input was the spec, but it runs fine when i do it using curl |
| 10:02 | <Hixie> | failed when i did it from the web |
| 10:02 | <hsivonen> | I guess I need to do some adjustments |
| 10:02 | <Hixie> | same source document |
| 10:03 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/source-whatwg is 404 |
| 10:03 | <Hixie> | yeah it's transient, only works while the spec is being regenned |
| 10:03 | <Hixie> | do you want a copy? |
| 10:04 | <hsivonen> | yes, please |
| 10:04 | <hsivonen> | http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/source works |
| 10:04 | <hsivonen> | I wonder if this is a transient issue of someone else validating something big at the same time |
| 10:04 | <Hixie> | http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/source-whatwg-frozen |
| 10:05 | <Hixie> | i was doing it from the command line and the web interface simultaneously |
| 10:05 | <Hixie> | web died |
| 10:05 | <Hixie> | works now |
| 10:05 | <hsivonen> | ok. thanks |
| 10:05 | <hsivonen> | I suppose I should expose OOM in the UI |
| 10:23 | <Hixie> | ok i've massively (and i do mean massively) reorganised the spec, moving a lot of stuff around |
| 10:23 | <Hixie> | (had to do all this to provide a logical place for the URLs section) |
| 10:24 | <Hixie> | i'd be interested in feedback on (a) whether i missed anything where paragraphs refer to "above" or "below" or whatever in now meaningless ways, and such problems, and (b) on whether the new structure makes sense to you and is at least as readable as the previous version. |
| 10:24 | MikeSmith | gets ready for muffed-up diffs |
| 10:25 | <Hixie> | the text didn't change in any meaningful way, it was mostly just moving sections and updating headings, but i did make some very minor editorial changes here and there to keep things sane |
| 10:25 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: request: when you do reorgs, preferably don't actually change any content at the same time |
| 10:25 | <Hixie> | yeah i try to keep it to an absolute minimum |
| 10:25 | <MikeSmith> | because then the diffs hide/obscure the content changes |
| 10:25 | <hsivonen> | hum does this relate to LEIRIs? |
| 10:25 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: cool |
| 10:26 | <Hixie> | e.g. just changing "as it says above" to "as it says in the bla section" and things like that |
| 10:26 | <Hixie> | certainly nothing substantive |
| 10:26 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: who nows? |
| 10:26 | <MikeSmith> | holy god... 971K diff |
| 10:26 | <Hixie> | yeah like i said |
| 10:26 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: you should apply for a world record |
| 10:26 | <Hixie> | major reorg :-) |
| 10:26 | <Lachy> | Hixie, why is the section discussing Link elements and relationships within the Web Browser section, instead of within the Element section? |
| 10:26 | <MikeSmith> | :) |
| 10:27 | <Hixie> | Lachy: it's within the hyperlinks subsection, which is within the section that introduces browsing contexts |
| 10:28 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: I thought LEIRIs were like IRIs but allow more control chars and take the LEIRI-to-URI conversion encoding from the context instead of assuming UTF-8 |
| 10:28 | <Lachy> | and shouldn't the irrelevant attribute be in the Global attributes section? |
| 10:28 | <Hixie> | part of my URL plan is to remove all mention of IRIs |
| 10:28 | <Hixie> | so... |
| 10:29 | <Hixie> | Lachy: seemed more like an interaction thing |
| 10:29 | hsivonen | expects reality to suck for my current IRI-wise correct code |
| 10:29 | <Lachy> | ok. Other than that, the new order looks reasonable. |
| 10:29 | <Hixie> | Lachy: but both those things didn't change with this reorg, so send mail or file a bug if you want those changed :-) (i could be very easily convinced to move them around) |
| 10:29 | <Hixie> | Lachy: sweet |
| 10:30 | <Hixie> | hsivonen: reality is certainly proving to suck huge genitals when it comes to the writing of the spec, so that wouldn't surprise me indeed. |
| 10:30 | <Hixie> | did you know that non-ascii characters are treated differently in the path section than the query section of a URL? |
| 10:30 | <Lachy> | ok, I review it a bit more thorougly and see whether or not it works as-is |
| 10:31 | <hsivonen> | that I didn't know |
| 10:31 | <Hixie> | neither did i until very recently |
| 10:31 | <Hixie> | "dismayed" would be an appropriate word to use to describe my reaction to learning this |
| 10:31 | <Hixie> | anyway |
| 10:32 | <Hixie> | URLs are fun for tomorrow or friday |
| 10:32 | <Hixie> | for now i shall sleep |
| 10:32 | <Hixie> | if anyoen has input on the new structure, send mail or file a bug, i'll fix the fallout tomorrow |
| 10:32 | <annevk> | nn |
| 10:32 | <Hixie> | and thanks again everyone for the help :-) |
| 10:32 | <Hixie> | nn |
| 11:25 | <annevk> | that diff is a mess |
| 16:17 | <annevk> | aroben, would delaying script execution be really bad? |
| 16:17 | <aroben> | annevk: how do you delay it? |
| 16:17 | <annevk> | aroben, similarly to how it's done for layout today? |
| 16:18 | <annevk> | several engines at least first compute layout before returning offsetLeft or something for instance |
| 16:18 | <aroben> | annevk: in that case you're not waiting for IO, however |
| 16:20 | <annevk> | true, don't know whether that matters |
| 16:24 | <aroben> | annevk: in general I would think that waiting for a read from disk could take much longer than a layout could |
| 16:25 | <annevk> | maybe it should delay but there should also be an event that would be the recommended usage pattern? |
| 16:26 | <annevk> | I don't really want sessionStorage / localStorage to become async |
| 16:43 | <othermaciej> | annevk, aroben: if you are talking about localStorage, all you have to do is wait for the local storage data (if there is any for that site) to load from disk before you start running the first script |
| 16:43 | <othermaciej> | that's the same as waiting for the data for an external script pretty much |
| 16:43 | <othermaciej> | not quite the same thing as the offsetLeft case, which is stopping in the middle of script execution |
| 16:43 | <othermaciej> | I don't think the API needs to be async, just the implementation |
| 16:43 | <aroben> | annevk: if you allow authors to read before the event, then I don't think they'll ever wait for the event |
| 16:44 | <aroben> | othermaciej: yeah, waiting to start script execution seems a little better than pausing during script execution |
| 16:45 | <othermaciej> | pausing during script execution blocks the UI waiting on I/O, which is bad |
| 16:46 | <othermaciej> | and you can also have a master index of which sites have any per-site data, so you'd know up front whether the possible disk read is even needed |
| 16:50 | <annevk> | in Opera it wouldn't block the UI |
| 16:50 | <annevk> | but I gues that's a problem other browsers have, yes |
| 17:43 | <Philip`> | Hmm, does anyone want an IE8 Tech Beta invitation code? |
| 17:48 | smedero | waves |
| 17:55 | <Dashiva> | Was the xhtml2 wg this possessive about XHTML 1.0 all along? |
| 17:55 | <annevk> | prolly |
| 17:56 | <annevk> | I guess Steven made sure that the HTML WG charter didn't mention XHTML |
| 17:57 | <Dashiva> | Sucks to be xhtml then |
| 17:58 | <om_meet> | I guess the XML serialization of HTML we are mandated to do is somehow at the same time not XHTML |
| 17:58 | om_meet | shrugs |
| 17:58 | <Dashiva> | But good news! They're going to remove appendix C from XHTML 1.0 to distance themselves from HTML as much as possible |
| 17:59 | <annevk> | It just happens that our XHTML means HTML as XML |
| 17:59 | <annevk> | It's not at all the same! :p |
| 17:59 | <Dashiva> | That means everyone agrees no xhtml over text/html |
| 18:00 | <jcranmer> | will IE 8 accept application/xhtml+xml, then? |
| 18:01 | <annevk> | What does this have to do with IE 8? |
| 18:01 | <Dashiva> | I don't think MS cares much about xhtml2 |
| 18:04 | <hober> | I guess nothing ever came of the XHTML2 rebranding effort |
| 18:06 | <Dashiva> | They rebranded? |
| 18:06 | <annevk> | they're calling themselves the XHTML WG and are working on XHTML 1.x stuff mostly |
| 18:06 | <hober> | "Those design choices have led to XHTML 2.0 having an identity distinct from HTML. With the chartering of the XHTML 2 Working Group, |
| 18:06 | <annevk> | the original XForms WG asked to be renamed to Forms WG to make it more clear that they were about all Forms, but then they're calling themselves XForms WG everywhere... |
| 18:06 | <hober> | W3C will continue its technical work on the language at the same time it considers rebranding the technology to clarify its independence |
| 18:06 | <Dashiva> | That could be misunderstood as even xhtml2 wg having given up on xhtml2 ;) |
| 18:06 | <hober> | and value in the marketplace." -- http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-pressrelease |
| 18:06 | <Lachy> | apparently they plan on doing an XHTML 1.2 |
| 18:06 | <annevk> | I'm not sure if there's any logic |
| 18:07 | <Dashiva> | annevk: They want to be Forms WG to own forms, but they want to be XForms WG because that makes it clear they hate all other kinds of forms |
| 18:07 | <deane> | annevk, xhtml was in the orignal charter, SP and others made timbl remove it though: http://www.w3.org/2006/11/HTML-WG-charter.html#scope |
| 18:08 | <deane> | new charter: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter |
| 18:08 | <hober> | ugh |
| 18:09 | <annevk> | deane, actually, I think browser vendors might have requested that, because we didn't want to work on modularization |
| 18:10 | <annevk> | (and I still don't, seems like a waste of time) |
| 18:11 | <Philip`> | Monolithicity wins! |
| 18:11 | <Lachy> | annevk, that doesn't make sense. XHTML 1.0 wasn't modularised and if the charter didn't mention 1.1, then there would be no reason to assume modularisation |
| 18:11 | <hober> | right. |
| 18:11 | <annevk> | Lachy, "the series of specifications previously published as XHTML version 1" includes XHTML Modularization afaik |
| 18:11 | <hober> | I mean, it's pretty clear by now that XHTML 1.1 : XHTML 1.0 :: XML 1.1 : XML 1.0 |
| 18:12 | <Lachy> | yeah, they should have rephrased it to say XHTML, but without referring to the whole series of specs |
| 18:12 | <annevk> | I can agree with that |
| 18:12 | <Philip`> | hober: Does that mean they're going to backport the XHTML 1.1 changes into XHTML 1.0? |
| 18:12 | <Lachy> | but, whatever, it says we need an XML serialisation, and that means XHTML anyway |
| 18:12 | <annevk> | I'm not sure I agree that XHTML version 1 excludes XHTML 1.1 |
| 18:12 | <hober> | Philip`: heh. |
| 18:15 | <deane> | annevk, what's the deal with the forms WG? I asked if I could join and it took them 3 weeks to get back to me, then I was asked to give "some backgound info" on myself |
| 18:55 | <gsnedders> | jgraham__: Bug in your outliner: the header element has a rank equal to 1. |
| 18:56 | <om_meet> | does Opera 9.5 support HTML5 <video> and <audio>? |
| 18:58 | <hasather_> | om_meet: no |
| 19:18 | <mcarter> | Hixie, how goes URLs? |
| 19:48 | <annevk> | deane, I think they (Forms and XHTML2 WG) have a stricter policy on allowing individuals to join their WG |
| 19:50 | annevk | likes the WebSocket stuff |
| 19:51 | <deane> | annevk, yes, and I think we all know how successful closed groups are |
| 19:52 | <mcarter> | annevk, is that in a draft somewhere, or are you referring to the mailing list / irc logs about WebSocket? |
| 19:52 | <annevk> | mcarter, just the buzz :) |
| 19:52 | <mcarter> | heh |
| 19:53 | <annevk> | deane, fortunately for you there are open alternatives :) |
| 19:53 | <mcarter> | you can almost feel it just joining the irc channel... |
| 19:54 | <Philip`> | We don't keep the riffraff out! |
| 19:55 | hober | drafted a personal reply to the xhtml2 wg email |
| 19:55 | <hober> | any comments / suggestions / etc. before I post? |
| 19:55 | <hober> | http://edward.oconnor.cx/tmp/xhtml2-reply.txt |
| 19:56 | <deane> | Some fool thought that the next version of XHTML was going to be XHTML2: http://digg.com/programming/HTML5_differences_from_HTML4?t=7211519#c7212068 |
| 19:56 | <deane> | so I corrected him :) |
| 19:58 | Philip` | tries to work out how to make that link show the actual comment |
| 19:59 | <deane> | hober: run it past mike first, I was talking to him today about this |
| 19:59 | <Philip`> | Hmm, now it's scrolling me back to the top of the screen every few hundred milliseconds |
| 19:59 | <Philip`> | Oh, there it goes |
| 20:02 | <hober> | deane: I'll wait a day or so; he's in-channel and can comment on it whenever--I read the logs when I'm not present |
| 21:07 | <hober> | Reworked that draft email w/ feedback from h3h, who signed as well. |
| 21:48 | <Lachy> | hober, that's quite a well written draft. |
| 21:48 | <Lachy> | But I have a small issue with it... |
| 21:48 | hober | perks up |
| 21:49 | <Lachy> | where you talk about how XHTML2 follows a trajectory from HTML4/XHTML1, it's not really clear to me how they have done that at all. |
| 21:50 | <hober> | I struggled with the wording there |
| 21:50 | <Lachy> | It seems to me that the XHTML2 group simply discarded the past and started from scratch |
| 21:50 | <hober> | Because they clearly believe that they're along such a trajectory |
| 21:50 | <hober> | So I tried to describe what such a trajectory might be |
| 21:50 | <Lachy> | although, in a sense, it is somewhat inspired by (X)HTML, since it does share a few element names |
| 21:51 | <hober> | right |
| 21:52 | <hober> | I think rhetorically it's important to acknowledge both groups' stories |
| 21:52 | <hober> | whether or not I understand either |
| 21:52 | <hober> | Maybe I can dig up a quote from them, and then skip trying to describe it myself. |
| 21:53 | <hober> | That sound good? |
| 21:53 | <Lachy> | maybe say something about how it doesn't directly build upon XHTML1, it has been inspired by the past |
| 21:54 | <Hixie> | hober: the mail from the xhtmlwg is about the "relationship to xhtml1.x" section, not about xhtml2 |
| 21:54 | <Lachy> | with a goal of building a new foundation |
| 21:54 | <Lachy> | ah, yeah. good point. |
| 21:55 | Lachy | wonders how to tell the XHTML2 WG that their work on XHTML 1.x is irrelevant, without offending anyone. |
| 21:56 | <Hixie> | i wouldn't bother |
| 21:56 | <Hixie> | mike will take care of it |
| 21:56 | <Lachy> | ok |
| 21:56 | <Hixie> | speaking of which, is MikeSmith around? |
| 21:57 | <Lachy> | Hixie, he's probably asleep. It's 05:00 in his timezone |
| 21:57 | <Hixie> | that doesn't mean much |
| 21:57 | <Dashiva> | Not everyone is you, Hixie :) |
| 21:58 | <Hixie> | it doesn't mean much for MikeSmith either as i understand it :-) |
| 21:58 | <Dashiva> | I must say, MikeSmith is being really chair-y. I hope he sticks to it |
| 21:58 | <Lachy> | yeah, he's been good |
| 21:58 | <Dashiva> | Things are happening, things are being done |
| 21:58 | gsnedders | sits on MikeSmith |
| 21:59 | <Dashiva> | (I just noticed the potential cheery pun. Sorry.) |
| 22:00 | <gsnedders> | (I just made the obvious, old, joke) |
| 22:14 | <Hixie> | annevk: i don't understand http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0255.html |
| 23:08 | <Philip`> | Hixie: I've updated the spec splitter (just removed one id) to work better with the current reorganisation; let me know if I missed any pages and they look stupidly short/long |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | cool, thanks |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | does the new organisation make more sense, do you think? |
| 23:08 | <Hixie> | (did you see any obvious mistakes?) |
| 23:09 | <mcarter> | Hixie, how would you describe your relationship to HTML5 besides "The editor of the HTML5 specification" ? |
| 23:09 | <Hixie> | that's how i would describe my relationship to html5 |
| 23:09 | <mcarter> | ok, thanks |
| 23:10 | <Philip`> | Hixie: No idea - I just looked at the scrollbars, I didn't read the text at all :-) |
| 23:10 | <Hixie> | hah |
| 23:10 | <Hixie> | fat lot of use you are :-P |
| 23:12 | <Philip`> | I could read through the whole spec looking for any parts that lack sense or contain mistakes, and I'll send my feedback some time during 2010 |
| 23:14 | <Hixie> | that would be awesome |
| 23:15 | <Hixie> | though i recommend sending the feedback as you go |
| 23:15 | <Hixie> | so that my mail client doesn't crash when you send your 500MB e-mail |
| 23:15 | <Philip`> | But then you'll keep changing the spec as I'm reading, and it will take an infinite time before it's stable |
| 23:16 | <Hixie> | (2010 is half-way through our last call period) |
| 23:16 | <Hixie> | it won't take an infinite time |
| 23:16 | <Hixie> | it'll converge on stability |
| 23:17 | <Philip`> | 1/x converges on zero but takes an infinite amount of time to get there |
| 23:17 | <Hixie> | yeah but it doesn't take an infinite amount of time to get to zero plus or minus epsilon |
| 23:17 | <Hixie> | and that's my actual target, not zero |
| 23:18 | <Hixie> | when the feedback consists only of people suggesting changes to examples, spelling, grammar, etc, we're basically done |
| 23:19 | <Hixie> | ok wtf is a URL. |
| 23:19 | <Hixie> | it's not a URI, since URIs don't allow non-escaped non-ASCII characters. |
| 23:19 | <Philip`> | I suppose epsilon will increase over time, as you get more and more fed up of working on HTML5 and want to just mark it as 'finished' and move onto something else |
| 23:20 | <Hixie> | it's definitely not an IRI, since IRIs appear to be UTF-8 only |
| 23:20 | <Hixie> | Philip`: probably not, actually. |
| 23:21 | <Hixie> | Philip`: but we'll see |
| 23:21 | <jcranmer> | Philip`: you can get remarkably resilient |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | you know the web platform has a problem when you can't complete the sentence "The term URL in this specification is used to mean..." |
| 23:27 | <jcranmer> | shouldn't it be URI? |
| 23:27 | <hober> | heh |
| 23:27 | <jcranmer> | I thought URL was deprecated |
| 23:27 | <jcranmer> | Hixie: it also means that you have become a language lawyer |
| 23:28 | <hober> | "have become"? :) |
| 23:30 | <Philip`> | jcranmer: People have thought HTML was deprecated :-) |
| 23:30 | <jcranmer> | I meant the term |
| 23:31 | <Philip`> | That means fewer people will object if the term gets redefined into meaning something ugly and web-compatible |
| 23:32 | <Philip`> | If I'm not wrong, "URI" already has a specific meaning, so it'd be wrong to use that term to refer to something that's not quite the same |
| 23:34 | <Lachy> | Philip`, URL already has a specific meaning too. But if I understand correctly, then we're redefining it to be more realistic |
| 23:37 | <Hixie> | URI means what RFC3986 says it means, which isn't what I want URL to mean |
| 23:37 | <Hixie> | e.g. it doesn't allow non-ascii characters |
| 23:38 | <jcranmer> | isn't that idn is supposed to solve? |
| 23:38 | <jcranmer> | er, punycode or whatever it is? |
| 23:40 | <Hixie> | yes |
| 23:40 | <Hixie> | that's RFC3987 |
| 23:40 | <Hixie> | but it assumes UTF-8 |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | which isn't what browsers do either |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | (they use UTF-8 for the path, and the current encoding for the query component) |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | so we can't say URL = URI, and we can't say URL = IRI |
| 23:41 | <jcranmer> | isn't this where one should say "screw encodings, everything's UTF8, and if you don't like that, you can have UTF16" |
| 23:47 | <Lachy> | Hixie, so what you really need to define is how a URL occuring within a given document maps to a properly encoded URI/IRI, which can then be retrieved. |
| 23:47 | <Hixie> | jcranmer: that doesn't really work well with the existing web :-) |
| 23:47 | <Lachy> | am I understanding correctly? |
| 23:47 | <Hixie> | Lachy: i think you're right |
| 23:47 | <Hixie> | i think i need hsivonen |
| 23:48 | <Hixie> | specifically, i want to know if he thinks that non-utf-8 escaped octets in a URI, or non-ascii in a query component in a non-utf-8 document, should be non-conforming |
| 23:50 | <Lachy> | what do you mean by a non-utf-8 escaped octet? |
| 23:53 | <Hixie> | http://example.com/%FF |
| 23:53 | <Hixie> | for example |
| 23:55 | <Lachy> | re bug 5772, I think rb is trying to make a distinction between the id="" attribute and attributes of type ID. He wants to preserve the meaning of the type ID which requires uniqueness, and redefine id="" so that it isn't of type ID and doesn't require uniqueness |
| 23:55 | <Hixie> | wish he'd say so then :-) |
| 23:56 | <Lachy> | but it's rather confusing, since HTML5 isn't defined in terms of a schema language |
| 23:56 | <Hixie> | aah, you said the word schema! 5 minutes in the corner! |
| 23:56 | <Hixie> | oh crap, so did i. |
| 23:56 | Hixie | joins Lachy in the corner. |
| 23:56 | <Lachy> | :-D |
| 23:59 | <Lachy> | but what he's asking for is a bad idea since it creates problems for getElementById(), which depends on uniqueness for being totally predictable, as the DOM spec leaves behaviour explicitly undefined in the case of duplicates |
| 23:59 | <Lachy> | that should, of course, be defined in DOM5 though |