| 00:14 | <Dashiva> | Boo, canvas |
| 00:39 | <Hixie> | Dashiva: how was the talk? |
| 00:40 | <Hixie> | should i blog it? |
| 00:40 | <Dashiva> | It was good. Personally I was disappointed when canvas turned out to be the last thing, since canvas is totally old to me. But for a regular person, sure. |
| 00:41 | <Dashiva> | And you're good at repeating the questions asked :) |
| 00:43 | <Hixie> | i try! |
| 00:43 | <Hixie> | :-) |
| 00:43 | <Hixie> | glad you liked it |
| 00:43 | <Hixie> | i was really worried it would just come out really bad |
| 00:43 | <Hixie> | but i'm pretty happy with how the video turned out |
| 00:44 | <Dashiva> | The "oops it doesn't work" parts gave it an authentic feeling, and since you managed to pick most of them up fast, it didn't crash and burn either ;) |
| 00:47 | <Hixie> | Dashiva: each one was scary because i'd prepared the thing the weekend before and so i thought i'd gotten out all the bugs! |
| 00:47 | <Hixie> | Dashiva: especially the firefox frame reload thing |
| 00:47 | <Hixie> | Dashiva: i should have caught that in preparing for it |
| 00:47 | <Dashiva> | Yeah, that one surprised me, since reloading the frame was the very first thing I thought of |
| 00:48 | <Hixie> | i shift-reloaded, it should have reloaded it for me! |
| 00:48 | <Hixie> | also i forgot to set up the "earlier.txt" file in the editor demo, so it came up blank... not that anyone realised i was trying to bring one up i'd prepared earlier |
| 00:49 | <Hixie> | blogged http://blog.whatwg.org/ |
| 00:49 | <Hixie> | http://blog.whatwg.org/demos-2008-sept |
| 00:49 | <Dashiva> | I guess being used to Opera's eager caching has made me used to frames needing a little encouragement |
| 00:49 | <Hixie> | opera's caching is asinine |
| 00:52 | <heycam> | Hixie, any reason section numbers that consist of one or four numbers have a trailing dot, but those with two or three numbers don't? |
| 00:52 | <Hixie> | bug in bert's script i expect |
| 00:53 | <hasather> | Hixie: nice talk |
| 00:53 | <Hixie> | heycam: when gsnedders fixes the bug in his script and anne deploys the fix, i'll switch to the new post processor and that will go away |
| 00:53 | <Hixie> | hasather: thanks :-) |
| 00:54 | <heycam> | Hixie, k :) |
| 00:54 | <Dashiva> | Hixie: Your clothing markup was missing a <title> tag as far as I could see |
| 00:55 | <Hixie> | Dashiva: i have a baseball cap that says <head/> |
| 01:00 | <Hixie> | ok i blogged, updated http://whatwg.org/, updated http://whatwg.org/demos/2008-sept/, and twittered. |
| 01:02 | <hasather> | Hixie: wrong URLs for the demos |
| 01:02 | <Hixie> | where? |
| 01:02 | <hasather> | Hixie: at http://blog.whatwg.org/demos-2008-sept |
| 01:02 | <Hixie> | oh i see |
| 01:03 | <Hixie> | try now |
| 01:03 | <hasather> | Hixie: yep, thanks |
| 01:48 | <olliej> | Hixie: http://www.whatwg.org/demos/2008-sept/color/color.html is awesome |
| 01:49 | <Hixie> | if you think that's awesome try removing the context.restore() line |
| 05:12 | <erlehmann__> | oh hi, future commitee of the web |
| 05:23 | <erlehmann> | can anyone explain to me why the draft says something about images that are just decorative ? shouldn't that be handled by CSS ? |
| 06:29 | <Hixie> | erlehmann: often, yes, but it's harmless to have decorative images that are specific to the page, e.g. in some of my blog entries i have pictures of trees i've made. |
| 06:34 | <erlehmann> | Hixie: "This image is randomly selected from Flickr using Yahoo!" ? |
| 06:34 | <Hixie> | that wasn't the one i was thinking about, but that's another example, yeah |
| 06:35 | <Hixie> | http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1180683614&count=1 is one example |
| 06:35 | <Hixie> | the second two images are just decorative |
| 06:50 | <erlehmann> | "just decorative" as of 4.8.2.1.6. "A purely decorative image that doesn't add any information but is still specific to the surrounding content" ? |
| 06:50 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 06:50 | <Hixie> | oh |
| 06:51 | <Hixie> | well those are kinda different |
| 06:51 | <Hixie> | but they both get alt="" |
| 06:52 | <erlehmann> | i just want to understand the semantics of the new <img> rules ... |
| 06:52 | <erlehmann> | so what was your rationale to not have these images in CSS ? |
| 06:53 | <Hixie> | they're allowed in CSS |
| 06:53 | <Hixie> | but it is often convenient to be able to put one-off images in the markup instead of CSS |
| 06:53 | <Hixie> | otherwise you end up with many one-off rules in CSS |
| 06:54 | <erlehmann> | well, inline CSS is still allowed, or isn't it ? |
| 06:54 | <erlehmann> | then, more correctly, if these images in your blog aren't like "4.8.2.1.6." ones, what semantice function do they have ? |
| 06:56 | <Hixie> | hm, you're right, these kinds of images simply aren't mentioned |
| 06:56 | <Hixie> | i should add a section about them |
| 06:58 | <Hixie> | <Hixie> hm, you're right, these kinds of images simply aren't mentioned |
| 06:58 | <Hixie> | <Hixie> i should add a section about them |
| 06:58 | <erlehmann> | ah thx |
| 07:00 | <Hixie> | ok, noted the request |
| 07:00 | <erlehmann> | i'm still a bit confused - what exactly distinguishes them (the 2 imgs in question) from "purely decorative" ? |
| 07:00 | <Hixie> | how do you mean? |
| 07:01 | <erlehmann> | well, the first image has a very specific alt text and is clearly related to the text. clearly something would be amiss, if there weren't. |
| 07:01 | <Hixie> | right |
| 07:04 | <erlehmann> | so what would be amiss, if the second type of image just went away ? if the answer is "something", it should (semantically) be viewed as content (and thus probably have an alt text ?). if the answer is "nothing", then images of this type are deco, or aren't they ? |
| 07:13 | <Hixie> | nothing would be amiss |
| 07:13 | <Hixie> | the only reason to put these in html rather than css is conveniene |
| 07:13 | <Hixie> | convenience |
| 07:37 | <erlehmann> | Hixie: i believe this should be discouraged. i mean, i remember people who laid out tables "for convenience" ... |
| 07:39 | <Hixie> | using tables for layout causes harm, because it makes the page less accessible, in that the page doesn't represent the actual structure of the page, and pretends to use a data table when it does not |
| 07:39 | <Hixie> | these problems don't occur with using <img> for one-off purely decorative images |
| 07:40 | <erlehmann> | that's right, indeed. |
| 07:42 | <erlehmann> | but the semantic value tends to be zero and that makes me somehow uneasy. |
| 07:42 | <erlehmann> | (my table analogy was only from a pure semantic POV, not from a practical accessability one) |
| 07:43 | <Hixie> | i agree that using css for this should be encouraged |
| 07:44 | <Hixie> | but there's no reason to make this more complicated for authors than necessary just for purity |
| 07:47 | <erlehmann> | well, it makes the rules more complicated, but it certainly is a viable solution for those who don't need the flexibility provided by CSS. |
| 07:49 | <erlehmann> | is there something intended for the spec like "best CSS practices" perhaps in an appendix ? |
| 07:50 | <erlehmann> | like "Things that you CAN do with this specification but they are better handled using other technologies that are further described herein" |
| 07:53 | <erlehmann> | or should this rather be the domain of tutorials ? |
| 07:53 | <erlehmann> | (as in, not mentioned anywhere in the spec) |
| 07:56 | <takkaria> | putting best CSS practices in an HTML spec seems like it's a bad idea |
| 07:56 | <takkaria> | I'd suggest CSS best practices go in a CSS spec of some kind |
| 07:58 | <Hixie> | erlehmann: for the img case i expect when i add the aforementioned section i'll mention that css is potentially a better plan too |
| 07:58 | <Hixie> | but in general no, there's no plan for tutorial-like stuff there |
| 07:58 | <erlehmann> | good \o/ |
| 08:01 | <erlehmann> | i was only asking b/c of "10. Things that you can't do with this specification because they are better handled using other technologies ..." |
| 09:46 | <hsivonen> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Sep/0097.html |
| 09:46 | <hsivonen> | why is that funny? |
| 10:05 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Can I count the number of times you use the future tense? |
| 10:33 | <annevk2> | sometimes Elliotte Rusty Harold makes sense, sometimes he really doesn't |
| 10:42 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: HTML 5 will not be ready i n< 2008 |
| 10:42 | <gsnedders> | *in |
| 11:47 | <gsnedders> | First lap on GT4 (the 'ring in an R8) in around a year: 8:33 |
| 11:52 | <gsnedders> | Lap twp: 7:09 |
| 11:56 | <Philip`> | By lap seven, you'll be finishing the lap before you even start |
| 11:58 | <gsnedders> | :P |
| 11:59 | <gsnedders> | 6:20s is what I should get it down to |
| 11:59 | <gsnedders> | Then I can beat BenMillard :P |
| 11:59 | <gsnedders> | (6:20s is what I could do with same car/track on Forza 2) |
| 12:04 | <annevk2> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/0047.html is funny |
| 12:11 | <annevk2> | In that the Forms WG is now imitating us in names and design patterns. (Web Forms 2.0 was originally called XForms Basic and inspired by XForms.) |
| 15:23 | <hsivonen> | "Richard's Hotmail" isn't making his point in the most persuasive way... |
| 15:25 | <takkaria> | no, he seems to ignore everything everyone says |
| 15:25 | <takkaria> | (about how he should argue the point) |
| 15:44 | <erlehmann> | Is anyone doing a thorough examination of codecs and container formats for patent purposes ? |
| 15:51 | <hsivonen> | erlehmann: if someone is, (s)he isn't announcing it |
| 15:52 | <hsivonen> | s/isn't announcing/hasn't announced/ |
| 16:02 | <erlehmann> | hsivonen: i wonder if AOL (winamp) or real networks (helix) have done that. probably should write them. |
| 17:19 | gsnedders | turns part of his personal statement into a sexual innuendo |
| 17:19 | <gsnedders> | I didn't intend that. Srsly. |
| 17:27 | <Dashiva> | That's what she said |
| 17:28 | <gsnedders> | :P |
| 17:28 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: But… but… I thought she loved me! |
| 17:29 | <gsnedders> | I mean, that's what she said! |
| 18:48 | <gsnedders> | jgraham, Philip`: Comments within 24 hours would be nice, this time :) |
| 19:39 | <Hixie> | poor forms wg |
| 19:40 | <Hixie> | they are moving to the name web forms after 5 years just we are moving away from it |
| 20:04 | <hsivonen> | will XHTML2 be renamed to HTML-A? :-) |
| 20:07 | <Dashiva> | HTML-A could be seen as HTML-10 |
| 20:36 | <Hixie> | ah, i see |
| 20:36 | <Hixie> | WebForms A -> WebForms 10 in decimal, and Web Forms 10 in binary -> WebForms 2 in decimal |
| 20:41 | <Hixie> | i don't understand what http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.2/modules/streamlined/index-all.html is supposed to be |
| 20:41 | <Hixie> | it doesn't seem to be xforms, and it doesn't seem to be html4 forms |
| 20:44 | <Dashiva> | Looks like a way to create XML representing the value state of a HTML form |
| 21:28 | <hsivonen> | "Leigh Klotz: Nobody wants a simplified version of something they already don't want." |
| 21:28 | <hsivonen> | Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008Sep/att-0046/2008-09-24.html |
| 21:29 | <hsivonen> | "Leigh Klotz: "XFormsA" is a good start but I think it needs a new name that isn't XForms." |
| 21:29 | <gsnedders> | Do they really have blockquote { font-family: 'Comic Sans MS', sans-serif, arial; } !? |
| 21:32 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: That generalisation seems clearly false - e.g. consider something that people want, then add a load of unnecessary complexity so that nobody wants it any more; then they would still want the simplified version, since it's exactly the same as the pre-complexification thing that they wanted |
| 23:32 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Your personal statement is much imporved. I may get around to detailed comments in 24 hours or may not, I'm busy all day tomorrow |