| 01:00 | <erlehmann> | the game |
| 01:02 | <annevk2> | 6PM here, 2AM in Europe |
| 01:02 | annevk2 | sighs |
| 01:02 | <jcranmer> | INTERNAL PARSE ERROR: Specific resolution of objects of class `game' with article `the' and qualifiers `[]' failed |
| 01:05 | <Philip`> | I get distracted by the pretty colours and don't get as far as trying to parse the utterance |
| 01:13 | <Philip`> | Hmm, my bank now says "The Internet browser you are using is not supported by online banking.", which is odd since it claims to support "Opera 9.x", and it worked a while ago with Opera 9.5, but now I'm using Opera 9.6 and it doesn't :-( |
| 01:14 | <Philip`> | Strangely, the layout is a bit broken in Opera normally, but if I tell Opera to identify as Firefox then it starts looking correct |
| 09:31 | <mcarter> | annevk2, no luck on doing monday, sorry. everyone seems interested in tuesday |
| 09:59 | <annevk2> | alright, fair enough |
| 10:00 | annevk2 | just had some sleep and usefully wakes up 3AM local time |
| 10:00 | <annevk2> | guess I'll finish the episode of Heroes I was watching |
| 10:01 | <annevk2> | mcarter, thanks for trying anyway, will you write a blog entry for the WHATWG blog? |
| 10:56 | <MikeSmith> | .me really wishes he could attend the get-together that mcarter is organizing |
| 11:00 | <annevk2> | yeah :) |
| 11:00 | <annevk2> | guess you're back home? |
| 12:26 | <nessy> | annevk2: thanks for mentioning my lightning talk in your blog, btw :) |
| 12:26 | <nessy> | I didn't get around to actually chatting to you in Mandelieu |
| 12:26 | <annevk2> | yeah, same here :/ |
| 12:26 | <annevk2> | oh well, better luck next time |
| 12:27 | <nessy> | totally |
| 12:27 | <nessy> | did you see the talk? |
| 12:28 | <MikeSmith> | annevk2: still in Mandelieu |
| 12:28 | <MikeSmith> | nessy: was nice to meet you |
| 12:29 | <annevk2> | MikeSmith, I'm in Mountain View and should be vast asleep |
| 12:30 | <nessy> | hehe - I'm back in Sydney and also totally jetlagged |
| 12:30 | <nessy> | slept half the day |
| 12:30 | <annevk2> | nessy, yeah |
| 12:30 | <nessy> | MikeSmith: you're lucky! Mandelieu is really nice! |
| 12:30 | <nessy> | great meeting you, too! |
| 12:30 | <annevk2> | MikeSmith, oh lol, that was a late reply :) |
| 12:30 | <nessy> | now that I can put faces to names, makes it easier to chat on irc and in email :) |
| 12:31 | <annevk2> | MikeSmith, makes sense I guess, you guys had a Team day or some such? |
| 12:35 | <MikeSmith> | annevk2: aye |
| 13:00 | <annevk2> | http://blog.whatwg.org/bay-area-meetup-details |
| 13:00 | <annevk2> | mcarter, ^^ |
| 13:05 | <virtuelv> | mikesmith is probably just still jetlagged from wednesday :-) |
| 13:06 | <MikeSmith> | I'm pretty much always jetlagged |
| 15:04 | <MikeSmith> | http://blog.raphinou.com/2008/10/why-use-chrome-when-you-have-arora.html |
| 15:06 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: you could use http://www.microsoft.com/isv/static/images/ie_icon.gif for the annotation boxes |
| 15:27 | <zcorpan> | as i expected, character is actually utf-16 code unit (html-color-attributes) |
| 15:28 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: have you considered character vs. utf-16 code unit in html5? |
| 15:29 | <Hixie> | i don't think it has come up much |
| 15:29 | <zcorpan> | or rather codepoint vs code unit |
| 15:30 | <zcorpan> | operating on codepoints is more expensive than operating on code units, i presume |
| 15:42 | <zcorpan> | http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3Cbody%3E%3Cscript%3Edocument.body.bgColor%3D%27%F0%90%91%BE%F0%90%91%BEf%27%3B%3C%2Fscript%3E |
| 16:04 | <zcorpan> | gsnedders: hmm, it looks a bit weird without the dot at the <h2> level -- e.g. "5 Web browsers", "10 Things that you can't do ..." |
| 16:04 | <gsnedders> | zcorpan: see ISO 2145 |
| 16:05 | <zcorpan> | gsnedders: still looks weird |
| 16:05 | <zcorpan> | perhaps some padding could do |
| 16:05 | <gsnedders> | zcorpan: Get the spec changed, then I'll change :P |
| 16:10 | <zcorpan> | .secno::after { content:' '; white-space:pre } makes it look a bit better |
| 16:15 | Philip` | wonders if there's a trivial way to write a Python-like interactive interpreter in HTML/JS |
| 16:22 | <Hixie> | it's not clear that follow ISO2145 gains us anything :-) |
| 16:25 | <Philip`> | It gains us a smug feeling of pedantic correctness |
| 16:28 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Fundamentally, Philip` is correct |
| 16:28 | <gsnedders> | Also, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2005JulSep/0003.html |
| 16:30 | <Philip`> | "It is customary to separate the section number and the section title with a slightly larger space, e.g. an em space or two normal interword spaces." |
| 16:57 | Lachy | thinks the correct response to claims about not following ISO2145 is "I don't care" |
| 17:03 | <MikeSmith> | Lachy: are you speaking from your perspective as a spec editor? if so, "I don't care" hardly seems like an appropriate response. Unless your goal is to piss people off or to get them to lose respect for you completely. |
| 17:05 | <Hixie> | no, i think for ISO2145 the response "I don't care" is probably pretty appropriate, so long as what one does isn't too far from it. |
| 17:05 | <Hixie> | The W3C doesn't generally follow 2145 and as far as I know the e-mail gsnedders' cited is the only occurance of someone caring |
| 17:06 | <gsnedders> | I see no reason not to follow it, thoguh |
| 17:08 | <MikeSmith> | maybe it's just me, but I would think taking a few minutes to write an explanation of why it's not relevant rather than saying "I don't care." might be more effective way to respond. but for those who prefer to tell people "I don't care", nobody's stopping you. But you might also try saying it to people face to face rather than just by e-mail, and see how people feel about it when you do that. |
| 17:09 | <MikeSmith> | not that I'm advocating use of ISO 2145 or saying that it is necessary at all to follow it |
| 17:11 | <annevk2> | yeah, "I don't care" isn't a particularly constructive response |
| 17:18 | <Hixie> | who exactly would i speak to face to face about ISO2145? gsnedders? |
| 17:18 | <gsnedders> | :D |
| 17:18 | <Hixie> | i would bet that outside the discussion, almost nobody knows what 2145 is event about |
| 17:18 | <Hixie> | even |
| 17:18 | <Hixie> | it's not like we're saying "ignore the TAG" or anything controversal like that here :-) |
| 17:21 | gsnedders | stares at Amazon |
| 17:21 | <gsnedders> | 'Featured Books for "Humbert Humbert"' |
| 17:25 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: I mean in general saying "I don't care." to anybody face to face about a particular issue. |
| 17:25 | <Hixie> | i wouldn't be willing to make a blanket statement about that in either direction |
| 17:26 | <MikeSmith> | well, the likely response that would get from me personally if somebody says that to me is a tendency on my part to want to kick them in the teeth |
| 17:26 | <MikeSmith> | but maybe that's just me |
| 17:26 | <Hixie> | i think it's helpful to know when someone doesn't care as opposed to feigned interest which is often seen at w3c meetings :-) |
| 17:27 | <Hixie> | bbiab |
| 17:27 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: yeah, true |
| 17:28 | <MikeSmith> | I gotta drop off soon here too |
| 17:28 | <MikeSmith> | (dinner time) |
| 17:56 | <Philip`> | So, uh, how am I meant to tell the difference between 'up' and '&' keys in keypress events in Opera, when they both set e.which=e.keyCode=38? |
| 17:57 | <Hixie> | either of them set charCode? |
| 17:58 | <Philip`> | No, it's always undefined |
| 17:58 | <Hixie> | keyIdentifier? |
| 17:59 | <Philip`> | No, it's always undefined |
| 17:59 | <Hixie> | you's sol |
| 17:59 | <Philip`> | Oh well, nobody will want to type '&' anyway |
| 17:59 | <jcranmer> | shouldn't & have a shift modifier? |
| 18:00 | <Philip`> | Depends on your keyboard layout |
| 18:01 | <Philip`> | i.e. yes so that's a good idea for a hack, but it's not a very elegant solution |
| 18:04 | <gsnedders> | http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsnedders/2979057018/ |
| 18:05 | <Dashiva> | gsnedders: You're number one now |
| 18:06 | <gsnedders> | (Mr. Last Week, take note) |
| 18:06 | <Dashiva> | I wonder if he attended |
| 18:06 | <gsnedders> | If anyone wants to post that on the WHATWG blog, feel free (seeming Hixie said to post it there) |
| 18:11 | <Dashiva> | http://lastweekinhtml5.blogspot.com/2008/10/tpacker.html |
| 18:11 | <Dashiva> | wikkid |
| 18:15 | jcranmer | notes that gsnedders reminds him a lot of a HS friend |
| 18:15 | gsnedders | notes jcranmer is not a HS friend |
| 18:16 | <jcranmer> | except for the hair |
| 18:17 | smedero | wonders what part of gsnedders is left without the hair as a baseline |
| 18:17 | <gsnedders> | smedero: The apparently lovely face that the hair hides? |
| 18:26 | <Lachy> | gsnedders, are you going to post that to blog.whatwg.org? |
| 18:26 | <gsnedders> | someone else can |
| 18:26 | <Lachy> | ok |
| 20:03 | <hober> | just saw this go by on twitter: http://www.addfullsize.com/ |
| 20:04 | <Philip`> | Clearly it should be called highsrc |
| 20:04 | <takkaria> | sounds like they want data-fullsize="" |
| 20:07 | <Philip`> | No they don't - they want browsers to do something with it |
| 20:08 | <annevk2> | that guy is basically campaigning for a new features |
| 20:08 | <annevk2> | feature, even |
| 20:08 | <takkaria> | yeah, but I can't imagine browsers ever supporting it natively |
| 20:08 | <gsnedders> | And specific UI for an attribute |
| 20:08 | <annevk2> | the idea has already failed in the past |
| 20:08 | <annevk2> | see lowsrc |
| 20:09 | <annevk2> | he doesn't really go into why this wouldn't have the same issues, etc. |
| 20:15 | <othermaciej> | the idea of having a larger image with browser-native UI to pop it up is dumb, but arguably some markup-level affordance would be good to supply highres images for systems with UI scaling applied |
| 20:50 | <drew_> | The idea behind fullsize id to make a common practice (clicking on a thumbnail to display a larger image), a standard. |
| 20:51 | <Hixie> | what would the benefit be? |
| 20:52 | <Hixie> | can't people just use <a href="[...].jpeg"><img src="[...]-thumbnail.jpeg" alt="Open full-size image of [...]"></a> ? |
| 20:52 | <drew_> | The benefit would be a very quick and very simple way to display a larger version of a thumbnail across all browsers without needing to use javascript. |
| 20:52 | <Hixie> | my example had no javascript |
| 20:52 | <Hixie> | and is pretty simple |
| 20:53 | <drew_> | yes people can do that.. but then why do they go through the trouble to make it look cool in javascript if that solution was good enough.. simple.. because it is not good enought and the web is progressing. |
| 20:53 | <drew_> | so.. why not make what is already common a standard. |
| 20:53 | <annevk2> | because people like to do it in different ways |
| 20:53 | <drew_> | exactly |
| 20:53 | <annevk2> | e.g., offer buttons to browser through images, zoom, buttons, etc. |
| 20:54 | <annevk2> | and handing all that off to the browser does not really seem needed and would be less flexible |
| 20:55 | <drew_> | with the fullsize attribute, you could comma separate multiple images, and have the browser render a gallery for you. It would add a much simpler and quicker way to view images. |
| 20:56 | <annevk2> | it wouldn't have the effects the Web author wanted |
| 20:57 | <drew_> | well if you wanted to write a custom solution.. you would still have the optioin to do so in javascript. in fact all pervious javascript scripts to handle this, will still work with fullsize. |
| 20:57 | <annevk2> | e.g., changing the background color, letting one image transform in another using some filter, etc. |
| 20:57 | <annevk2> | fullsize can be implemented using a simple javascript library and would in fact be more backwards compatible if done in a way as Hixie suggests |
| 20:58 | <takkaria> | using a comma-seperated list to create a gallery would be a massive change to the idea of what <img> represents |
| 20:59 | <drew_> | HTML 5 added a footer tag.... you can do that with a div... but they added it because it was common practice... i would argue the same case for fullsize.. wouldn't you think ? |
| 21:00 | <drew_> | takkaria .. i totally agree.. that was just an idea i had.. and is in no way a final solution |
| 21:00 | <takkaria> | footers are way, way more common than clever javascript things to show images vaguely-fullscreen |
| 21:01 | <drew_> | even though footers may be way more common.. image zoomers are still common |
| 21:01 | <Hixie> | drew_: browsers can already today detect that the target of the image is an image and do what fullsize="" suggests |
| 21:01 | <drew_> | i am suggesting not requiring an Anchor tag |
| 21:03 | <drew_> | i really appreciate the fact you guys are even talking about this :) i really hop that time will tell on this subject. if enough developers want this (that is what i made the website for)... it will be added as a standard |
| 21:05 | <Hixie> | it's not clear to me why we benefit from new syntax here since it is already possible for browsers to do what this does even without the new syntax |
| 21:06 | <drew_> | same way we benefit from a footer & header tag. |
| 21:06 | <drew_> | i don't expect everyone to agree on this.. but i do suspect a lot of web developers would find it very handy, i am hoping enough do to make it a standard. |
| 21:12 | <drew_> | thanks guys! |
