| 07:52 | <zcorpan> | i wonder why validator.w3.org just says "HTML5" rather than "(X)HTML5+ARIA" |
| 07:57 | <zcorpan> | "The DOCTYPE Declaration for "HTML5" has been inserted at the start of the document, but even if no errors are shown below the document will not be Valid until you add the new DOCTYPE Declaration." it says for XHTML5 |
| 07:59 | <zcorpan> | hmm i guess the proper label would be "HTML5+ARIA / XHTML5+ARIA, SVG 1.1 plus MathML 2.0 (experimental)" |
| 08:01 | <Hixie> | "html5" seems like a more understandable label :-) |
| 09:40 | <annevk3> | http://standardssuck.org/uhuru-peak |
| 09:47 | <hsivonen> | annevk3: how does the clothing stuff work when one climbs to Uhuru peak? is there documentation on how warm clothes you need to bring and then you add layers as you go higher? You start walking in a *very* warm climate, I presume. |
| 09:51 | <annevk3> | there's no real documentation, but it basically involves adding layers once you go higher :) |
| 09:52 | <annevk3> | above 4000 or so starts freezing at night and above 4000-5000 it will always be cold and there's a possibility for snow |
| 09:53 | <annevk3> | (in Europe the heights would be lower, but you still have the same effect) |
| 10:01 | <zcorpan> | my public-html folder had 100 unread emails this morning and only 3 or so were worth reading |
| 10:01 | <zcorpan> | why are everyone so obsessed about splitting the spec |
| 10:02 | <annevk3> | it's an easy thing to have an opinion about |
| 10:02 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: spec organization seems like the ultimate bikeshed |
| 10:02 | <annevk3> | I have never actually tried to find out if it's true, but I've the feeling that simple matters attract way more comments than complex ones |
| 10:09 | <Philip`> | Maybe people care because the organisation of the spec has a fundamental impact on its readability for them |
| 10:10 | <zcorpan> | the discussion about spec organisation has a fundamental impact on my readability of the list |
| 10:10 | <zcorpan> | or well, not spec organisation discussions in particular but bikesheds in general |
| 10:11 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: maybe I'm just cynical, but I think some people might be discussing the organization without testing the readability by trying to read the spec |
| 10:12 | <annevk3> | very annoying that Flickr doesn't store the date the video was actually taken |
| 10:58 | <virtuelv> | JohnResig: you around? |
| 13:59 | <Philip`> | Gmail's automatic service suggestion thing is great |
| 13:59 | <Philip`> | For the thread "setting HTMLMediaElement volume and playbackRate attributes", it suggests "Would you like to... Track DHL package 0000000000" |
| 15:43 | <Philip`> | If I write a table with headings along the top and other headings along the left edge, and the top-left cell is empty because there's nothing for it to say, should that top-left cell be a <td> or a <th> or something else? |
| 15:44 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: td |
| 15:44 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: But it's not a data cell |
| 15:45 | gsnedders | opens the damned spec |
| 15:46 | <gsnedders> | It should be neither tr nor td.] |
| 15:46 | <gsnedders> | *th or td |
| 15:46 | <gsnedders> | Which is rather problematic. |
| 15:47 | Philip` | chooses th, for no good reason (other than the necessity of at least choosing something) |
| 15:49 | <Philip`> | Oh, maybe td would be better because then it's an #empty-data-cell |
| 15:50 | <takkaria> | the spec should provide feedback on that |
| 15:58 | <jgraham> | It should be designed to make no practical difference either way |
| 15:58 | <jgraham> | Since authors will choose at random raher than based on the spec |
| 15:59 | <gsnedders> | ooo… |
| 15:59 | <gsnedders> | new standards suck! |
| 15:59 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: So do old ones |
| 15:59 | <Philip`> | only moreso |
| 16:00 | <jgraham> | Does anyone know anything about parking in copenhagen? Like whether there are any reasonably secure car parks? |
| 16:00 | jgraham | realises this is something of a long shot |
| 16:01 | gsnedders | forwards the question |
| 16:02 | <Philip`> | jgraham: The obvious place to look is http://www.parking.dk/ |
| 16:02 | <jgraham> | Philip`: That didn't provide an obvious answer to my quesion alhough I may not have been looking hard enough |
| 16:03 | <Philip`> | parking.co.uk is much less helpful :-( |
| 16:04 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: "define: reasonable…" |
| 16:04 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: "there are underground parks, and I would assume that they have CCTV" |
| 16:04 | gsnedders | pokes fangel, ahrd |
| 16:04 | <gsnedders> | *hard |
| 16:04 | <fangel> | <- copenhagen'er.. |
| 16:04 | gsnedders | runs away |
| 16:04 | gsnedders | has carried out his usefulness by bullying fangel in here |
| 16:05 | <fangel> | yes.. that is all you're good for really, gsnedders.. |
| 16:05 | <jgraham> | Oh, well that sounds quite promising |
| 16:05 | gsnedders | realizes he ought to get train tickets to Cambridge |
| 16:06 | Philip` | suddenly discovers Firefox 3.1 has a fancy ctrl-tab menu, but also discovers it has a stupid unusable ordering of tabs and can't find a way to correct it :-( |
| 16:07 | <fangel> | jgraham: so.. I heard rumours of questions.. horrible questions regarding my lovely hometown of Copenhagen.. |
| 16:08 | <blooberry> | philip`: is that new in 3.1? |
| 16:08 | <jgraham> | fangel: Yeah, I have to stay somewhere overnight located roughly where Copenhagen happens to be and will have a reasonable amount of stuff in the car that I would prefer not to be stolen |
| 16:09 | <jgraham> | Not hugely valuble, but it would be a pain |
| 16:09 | <jgraham> | So one possibility is to stay in Copenhagen and park in some kind of secure car park, if such a thing exists |
| 16:10 | <jgraham> | Another possibility would be to stay somewhere not in Copenhagen and assume that not being in a city mitigates the risk |
| 16:10 | <Philip`> | blooberry: I assume so, since I haven't seen it in 3.0 |
| 16:11 | <jgraham> | Philip`: Which build are you running? It seems to have disappeared a few days ago for me |
| 16:12 | <Philip`> | jgraham: 20081111 |
| 16:12 | <fangel> | sorry... phone |
| 16:13 | <fangel> | there are underground parkingplaces which I would assume has CCTV.. |
| 16:13 | <fangel> | parking lots.. parking.. whats the word? |
| 16:13 | <jgraham> | in en-gb carparks |
| 16:13 | <fangel> | and maybe some of the larger hotels has their own underground carpark.. |
| 16:14 | <jgraham> | The larger hotels tend to be rather expensive... |
| 16:14 | <fangel> | but as long as whatever stuff your hauling is in the boot, it should be reasonable safe to keep it on the street overnight.. |
| 16:14 | <jgraham> | I guess the whole back of the car will be full |
| 16:15 | <jgraham> | Are the underground carparks the ones shown on http://www.p-henvisning.dk/ |
| 16:16 | <fangel> | yeah.. if you can see it though the windows, it might be a bit of a temptation.. but I don't think car-break-ins are that bad if you park it on a random street.. but well - there are pay-by-the-hour underground carparks.. |
| 16:16 | <fangel> | two sec.. |
| 16:17 | <fangel> | iirc, the P with the ^ over it signifies that it is a covered parking space (that is, multistory or underground) |
| 16:18 | <jgraham> | Ah, interesting |
| 16:18 | <fangel> | and so you have to pay, and then they tend to have cctv.. |
| 16:19 | <jgraham> | fangel: thanks |
| 16:20 | <fangel> | no problem.. |
| 16:20 | <fangel> | long car journey, or what? |
| 16:21 | <jgraham> | Yeha |
| 16:21 | <jgraham> | *Yeah |
| 16:22 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Why not take a ferry from somewhere like Newcastle to Goteberg? |
| 16:23 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Harwich-Ejsberg (sp?) made the most sense |
| 16:23 | <gsnedders> | Ejsberg? |
| 16:23 | <gsnedders> | Esbjerg? |
| 16:23 | gsnedders | is surprised that made the most sense |
| 16:25 | <fangel> | I've taken a return trip with the Harwich-Esbjerg ferry once upon a time.. |
| 16:25 | <fangel> | where are you going from and too jgraham? |
| 16:25 | <gsnedders> | fangel: to Oslo |
| 16:26 | <gsnedders> | fangel: not sure quite where from |
| 16:26 | <gsnedders> | Not to Oslo |
| 16:26 | gsnedders | is too tired |
| 16:26 | <Philip`> | Is there a way to do something like onhashchange that works in all current browsers? |
| 16:26 | <gsnedders> | fangel: to Linköping |
| 16:26 | <gsnedders> | (the other place where Opera has major offices) |
| 16:27 | <fangel> | ;) |
| 16:28 | <fangel> | it's a 5 hour drive from Copenhagen to Linköping.. |
| 16:28 | <fangel> | and a 3 hour drive from Esbjerg to Copenhagen.. |
| 16:29 | <jgraham> | Yeah, the ferry gets in at about 1pm so doing it all in a day is not possible but splitting it over two days is easy |
| 16:43 | <BenMillard> | Philip`, either gets used for that in the wild (re: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20081124#l-144) |
| 16:43 | <BenMillard> | Philip`, I prefer using <td> since it shouldn't act as a header for other cells |
| 17:02 | <nlg> | Im writing a script to traverse a webpage to change all links. Is LXML enough for this task or would you recommend using html5lib as well? |
| 17:03 | <gsnedders> | nlg: There are issues with lxml's serializer, but it's parser works fine on most conforming pages |
| 17:04 | <nlg> | gsnedders: Is there a way to "cleanup" mallformed pages? |
| 17:04 | <gsnedders> | nlg: "cleanup" in what way |
| 17:04 | <BenMillard> | in these sense of HTML Tidy? |
| 17:04 | <BenMillard> | s/these/the/ |
| 17:06 | <gsnedders> | (for xref and toc and the like of the spec lxml's parser and html5lib's serializer are used) |
| 17:06 | <nlg> | Hm, I´ll try the lxml. Thanks |
| 17:11 | <Philip`> | Is there a term for something that's kind of like JSON but that totally ignores the standard, and just relies on Python repr and JS eval being compatible in typical cases? |
| 17:11 | <Philip`> | (Preferably some term more technical than "laziness") |
| 17:12 | <gsnedders> | :D |
| 17:12 | <gsnedders> | Philip`'s dream? |
| 17:20 | gsnedders | wonders what the hell to put on skills section of CV |
| 17:20 | <jgraham> | Philip`: PYON? It sounds catchy |
| 17:32 | <takkaria> | and before now, I thought I'd seen some fairly bad bikeshedding |
| 17:35 | <Philip`> | jgraham: That sounds like a good name, particularly since it reminds me of Peon and hence of Warcraft |
| 17:35 | <Philip`> | As far as I can tell, it's quite like JSON except it uses single quotes instead of double quotes |
| 17:49 | <Dashiva> | Philip`: Source code? :) |
| 17:59 | <gsnedders> | in CSS21, clear only applies to block-level elements, but is it conforming to be set on an inline element? |
| 18:00 | <BenMillard> | gsnedders, if it works then just do it. :) |
| 18:00 | <gsnedders> | BenMillard: When I'm writing a CV it probably would be better for it to be conforming :) |
| 18:01 | <Dashiva> | Just because it doesn't apply doesn't mean it isn't legal |
| 18:01 | <gsnedders> | Dashiva: That's my thought. |
| 18:02 | Philip` | would hope potential employers would care about more substantial issues than how pedantically you wrote your CV's markup :-p |
| 18:02 | <Dashiva> | My CV uses only very basic CSS |
| 18:03 | <Dashiva> | left margin on body, bottom margin on dd :) |
| 18:04 | <Dashiva> | I did close optional tags, though, just in case the reader is a twit |
| 18:07 | <BenMillard> | gsnedders, there's a note here: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#propdef-clear |
| 18:08 | gsnedders | spots an RFC2119 keyword inside an informative note |
| 18:08 | gsnedders | implodes |
| 18:08 | <BenMillard> | "may" is present as well :) |
| 18:08 | <BenMillard> | have you searched www-style? |
| 18:09 | <hsivonen> | what's the deal with wanting to use GET for ping? |
| 18:10 | <Dashiva> | As I recall, different interpretations of vague parts of the HTTP spec |
| 18:12 | <Dashiva> | JR in particular talked a lot about POST not being "safe" |
| 18:13 | <hsivonen> | I find if baffling that people working on HTTP suggest using GET for something that isn't idempotent |
| 18:13 | <hsivonen> | "safe" is a rathole |
| 18:13 | <Dashiva> | Well, that's what peopel tried to tell him |
| 18:13 | <hsivonen> | idempotent is a more tractable criterion |
| 18:13 | <Dashiva> | It starts here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0337.html |
| 18:15 | <BenMillard> | gsnedders, I've skimed through some search results but not found people discussing the conformance (only discussing what works versus what makes sense to specify): http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=%22clear+property%22&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=www-style |
| 18:16 | <Dashiva> | hsivonen: One of his arguments is that ping has side effects on two third parties, not on the user itself, so it's idempotent as far as that user is concerned |
| 18:17 | <gsnedders> | hit counters aren't idempotent, yet normally use GET |
| 18:17 | <Dashiva> | gsnedders: That's a bug in the world |
| 18:18 | <BenMillard> | gsnedders, so it might be worth you sending an e-mail to them, if you can't find an answer (now dinnertime for me) |
| 18:28 | <hsivonen> | Dashiva: but idempotence from the user POV isn't what matters for HTTP working. It's idempotence from the POV of server and caches |
| 18:29 | <Dashiva> | Preaching to the choir :) |
| 19:16 | <gsnedders> | #a-phrase-or-paragraph-with-an-alternative-graphical-representation:-charts,-diagrams,-graphs,-maps,-illustrations |
| 19:16 | <gsnedders> | That @id is too long |
| 19:55 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: You should trim all ids to the shortest unambiguous prefix |
| 20:00 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: That makes them more liable to change, though |
| 20:03 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: You should map each id onto a 64-bit prefix of its MD5 |
| 20:48 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: That makes them quite unguessable |
| 21:06 | <hsivonen> | soo... in terms of content models, is there any case left where a container only takes embedded content? |
| 21:07 | <hsivonen> | did the concept of embedded content become irrelevent for content models? |
| 21:07 | <Hixie> | i believe so but i'm not sure. click on the definition of the term and see what refers to it |
| 21:08 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: can you think of any reason of keeping "embedded content" in the schema structure? |
| 21:08 | <Hixie> | not off-hand |
| 21:10 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: How about off-foot? |
| 21:11 | <hsivonen> | I guess I'll flatten it out then |
| 21:11 | <hsivonen> | this should fix the bug that showed up on anne's fronteers presentation |
| 21:25 | hsivonen | mumbles about ant builds sucking compared to letting Eclipse do its thing |
| 21:33 | <gsnedders> | for fragments does @id or @name take precedence? |
| 23:31 | <jgraham> | All these emails about splitting the spec are beyond a joke |
| 23:37 | <hsivonen> | denial of productivity attack by bureaucracy trolling |
| 23:37 | <Dashiva> | It wouldn't be w3c without it, would it? |
| 23:38 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: Seriously |
| 23:40 | <Hixie> | luckily it happened around the same time i was feeling like a break from editing |
| 23:40 | <jgraham> | I really wish it wouldn't make things worse if I wrote to the mailing list that this discussion is an enormous bikeshed and that the very people most often touted as beneficiries from splitting the spec are also those most likely to be put off from contributing due to the volume of email created by this discussion |
| 23:40 | <jgraham> | i.e. authors |
| 23:40 | <Hixie> | personally i just wish that the chairs would stop in and make some sort of process statement |
| 23:40 | <Dashiva> | Not to mention that most people seem to ignore the fact that authors only read specs if they want the actual spec, otherwise they read authoring guides |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | either putting it to vote, or rejecting the proposals, or picking one, or something |
| 23:42 | <jgraham> | The point about authors and authoring guides has been made innumerable times |
| 23:42 | <Philip`> | Are desktop browser developers unusually competent relative to other UA developers? It seems nobody else believes that it's actually not that hard to learn how to read the spec and to ignore the bits that aren't relevant to you |
| 23:43 | <jgraham> | Parse error: Too many negatives |
| 23:44 | <Dashiva> | Implementation limit exceeded: Doing more than one thing simultaneously |
| 23:44 | <jgraham> | Oh I see |
| 23:44 | <jgraham> | I was thinking you were saying the opposite thing which is why it didn't make sense |
| 23:44 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: well, given e.g. Roy Fielding's posts, one might think that browser developers are considered unusually *in*competent :-) |
| 23:44 | <Dashiva> | It could be a worry that if the browser parts get to be part of the main document, they'll get undue weight |
| 23:45 | <jgraham> | (that UA developers much be unusually dim because they can only cope with things that are all lumped together) |
| 23:45 | <ohtermaciej> | we need all the help we can get |
| 23:45 | <Philip`> | jgraham: I wouldn't dare insult UA developers in this channel - I'd go elsewhere and do it behind their backs |
| 23:45 | <Philip`> | Uh |
| 23:45 | <ohtermaciej> | top stop writing such crappy software that everyone hates |
| 23:45 | <Philip`> | s/UA/desktop browser/ |
| 23:46 | <Hixie> | i was utterly baffled by roy's e-mail where he point blank stated that he's cleverer than everybody else and that's why i should listen to him and ignore everyone else (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Nov/0316.html) |
| 23:46 | <Philip`> | So I'm just wondering why while desktop browser developers who've read and implemented parts of the spec seem to be saying it's not a problem, other people say it's too hard for them to write non-browser UAs when the spec is so large and mixed up, or something |
| 23:47 | <Hixie> | ("Because I have more experience...") |
| 23:47 | <jgraham> | Hixie: Yeah at that point I gave up on him |
| 23:47 | Dashiva | expects a darn good lastweek episode from this chat |
| 23:48 | <hsivonen> | as a non-browser UA developer, I wouldn't trust any spec split that claimed that some part didn't apply to validators |
| 23:48 | <hsivonen> | I'd read all the parts of the spec to be sure |
| 23:48 | <Philip`> | Is it still considered trolling if you're trying to troll not the people you're talking to, but anonymous observers who are reading the conversation hours later? |
| 23:48 | <jgraham> | I mean clearly he is a bright guy butyou would have thought that bright people would realise that argument by authority is relly weak |
| 23:49 | <ohtermaciej> | Philip`: at least some non-browser UA developers don't seem to have a problem with the HTML5 spec as currently arranged |
| 23:49 | <takkaria> | the point that needs to be made is that if someone actually finds the spec organisation hindering in practice, then that's better grounds for doing it than lots of people arguing that it's hindering in theory |
| 23:49 | <ohtermaciej> | namely the ones who have worked on non-browser implementations |
| 23:50 | <Hixie> | Lachy: yt? |
| 23:50 | <ohtermaciej> | I don't believe we have heard from anyone who attempted to implement any conformance class of HTML5 and was in practice hindered by the organization of the spec |
| 23:50 | <hober> | I suspect Roy is a believer in the vast, browser-wing conspiracy, which makes me sad. |
| 23:51 | <ohtermaciej> | yeah, the Web would be so nice if only it weren't for all these browsers |
| 23:51 | <jgraham> | weeee the return of the vast browser-wing conspiracy |
| 23:51 | <Philip`> | One person [I'm too lazy to check in the archives] indicated that there was a practical hindrance, because he couldn't read and understand the real spec but he could provide feedback on the simplified markup spec |
| 23:51 | <ohtermaciej> | we should just get rid of those, and then the Web will be fine |
| 23:51 | <jgraham> | Can we have a secret cabal please? |
| 23:51 | <ohtermaciej> | Philip`: did the person name the implementation they were working on? |
| 23:51 | <Hixie> | hober: i've been trying to find out what his beliefs are in the thread i'm having with him -- so far all i've established is that he thinks he, quote, has more experience [...] than just about anyone else, unquote. |
| 23:52 | <Philip`> | ohtermaciej (sic): I think they were speaking as an author rather than as an implementor |
| 23:52 | <Hixie> | Philip`: iirc that person also said that the plan to have filtered views at last call would work for him |
| 23:53 | <othermaciej> | (sorry, not my usual computer today) |
| 23:53 | <Philip`> | jgraham: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7538849950414416888&postID=7494409664460936334 - the problem is it's not really a secret cabal when we muse aloud about getting cabalistic T-shirts :-( |
| 23:54 | <Philip`> | (By the way, why is Blogger's comment system so antiquated?) |
| 23:55 | <Dashiva> | About Roy, there was a comment during the URI thing that LEIRI would meet a "wall of flames" if it ever was proposed formally. That kind of culture might consider it not argument from authority, but something else. :) |
| 23:56 | <othermaciej> | Philip`: that wouldn't be a counterexample to my statement, then (though it is possible that for a large number of people the organization of the HTML5 spec is so harmful that they are unable to even start an implemetnation) |
| 23:57 | <Philip`> | I remember some Microsoft people (who count as implementors) complaining that the spec was killing too many trees when they printed out a copy for each developer |
| 23:58 | <BenMillard> | Philip`, think I heard that at TPAC 2008 from one of them, too. |
| 23:58 | <BenMillard> | it seemed more like a jest than a serious complaint, though |
| 23:58 | <Philip`> | (Maybe they print it out because IE can't load it without freezing?) |
| 23:58 | <Dashiva> | Interesting that the IETF considers HTML 2.0 a moving target |