| 01:15 | <Lachy> | It seems odd that no-one has responded on WSG to the question Steve asked about the language spec |
| 01:24 | <othermaciej> | what question was that? |
| 01:29 | <roc> | Hixie: FWIW, AFAIK Gecko's scheme is exactly the same as what Maciej described |
| 01:31 | <olliej> | morning roc |
| 01:31 | <roc> | incorrect |
| 01:31 | <olliej> | or afternoon |
| 01:31 | <olliej> | :D |
| 01:37 | <Lachy> | othermaciej, http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg⊙wo/msg38186.html |
| 01:38 | <Lachy> | and http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg⊙wo/msg38188.html |
| 06:55 | <zcorpan> | hmm, <video controls>... |
| 06:55 | <zcorpan> | maybe the UA should eat click events when clicking on controls? |
| 06:55 | <zcorpan> | making the element effectively not interactive -- i.e. clicking on the video itself could follow links |
| 06:56 | <zcorpan> | although maybe we should wait for the captions stuff to be fleshed out |
| 07:23 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: is there a difference between "special semantics" and "special requirements"? |
| 07:24 | <Hixie> | yes, but that doesn't mean i used them correctly :-) |
| 07:24 | Hixie | checkes |
| 07:25 | <Hixie> | i think my point with <bdo> being different was that dir="" is actually required on <bdo>, hence it's a requirement |
| 07:25 | <Hixie> | but i'll change it |
| 07:26 | <zcorpan> | i'm fine either way i was just wondering about the destinction :) |
| 07:26 | <Hixie> | changed |
| 07:28 | <zcorpan> | if you'll forgive me for making more comments on editorial stuff: void click(); // shadows HTMLElement.click() uses <code> instead of <span> |
| 07:28 | <Hixie> | yeah, i have a note on that somewhere |
| 07:28 | <Hixie> | arguably it's intentional, too :-) |
| 07:30 | <zcorpan> | but looks weird :) |
| 07:30 | <zcorpan> | especially since i have a user stylesheet for html5 that makes <code> smaller |
| 07:31 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 07:31 | <Hixie> | that's silly :-P |
| 07:31 | <zcorpan> | there's a silly opera bug that makes <code> be 16px instead of 13px if you specify font-size:inherit as you do |
| 07:32 | <zcorpan> | and i like 13px |
| 07:46 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: that's not a bug. |
| 07:47 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: why would you want the font size to not match surrounding text? |
| 08:00 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: because monospaced fonts looks larger than normal text |
| 08:00 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: browsers have a default of 16px for normal text and 13px for monospace for a reason |
| 08:00 | <Hixie> | yeah, i hate it and always set them both to 16px |
| 08:01 | <Hixie> | drives me batty that all monospace text is tiny compared to the rest |
| 08:01 | <zcorpan> | well i guess you're different than most :) |
| 08:08 | <MikeSmith> | I also crank up mu monospace font size |
| 08:08 | <MikeSmith> | my |
| 08:08 | <MikeSmith> | the default is way too small |
| 08:09 | <MikeSmith> | I still am very skeptical that it aligns with what typical users want |
| 08:11 | <zcorpan> | (i've changed font for monospace that looks bigger than curier new so it's way too big for my taste at 16px) |
| 08:17 | zcorpan | adds html[lang="en-US-x-hixie"] .status { margin-left:-2px !important } to his user stylesheet and finds the result satisfying |
| 08:20 | annevk | agrees with Hixie on monospace font size |
| 08:21 | Hixie | wonders what on earth .status matches |
| 08:21 | <Hixie> | is that the things on the side |
| 08:21 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: yeah |
| 08:21 | <Hixie> | are they overlapping something? |
| 08:21 | <zcorpan> | no but they are touching the text exactly, i'd like *some* space between |
| 08:22 | Hixie | wonders how many e-mails his last checkin will produce |
| 08:26 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: semantics be damned. |
| 08:27 | <Hixie> | oh not that one |
| 08:27 | <Hixie> | i mean the next one |
| 08:30 | <annevk> | Hixie, the note that suggests event handler attributes cannot be specified on the body element seems wrong, they can, but they do not listen to events dispatched at the body element |
| 08:32 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: i have a comment about the checkin! |
| 08:33 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: s/PUBLIC/SYSTEM/ |
| 08:33 | <Hixie> | annevk: no, those even handler attributes can't |
| 08:33 | <Hixie> | zcorpan: thanks |
| 08:34 | <annevk> | why not? <body onload="">... works |
| 08:34 | <Hixie> | that's not the event handler attribute for <body> though |
| 08:34 | <Hixie> | it's the Window one |
| 08:35 | <annevk> | yeah, but it is specified on <body> |
| 08:37 | annevk | reads minutes of yesterday's call |
| 08:37 | <Hixie> | sure, but the ones that are listed are the _element_ event handler attributes |
| 08:37 | <annevk> | o_O |
| 08:39 | <annevk> | "<masinter> new features shouldn't be added until they are agreed" |
| 08:41 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: did you consider about:blank? |
| 08:41 | <Hixie> | yes |
| 08:41 | <zcorpan> | do you consider it more misleading than about:legacy-compat? |
| 08:42 | <Hixie> | about:blank has all kinds of baggage already |
| 08:43 | <zcorpan> | so? :) |
| 08:43 | <zcorpan> | (i'm not arguing for it i'm just wondering why you rejected it) |
| 08:43 | <Hixie> | i've learnt to avoid dragging in baggage in the interests of not creating new things |
| 08:43 | <Hixie> | it almost always ends of being more complicated later |
| 08:44 | <zcorpan> | ok |
| 08:47 | <Hixie> | ok bed time |
| 08:47 | <Hixie> | nn |
| 08:49 | <zcorpan> | nn |
| 08:51 | annevk | tries to go through e-mail |
| 08:52 | <annevk> | it's like it's March-May 2007 again, christ |
| 09:08 | <annevk> | olliej, twitter is not the best place for rants :p |
| 09:08 | <olliej> | me? rant? |
| 09:11 | <olliej> | annevk: :p |
| 09:11 | <olliej> | annevk: better? |
| 09:13 | <olliej> | annevk: ooh |
| 09:13 | <olliej> | annevk: workers? |
| 09:13 | <olliej> | whoops |
| 09:13 | olliej | fails to remember you wouldn't be allowed to say |
| 09:13 | olliej | continues the wait for next beta |
| 09:24 | <MikeSmith> | ah, March-May 2007 |
| 09:24 | <MikeSmith> | the nostalgia... |
| 09:28 | <annevk> | fakeolliej, :p |
| 09:28 | <annevk> | "As usual, Boris, you're unable to listen to what others are saying." RB is such a nice fellow |
| 09:35 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: when somebody complains about communication with Boris, you do have to wonder where the communication problem really is |
| 09:36 | zcorpan | wonders whether it's worthwhile to point out on the list that there's http://simon.html5.org/sandbox/bookmarklets/reveal-comments available |
| 09:36 | <MikeSmith> | given that Boris conducts himself in discussions with quite a bit of genuine tact |
| 09:38 | <zcorpan> | when i find myself communicating with RB, i ususally stop digging |
| 09:39 | <MikeSmith> | I'd think most people would judge Boris to be a pretty good example of how to conduct onself in standards discussions |
| 09:39 | <MikeSmith> | me, on the other hand... |
| 09:40 | <MikeSmith> | I wonder if I might be the person in the group hated by the broadest range of participants |
| 09:40 | <MikeSmith> | and not just hated by one particular set of partisans |
| 09:41 | <MikeSmith> | maybe we should have a poll: Who do you hate the most? Who's the biggest problem in the group? |
| 09:42 | <MikeSmith> | with a binding resolution that whoever wins, he gets voted off the island |
| 09:46 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: I thought Mr Last Week already did that |
| 09:47 | <jgraham> | At least I see Ben Millard around a lot less these days |
| 09:47 | jgraham | notes that he has nothing against Ben and in fact came second in that "poll" himself |
| 09:47 | <annevk> | MikeSmith, ooh, could do a Battle Royale with all controversial standards guys; Larry, Ian, Roy, ... :p |
| 09:48 | <MikeSmith> | Steel Cage Death Match |
| 09:48 | annevk | still has to see part two |
| 09:49 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: yeah, I saw that poll. I don't really understand why MLW is taking shots at you and Ben |
| 09:49 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: or actually, why I wasn't included |
| 09:49 | <MikeSmith> | perhaps MLW considers me an interloper here |
| 09:50 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: I think you are not percieved as one of Hixie's groupies. Whereas I follow him around on all his world tours. |
| 09:51 | <MikeSmith> | ah |
| 09:51 | <MikeSmith> | I think of myself as a Hixie groupie |
| 09:52 | <MikeSmith> | at least if Hixie had a fan club, I would join |
| 09:52 | <MikeSmith> | especially if group membership came with stickers I could put on my lunchbox |
| 09:53 | <jgraham> | You get a free copy of "Hixie sings the Blues" |
| 09:53 | <jgraham> | (not avaliable in shops) |
| 09:54 | <MikeSmith> | I guess some migh consider me a more of a Judas among the disciples, rather than a Luke the Beloved Physician |
| 09:55 | <MikeSmith> | jgraham: and you and annevk would be the Boanerges |
| 09:56 | <MikeSmith> | btw, there are some who believe that it wasn't Jesus that died on the cross, but actually Judas |
| 10:01 | <zcorpan> | MikeSmith: surely the Bible can't be wrong |
| 10:04 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan: if you think it's wrong, the solution is to fork it with changes to the parts you don't agree with |
| 10:04 | <MikeSmith> | that's what some big religions have done |
| 10:05 | <MikeSmith> | like the part of the bible that originally said, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" |
| 10:06 | <MikeSmith> | some "bibles" change that to not say "the Word was God" |
| 10:07 | <zcorpan> | oh i might just do that. though i'm not sure what impact it would have with my relationship with my gf. considering that there have been wars over religion it's perhaps not the best thing to do after all |
| 10:07 | <Lachy> | zcorpan, is one of you theistic and the other atheist? |
| 10:07 | <Lachy> | I assume you'd be the atheist, if that's the case |
| 10:08 | <zcorpan> | i'd rather say i'm agnostic |
| 10:09 | <Lachy> | ok, good enough |
| 10:10 | <jgraham> | Lachy: Harsh |
| 10:11 | <Lachy> | harsh? |
| 10:12 | <annevk> | "good enough" |
| 10:12 | <zcorpan> | Lachy: btw, why do you assume i'm not theistic? |
| 10:13 | <jgraham> | Lachy: I suppose you could just have meant your guess was good enough, but it sounded like you were implying that being religious as not good enough |
| 10:13 | <Lachy> | zcorpan, cause you seem smart enough to not be |
| 10:13 | <zcorpan> | Lachy: are you implying that my gf is not smart? |
| 10:13 | <Lachy> | I don't know you're gf. |
| 10:14 | <jgraham> | Lachy: Which I wouldn't say in public, because it is probably doesn't help anyone |
| 10:14 | <jgraham> | (and I say this as a pretty hardcore atheist) |
| 10:16 | <Lachy> | jgraham, I think I've made it quite clear in the past that I have no respect for religion and I have no problem with insulting it publicly |
| 10:17 | <jgraham> | Lachy: I have no problem with discussing it publically but insulting things that people really believe in, even if you think that belief is woefully misguided, is almost never a good strategy |
| 10:17 | <zcorpan> | Lachy: afaict whether one ends up being theistic has more to do with one's parents' religious view than one's smartness |
| 10:17 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: Statistically that is true |
| 10:18 | <Lachy> | jgraham, that's the BS argument that confuses respecting people's right to believe whatever they want with respecting what they believe |
| 10:19 | <jgraham> | Lachy: No it's not. I don't respect what a lot of people believe. I also don't think telling them that they're an idiot because they believe it is a good way to get them to change their minds |
| 10:20 | <Lachy> | zcorpan, in most cases yeah, but in general, people who tend to think more logically and/or scientifically about things, tend to move away from religion |
| 10:20 | <Lachy> | I didn't say anyone was an idiot! |
| 10:25 | annevk | can't wait for lastweekinhtml5 to exploit that one o_O |
| 10:27 | <MikeSmith> | I hope Lachy understands there's a difference between not having any respect for religion and not having any respect for people who have strong religious beliefs. |
| 10:29 | <annevk> | http://lastweekinhtml5.blogspot.com/2009/01/lachy-appointed-what-wg-emmisary-to.html that was quick |
| 10:30 | <zcorpan> | ooh the first time i'm mentioned |
| 10:30 | <zcorpan> | i wondered what it would take |
| 10:32 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: If you like the fame I can make pretend aspersions against your gf's character just to get you publicity ;) |
| 10:32 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: no thanks |
| 10:34 | <jgraham> | Ah well, making up things could have been so much fun. Nevermind :) |
| 10:35 | <zcorpan> | you can make up things about me, though, if you find it amusing |
| 10:36 | <jgraham> | No, I guess it's much easier to make up things about myself. Less chance of actually offending anyone :) |
| 10:37 | zcorpan | hardly ever takes offence even when offence is intended |
| 10:37 | <Lachy> | to clarify my previous statment, there's a difference between guessing someone's religious views based on their intelligence, and guessing someone's intelligence based on religious views. I did the former, not the latter |
| 11:01 | <zcorpan> | hmm, i wonder whether <input type=color value=...> should use the parsing rules in http://simon.html5.org/specs/html-color-attributes or not |
| 11:04 | <Lachy> | zcorpan, no, probably not |
| 11:05 | <Lachy> | because that would effectively mean normalising the value before submitting, which shouldn't be done |
| 11:06 | <zcorpan> | the spec already does that |
| 11:06 | <zcorpan> | "The value sanitization algorithm is as follows: If the value of the element is a valid simple color, then set it to the value of the element converted to lowercase; otherwise, set it to the string "#000000"." |
| 11:12 | <annevk> | would make authoring tools more complex |
| 11:13 | <zcorpan> | you mean there would be authoring tools needing the parsing algorithm for <input type=color> but not other colors? |
| 11:14 | <zcorpan> | the spec only uses the parsing rules for this requirement: "the user agent should allow the user to change the color ..." |
| 11:15 | <zcorpan> | which wouldn't apply to an authoring tool afaict |
| 11:16 | <annevk> | when importing a document and representing the current color value an authoring tool would need to parse it |
| 11:16 | <annevk> | afaict this is the only place where you can validly put a color value |
| 11:17 | <zcorpan> | *shrug* |
| 11:21 | <zcorpan> | i would expect such an authoring tool would like to parse legacy color values too to be useful |
| 11:32 | <Lachy> | annevk, how do you think I should resolve this issue about the term "node's subtree"? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0256.html |
| 11:34 | <BenMillard> | jgraham, I'm currently without funding for continuing the work I did during 2008 and 2007, so there's little I can contribute for now. |
| 11:35 | <BenMillard> | jgraham, I like how Last Week characterises me as a "Smithers"; he's cool. |
| 11:35 | <zcorpan> | BenMillard: who, mr. Last Week or Smithers? |
| 11:36 | <BenMillard> | zcorpan, Smithers :) |
| 11:36 | <zcorpan> | Lachy: i use "context node" pretty much the same way in http://simon.html5.org/specs/web-dom-core |
| 11:36 | <BenMillard> | but actually I think Last Week is cool too |
| 11:37 | <Lachy> | zcorpan, yeah, I'm not changing the term context node |
| 11:37 | <BenMillard> | Smithers is the only normal yet interesting character in The Simpsons, imho |
| 11:38 | <Lachy> | I tried looking up how xpath used the term and what made it so incompatible with the way I'm using it, but the xpath spec isn't really clear about it |
| 11:39 | <Lachy> | as far as I can tell, the definitions are, at least conceptually, relatively compatible with each other |
| 11:40 | <zcorpan> | i don't see the problem even if they were in conflict |
| 11:40 | <zcorpan> | it's a different spec |
| 11:41 | <Lachy> | yep |
| 11:46 | <BenMillard> | jgraham, when "Display all headings" is ticked in Table Inspector output, removing margins from the header information within each cell makes the output significantly more compact vertically. |
| 11:47 | <BenMillard> | jgraham, amounts to adding this: .__tableparser_heading_title {margin: 0;} .__tableparser_heading_list {margin: 0;} |
| 11:49 | <BenMillard> | jgraham, removing this fixes a "horizontal scrollbar to nowhere" in Firefox 2: h1 { width:100%; } |
| 11:50 | <BenMillard> | jgraham, oh and the -1 from the end of the margin property |
| 11:52 | <zcorpan> | BenMillard: who cares about firefox 2? :P |
| 11:52 | <BenMillard> | zcorpan, jgraham will if he cares about me. :) |
| 11:53 | <BenMillard> | jgraham, this makes header information within the active cell red so can be told apart from the green highlight: .__tableparser_active_cell .__tableparser_heading_container {background-color: #fcc;} |
| 12:06 | <Lachy> | I think the least disruptive change I can make to address the selectors-api issue is changing "node's subtree" to "node's subtrees" |
| 12:17 | <annevk> | Lachy, how is it done for getElementsByClassName? |
| 12:18 | <annevk> | Lachy, seems to me that API would have the same issue, unless I'm missing something |
| 12:21 | <zcorpan> | if you only use the term once or twice you can probably use the expansion in place of the term - i did that initially for web dom core but there are quite some places where i use it so it got a bit verbose |
| 12:23 | zcorpan | might be thinking about something else than what annevk is discussing |
| 12:25 | <annevk> | I thought there was a problem with "subtree" |
| 12:25 | <annevk> | http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-3023.html#standards seems like an argument against XHTML... |
| 12:26 | <Lachy> | annevk, getElementsByClassName() does it by saying "... excluding any elements that are not descendants of the HTMLElement object on which the method was invoked." http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dom-getelementsbyclassname |
| 12:27 | <annevk> | I think I had that too originally |
| 12:27 | <Lachy> | but I'd rather not make such major changes to the normative prose at this stage. That risks introducing errors |
| 12:28 | <annevk> | the previous published draft still had wording to that effect |
| 12:30 | <zcorpan> | annevk: you mean xhtml is not a widely deployed standard/format? |
| 12:30 | <Lachy> | which one? The Nov 14 draft similar to the editor's draft |
| 12:30 | <annevk> | though you seem to define subtree already so I'm not sure what the issue is |
| 12:30 | <annevk> | zcorpan, right, i.e. IE doesn't do it |
| 12:30 | <annevk> | Lachy, the previous one |
| 12:31 | <Lachy> | ah, yeah. I changed that because there were some issues with it and wanted to make it simpler. I can't remember what exactly the problems were though. |
| 12:32 | zcorpan | looks at appendix a of the tag finding |
| 12:33 | zcorpan | notes that html5's appendices aren't marked as A, B, etc |
| 12:34 | <zcorpan> | gsnedders: maybe you should generate that if there's a class="appendix" or something? |
| 12:35 | <Lachy> | HTML5 doesn't have appendices |
| 12:35 | <annevk> | Lachy, it seems you now just moved parts to a definition so whether it's simpler depends on how many levels of indirection you like |
| 12:36 | <zcorpan> | Lachy: "There are also a couple of appendices, defining rendering rules for Web browsers and listing areas that are out of scope for this specification." |
| 12:36 | <Lachy> | oh, I didn't realise they were considered appendices |
| 12:37 | <zcorpan> | actually they're numbered as normal sections, but Index, References and Acknowledgements aren't |
| 12:38 | <zcorpan> | which are clearly appendices |
| 12:39 | <Lachy> | indirection is good in this case because the terms used are relatively easy to understand without looking at the explicit definitions |
| 12:40 | <Lachy> | and it also avoids too much repetition |
| 12:52 | zcorpan | wonders whether a validator should complain if <meta http-equiv=content-language> and <html lang> don't match |
| 12:53 | <Lachy> | it depends if they're slightly distinct meaning is preserved, or whether they mean the same thing now |
| 12:53 | <Lachy> | s/they're/their/ |
| 12:54 | <Lachy> | Content-Language is non-conforming in HTML5 anyway |
| 12:54 | <zcorpan> | Lachy: still, if they don't match, chances are one of them is wrong |
| 12:55 | <Lachy> | I suppose it could be a useful warning to provide in addition to complaining about the use of content-language |
| 12:56 | <zcorpan> | content-language sets the "document-wide default language" while <html lang> sets "the primary language for the element's contents and for any of the element's attributes that contain text" |
| 13:45 | <annevk> | http://lastweekinhtml5.blogspot.com/2009/01/mission-accomplished.html is he saying we became too soft? :) |
| 14:00 | <Lachy> | wow, now with his mission accomplished, does that mean he's done with his trolling? |
| 14:17 | <jgraham> | "Good Luck With That" |
| 14:28 | <Dashiva> | "maciejellian" wasn't so bad |
| 14:31 | <Dashiva> | The mission accomplished might also mean "It will soon dawn on me that firing back was easy, but bringing lasting change will take decades" |
| 14:35 | <annevk> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jan/0143.html is interesting |
| 14:36 | <annevk> | hsivonen, ^^ you might like it |
| 14:37 | <hsivonen> | annevk: do you mean because V.nu fails to start if iana.org is unreachable? or because I don't subscribe to "follow your nose"? other reason? |
| 14:39 | <annevk> | "follow your nose" mostly and on a broader level it seems an argument against RDF and using URLs as identifiers |
| 14:41 | <hsivonen> | annevk: yeah, Larry's opinion goes pretty starkly against the established stance of the TAG |
| 14:59 | <annevk> | all the respect for the i18n crowd, but recommending Unicode case-insensitive matching for effectively program identifiers and now Unicode Normalization does not do them credit, imo |
| 15:00 | zcorpan | wonders whether i18n people have made comments on ecma262 |
| 15:01 | zcorpan | notes that ecma262 says in various places that it expects javascript source to have been normalized to nfc before reaching the interpreter |
| 15:02 | jgraham | has never understood if or how that happens |
| 15:03 | <annevk> | should be easy to test, ECMA allows variables with Unicode characters in them |
| 15:50 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: is it possible to mark only the attribute instead of the whole tag when there's a message about an attribute in v.nu? |
| 15:53 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: not with the current infrastructure |
| 15:54 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: are you only keeping track of the locations of each parse event? |
| 15:54 | <hsivonen> | zcorpan: yes |
| 15:55 | <zcorpan> | hsivonen: couldn't you ad-hoc reparse the tag in the extract to find the attribute again? |
| 15:56 | <zcorpan> | but maybe it's too ugly a solution and more trouble than it's worth :) |
| 15:57 | <zcorpan> | http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright/ has rdfa |
| 15:58 | <zcorpan> | <a rel="cc:attributionURL" property="cc:attributionName" xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"; href="http://www.whitehouse.gov">Whitehouse.gov</a>; |
| 15:59 | <jgraham> | It also has <meta keywords=""> with a long list os misspellings of Barack Obama |
| 16:03 | <jcranmer> | including Barack Osama? |
| 16:07 | <jgraham> | Sadly, no |
| 16:16 | <Philip`> | It also has <link href="file:///C:\Temp\msohtml1\11\clip_filelist.xml" rel="File-List" /> in a content-free Word document pasted into the middle |
| 16:17 | zcorpan | just realized that tip #1 in http://blog.whatwg.org/styling-ie-noscript applies to firefox 2 as well |
| 16:41 | <Dashiva> | How will Roy find his name attribute if we split out everything about conforming documents to a new text? |
| 16:42 | <jgraham> | Dashiva: He seems to think it should be conforming |
| 16:43 | <Dashiva> | Replace it with some other attribute or element that's obsoleted yet supported then |
| 16:44 | <jgraham> | On a different but related note, the discussion about whether h:tml should discuss the conformance properties of URIs seems like exactly the sort of hole that is likely to open up if we split tightly intertwingled things into seperate specs |
| 16:46 | <karlcow> | Dashiva: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/index/elements.html D O |
| 16:46 | <jgraham> | Dashiva: Presumably Roy believes that all the things he wants to know about should be conforming and everything else should be swept away under the rug |
| 16:46 | karlcow | has to go |
| 17:21 | <Dashiva> | Philip`, you have to do something about your namesake |
| 17:33 | <Philip`> | If he's suggesting that because the WHATWG is a source of feedback that may result in creation of new drafts/sections and the feedback may not be seen by all the members of the WG and the editors might not say the feedback came from there, therefore it must be shut down ... |
| 17:33 | <Philip`> | he should probably also suggest that the W3C Team be shut down for the same reasons |
| 17:33 | <Philip`> | as well as the rest of the web |
| 17:33 | <Philip`> | and also all forms of non-computer communication |
| 17:34 | <Philip`> | A better suggestion is to not shut down any of those things, but just to make sure editors notify the group about where feedback came from if it wasn't directly from the group and resulted in new drafts/sections |
| 17:37 | <hsivonen> | sigh. I guess replying would be pointless if he doesn't see that my point wasn't about venue but about the inspectability of feedback |
| 17:41 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: You did say "... feedback the whole group isn't seeing", and feedback anywhere other than public-html is going to not be seen by the whole WG; did you mean something more like "... feedback the whole group isn't able to see (even if they expend a bit of effort and visit some other web sites and mailing lists)"? |
| 17:43 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: good point |
| 17:50 | jgraham | suggests that very few people in "the group" see all the feedback on public-html either due to the volume |
| 17:50 | <jgraham> | Or simply due to the fact that many of the subscribed people aren't that interested |
| 18:04 | <Lachy> | hsivonen, I wouldn't have bothered replying. The other Philip has been complaining about the existence of the WHATWG for a while and it seems quite typical of him to bring it up on seemingly unrelated topics |
| 18:08 | <Lachy> | besides, the way I interpreted your message was that even if the proposal was based on a WHATWG suggestion, or even any other public forum, it would still be nice to disclose that to the HTMLWG when submitting the proposal |
| 19:24 | <Hixie> | wow apache actually finally removed the content type |
| 19:25 | <Philip`> | Now we just need to wait infinitely long until all deployed servers are upgraded |
| 19:32 | <Lachy> | Hixie, do you mean it no longer sends a Content-Type header for unknown files? |
| 19:32 | <Lachy> | as of which version? |
| 19:33 | <Dashiva> | And how many linux distros will override it? :) |
| 19:34 | <Lachy> | sicking, re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0661.html - the decision process isn't as bad as Rob's trolling makes it sound. |
| 19:36 | <Lachy> | sicking, it's just that people who often fail to make persuasive arguments tend misdirect their anger towards Hixie, rather than actually listening and doing something to strengthen their position |
| 20:07 | <Hixie> | the header of this page is longer than many of my actual pages http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/58958/notices/712181/recent=10;category=corp-insolvency-general;subcategory=moratorium-force |
| 20:17 | <Lachy> | I decided to try out Habari as a replacement for WordPress, but it doesn't look like it's going to meet my needs |
| 20:17 | <Lachy> | I think my options are back down to writing a custom made CMS |
| 20:21 | <Philip`> | Hixie: It doesn't seem an entirely fair comparison, since your pages don't attempt to provide the same data |
| 20:21 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: What "needs"? |
| 20:22 | <Lachy> | better control over the URL structure |
| 20:22 | <gsnedders> | ah |
| 20:22 | <gsnedders> | Yeah, it really doesn't have that |
| 20:22 | <Lachy> | if there are plugins for that, then that would be good |
| 20:22 | gsnedders | sez ask in #habari |
| 20:24 | <Philip`> | In terms of use cases for RDFa, has anyone pointed at something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping and said RDFa makes it much easier for consumers (in the cases where producers are cooperating by marking up the data appropriately)? |
| 20:24 | <Lachy> | gsnedders, how much do you know about habari? |
| 20:24 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: A fair bit |
| 20:24 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: Still, #habari is a better chance than here :) |
| 20:24 | <Lachy> | on freenode? |
| 20:24 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: yeah |
| 20:25 | <Lachy> | I just don't want to start asking n00b questions in a developer channel |
| 20:25 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: It is the support channel too |
| 20:25 | <Lachy> | ah, ok |
| 20:34 | <weinig|food> | Hixie: do you have a second to give me your take on https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23651 |
| 20:40 | <Hixie> | weinig: what do you want me to comment on? |
| 20:42 | <weinig> | Hixie: sorry, is a single retry a failure? |
| 20:42 | <Hixie> | weinig: if it's loaded from cache, on the reference hardware, then yes |
| 20:42 | <weinig> | Hixie: ok |
| 20:43 | <Hixie> | test 69 really shouldn't ever need to skip though, if it's loading from cache |
| 20:50 | <weinig> | Hixie: it is not clear to me why it is expected that relative speed of loading those 7 documents should be faster than running the javascript to get to test 69 |
| 21:05 | <Hixie> | weinig: they should load in zero time :-) |
| 21:07 | <weinig> | Hixie: caching is not magical |
| 21:07 | <weinig> | Hixie: it still might have to hit the disk |
| 22:06 | <Hixie> | weinig: javascript isn't magical either :-) |
| 22:06 | <Hixie> | weinig: is the js really running faster than the disk can? |
| 22:07 | <weinig> | Hixie: it seems in some cases that may be happening |
| 22:08 | <weinig> | Hixie: but it looks like another issue was the reporter was doing a cached load in such a way that forced the resource to revalidated and reload |
| 22:08 | <weinig> | Hixie: if you don't use the reload button to do the cached load, the problem never happens |
| 22:09 | <weinig> | Hixie: though in general, I am not sure why cache behavior should even be a factor in acid3 |
| 22:31 | <takkaria> | hm, mnot seems to be missing the point on the Origin header |
| 22:32 | <takkaria> | I'm pretty sure adam has said "referer can not be used to protect against CSRF attacks, and here's why" about five times now |
| 22:51 | <Lachy> | wtf? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0668.html - Does it not seem a little hypocritical to be complaining so vehemently about a very minor semantic issue with <a>, and then suggest a workaround blatenly using the <ins> element for a semantically dubious purpose? |
| 22:52 | <Lachy> | ... for the sole purpose of attaining HTML4 validity? |
| 22:52 | <Lachy> | I can't quite figure out what's more important to these people. Semantic purity or strict adherence to a validator |
| 23:34 | <hober> | Sometimes I think what's more important to them is to hold some or any contrary position, whatever it may be... |
| 23:35 | <Hixie> | i encourage y'all to not imply there is a "them" or "these people" |