| 00:12 | <karlcow> | [11:18] <annevk42> hehe, I like how I found http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ again |
| 00:12 | <karlcow> | [11:18] <annevk42> thanks for writing that karlcow! |
| 00:12 | <karlcow> | that was a Team work :) but thanks |
| 01:08 | <Hixie> | any atom experts here? |
| 01:08 | <Hixie> | should an atom <atom:content> node contain a redundant instance of the entry's title? |
| 03:23 | <mpilgrim> | hixie: there's nothing stopping you, but it's highly unusual |
| 03:24 | <mpilgrim> | (re: atom:content) |
| 03:25 | <Hixie> | k |
| 08:20 | <Hixie> | ok |
| 08:20 | <Hixie> | that concludes my first attempt at dealing with microdata-related use cases |
| 08:36 | <KevinMarks> | looks like I tuned in just too late |
| 08:50 | <Hixie> | KevinMarks: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0207.html |
| 09:02 | <hsivonen> | now the readers of public-html who aren't subscribing to whatwg need to deal with the almost-always-broken next/prev navigation of the whatwg archives if they want to inspect the threads |
| 09:06 | <othermaciej> | is anyone here who was at the html wg telecon today? |
| 09:55 | <Hixie> | i love how people talk about the content of my e-mails instead of the content of the spec |
| 09:56 | <Hixie> | who cares if html5 can replace atom or not -- the spec doesn't take a position on the issue |
| 09:56 | <Hixie> | it just defines how to go from text/html to atom |
| 09:58 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: if it's only for conversion within a server, it's not an interop issue that belongs in the spec |
| 09:59 | <Hixie> | who mentioned a server? |
| 09:59 | <hsivonen> | Hixie: hence, if *you* have put it in the spec, one assumes that the purpose is that one party publishes an HTML page and another converts it to Atom |
| 09:59 | <hsivonen> | which looks a lot like minting a new feed format to me |
| 10:00 | <Hixie> | i think y'all are making a mountain out of a molehill |
| 10:00 | <Hixie> | it makes sense imho for a format spec to define how it maps to other specssssss |
| 10:00 | <Hixie> | specs, even |
| 10:00 | Hixie | pokes at his s key |
| 10:01 | <hsivonen> | which reminds me that I should rewrite my HTML-to-feeds converter |
| 10:01 | <hsivonen> | the current one is so brittle I can't make changes to it |
| 10:18 | <Hixie> | ok bed time... tomorrow i guess i'll have to figure out some solution to the shared workers message port issue |
| 10:58 | <Philip`> | http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item79 - "W3C Rescinds Four Proposed Edited Recommendations for XHTML Documents" |
| 10:58 | Philip` | wonders if that has happened before for any other documents |
| 11:10 | <gsnedders> | It does kinda tell the XHTML2 WG that they can't just ignore comments, though. |
| 11:18 | <hsivonen> | gsnedders: part of the Process-wise problem is, though, that others have moved on and are not bothering to send them comments |
| 11:18 | <gsnedders> | Indeed. |
| 11:19 | <hsivonen> | gsnedders: so they could follow the Process but still publish stuff that hasn't had proper review |
| 11:24 | <hsivonen> | the W3C Process seems to lack a provision for that case |
| 11:35 | <gsnedders> | As has been implied before, MLW has now admitted he was at TPAC. |
| 12:16 | <othermaciej> | gsnedders: do you think we're giving him too much attention maybe? |
| 12:17 | gsnedders | shrugs |
| 12:17 | <othermaciej> | I would say that for instance more attention than 0 is too much |
| 12:17 | <gsnedders> | I don't think that'll make any difference though |
| 12:18 | <othermaciej> | trolls like attention |
| 12:19 | <annevk42> | I was at the telcon, FWIW |
| 12:20 | <othermaciej> | annevk42: I just wanted to ask if there was any decision about my proposals for addressing the Formal Objection to the design principles |
| 12:21 | <othermaciej> | annevk42: I concluded based on the minutes that there wasn't |
| 12:21 | <annevk42> | It seemed that people were mostly uninterested working on it |
| 12:21 | <othermaciej> | instead people took it as an opportunity to make unrelated complaints |
| 12:21 | <hsivonen> | wonders if objections cease blocking "group consensus" and turn into lack of "community consensus" (or something) when the objector leaves the group |
| 12:21 | <annevk42> | Dave Singer would talk to you about it though |
| 12:22 | <othermaciej> | all I wanted was a response to my suggestion |
| 12:22 | <othermaciej> | if people have unrelated complaints about the document they should post them to the list |
| 12:23 | <othermaciej> | or if they think Philip TAYLOR's objection is not worth addressing at all they can say that too |
| 12:23 | <othermaciej> | oh well |
| 12:23 | <annevk42> | Ah, the response to that was that while it was ok, Laura Carlson had concerns in reply to your email so there was no lazy consensus or some such |
| 12:23 | <annevk42> | I think rubys put that on the mailing list already |
| 12:24 | <othermaciej> | Laura was one of the very few people to object to any of the principles |
| 12:25 | <othermaciej> | it seems like the few people who objected to any of them also objected to a lot of them |
| 12:29 | <annevk42> | I'm not sure how we declare consensus but I get the feeling 1 objector is enough |
| 12:32 | <othermaciej> | I reviewed the voting and if people still largely hold their positions, consensus may be impossible |
| 12:32 | <othermaciej> | it seems that a large majority of the group agreed with all or nearly all of the principles |
| 12:32 | <othermaciej> | and a few people disagreed with all or nearly all |
| 12:32 | <othermaciej> | that makes it unlikely that any small changes would reduce the degree of disagreement |
| 12:33 | <othermaciej> | that being said, I'd still like to address the Formal Objection as best I can, since Sam asked for it to be addressed |
| 12:34 | <othermaciej> | (my point is kind of that deleting a few of the principles won't make the objectors happy, and would probably make some of the people in favor unhappy, while deleting most or all of them would make the document pointless) |
| 12:37 | <annevk42> | I think some people, i.e. Laura and Larry, expect the Design Principles to be used as rules, rather than as means of explaining |
| 12:37 | <annevk42> | And therefore they want full consensus on them or something. I don't believe that'll ever work. |
| 12:38 | <othermaciej> | well, when we originally put them in the wiki, their intent was to be descriptive, not prescriptive |
| 12:39 | <othermaciej> | that they would describe the design approach that had been used to draft HTML5 so far |
| 12:39 | <othermaciej> | and with the hope that these principles would be useful to others |
| 12:40 | <othermaciej> | I think they do help clarify things at times by letting complex repeating themes be expressed in a short way by referencing the principles |
| 12:40 | <othermaciej> | but sometimes they are used to argue opposite sites of the same point |
| 12:40 | <othermaciej> | or sometimes people reject the premise |
| 12:41 | <othermaciej> | I do admit though that I get tired of rehashing basic arguments about error handling and working with existing Web content |
| 12:42 | <othermaciej> | so maybe it would be nice to have consensus about those kinds of things |
| 12:42 | <annevk42> | I was happy to find the W3C specification guidelines and it citing error handling as being important |
| 12:42 | <annevk42> | Nobody replied when I pointed that out though. |
| 12:43 | <othermaciej> | incidentally I don't think Larry's distinction between "Technical Specification" and "Applicability Statement" matches IETF practice |
| 12:43 | <othermaciej> | I almost pointed it out on the list, but then I concluded that debating the fine points of IETF-specific terms of art was not really on topic |
| 12:45 | <annevk42> | I find TS and AS to be very vaguely defined so you can give almost any meaning to them you want to |
| 12:45 | <othermaciej> | I think that the intent was that things like http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc793.txt are Technical Specifications and things like http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1122.txt are Applicability Statements |
| 12:45 | <othermaciej> | note that both of them specify various kinds of error handling |
| 12:45 | <annevk42> | How Larry comes to the statement that error handling is not part of TS is somewhat beyond me though (although some other people applauded him for it...) |
| 12:45 | <othermaciej> | so wether error handling is specified is irrelevant |
| 12:46 | <othermaciej> | certainly that's not justified by the BCP he linked |
| 12:46 | <othermaciej> | anyway, I think the difference is meant to be between things like RFC793 that describe a protocol or format, and things like RFC1122 that give requirements for deploying combinations of protocols/formats/etc in a particular environment |
| 12:47 | <hsivonen> | I think the concept of "Technical Specification" isn't helpful for HTML5 |
| 12:47 | <othermaciej> | having conformance criteria, error handling, or rules for specific classes of software does not exclude you from being a TS |
| 12:47 | <othermaciej> | that too |
| 12:47 | <othermaciej> | I didn't realize at first that he was using an IETF-specific term of art |
| 12:47 | <othermaciej> | now that I know that, it doesn't seem worthwhile to debate with him |
| 12:50 | <annevk42> | I'm trying to debate with him, but he's not actually replying :) |
| 13:10 | <Philip`> | Hmm, OpenOffice isn't very good for forms written in Word whose column layout is done using spaces |
| 13:12 | <othermaciej> | I am amazed at the complexity of http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ie8-mode.png |
| 13:14 | <annevk42> | Hmm, I wonder if Google will implement Ruby for just Chromium or also WebKit. I reckon it has to be in WebKit. (On a side note, it seems they're looking into both XHTML Ruby and HTML5 Ruby and the CSS3 Ruby module (which I believe has outstanding issues, but nobody ever started working on).) |
| 13:14 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: and it doesn't even visualize the decision of which UA string to use and whether the compat mode button gets hidden |
| 13:14 | <othermaciej> | Google is implementing Ruby? |
| 13:14 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: I should probably make it clearer what it means to have a compat mode frame parent |
| 13:14 | <othermaciej> | as in the markup? |
| 13:14 | <othermaciej> | I thin it would be hard to implement outside the layout engine |
| 13:15 | <othermaciej> | but I haven't really heard from them about it |
| 13:15 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=4016#c3 |
| 13:15 | <annevk42> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0189.html |
| 13:15 | <annevk42> | and there's another message on some HTML list |
| 13:16 | <othermaciej> | well perhaps he'll drop a giant patch bomb when he's done |
| 13:16 | <othermaciej> | or maybe the people who do WebKit text stuff already know about his work |
| 13:16 | othermaciej | shrugs |
| 13:16 | <annevk42> | http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019838.html |
| 13:21 | <annevk42> | I wonder if W3C management would rescind SVG 1.2 as well if Bjoern starts complaining about e.g. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2005Jun/0000.html |
| 13:26 | <othermaciej> | too bad Bjoern didn't turn out to be as good at editing specs as he is at finding technical flaws |
| 13:30 | <Dashiva> | hsivonen: I don't see an arrow for IE=6, how does that behave? |
| 13:31 | <Philip`> | jgraham: You need to implement microdata-to-{vCard,iCalendar,BibTeX,Atom} soon, so that people can test the spec and so that I won't feel any compulsion to implement anything myself |
| 13:31 | <hsivonen> | Dashiva: I thought that wouldn't be very relevant to test |
| 13:32 | <hsivonen> | Dashiva: although now that you mention it, it is an interestingly unobvious case |
| 13:33 | <annevk42> | Hmm, why can't <article pubdate> be taken from <time> somewhere within the <article>. That'd be nicer |
| 13:33 | <Philip`> | I would guess that it's the same as IE=7, because the IE6 engine was replaced with the IE7 engine rather than being kept alive in parallel |
| 13:33 | <Philip`> | but guessing based on logic seems to be quite dangerous when talking about IE modes |
| 13:36 | <hsivonen> | It seems to me that the only values one should use are EmulateIE7 and Edge, and the former should only be used temporarily to migrate to the latter |
| 13:38 | <Dashiva> | But if you use Edge, you can't get to quirks mode at all? |
| 13:38 | <Dashiva> | Or should those arrows be goin to "Quirky or No doctype"? |
| 13:39 | <Philip`> | http://philip.html5.org/data/ua-compatible-contents.txt / http://philip.html5.org/data/ua-compatible-headers.txt - lots use IE=7, lots use IE=EmulateIE7, basically nobody uses IE=edge |
| 13:41 | <Philip`> | (plus the usual dozy copy-pasters and typoers) |
| 13:42 | <hsivonen> | Dashiva: you shouldn't use the quirks mode |
| 13:42 | <Dashiva> | Well, yes, but what if you do? |
| 13:43 | <hsivonen> | Dashiva: just don't :-) |
| 13:43 | <Dashiva> | Maybe you forget to include a doctype on one of your pages |
| 13:43 | <Dashiva> | Does IE8 use almost standards or quirks then? |
| 13:43 | <hsivonen> | Dashiva: IE8 standards as shown in the diagram |
| 13:43 | <Dashiva> | okay |
| 13:44 | <hsivonen> | Dashiva: so you should always have a standards-mode or almost standards-mode doctype |
| 13:44 | <hsivonen> | since otherwise you can put other browsers in quirks without putting IE8 to quirks |
| 13:44 | <Dashiva> | Yeah, that's what I was wondering if would happen. It seemed odd. |
| 13:45 | <hsivonen> | I suppose the desirable semantics would be EmulateIEEdge |
| 13:45 | <Philip`> | Isn't that what you get if you don't specify any x-ua-compatible at all? |
| 13:46 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: then you get the button |
| 13:46 | <Philip`> | Ah |
| 13:46 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: or whatever the frame parent did |
| 13:46 | <Philip`> | Oh |
| 13:46 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: or now whatever the parent did, but you inherit its compat modeness |
| 13:47 | <Philip`> | Uh |
| 13:48 | <hsivonen> | s/now/not/ |
| 13:48 | <Philip`> | Ah |
| 13:49 | <hsivonen> | the fun part is that you can end up in the IE 5.5 mode with compat modeness or without, so knowing that frame parent is quirks is not enough knowledge to decide frames |
| 13:49 | <hsivonen> | you need to consider *how* the frame parent got there |
| 13:50 | <hsivonen> | perhaps I should add decisions to hide the button and to propagate compat mode to child frames as boxes to the flowchart |
| 13:51 | <Philip`> | It's very nice of Microsoft to have fixed the unfortunate bug wherein it's nearly possible for a person to understand how their page is going to be rendered |
| 13:51 | <annevk42> | I'm not too interested in making adjustments to my site to cater to this mess |
| 13:51 | <annevk42> | Though I understand a large part of the Web has already done so :/ |
| 13:52 | <Philip`> | annevk42: But you're not interested in making adjustments to your site to cater for any other released (or beta?) browser either :-) |
| 13:53 | <annevk42> | Ah yeah, I forgot my site renders like crap anyway :D |
| 13:53 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: scary how big a proportion copied and pasted from http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/01/22/Best-Standards-Support and got a bogus result |
| 13:55 | <hsivonen> | also, it's sad how much FF=3 and OtherUA=4 get copied and pasted |
| 13:55 | <hsivonen> | must remember to cite this when someone naively doubts the rampant cargo cultism in Web authoring |
| 14:00 | gsnedders | stabs PHP for not even having a queue structure |
| 14:03 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Can't you just use an array? |
| 14:03 | <Philip`> | and push and shift |
| 14:03 | <Philip`> | (That's how it works in Perl anyway) |
| 14:03 | <gsnedders> | Shifting is O(n) though :( |
| 14:04 | <Philip`> | That's fine if n is small |
| 14:05 | <Dashiva> | Use a circular buffer instead of shifting? :) |
| 14:05 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: Also, arrays have a 70 byte overhead per value in PHP, which can get quite big. |
| 14:07 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: I don't think PHP having a queue structure would solve that problem |
| 14:07 | <Philip`> | because they'd presumably implement it in the same way |
| 14:08 | <gsnedders> | SPLQueue in PHP 5.3 doesn't have that overhead, but is in a disablable extension (which is why it's called PHP Standard Library, obviously). |
| 14:08 | <Philip`> | If I remember correctly, the Python html5lib just uses indexes into constant strings, since that was more efficient than mutable lists |
| 14:08 | <Philip`> | (for the input stream, anyway) |
| 14:09 | <gsnedders> | Yeah, PHP html5lib does too |
| 14:12 | <Madness> | hsivonen, iinm when you feed IE8 the html5 doctype it automatically uses the superstandard layout engine. |
| 14:12 | Philip` | would call it the "less buggy than all the others" layout engine, not the "superstandard" one :-p |
| 14:13 | <hsivonen> | Madness: if your domain isn't blacklisted, framed by a compat mode site, etc., etc. |
| 14:14 | <hsivonen> | Madness: the main benefit of IE=Edge is getting rid of the button, though, if one happens to care about the button |
| 14:14 | <Madness> | Hm, intresting. |
| 14:19 | <hsivonen> | what should I do when SVN seems to stop tracking a file that is supposed to be under version control? |
| 14:20 | <gsnedders> | "seems" how? |
| 14:20 | <Madness> | Check for exclusions? |
| 14:20 | <gsnedders> | svn status? |
| 14:20 | <hsivonen> | svn stat doesn't mention it after I edit it |
| 14:20 | <gsnedders> | Check your ignores |
| 14:20 | <hsivonen> | and svn add says it's already under VC |
| 14:20 | <hsivonen> | can't see it in ignores |
| 14:20 | <gsnedders> | But that shouldn't really have any effect if it is already tracked |
| 14:20 | <gsnedders> | *affect |
| 14:20 | <gsnedders> | *effect |
| 14:22 | <Philip`> | Did you do something crazy like copy a .svn directory from one place to another? |
| 14:22 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: I copied my whole local sandbox to another directory |
| 14:23 | <hsivonen> | surely .svn has the good sense to be relative and not depend on absolute fs location? |
| 14:23 | <hsivonen> | ignores look reasonable |
| 14:24 | <Philip`> | It's fine if you copy the entire working copy tree, but I've seen it get horribly confused if you copy a subdirectory to another location within the tree |
| 14:24 | <hsivonen> | I haven't done that |
| 14:24 | <Philip`> | Does svn diff notice any changes? |
| 14:24 | <hsivonen> | it doesn't |
| 14:24 | <Philip`> | Have you definitely actually changed the file? |
| 14:25 | <hsivonen> | Ooh! |
| 14:26 | <hsivonen> | no, I hadn't. *blush* |
| 14:26 | gsnedders | quite often does that |
| 14:27 | <hsivonen> | I had edited the wrong copy in a neighboring dir |
| 14:27 | <Philip`> | Ah, that could explain the behaviour you see :-p |
| 14:27 | gsnedders | closes as notabug |
| 14:28 | <hsivonen> | thanks |
| 15:23 | <annevk42> | I could see myself turning http://thebjoernhoehrmannproject.org/ into Atom-compatible XHTML5 |
| 15:24 | <Philip`> | annevk42: For what purpose? |
| 15:24 | <annevk42> | So that other people can track it of course :) |
| 15:24 | <annevk42> | And since I don't want to maintain an Atom feed or write a Perl script |
| 15:31 | <Philip`> | annevk42: web.archive.org indicates that it was updated 3 times in over a year, so I'm not sure it really needs hundreds of feed readers pinging it every 30 minutes looking for updates :-p |
| 15:33 | <annevk42> | Philip`, that's not for you to decide :) |
| 15:46 | <Philip`> | annevk42: Of course not - it's for Hixie to decide |
| 15:49 | <Dashiva> | I thought it was for the community to build consensus about |
| 15:57 | <Philip`> | It is, except we don't have consensus on which community needs to build that consensus, so we go with the one-person community consisting of Hixie |
| 15:58 | <Dashiva> | I don't think there's consenus on that |
| 15:58 | <Dashiva> | +s |
| 16:05 | <Philip`> | Dashiva: It doesn't matter as long as Hixie consents with it |
| 16:19 | <Philip`> | The bit of HTML 5 that talks about xml:lang is horribly confusing |
| 16:45 | <Philip`> | http://philip.html5.org/data/meta-robots.txt - hmm, not much consistency there |
| 16:46 | <Philip`> | "index, follow, jogos, game, online, flash, jogos em flash, jogos online, jogos multiplay, multiplay, Anti Pacman" - don't think they've quite got the hang of it yet |
| 16:50 | <Philip`> | annevk42: Added <meta name="robots" content="index, nofollow"> to my HTML pages now |
| 17:37 | <hober> | Is Sam back on board with the DOM Consistency principle? http://www.w3.org/mid/4A16D275.10202⊙in |
| 17:40 | <Philip`> | Where did he indicate he was against it? |
| 18:08 | <hober> | Philip`: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification |
| 18:19 | <Philip`> | hober: Ah, right |
| 21:10 | <Hixie> | wow safari does 'autofocus' |
| 21:10 | <Hixie> | sweet |
| 21:35 | <Philip`> | http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/22/1634215 |
| 21:36 | <Philip`> | http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1242425&cid=28058191 - "When's the last time you laid out a site without a table element on every page? Hell, it's almost always the next thing to follow <body> on my pages." - hmm, I think the last time I did that was about 1998 |
| 23:11 | <othermaciej> | Hixie: apparently Larry doesn't like that you say "must" instead of "is" |
| 23:12 | <Hixie> | and i don't like that specs say is instead of must, so... |
| 23:15 | <Philip`> | You could say "It must be the case that the behaviour is ..." to combine the best of both worlds |
| 23:15 | <Hixie> | lol |
| 23:18 | <othermaciej> | right |
| 23:18 | <othermaciej> | passive voice |
| 23:19 | <annevk42> | I think you can make a point that the browsing context stuff needs to be called out, but nobody has done yet. I somewhat doubt most people got that far... |
| 23:19 | <annevk42> | And with browsing context stuff I also mean things like navigation and the page load processing model because that is not at all specific to HTML |
| 23:20 | <othermaciej> | I do think "processing requirements" is a category not really captured by the current subtitle |
| 23:20 | <othermaciej> | and it's fair enough to say some of the processing requirements go beyond what just goes without saying |
| 23:22 | <Hixie> | the subtitle is a waste of time |
| 23:22 | <Hixie> | you'll notice the whatwg spec doesn't have one |
| 23:23 | <hober> | It's a giant bikeshed that people use to vent all of their other problems with the direction of the spec. |
| 23:24 | <annevk42> | yeah, e.g. Larry somehow didn't note the section called "Scope" |
| 23:24 | <annevk42> | typically that's where you state what the spec is about, not in the title... |
| 23:25 | <Philip`> | hober: If it's giant bikeshed then you need to be pretty careful about what colour you paint it, otherwise it'll be an eyesore that's visible for miles around |
| 23:25 | <Hixie> | maybe i should change the subtitle to just "A Technical Specification" |
| 23:26 | <Philip`> | Or "A Specification" |
| 23:26 | <Philip`> | Could you have specifications that aren't technical? |
| 23:27 | <Philip`> | (in the standard meaning of "technical", not the technical IETF meaning of it) |
| 23:27 | <annevk42> | "A Work of Fiction" would also be applicable until 2022 :p |
| 23:28 | <Hixie> | "Based on a true story!" |
| 23:28 | <annevk42> | :) |
| 23:28 | <annevk42> | http://twitter.com/jdowdell/statuses/1887218782 ? |
| 23:29 | <Philip`> | HTML 5: A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer |
| 23:34 | <hober> | Philip` ftw |
| 23:34 | <Hixie> | Philip`: maybe once we have diagrams... |
| 23:34 | <Philip`> | There's at least, uh, three that I can think of |
| 23:35 | <Philip`> | I guess one per hundred pages isn't enough to really count as "Illustrated" |
| 23:35 | <Hixie> | right |
| 23:36 | gsnedders | ponders trying to do a presentation with that title |
| 23:36 | gsnedders | then realizes he can't draw, and thus would have major problems with illustrations |
| 23:38 | <Philip`> | I suppose there's also the issue that young ladies aren't really the target audience for the spec |
| 23:38 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: Just do them all in xfig |
| 23:38 | <gsnedders> | I'm totally uncreative |
| 23:40 | <inimino> | all the more reason to practice |
| 23:40 | <gsnedders> | I gave up a long time ago. |
| 23:41 | <inimino> | unless you tried for at least ten years with no progress, you gave up too soon :-) |
| 23:41 | <gsnedders> | Well, must've done art (at school) for around ten years :P |
| 23:42 | <inimino> | if you can read and write and do maths you can learn to draw |
| 23:44 | <Philip`> | I had a How To Draw Dinosaurs book a while ago |
| 23:44 | <Philip`> | I could cope with some of bits where you just trace the shapes that are in the book |
| 23:44 | <Philip`> | but that was about my limit |
| 23:47 | <inimino> | I recommend a life drawing course |
| 23:48 | <inimino> | I've never seen anyone that took one and did not improve considerably |
| 23:49 | <Philip`> | Improvement does not imply that the end state is any good :-p |
| 23:50 | <othermaciej> | Hixie: I agree, subtitle is a waste of time |
