| 01:36 | <roc> | what did we do to deserve Tom Lord |
| 01:53 | <othermaciej_> | roc: it seems he's managed to equally annoy all sides of the font discussion |
| 01:53 | <roc> | he's veering towards troll status |
| 02:05 | <sayrer> | he's the peter kasting of fonts |
| 02:07 | <sayrer> | I have to say, the whatwg has reached epic bullshit status this week |
| 02:08 | <sayrer> | private feedback has determined there is no suitable codec |
| 02:08 | <sayrer> | I wonder if people realize that is indistinguishable from collusion |
| 02:09 | <jcranmer> | I personally would opt for the "screw Apple + Nokia and make Theora the de jure standard, as it's fast becoming de facto" |
| 02:09 | <jcranmer> | but I'm not going to push the issue |
| 02:09 | <sayrer> | jcranmer: h.264 is an open standard! didn't you read othermaciej_'s mail? |
| 02:10 | <sayrer> | all of the relevant stakeholders were involved |
| 02:10 | <jcranmer> | sayrer: that's why I referred to `de facto' as reasoning |
| 02:10 | <jcranmer> | sayrer: which one? |
| 02:10 | <sayrer> | groan |
| 02:10 | <sayrer> | nevermind |
| 02:11 | <jcranmer> | I kind of skimmed over them |
| 02:11 | <sayrer> | fair enough |
| 02:11 | <sayrer> | here is my edit: http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2009/07/01/offered-without-comment-4/ |
| 02:12 | <jcranmer> | ah, I found it |
| 02:12 | <sayrer> | I like how people that have gone through media training think they can say anything |
| 02:12 | <sayrer> | it's kind of funny |
| 02:12 | <othermaciej> | sayrer: it's not clear to me what problem you have with that statement |
| 02:12 | <othermaciej> | it's true that H.264 is an open standard |
| 02:12 | <jcranmer> | just like patents are open standards |
| 02:13 | <sayrer> | othermaciej: say it enough and it becomes true |
| 02:13 | <sayrer> | :) |
| 02:13 | <jcranmer> | it doesn't mean that you can actually use them |
| 02:13 | <othermaciej> | sayrer: the normal definition of "open stanard" doesn't automatically imply royalty-free licensing |
| 02:13 | <jcranmer> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard disagrees |
| 02:13 | <jcranmer> | "The term "open" is usually restricted to royalty-free technologies" |
| 02:14 | <jcranmer> | (2nd para) |
| 02:14 | <sayrer> | but that was written by hippies, obviously |
| 02:14 | <jcranmer> | "The definitions of the term "open standard" used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand and the Venezuelan governments." |
| 02:14 | <sayrer> | othermaciej: how about this: proprietary is where you pay |
| 02:15 | <othermaciej> | wikipedia seems to disagree with actual standards orgs (as stated in later paragraphs) |
| 02:15 | <sayrer> | funny |
| 02:15 | <sayrer> | wonder why |
| 02:16 | <jcranmer> | nearly everyone concurs that "open" == "free" (as in beer) |
| 02:16 | <othermaciej> | Ogg Theora on the other hand is not a de jure standard at all, even though it has an open source implementation and is not known to be covered by non-RF patents |
| 02:16 | <sayrer> | but anyway, private feedback settling on MPEG-LA codecs is indistinguishable from collusion |
| 02:17 | <sayrer> | no matter what the intentions are |
| 02:17 | <othermaciej> | to me these are all orthogonal factors, and I didn't know that was controversial |
| 02:17 | <jcranmer> | it's becoming de facto |
| 02:17 | <jcranmer> | as I said before, if Hulu and Youtube both go for Theora in <video> |
| 02:17 | <othermaciej> | I mentioned the standards process used for H.264 because getting all the vendors involved is part of why it has an ecosystem around it |
| 02:18 | <sayrer> | clearly not all vendors |
| 02:18 | <othermaciej> | H.264 actually had hardware implementations before it saw any significant Web use |
| 02:18 | <sayrer> | just enough to charge others |
| 02:18 | <othermaciej> | all right, strike "all" and replace with "many" |
| 02:19 | <jcranmer> | "many |
| 02:19 | <jcranmer> | er |
| 02:19 | <sayrer> | not that all vendors comrpise "relevant stakeholders" |
| 02:19 | <jcranmer> | "many", presumably does not include about 90% of browser market share |
| 02:19 | <jcranmer> | s/,// |
| 02:19 | <sayrer> | yeah, that's true |
| 02:19 | <othermaciej> | the Ogg spec, on the other hand, is unilateral, which may be part of why it doesn't have the same level of tools support |
| 02:19 | <sayrer> | please |
| 02:19 | <jcranmer> | this is getting pointless |
| 02:20 | <sayrer> | no doubt |
| 02:20 | <sayrer> | later |
| 02:20 | <jcranmer> | it's basically a religion war |
| 02:20 | othermaciej | shrugs |
| 02:20 | <othermaciej> | I just wanted to inject some factual information to the discussion |
| 02:20 | <othermaciej> | I don't want to get into the religious war part of it |
| 02:20 | <othermaciej> | it's not just a religious war, it's a format war |
| 02:21 | <othermaciej> | format wars are unpleasant and suck for everyone |
| 02:21 | <jcranmer> | well, a standard that 90% of the world doesn't support isn't exactly a useful standard |
| 02:21 | <jcranmer> | which is probably why SVG sees so little web usage |
| 02:21 | <jcranmer> | 2/3 of the web can't use it |
| 02:21 | <jcranmer> | er, users |
| 02:21 | <othermaciej> | not sure what you're referring to there |
| 02:22 | <othermaciej> | standard status is a separate thing from deployment |
| 02:22 | <jcranmer> | HTML is SGML, right? |
| 02:22 | <jcranmer> | I'll go use <br/ and see how web browsers like it! |
| 02:22 | <othermaciej> | HTML 4.01 was SGML in theory but not in practice |
| 02:22 | <othermaciej> | HTML 5 is not SGML even in theory |
| 02:23 | <jcranmer> | NNTP is UTF-8 in theory, in practice it's whatever-the-server-decides |
| 02:23 | othermaciej | is not sure how this is relevant to video |
| 02:23 | <jcranmer> | it's not what the standard says that matters |
| 02:23 | <jcranmer> | it's what the web browsers do |
| 02:23 | <othermaciej> | isn't the whole dispute here over what the standard should say? |
| 02:23 | <jcranmer> | and if a significant share decides it's untenable to support the standard, the standard will be ignored |
| 02:24 | <jcranmer> | the crux of the matter is that the two sides are so extreme in their viewpoint that no consensus can be reached since a significant share would ignore it |
| 02:24 | <othermaciej> | that's probably true |
| 02:24 | <othermaciej> | we also don't have any input from Microsoft on whether they are willing to implement <video> at all, though they are pretty clearly on record as not being willing to support Ogg |
| 02:25 | <othermaciej> | (H.264 will ship as a built-in codec on Windows 7, so I guess they don't have a problem with it as a codec in general) |
| 02:25 | <jcranmer> | besides, HTML 5 is essentially, in large part, a codification of de facto web stuff |
| 02:35 | <mpilgrim> | safari's <video> support is defined as "whatever quicktime supports," no? |
| 02:35 | <mpilgrim> | if i install XiphQT (Ogg QuickTime components) on my wife's Mac, Safari 4 plays Ogg video demos |
| 02:36 | <mpilgrim> | is there any legal reason that every single non-apple stakeholder couldn't bundle XiphQT with their mac installer? |
| 02:42 | <mpilgrim> | i.e. install mac firefox, get ogg video in safari for free |
| 02:43 | <mpilgrim> | install mac chrome, get ogg video in safari for free |
| 02:43 | <mpilgrim> | (yes i work for google, no i haven't discussed this internally. i'm just brainstorming here.) |
| 02:44 | <mpilgrim> | wouldn't solve the iphone problem, but all modern macs are fast enough to decode ogg video in software anyway |
| 02:44 | <mpilgrim> | on the desktop, it's just a codec installation problem |
| 03:06 | <roc_> | mpilgrim: the possibility of installing Firefox leading to other apps breaking is scary |
| 03:06 | <roc> | mpilgrim: also, what if someone uninstalls Firefox? do you uninstall the codec? If not, who does the security updates? |
| 03:07 | <roc> | mpilgrim: then there's the issue that people who install other browsers probably don't use Safari much |
| 03:07 | <mpilgrim> | doesn't have to be just browsers |
| 03:07 | <mpilgrim> | lots of things bundle other things |
| 03:08 | <jcgregorio> | openoffice and java |
| 03:09 | <mpilgrim> | xiphqt 0.1.9 was released a few weeks ago |
| 03:09 | <mpilgrim> | the release before that was in 2007 |
| 03:09 | <roc> | the other issues are still pretty big issues |
| 03:10 | <sayrer> | but they are not legal ones, to speak to mpilgrim's point |
| 03:10 | <sayrer> | not having access to the system update stream is a problem, for sure |
| 03:11 | <sayrer> | and the end game is probably signed executables on Mac OS X |
| 03:11 | <sayrer> | first they came for your iphone, then your tablet, then your laptop, then your tower |
| 03:12 | <mpilgrim> | that's not news; even gruber figured that out after the iphone sdk was released |
| 03:12 | <sayrer> | I am agreeing with you, then |
| 03:12 | <mpilgrim> | yes |
| 03:12 | <mpilgrim> | usually when that happens, it means it's time for me to reexamine my position |
| 03:12 | <sayrer> | haha |
| 03:13 | <mpilgrim> | but i think we are in violent agreement on theora and vorbis |
| 03:13 | <sayrer> | well, probably just tactical disagreement |
| 03:14 | <sayrer> | at any rate, I don't think Mozilla would choose to ship/maintain an ogg vorbis implementation if it didn't have to |
| 03:14 | <sayrer> | roc knows better, though |
| 03:14 | <roc> | depends what you mean by "have to" |
| 03:15 | <mpilgrim> | i am... disappointed (but not surprised) that my employer is shipping h.264 |
| 03:15 | <roc> | If Quicktime and DirectShow supported Ogg Vorbis and Theora, would we just plug into them? |
| 03:15 | <mpilgrim> | and elated (and surprised) that we are shipping theora |
| 03:15 | <roc> | Probably not |
| 03:15 | <sayrer> | it makes total sense if you have a h264 license, kinda |
| 03:16 | <sayrer> | roc, why not? |
| 03:16 | <roc> | it makes total sense if you have an H.264 license and don't care whether the Web is royalty-free |
| 03:16 | <sayrer> | well, or you care more about everything working in your minority browser |
| 03:17 | <sayrer> | we have been there, in not so patent-encumbered areas |
| 03:17 | <roc> | /don't care/don't care very much/ |
| 03:17 | <sayrer> | fair enough |
| 03:18 | <roc> | sayrer: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow_and.html |
| 03:18 | <sayrer> | but that |
| 03:18 | <sayrer> | is for any directshow thing |
| 03:19 | <sayrer> | if we sniff for ogg, we could only send ogg |
| 03:19 | <roc> | oh, you're suggesting we could use DirectShow but only for Ogg? |
| 03:19 | <sayrer> | well, system ogg from anyone |
| 03:19 | <sayrer> | anyone but us |
| 03:19 | <roc> | I don't really see the point |
| 03:19 | <roc> | it would just make our lives harder |
| 03:19 | <sayrer> | oh? |
| 03:19 | <roc> | we'd be driving the codec from arm's length |
| 03:20 | <sayrer> | that |
| 03:20 | <sayrer> | is true. less control. |
| 03:20 | <roc> | we'd have to interact with different versions of the codec |
| 03:20 | <sayrer> | but ogg in firefox would work with ogg in browser foo. |
| 03:20 | <roc> | we'd be exposed if the vendor didn't do security updates |
| 03:20 | <sayrer> | that last part is our problem |
| 03:20 | mpilgrim | is unclear how all of these problems don't bother apple |
| 03:21 | <roc> | mpilgrim: they control the framework |
| 03:21 | <othermaciej> | of third-party codecs? |
| 03:21 | <roc> | mpilgrim: and they control almost all the codecs that actual users have installed |
| 03:21 | <sayrer> | they control the things that work on iphones and ipods |
| 03:21 | <sayrer> | and probably apple tvs and god knows what else |
| 03:21 | <roc> | mpilgrim: I have been told that there have already been Quicktime changes to make it work better/safer with Web video |
| 03:22 | <othermaciej> | there are, I believe, a number of popular QuickTime codec add-ons besides Ogg (I'm not sure Ogg is even the most popular) |
| 03:22 | <mpilgrim> | i'd guess divx is the most popular |
| 03:22 | <mpilgrim> | due to existing bundling and massive marketing |
| 03:22 | <sayrer> | they don't work on the ipod though |
| 03:22 | <sayrer> | interoperability problems |
| 03:23 | <othermaciej> | the fact that Apple can ship good quality versions of the codecs we care about to all our target platforms is sufficient |
| 03:23 | <othermaciej> | we don't consider allowing other codecs to plug in a problem |
| 03:23 | <othermaciej> | I wouldn't even rule out a future Safari being able to use DirectShow on Windows |
| 03:23 | <sayrer> | yes, Apple has explicitly stated that control is the issue |
| 03:24 | <sayrer> | so if other people plug in, and don't disrupt that control, it is a non issue |
| 03:24 | <othermaciej> | Mozilla seems to have even greater control issues in that you don't even want to let other people plug in (short of forking) |
| 03:24 | <sayrer> | that seems weird to say... |
| 03:25 | <sayrer> | we allow people to plug in and do basically anything |
| 03:26 | <sayrer> | including undermine the business model of our biggest partners |
| 03:26 | <mpilgrim> | could a firefox extension provide support for other video formats in the <video> element? |
| 03:26 | <sayrer> | I don't know off hand, but I think we should allow that |
| 03:26 | <roc> | Quicktime had 10 security fixes in June, for a variety of pretty much unused formats |
| 03:26 | <roc> | that's a whole lot of attack surface that I don't really want to be exposed to |
| 03:27 | <sayrer> | in theory, the extension setup should allow it |
| 03:27 | <sayrer> | but there might be details to thwart |
| 03:27 | <roc> | mpilgrim: that's not possible right now |
| 03:27 | <othermaciej> | fwiw we restrict the set of codecs we support, mainly to remove things that aren't audio/video codecs at all (since QuickTime is overly general) and some obsolete codecs |
| 03:27 | <sayrer> | roc, bummer. how come? |
| 03:27 | <othermaciej> | but it's a blacklist, not a whitelist |
| 03:28 | <othermaciej> | so third-party codecs are not excluded |
| 03:28 | <roc> | sayrer: because the decoder interface is reasonably nice and frequently changing, not an XPCOM pain barrier |
| 03:29 | <sayrer> | oh, and there is no higher level thing to plug into? |
| 03:29 | <sayrer> | short of rewriting the video element, obviously |
| 03:29 | <roc> | no |
| 03:29 | <roc> | there's the video element |
| 03:29 | <roc> | there are decoders, nsOggDecoder and nsWaveDecoder |
| 03:29 | <roc> | and there are services that decoders can use, like the media cache |
| 03:30 | <sayrer> | but there is no way to register as a decoder? |
| 03:30 | <roc> | no |
| 03:30 | <sayrer> | ok |
| 03:30 | <roc> | the decoder list is compiled in |
| 03:30 | <roc> | fixing that would be pretty easy |
| 03:30 | <roc> | but the interface is very much C++ and not all pure virtual functions |
| 03:30 | <roc> | and it changes a lot |
| 03:30 | <sayrer> | we could promise only source compatibility |
| 03:31 | <roc> | perhaps the biggest problem is that the symbols you need to use aren't exported from libxul |
| 03:31 | <mpilgrim> | seems like i've started a constructive conversation |
| 03:31 | <mpilgrim> | so this is what it feels like... |
| 03:31 | <roc> | mpilgrim: no, sayrer's exploring a road that I don't think is that interesting to go down |
| 03:32 | <sayrer> | see, fool's gold |
| 03:32 | <sayrer> | roc, I can see exploding maintainability |
| 03:33 | <sayrer> | roc, but why do you think it is not interesting? |
| 03:33 | <roc> | realistically the value of supporting pluggable codecs on the Web is very low |
| 03:33 | <mpilgrim> | so othermaciej was right; firefox's audio/video support is tightly controlled |
| 03:33 | <roc> | since most people won't have them, Web authors can't use them |
| 03:33 | <mpilgrim> | by virtue of being hardcoded and not extensible |
| 03:34 | <sayrer> | mpilgrim, on one axis, you are right. |
| 03:34 | <mpilgrim> | i'm not saying it was intentional |
| 03:34 | <mpilgrim> | it seems more like a side effect |
| 03:34 | <mpilgrim> | but as you would say, "the end result is the same" |
| 03:35 | <doublec> | the point of video originally was not to be a plugin based system wasn't it? |
| 03:35 | <sayrer> | fair, but the end result is not quite the same |
| 03:35 | <othermaciej> | although roc implied in his blog post that it was an active goal not to support other codecs (no idea if other Mozillians share his views) |
| 03:35 | <doublec> | once codec, that could be assured to work across all systems |
| 03:35 | <doublec> | so content providers didn't have to wonde |
| 03:35 | <doublec> | r if their format would work |
| 03:35 | <roc> | I don't think it's oppressive to fail to have extension points |
| 03:35 | <sayrer> | yes, when the full browser is open source |
| 03:36 | <sayrer> | (yes, except for the effing logos, mpilgrim) |
| 03:36 | <roc> | if someone's got a great open source codec, and they're willing to do some work, we can integrate it |
| 03:36 | <sayrer> | it may prove to be irrelevant |
| 03:36 | <sayrer> | firefox seems to take share from safari |
| 03:37 | <sayrer> | and Chrome will probably take share from both |
| 03:37 | <mpilgrim> | there are few codecs that are modern, interesting, used, open, and royalty-free |
| 03:38 | <mpilgrim> | (for the record, i don't think chrome has any support either for adding video codecs in its upcoming extension system) |
| 03:38 | <sayrer> | one thing that puzzles me is the ambivalence towards mpeg-la's intention to charge |
| 03:38 | <sayrer> | that seems incredibly bad |
| 03:39 | <sayrer> | and it |
| 03:40 | <sayrer> | it's not clear to me that joint client/publishers like apple and google have to face that |
| 03:40 | <roc> | what puzzles me is the reluctance of some people I respect to do anything to help avoid a royalty-required format becoming part of the Web platform |
| 03:40 | <sayrer> | I think that they care about other things more |
| 03:42 | <sayrer> | and there is certainly a willingness to believe that the latest winner of a benchmark contest has sealed the deal |
| 03:42 | <mpilgrim> | i'm pleased to see wikimedia accelerating their plans to integrate theora video into wikipedia |
| 03:43 | <sayrer> | but I wouldn't be surprised to see MS, Opera, or someone else enter at a large advantage. present competition strong though it is. |
| 03:44 | <othermaciej> | for what little it's worth, my personal position is that on the whole, royalty-bearing standards and software patents in general are a bad thing for the industry, but I don't have the means to do anything about it in this case |
| 03:45 | <sayrer> | I do think roc's point about the defaults is a good one |
| 03:45 | <sayrer> | the default choice pretty much makes the game |
| 03:50 | <sayrer> | so, you can after extension points, and make them super duper extensible, but it might not matter a whole lot |
| 03:50 | <sayrer> | go after |
| 03:52 | <othermaciej> | What works in a default install is probably more important |
| 03:53 | <othermaciej> | that's one reason using the system media framework would be different from just having a hypothetical extension point |
| 03:53 | <othermaciej> | otoh QuickTime's extensibility could make it easier for Ogg to drive demand |
| 03:53 | <sayrer> | there are two considerations |
| 03:53 | <sayrer> | works in Firefox, works in all browsers on OS Foo |
| 03:53 | <sayrer> | at least, from our perspective :) |
| 03:55 | <sayrer> | some Mozilla derivatives ship many more codecs by default |
| 06:37 | <Hixie> | did google just change the style of the results page a tiny bit? |
| 06:37 | <Hixie> | every time i've done a search in the past like 5 hours i've felt like something was subtly different |
| 06:41 | <othermaciej> | I believe Google recently increased the left margin |
| 06:44 | <gavin_> | yeah that's really throwing me off |
| 06:45 | <gavin_> | I'll get used to it eventually :) |
| 06:47 | <Hixie> | holy crap, looks like google search now uses the html5 doctype |
| 06:48 | <Hixie> | i guess this html5 thing really is going to take off |
| 06:48 | <Hixie> | google is now in standards mode! |
| 06:48 | <ezyang> | oh ho ho :-) |
| 06:48 | <ezyang> | That's pretty amazing |
| 06:49 | <othermaciej> | maybe standards mode is what screwed up the layout |
| 06:49 | <Hixie> | yeah, maybe |
| 06:49 | <Hixie> | though i'm sure it was intentional |
| 06:49 | <Hixie> | given how much qa that page goes through before shipping |
| 06:50 | <ezyang> | I dunno... I thought the margins were weird |
| 06:50 | <ezyang> | Standards mode makes it suddenly make sense. |
| 06:50 | <Hixie> | they probably ran an experiment where they tested every possible margin from 0px to 20px and used the one that made people the most efficient in searching |
| 06:50 | <ezyang> | hehe |
| 06:50 | <Hixie> | you think i'm kidding... |
| 06:53 | <Hixie> | ezyang: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/business/01marissa.html?pagewanted=3 |
| 06:53 | <othermaciej> | when I first heard about it I assumed it was based on an experiment to maximize ad revenue |
| 06:54 | <Hixie> | ezyang: (or http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/03/20/goodbye-google.html - paragraph starting "Yes, it's true") |
| 06:54 | <ezyang> | hoo boy |
| 06:55 | <Hixie> | as demonstrated by public-html, some people don't like reliance on data to make decisions |
| 06:55 | <Hixie> | i do, so i quite like the google atmosphere :-) |
| 06:56 | <ezyang> | :-) |
| 07:20 | <hsivonen> | opinions about https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500937#c14 ? |
| 07:20 | <hsivonen> | the XMLSerializer thing |
| 07:26 | hsivonen | wishes XMLSerializer, innerHTML and XHR didn't have "XML" or "HTML" in their names |
| 07:55 | <jgraham> | Well those Dreamweaver screenshots make it pretty clear that Dreamweaver users are highly likely to write bad table summaries |
| 08:14 | <annevk5> | hsivonen, I suppose what you suggest makes sense for XMLSerializer |
| 08:15 | <hsivonen> | annevk5: good :-) |
| 08:16 | annevk5 | wonders how hard XMLSerializer and DOMParser are to spec now that HTML5 defines all the primitives |
| 08:43 | <hsivonen> | was there some kind of solution for running the tokenizer tests in a browser that doesn't expose the interface between the tokenizer and the treebuilder, so you can only observe the tree? |
| 08:54 | <annevk5> | like a JavaScript impl of the tokenizer? |
| 08:54 | <annevk5> | I think Philip` had one |
| 08:57 | <hsivonen> | annevk5: no, I mean having a JS harness that feeds html5lib tokenizer test to the browser-native parser and makes conclusions from the tree output rather than raw token output |
| 08:59 | <hsivonen> | cool. a word on codecs form Opera. |
| 09:01 | <annevk5> | oh I see, hmm |
| 09:14 | <hsivonen> | so in that case run in Gecko it would show if the Java to C++ translator introduced bugs into the tokenizer |
| 09:15 | <hsivonen> | huh? Mozilla supports MJPEG in <img>? demo? |
| 09:43 | <roc> | hsivonen: I think he's referring to MIME multipart JPEGs |
| 09:43 | <roc> | "word on codecs from Opera"? |
| 09:45 | <jgraham> | roc: I assume hsivonen meant http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020696.html |
| 09:46 | <hsivonen> | roc: ok. no real MJPEG then. |
| 09:46 | <hsivonen> | yes, I meant http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020696.html |
| 09:46 | <roc> | ah |
| 09:49 | <annevk5> | i guess we should have announced that somewhere more visibly |
| 09:49 | <annevk5> | visible, even |
| 09:50 | <othermaciej> | does the Opera 10 beta do <video>? |
| 09:51 | <hsivonen> | othermaciej: no |
| 09:52 | <annevk5> | <video> will be post Opera 10 |
| 10:33 | <hsivonen> | How do I find out about the security update policies for given packages in Ubuntu "universe"? |
| 10:35 | hsivonen | wonders what nobinonly in Ubuntu package names means |
| 10:35 | <hsivonen> | no binary-only? but what does that signify? |
| 11:06 | Philip` | sees that Hixie's email to the ""<" inside tags" thread is rendered as "- Show quoted text - - Show quoted text -" |
| 11:13 | <Lachy> | Philip`, in which mail client is it rendered like that? |
| 11:14 | <Philip`> | Lachy: Gmail |
| 11:14 | <Philip`> | (which collapses parts that are repetitions of previous parts of the thread) |
| 11:52 | <hsivonen> | woohoo! Opera has added OpenType support since the first 10 Alpha. more interop! |
| 11:57 | <Philip`> | People who want interop in practice will have to provide EOT to IE users, and IE only supports fonts with TrueType outlines :-( |
| 11:58 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: only people who care about feature parity in IE |
| 11:59 | <Philip`> | i.e. most people in the real world |
| 12:03 | <hsivonen> | whew. finally caught up with my other-than-public-html W3C email |
| 12:04 | <hsivonen> | mostly by not reading all the Origin and font threads |
| 12:05 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: I think we need some scare quotes and different points of view around "real world" :-) |
| 12:10 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: But I have data, so I necessarily win the argument conclusively - out of three people who've contacted me about my font optimizer tool, one wanted it for PDFs and the other two wanted to generate EOTs :-) |
| 12:12 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: bah. data. I claim expertise! |
| 12:14 | <hsivonen> | seriously, though, I think we need to get authors create sites that use the new Web platform features even when IE doesn't support them |
| 12:15 | <hsivonen> | and fonts seems to be particularly additive rather than a feature that makes content unbrowsable if not supported |
| 12:16 | <beowulf> | hsivonen: hard to sell something to a client that looks 'right' in everything but IE |
| 12:17 | <hsivonen> | beowulf: this has to start with sites that aren't made for clients |
| 12:17 | beowulf | nods |
| 12:18 | <annevk4> | sites for client is kind of old-fashioned anyway |
| 12:18 | <annevk4> | clients* |
| 12:19 | <annevk4> | ;) |
| 12:20 | <annevk4> | whoa: http://example.com/iestandards.xml |
| 12:21 | <annevk4> | IE8 is also introducing magic URLs now? http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/07/01/ie-compatibility-list-pruning.aspx |
| 12:21 | annevk4 | sighs |
| 12:22 | hsivonen | looks forward to more fun hours updating an already cluttered flowchart |
| 12:24 | <takkaria> | you know it makes sense |
| 12:24 | <annevk4> | also how it's not per origin but per registered domain |
| 12:24 | <annevk4> | it's insane |
| 12:25 | <annevk4> | they must be on some pretty bad enterprise crack |
| 12:27 | <takkaria> | what could be better than making spurious HEAD requests on every web site you visit? |
| 12:28 | <annevk4> | also funny that they called the header x-ua-compatible and this file is clearly vendor specific |
| 12:30 | <hsivonen> | was this behavior always there or does this come in an autoupdate or something? |
| 12:31 | <Philip`> | I think the file is actually IEStandards.xml, not iestandards.xml |
| 12:32 | <Philip`> | which is kind of an important distinction for anyone not using IIS |
| 12:32 | <hsivonen> | who wouldn't use IIS in the real world? |
| 12:33 | <Philip`> | hsivonen: Looks like it was there in the original release |
| 12:33 | <Philip`> | http://blogs.msdn.com/askie/archive/2009/03/23/understanding-compatibility-modes-in-internet-explorer-8.aspx |
| 12:33 | <annevk4> | IESettings.xml? |
| 12:34 | <hsivonen> | Philip`: ok. thanks |
| 12:35 | Philip` | comments on the blog |
| 12:36 | <Philip`> | Oops, they do mentioned "IEStandards.xml" already, it's just the example.com that's wrong |
| 12:36 | <Philip`> | *mention |
| 13:23 | <MikeSmith> | wow. a rare Jeremy Keith posting to whatwg |
| 13:23 | <MikeSmith> | short, but to the point |
| 14:04 | <annevk2> | sayrer, re your latest email, what do you mean by "the HTML5 specification"? |
| 14:04 | <sayrer> | it's a noun, isn't it? |
| 14:05 | <annevk2> | mkay, assuming you mean the one Hixie edits, I wonder how you're going to do it :) |
| 14:06 | <sayrer> | oh, I'll make a copy and change it from there |
| 14:06 | <sayrer> | no edit wars |
| 14:06 | <gsnedders> | But edit wars add drama to life! |
| 14:06 | <annevk2> | sayrer, ah ok, makes sense |
| 14:06 | <sayrer> | gsnedders: I have accepted your feedback. I will reply with 4 months |
| 14:07 | <sayrer> | within |
| 14:07 | <sayrer> | :) |
| 14:07 | <gsnedders> | sayrer: Only four? Dude, you need to learn how to edit specs! :) |
| 14:07 | <sayrer> | gsnedders: it says so right on there on my blog |
| 14:07 | <sayrer> | oh wait, that's elementary web design |
| 14:07 | <sayrer> | I get confused easily |
| 14:07 | Midler | think gsnedders life just exstended with 4month? |
| 14:08 | <annevk2> | (edit wars works for me, but I believe only Hixie has write access to the source file so any changes would be overwritten each time the spec is generated) |
| 14:08 | <sayrer> | Actually, I was looking at the source |
| 14:09 | <sayrer> | and there are these comments saying "YOU MUST TALK TO IAN BEFORE CHANGING THIS TEXT" |
| 14:09 | <sayrer> | I wonder who those are directed to |
| 14:09 | <sayrer> | I decided they don't apply to me |
| 14:09 | <Philip`> | That was because of changes made before publication to /TR/, I believe |
| 14:09 | <annevk2> | W3C pubteam |
| 14:10 | <sayrer> | ah I see |
| 14:10 | <sayrer> | I won't be taking feedback via the whatwg lists, so I have to change some parts |
| 14:11 | <annevk2> | i wouldn't expect it to apply to forks anyway |
| 14:11 | <annevk2> | that wouldn't make sense |
| 14:12 | <annevk2> | but are you sure you're looking at the source? |
| 14:12 | <sayrer> | it might be a header file that had that |
| 14:12 | <sayrer> | I don't think it would make sense, either |
| 14:12 | <sayrer> | but... Please leave your sense of logic at the door, thanks! |
| 14:15 | <annevk2> | yadayada |
| 14:15 | <sayrer> | also, I need to update the spec to disallow private feedback on certain issues |
| 14:15 | <sayrer> | basically anything controversial |
| 14:16 | <sayrer> | I thought about trying to disallow it completely, but it seems like I would have to recuse myself from hallway conversations |
| 14:16 | <sayrer> | not a credible way of going about things :) |
| 14:16 | <gsnedders> | "No, sorry, I can't accept your comment. Good bye." |
| 14:17 | <sayrer> | on video codecs, that's exactly what I'll say |
| 14:17 | <sayrer> | well, maybe "send your comment to the list" would be better, and a touch more polite |
| 14:19 | <annevk2> | so you're saying you will no longer have hallway or lunch conversations on <video>? |
| 14:19 | <annevk2> | sounds pretty tough |
| 14:19 | <sayrer> | on codecs |
| 14:20 | <sayrer> | there are plenty of other parts |
| 14:21 | <sayrer> | In fact, I won't even discuss codecs here |
| 14:21 | <sayrer> | only on the list |
| 14:25 | <annevk2> | that is starting now or so? |
| 14:26 | <annevk2> | doesn't really matter I suppose; anyway, I'm curious what your draft will look like |
| 14:40 | <Philip`> | Someone should give me CVS access so I can make a version of the spec where all the letters are upside down |
| 14:47 | <sayrer> | Philip`: that would be awesome! |
| 14:48 | <takkaria> | or you could make all 'i's that Turkish cahracter that looks like 'i' but without the dot |
| 14:57 | <Philip`> | takkaria: Maybe I should replace them all with http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0D%0A%26%23x131%3B%3Cblink%3E%26%23x307%3B%3C%2Fblink%3E |
| 14:57 | <Philip`> | except sadly that appears to be buggy in pretty much all browsers :-( |
| 14:57 | <Philip`> | Firefox and IE on Windows ignore the styling of the dot entirely |
| 14:58 | <Philip`> | Firefox on Linux doesn't even draw the dot |
| 14:59 | <Lachy> | sayrer, re http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2009/07/02/secrets/ - why are you surprised that Hixie accepts feedback that gets sent to him privately? That's certainly not the first time he's mentioned that and it would be silly for him to reject it |
| 15:00 | <sayrer> | I am not surprised |
| 15:00 | <sayrer> | no comment on the silliness |
| 15:02 | <Lachy> | ok, then I'm not sure I get the point of what you're trying to say about it |
| 15:04 | <sayrer> | Lachy: I can live with that |
| 15:07 | jgraham | wonders if it worth pointing out that we may be unable to get consensus on not specifying codecs, decides it is not |
| 15:14 | <Lachy> | jgraham, so we're damned if we do and damned if we don't? Cool! |
| 15:15 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: damn you. |
| 15:16 | <Philip`> | Why do people like Flash and <video> more than they like <embed>/<object> methods of embedding videos? |
| 15:17 | <ezyang> | I think it's because they promise to "just work" |
| 15:18 | <Lachy> | well, ignoring the fact that Flash uses object/embed, using object/embed for regular video files historically depends on 3rd party codecs that may not be present for all users |
| 15:18 | <gsnedders> | What should .min and .max return on an HTMLInputElement which doesn't allow min/max? |
| 15:18 | <Lachy> | whereas Flash already has sufficient market penetration for that problem to be ignorable |
| 15:19 | <Lachy> | gsnedders, what does the spec say? |
| 15:19 | <gsnedders> | Lachy: I can't find the spec saying anything. |
| 15:20 | <gsnedders> | (wrt to this) |
| 15:21 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: undefined, no? |
| 15:21 | <jgraham> | Because you are doing a property lookup of a non-existent property |
| 15:21 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: But the spec says min/max return a DOMString, so surely that's wrong? |
| 15:21 | <Lachy> | the spec says they should reflect the content attributes |
| 15:22 | <jgraham> | Oh you mean in the case where min/max are supported but not relevant to that particular type of input |
| 15:22 | <gsnedders> | Yes |
| 15:23 | <Lachy> | so my guess is that even though they don't apply to certain controls, should still return whatever values were specified (if any) or the default value if not |
| 15:23 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Empty string then |
| 15:23 | <jgraham> | (or the values that were supplied) |
| 15:23 | <gsnedders> | From my reading of the spec they should return an empty string or what was given. |
| 15:23 | <gsnedders> | There is no default value. |
| 15:24 | <jgraham> | The empty string is the deafult value |
| 15:24 | <jgraham> | so we all agree |
| 15:24 | <jgraham> | No need for anyone to get CVS access and modify the draft or anything |
| 15:25 | <sayrer> | aw, you sound a little snarky :( |
| 15:25 | <sayrer> | hope everything is ok :) |
| 15:28 | <Philip`> | This is IRC, you're not allowed to be snarky in here! |
| 15:29 | Philip` | won't dare get in the way of any Boojumic snarkiness, however |
| 15:30 | <gsnedders> | "The value DOM attribute is in mode filename." — does that mean it only ever returns one? |
| 15:30 | <gsnedders> | What does "in mode" mean? |
| 15:30 | <gsnedders> | (quick, while jgraham's away from his computer!) |
| 15:31 | <gsnedders> | Oh, wait. |
| 15:31 | <gsnedders> | If I follow the xref… |
| 16:52 | <mr_daniel> | Some days ago I started reading about html5 and the features it consists. The offline capabilities are very interesting, especially the client side SQLite database. I want to start learning html5, and for this I need to develope my own applications. |
| 16:53 | <mr_daniel> | But for this I need a html5 capable browser. I am working on a ubuntu 9.04 machine. Which browser should/can I use to start developing web apps which use some html5 features? |
| 16:53 | <mr_daniel> | or how does the development environment looks like which you guys use to develope html5 enriched web apps? |
| 18:58 | <hober> | http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item119 |
| 18:59 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: You wouldn't happen to know how much posting something to GB costs? |
| 18:59 | <gsnedders> | hober: woah |
| 19:04 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: 12SEK or so I think |
| 19:06 | <jgraham> | mr_daniel: I think webkit based browsers are the most likley to have SQL support at the moment |
| 19:07 | <jgraham> | Although chrome doesn't afaik and I'm not sure about other webkit-based linux browsers |
| 19:07 | <jgraham> | Otherwise Opera, Firefox, Webkit based browsers, and, to a lesser extent, IE8, all implement some HTML5 features |
| 19:09 | <jgraham> | hober: I wonder how the "more resources" will be depolyed to help us reach LC/CR |
| 19:10 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Right, thanks |
| 19:11 | gsnedders | needs a screwdriver |
| 19:14 | <takkaria> | where do you post things here? I've not seen any letterboxes |
| 19:15 | <jgraham> | takkaria: They are yellow and could be mistaken for bins |
| 19:15 | <takkaria> | hm, armed with that knowledge, I will pay more attention |
| 19:15 | <takkaria> | :) |
| 19:17 | <mr_daniel> | ok, I guess it takes at least some months until html5 has broder support |
| 19:19 | <gsnedders> | takkaria: I have seen places. |
| 19:31 | <Philip`> | Hmm, my MBP appears to have decided that I no longer deserve any graphical output |
| 19:32 | <jgraham> | Philip`: That's what happens when you insinuate MikeSmith is a lemming |
| 19:35 | <Philip`> | That's correlation, not causation |
| 19:36 | <jgraham> | Philip`: Prove it |
| 19:37 | <Philip`> | jgraham: No |
| 19:37 | <Philip`> | I'll just assert that it is true |
| 19:38 | <jgraham> | Hmm. Stupid ide of the day: use @title on <tr> containing column headers to help build an autosummary of the table. Dunno how you would do row headers though |
| 19:38 | <jgraham> | *idea |
| 19:39 | <takkaria> | new rule: data is forbidden |
| 19:39 | <takkaria> | jgraham: <col>? |
| 19:40 | <jgraham> | takkaria: Doesn't work in existing browsers though |
| 19:40 | <jgraham> | Plus <col> is silly |
| 19:40 | <takkaria> | yeah, I thought much the same thing |
| 19:40 | <jgraham> | evn sillier I mean |
| 19:41 | <jgraham> | Actually, re there any good use cases for <col>? |
| 19:41 | <jgraham> | Why do we still have it? |
| 19:45 | <Dashiva> | For styling columns? |
| 19:46 | <jgraham> | Dashiva: Does that actually work? |
| 19:46 | <takkaria> | no |
| 19:47 | <jgraham> | You could use tr > td:nth-of-type or something |
| 19:47 | <jgraham> | (although that wouldn't allow for hte possibility of mixed td/th in rows) |
| 19:49 | <Dashiva> | jgraham: It also fails with colspan |
| 19:49 | <jgraham> | True |
| 19:49 | <Dashiva> | jgraham: It works in some browsers, with some styles |
| 19:49 | <Dashiva> | Styling <col>, that is |
| 19:49 | <jgraham> | CSS could grow a column selector I guess |
| 19:50 | <jgraham> | (but colspan seems hard in general. What happens if I style the third column but have a cell that spans from the first to the fifth column?) |
| 19:51 | <jgraham> | (I guess it shouldn't be styled) |
| 19:52 | <takkaria> | Hixie got there a while ago: http://ln.hixie.ch/?count=1&start=1070385285 |
| 19:54 | <takkaria> | IE supports it and no-one else does apparently |
| 19:59 | <ezyang> | Oh noes, ianh, you made a parser change :-o |
| 20:00 | gsnedders | stabs Hixie |
| 20:01 | <ezyang> | Looks like a fairly trivial change tho |
| 20:01 | <gsnedders> | It's just making another char throw a parse error |
| 20:01 | <Dashiva> | Good Shelley is around, the list would be much too quiet otherwise |
| 20:05 | <takkaria> | yay for impls that don't report parse errors |
| 20:07 | gsnedders | wonders how hard it'd be to get the html5lib tree builder tests running in browsers |
| 20:07 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: zcorpan did it already |
| 20:07 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Oh. |
| 20:09 | <jgraham> | gsnedders: Not sure where though |
| 20:10 | gsnedders | had never heard about it before |
| 20:14 | <Hixie> | ezyang: don't blame me, blame zcorpan! :-P |
| 20:15 | <ezyang> | Hehe |
| 20:15 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: But he's on holiday, so it's harder to blame him :P |
| 20:18 | <Hixie> | someone should let plh and ij know about the author-only mode of the html5 spec |
| 20:19 | <gsnedders> | Hixie: Hixie? |
| 20:19 | <Hixie> | see the last q of the rip-xhtml2 faq |
| 20:20 | <ezyang> | linky? |
| 20:20 | <gsnedders> | http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.html |
| 20:21 | <gsnedders> | The link was broken when I last looked at the news so I hadn't read that yet :P |
| 20:21 | <Hixie> | http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.html |
| 20:23 | <ezyang> | Sigh. I threw in my lot with the XHTML Modularizatoin |
| 20:23 | <ezyang> | *Modularization |
| 20:24 | <krijnh> | Hmm, Steven Pemberton just gave a talk about XHTML2 on Tuesday :/ |
| 20:24 | <Dashiva> | That's... pretty big news |
| 20:25 | <Dashiva> | Shouldn't this say "any markup language using XML namespaces"? -- "RDFa is a specification for attributes to express structured data in any markup language." |
| 20:38 | <Hixie> | man, @w3c has now twice tweeted that the xhtml2 wg is being expired |
| 20:38 | <takkaria> | CURIEs will be published as a note, not a recommendation? that's interesting |
| 20:39 | <Hixie> | i wonder why they're so eager to announce this |
| 20:45 | <Lachy> | I wonder how they came up with the questions in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.html |
| 20:45 | <Lachy> | some of them seem quite silly |
| 20:45 | <gsnedders> | takkaria: You aren't, under the W3C process, allowed to just stop working ona doc. You need to either publish a REC or a NOTE |
| 20:45 | <Lachy> | like "Does W3C plan for the XML serialization of HTML to remain compatible with XML?" |
| 20:50 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: "n[o]t[...] allowed" - what could they do if you stop anyway? |
| 20:51 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: Move it to another WG. |
| 20:54 | <Hixie> | the faq does rather gloss over the fact that html5 is a w3c-whatwg joint venture |
| 20:54 | <krijnh> | Is it then? |
| 20:55 | <krijnh> | I thought the W3C only did the marketing part :) |
| 20:56 | <Hixie> | nah we get lots of feedback from the public-html list |
| 20:56 | <Philip`> | http://www.zeldman.com/2009/07/02/xhtml-wtf/ |
| 20:56 | <krijnh> | Yeah, I still have to thank you all for giving me something to do in the train |
| 21:12 | <jgraham> | "I plan to use XHTML 5 served as text/html, just to tork off the purists, just like I do now with XHTML 1.0." |
| 21:14 | <Hixie> | it's actually impossible to do that |
| 21:15 | <Hixie> | xhtml5 served as text/html5 is just html5 |
| 21:15 | <Hixie> | (the definition of "html5" vs "xhtml5" is the mime type used) |
| 21:27 | <gsnedders> | Wikipedia is being really slow for me |
| 21:27 | <svl> | ditto |
| 21:28 | <gsnedders> | My life is falling apart! |
| 21:28 | <Lachy> | gsnedders, at least wikipedia is up today! Yesterday, it was completely down, showing nothing but an error page. I'm still recovering from the trauma! |
| 21:29 | <gsnedders> | It worked for me yesterday |
| 21:29 | <Lachy> | maybe it was the day before |
| 21:29 | <Lachy> | or maybe it only lasted for a few hours and you missed it |
| 21:29 | gsnedders | shrugs |
| 21:29 | <gsnedders> | I don't use Wikipedia much at work |
| 21:39 | <jgraham> | wikipedia just timed out for me :( |
| 21:43 | <gsnedders> | takkaria: 1974? huh? |
| 21:48 | <jgraham> | Hixie: The unspokn commentry was "good luck with that" |
| 23:44 | <roc> | someone should have told mr_daniel to use localStorage and BrowserCouch, which work in all modern browsers |
| 23:54 | <sayrer> | roc, does Chrome implement localStorage? |
| 23:54 | <sayrer> | I thought it didn't |
| 23:56 | <roc> | I didn't when first released |
| 23:56 | <roc> | maybe it still doesn't |