| 00:29 | <Darxus> | Where is a "last call working draft" defined? Google isn't helping. |
| 00:34 | <webben> | Darxus: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/ |
| 00:36 | <Darxus> | webben: Thank you. |
| 00:36 | <webben> | yw |
| 01:55 | <Darxus> | I added Hixie's color.html demo to my main page (http://www.chaosreigns.com/), changed the background to white. When filling the area with rgb(255,255,255,0.5) it is clearly convinced that the page background is light grey, but it's white. |
| 01:57 | <Darxus> | Specifying the background color as an attribute of the canvas entity didn't help. |
| 02:03 | <Darxus> | Ah, it's a bug in chrome 2.0.172.37, not shared by firefox 3.5.1. |
| 08:37 | <gavin_> | Hixie: "disabilities" probably wouldn't be called that if they affected the majority of the population |
| 08:37 | <gavin_> | for example, few people would say that not having 4 arms is a disability |
| 08:38 | <gavin_> | (not that this actually matters to any of the arguments being made, I just wanted to nitpick) |
| 08:41 | <Hixie> | if there was some pandemic that caused everyone to go blind |
| 08:42 | <Hixie> | would you say being blind would stop being a disability? |
| 08:42 | <gavin_> | people would stop referring to it as such, in practic |
| 08:42 | <Hixie> | i doubt it |
| 08:42 | <Hixie> | especially if the next generation had sight |
| 08:43 | <gavin_> | well, sure, that'd muddy the waters a bit :) |
| 08:44 | <gavin_> | I agree that strictly speaking, not having four arms would arguably be considered a disability |
| 08:44 | <gavin_> | but people in practice treat "things we are not expected to have" differently than "things we are expected to have but don't" |
| 08:44 | <Hixie> | i don't think that not having four arms is a disability |
| 08:45 | <Hixie> | i think that not having sight is a disability |
| 08:45 | <gavin_> | maybe that's a bad example - it's not obviously a good thing |
| 08:45 | <Hixie> | (in fact i think that _having_ four arms would be a disability) |
| 08:45 | <gavin_> | how about not having eyes on the back of your head? :) |
| 08:47 | <Hixie> | that would be a disability, of a kind, sure |
| 08:47 | <Hixie> | but i don't think that's really relevant |
| 08:47 | <gavin_> | I don't either! |
| 08:48 | <Lachy> | gavin_, the difference is that humans have adapted to the senses and limbs that we do have. The equipment we use that depends on 4 arms is designed for 2 people (usually), we have mirrors to compensate for the lack of eyes on the back of our heads |
| 08:49 | <gavin_> | Lachy: I don't think any of that is relevant to the (trivial) nit I was picking |
| 08:49 | <gavin_> | I was just trying to say that I understand John's reasoning behind "affecting a minority" being part of "disability"'s definition |
| 08:50 | <Lachy> | gavin_, I'm not sure what the nit was that you're picking. I haven't read my mail yet this morning |
| 08:50 | <Hixie> | i think the pandemic example is a clear counterexample of that |
| 08:50 | <Hixie> | and more specifically, the definition of disability doesn't say "minority" anywhere |
| 08:50 | <Hixie> | in other news, why are my speakers popping every few hours |
| 08:50 | <gavin_> | right, that's different because there is an alternate default state that we are familiar with |
| 08:50 | <Hixie> | this is a new class of interference |
| 09:19 | <Lachy> | I really don't understand the desire to have a distributed source control system like git to allow anyone to be an editor. No other specification in W3C's history has been edited like that, and I'm not sure how it would ultimately work. |
| 09:21 | annevk4 | decided to not partake in that discussion relatively early on |
| 09:21 | <olliej> | Lachy: people like to think that spec development is like software dev |
| 09:22 | <olliej> | Lachy: eg. that there are typically multiple "ok" solutions |
| 09:23 | <Lachy> | yeah, I'm not going to post in that thread either. Just trying to understand what they're asking for and why |
| 09:24 | <heycam> | i made an attempt to make it easier to produce a "fork" of ian's document http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jul/0147.html but i don't know if anyone took it up |
| 09:24 | <gavin_> | olliej: you don't think it's possible for there to be more than one "ok" HTML 5 spec? |
| 09:24 | <olliej> | gavin_: no |
| 09:25 | <olliej> | gavin_: the idea of spec forking defies the reason for a spec |
| 09:25 | <olliej> | gavin_: but the particular problem is that we don't want "ok" we want "good" |
| 09:25 | <gavin_> | oh, you mean that you don't think it's possible for two versinos to coexist usefully |
| 09:25 | <gavin_> | ? |
| 09:25 | <heycam> | it might be ok before Rec for more than one to exist |
| 09:26 | <olliej> | gavin_: when writing software you can easily come up with multiple solutions to a problem, some of which may be substantially worse than others |
| 09:26 | <heycam> | i wouldn't want multiple to exist later, being normative on the same stuff |
| 09:26 | <gavin_> | heycam: right, I agree that that would be undesirable |
| 09:26 | <olliej> | gavin_: and you have pet features, etc |
| 09:26 | <gavin_> | but it's not so clear to me that there's "One True Spec" and that all variations are errors |
| 09:26 | <gavin_> | but maybe I'm misinterpreting what olliej means |
| 09:27 | <olliej> | gavin_: whereas a spec needs to be well thought out, and it's very difficult to compensate for "design" errors after the fact |
| 09:27 | <olliej> | gavin_: people want to be able to write some portion of the spec that they like and then just have it merged into the spec (a la a standard softwre patch) |
| 09:27 | <olliej> | gavand that just doesn't make seense for most people |
| 09:28 | <olliej> | gavin_: as they don't have sufficient knowledge to make a meaningful direct contribution like that |
| 09:28 | <gavin_> | I don't think it's true that hixie is the only person with enough relevant knowledge to be able to author text in HTML 5 |
| 09:29 | <olliej> | gavin_: he doesn't "just author the spec" |
| 09:29 | <gavin_> | I'm not claiming that he's "just an author" or that writing is all there is to it |
| 09:29 | <olliej> | gavin_: what people want with their distributed spec dev is to just write arbitrary changes and have hixie pik it up |
| 09:29 | <olliej> | and hixie doesn't do that very much himself even |
| 09:29 | <olliej> | we argue about what it hsould be in mailing list |
| 09:30 | <gavin_> | er, I hadn't seen anyone suggest that it would be "like open-source, but without review!" |
| 09:30 | <heycam> | btw i like recently how it's fashionable to call it "ian's draft" rather than "the spec" |
| 09:30 | <olliej> | gavin_: the vast majority of people cannot write spec level text |
| 09:30 | <gavin_> | sure, the vast majority of people can't write c++ code either |
| 09:31 | <gavin_> | that's why mozilla has a review process! |
| 09:31 | <olliej> | gavin_: anything that was in some magicaly distributed repository would likely need to be rewritten by whoever wanted to merge it |
| 09:31 | <olliej> | gavin_: *sigh* |
| 09:31 | <olliej> | gavin_: writing software is less rigorous than writing the spec in many many regards |
| 09:31 | <gavin_> | I think Manu's main goal is to make it easier to suggest different text/ideas |
| 09:32 | <olliej> | gavin_: email works fine for that |
| 09:32 | <gavin_> | I don't think he's trying to make it so that all of those would be "automatically" merged together just because someone bothered to make them |
| 09:32 | <olliej> | gavin_: lots of random repositories scattered around the web seems the opposite of that |
| 09:32 | <gavin_> | Manu disagrees |
| 09:32 | <gavin_> | and I think he has a point |
| 09:33 | <gavin_> | (with the "email works fine for that", part, to be clear) |
| 09:37 | <gavin_> | in the abstract, at least - I agree with Maciej's post about the most valuable process-change contributions coming from people who've put effort into actually contributing using the old process |
| 09:39 | <gavin_> | I suppose "email isn't good enough for large-scale changes" is mostly a theoretical argument until someone has such changes to suggest |
| 09:40 | <Hixie> | what could possibly be large-scale enough that it couldn't fit in e-mail |
| 09:40 | <gavin_> | (I don't really know whether Manu does or not) |
| 09:41 | <gavin_> | Hixie: well, once you pass a certain threshold, just exchanging diffs becomes troublesome |
| 09:41 | <Hixie> | there's no reason to propose diffs |
| 09:41 | <Hixie> | proposing spec text is a terrible way to contribute to spec development, in my experience |
| 09:41 | <Hixie> | because unless you're truly familiar with the spec, you'll miss all kinds of things |
| 09:42 | <Hixie> | best to propose use cases, requirements |
| 09:42 | <gavin_> | well, it's what sam has been suggesting lately |
| 09:42 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 09:42 | <Hixie> | can't say i really agree with him |
| 09:44 | <gavin_> | it may be an effective way to settle some of the recurring disputes |
| 09:44 | <gavin_> | multiple concrete proposals and a vote |
| 09:45 | <Hixie> | we should resolve recurring debates by determining the best technical solution, not via votes, imho |
| 09:45 | <gavin_> | I agree |
| 09:45 | <Philip`> | We should vote on what we consider the best technical solution |
| 09:45 | <gavin_> | I don't expect you to be swayed by a vote |
| 09:46 | <gavin_> | but perhaps others will |
| 09:46 | <gavin_> | (the dissenters) |
| 09:46 | <Hixie> | i doubt it |
| 09:46 | <Hixie> | but i guess it depends on who you're talking about and what topic you mean |
| 09:46 | <gavin_> | a lot of people seem to care a lot about The Process |
| 09:47 | <gavin_> | and it gives a lot of strength to votes, doesn't it? |
| 09:47 | <annevk4> | after consensus |
| 09:48 | <Hixie> | The Process varies depending on whether you're talking about the w3c as written, the w3c as practiced, or the whatwg. |
| 09:48 | <gavin_> | I was referring to the W3C's Process |
| 09:48 | <gavin_> | I know the whatwg process doesn't give votes much weight :) |
| 10:12 | <zcorpan> | hey the spec comment box is more convenient than irc! |
| 10:13 | <Hixie> | sweet, i finally found a way to stop you from mentioning typos on irc :-D |
| 10:13 | <zcorpan> | :) |
| 10:21 | <Lachy> | Hixie, typo: "i finally" --> "I finally" :-) |
| 10:22 | <Hixie> | i have "text-transform: lowercase" set on any line that only has one sentence |
| 10:23 | <Philip`> | If that was the case, you would have said ":-d" |
| 10:23 | <Hixie> | my renderer is buggy? |
| 10:34 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: maybe you should say somewhere in the spec UI that the IP will be publicly logged |
| 10:35 | <Hixie> | done |
| 11:41 | <gsnedders|work> | Wow. WHATWG and public-html have been busy over the weekend. |
| 12:08 | <Lachy> | Hixie, could you add some sort of Advanced button to the spec's inline bug reporting feature that, instead of simply submitting an anonymous bug, forwards the user to bugzilla template with the comment prefilled |
| 12:09 | <Lachy> | that would allow the reporter to specify additional details, and have it not be anonymous, while still retaining most of the convenience of inline bug reporting |
| 12:10 | <Lachy> | It would also be useful if you could set the subject to something more useful than duplicating the bug summary, like using the section's heading from the spec |
| 12:13 | <Lachy> | actually, it should probably just open bugzilla within an iframe (styled with position: fixed;) so the user isn't taken away from the spec entirely |
| 13:47 | gsnedders|work | wonders why he's now listening to songs in French |
| 13:47 | <gsnedders|work> | It must be that damn Swiss guy! |
| 13:47 | <eighty4> | gsnedders|work: hello |
| 13:47 | <gsnedders|work> | eighty4: hi |
| 13:47 | <eighty4> | french rap is said to be the best rap |
| 13:47 | <eighty4> | so nothing wrong with french songs |
| 13:47 | <gsnedders|work> | rap-- |
| 13:47 | <eighty4> | yell yes |
| 13:48 | <eighty4> | but if they're good at that they might be good at other music |
| 13:50 | <eighty4> | if one wants multiple articles on a page what should one wrap those with? |
| 13:51 | <gsnedders|work> | Each article should be one <article> |
| 13:52 | <eighty4> | yes, but if one want's to wrap them with something |
| 13:52 | <eighty4> | like <div><article/><article/></div> |
| 13:52 | <eighty4> | what should one use instead of <div> in that situatioN? |
| 13:52 | <gsnedders|work> | eighty4: Just div or body or something I guess |
| 13:52 | <gsnedders|work> | eighty4: Unless you want it to be an actual section, with a heading, in the document. |
| 13:53 | <eighty4> | gsnedders|work: could I PM a link? |
| 13:53 | <gsnedders|work> | Sure |
| 13:54 | <eighty4> | seemed that was missusing <article> and <section> imo |
| 13:54 | <eighty4> | or is it an ok use of it? |
| 13:54 | <eighty4> | oh... I have to run :( |
| 13:54 | <gsnedders|work> | Each post should be an article, and just use a div as a container |
| 13:55 | <eighty4> | so no <articles> exist then :) |
| 13:55 | <eighty4> | but now I have to run |
| 13:55 | <eighty4> | later |
| 15:53 | <gsnedders|work> | Hixie: yt? |
| 16:27 | <Philip`> | Whoops, I replied to a thread and completely forgot that I'd already replied to it a few weeks earlier :-( |
| 22:08 | <Darxus> | Philip`: That didn't work. I did a fillRect on the canvas first, and it still turned grey. Tested it by starting it as a different color, and it still turned grey. |
| 22:22 | <cryzed> | Hey |
| 22:22 | <cryzed> | :) |
| 22:22 | <cryzed> | I have a small problem with the Python html5lib from the mercurial repository |
| 22:22 | <cryzed> | soup = html5lib.parse(b.open('http://www.google.de/';), 'beautifulsoup') -> This used to work |
| 22:22 | <cryzed> | but now gives me an error |
| 22:22 | <cryzed> | soup = html5lib.parse(b.open('http://www.google.de/';), 'beautifulsoup') |
| 22:23 | <cryzed> | Uhm: TypeError: insertDoctype() takes exactly 4 arguments (2 given) -> any ideas? |
| 22:29 | annevk4 | finds public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf |
| 22:29 | <annevk4> | or, I should say, "rediscovers" |
| 22:33 | <Hixie> | someone was asking how many peopel were subscribed to whatwg recently |
| 22:33 | <Hixie> | today we're at 1123 |
| 22:34 | <gsnedders> | Wow, going up quite quickly then? |
| 22:35 | <Hixie> | apparently |
| 22:40 | <tantek> | fibonacci |
| 22:40 | <gsnedders> | heh |
| 22:41 | <Darxus> | Cool. |
| 22:46 | <Dashiva> | So would the next step in the sequence be 1235 or 11235? |
| 22:48 | <Philip`> | I think the next would be 1124, actually |
| 23:01 | <Darxus> | CSS handling between just chrome, firefox 3.5, and opera mobile is amaizingly inconsistent. |
| 23:01 | <Hixie> | woo, the ietf finally decided to accept the updated websocket i-d |
| 23:01 | <Hixie> | i guess their meeting of no productivity must be over |
| 23:03 | <Darxus> | Congratulations. |
| 23:04 | <Hixie> | why congratulations? |
| 23:04 | <Hixie> | it's an automated system, they just had it disabled while they were meeting |
| 23:04 | <Hixie> | lest anyone actually do anything useful |
| 23:05 | <Darxus> | Ah, I see. |
| 23:27 | <ap> | Hixie: do IETF websocket draft diffs go anywhere, similar to http://twitter.com/WHATWG ? |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | they in fact go to http://twitter.com/WHATWG |
| 23:28 | <Hixie> | e.g. http://twitter.com/WHATWG/status/2506761249 |
| 23:32 | <tfh> | Hixie: would me creating an early Perl client/server websocket implementation be any help? I was thinking building a prototype would help flush out any ambiguities/problems in the spec |
| 23:32 | <Hixie> | sure |
| 23:32 | <tfh> | okay :) |
| 23:33 | <Hixie> | what would be especially useful is finding out how websocket works with proxies |
| 23:36 | <tfh> | I guess it might be thwarted a bit if proxies insist on buffering responses or similar, hm |