| 00:01 | Hixie | blinks at the teleconference recordings discussion |
| 00:10 | <othermaciej> | trying to prevent information from being shared at all on accessibility grounds is the sort of thing that gives accessibility people a bad reputation |
| 00:12 | <hober> | indeed |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | i'm very confused, to be honest |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | we have textual transcripts of the calls. Someone offers to provide audio recordings to make the group even more transparent. |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | This is faced with the following responses: |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | - the w3c doesn't have the resources to do it |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | - it makes people feel uncomfortable |
| 00:13 | <Hixie> | - there might be legal implications |
| 00:14 | <Hixie> | - it would be unfair to people to have the audio recordings but not have equally good transcripts, and so we shouldn't do it at all |
| 00:15 | <Hixie> | this is like the _definition_ of "stop energy". |
| 00:17 | <othermaciej> | well, I can understand people being uncomfortable with being recorded, but I think as a public working group, our mandate for maximum public information sharing should take precedence |
| 00:21 | <Hixie> | the entire reaction just baffles me |
| 00:21 | <Hixie> | a healthy environment would have been one in which people just said "sounds great! go for it!" |
| 00:22 | <Philip`> | In the same healthy environment, could someone propose a terrible idea and then people would say "sounds great! go for it!"? |
| 00:22 | <Hixie> | dunno, give it a try |
| 00:23 | <Hixie> | (btw, the irony of people complaining that a transcript isn't available when we have minutes is not lost on me) |
| 00:27 | <othermaciej> | the scribes should take offense |
| 07:11 | <hsivonen> | wow. Crockford seems unrepentent for wasting people's time by getting lawyers review an instance of gratuitous license proliferation |
| 07:20 | <annevk42> | Hixie, I hope Sec-From is renamed to Origin once we sort out how redirects have to work for CORS |
| 07:21 | <annevk42> | Hixie, that was the idea anyway as I understood things |
| 07:32 | <annevk42> | Lachy, many about URLs also take a fragment identifier |
| 07:46 | <othermaciej> | hsivonen: eh? |
| 07:56 | <annevk42> | othermaciej, Crockford uses the MIT license with "Don't use it for evil." appended to it |
| 07:56 | <annevk42> | othermaciej, when e.g. IBM lawyers ask for a different license if they want to use his code he gives them "IBM can use it for evil." and everyone is happy... |
| 07:59 | <othermaciej> | annevk42: wheee |
| 08:05 | <annevk42> | Lachy, emailed comments instead |
| 08:16 | <hsivonen> | annevk42: everyone is not happy. I, for instance, have sought alternatives to Crockford's software to avoid using code under an unusual license with a FOU restriction that lacks clear definitions |
| 08:19 | <othermaciej> | the current poll has now officially received more total votes than any previous HTML WG poll |
| 08:22 | <hsivonen> | annevk42: moreover, if you have been permitted to use code under a set of licenses (e.g. OSI-approved licenses) and someone has a different license, it sucks to have to go through some kind of approval procedure even if you believe Crockford's addition not to carry any legal weight |
| 08:22 | <jacobolus> | seriously? |
| 08:22 | <jacobolus> | eep |
| 08:23 | <jacobolus> | hsivonen: if you write to him, you could probably get a special license, like IBM :) |
| 08:23 | <hsivonen> | jacobolus: yes. custom licenses are not funny |
| 08:23 | <jacobolus> | I think it's pretty funny; but then, I don't have to worry about it |
| 08:23 | <hsivonen> | jacobolus: not good enough unless the custom license is the MIT license verbatim |
| 08:24 | <jacobolus> | I think it's likely he'd do it if you made the case |
| 08:25 | <hsivonen> | jacobolus: unlikely, when I decided not to waste my time trying, I already knew he hadn't fixed the license after having given a one-off license to IBM and having been criticized by an IBM employee for it |
| 09:55 | <vvv> | What is "An absolute IRI "? A typo? |
| 10:07 | <Philip`> | vvv: It's probably easiest to think of IRI as a complicated way of saying URL :-) |
| 11:45 | <Hixie> | could someone explain to me why the minutes aren't an acceptable transcript of the meetings anymore? |
| 11:45 | <Hixie> | i'm somewhat shocked to discover that the information i've been relying on for the past god knows how many years has suddenly stopped being adequate |
| 11:46 | <Philip`> | Because it's generally impossible to work out what was said during the meeting based on the minutes |
| 11:46 | <Hixie> | but this only becomes a problem if we also provide an audio transcript? |
| 11:47 | <Dashiva> | See mark's talk from earlier |
| 11:47 | <Dashiva> | http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090814#l-510 |
| 11:47 | <Lachy> | Hixie, it's because providing the audio for those who can hear it is perceived as providing more information to such people, than is available to the deaf. Whereas with the minutes only, everyone is at an equal disadvantage |
| 11:48 | <Hixie> | why is it acceptable that people can actually call in then? |
| 11:48 | <Hixie> | surely currently people who can't call in are at a disadvantage too |
| 11:48 | <Dashiva> | But calls aren't on the web, so it's okay |
| 11:49 | <Lachy> | yes, they are, but accessibility guidelines aren't so extreme as to restrict the use of technology that is inherently inaccessible. |
| 11:49 | <Dashiva> | Also: http://twitter.com/diveintomark/status/3310162153 |
| 11:49 | <Hixie> | this is some sort of special mode of thinking that i can't wrap my head around |
| 11:50 | <Lachy> | although, there are relay services that deaf people can use to make phone calls, and could in theory use that for the telcon |
| 11:50 | <Hixie> | there are other reasons to not be able to attend the calls |
| 11:50 | <Hixie> | like not having a phone, or being asleep |
| 11:50 | <Hixie> | (both of which affect me) |
| 11:52 | <Lachy> | yeah, that's why we still do the important stuff asynchronously |
| 11:53 | <Lachy> | I personally find the telcons to be of questionable value, and usually choose not to attend. But there are some people who do find them valuable for whatever reason, and there's no reason to restrict them from doing that |
| 11:54 | <Hixie> | sure, just like there's no reason to restrict publication of audio recordings without transcripts |
| 11:54 | <Hixie> | but apparently that's not allowed these days |
| 11:55 | <Hixie> | someone should go tell the podcast industry, btw, that they're all displaying quite unacceptable behaviour |
| 11:56 | Hixie | calls "not it" |
| 11:57 | <Lachy> | some podcasters do publish transcripts |
| 11:58 | <Hixie> | i wonder if radio suddenly becomes unacceptable if they start broadcasting on the web, too |
| 11:59 | <Philip`> | Maybe it's like "You're not having any dessert until you've eaten your greens" where some authority is enforcing rules so that your incentives are aligned with wider benefits than the benefits you care about yourself |
| 11:59 | <Lachy> | wcag has guidelines about live broadcasts over the internet |
| 11:59 | <Philip`> | (where dessert is audio recordings, greens is transcripts, and your mother is the W3C) |
| 12:00 | <Philip`> | (I presume this is related to what Wikipedia says is the principal-agent problem) |
| 12:02 | <Hixie> | i don't think anyone in their sane mind would consider comparing listening to audio recordings of htmlwg telecons to my mother's deserts. |
| 12:02 | <Hixie> | but maybe my mother's deserts are just unusally good. |
| 12:05 | <Lachy> | the problem I see with the arugments about it on public-html is that the accessibility advocates are simply taking the moral high ground, rather than explaning what the actual value of a full text transcript will be in this case and evaluating the cost/benefit ratio |
| 12:07 | <Lachy> | and they're ignoring the issue that arguments from morality don't carry that much weight with pragmatists |
| 12:07 | <Hixie> | i am shocked that they would proffer such unnuanced arguments. |
| 12:08 | <Philip`> | I thought the point of accessibility was that it fails when you evaluate the cost/benefit ratio - if it didn't, everyone would make things accessible because it's good business sense, but they don't, and legislation is often needed to skew the ratio |
| 12:09 | <Philip`> | (Cost/benefit ratios aren't sufficient because they ignore unmeasurable benefits like respecting human rights) |
| 12:09 | <Lachy> | often, the problem is just that people fail to perceive the benefits of making things more accessible |
| 12:10 | <Philip`> | s/sufficient/a sufficient measure/ |
| 12:11 | <Hixie> | the problem i have with the arguments is that we already have transcripts, and if the transcripts aren't good enough, then that should have been a problem already, and doesn't suddenly become a problem when someone volunteers to provide an additional format. |
| 12:12 | <Hixie> | that and the fact that it's one hell of a horrible way to run a community if you tell someone who volunteers to do something "sorry but that's not good enough" |
| 12:12 | <Hixie> | when someone volunteers to do something, the right response is "thank you" and "how can i help you" |
| 12:15 | Philip` | volunteers to rob a bank |
| 12:15 | Philip` | waits for someone to ask how they can help |
| 12:16 | <Hixie> | well i was assuming i was talking about people volunteering to do things that actually benefit, or at least affect, the community :-P |
| 12:17 | <Philip`> | I'll donate half the money to the members of the WHATWG and HTML WG |
| 12:17 | <Hixie> | sweet! |
| 12:17 | <Hixie> | how can i help? |
| 12:17 | <jacobolus> | Hixie: my mother always preferred the mountains to the desert |
| 12:18 | <jacobolus> | maybe transcripts are like an oasis? |
| 12:18 | <Hixie> | aw man, i hate that word. I always forget there's two "s"s because I pronounce it "dizurts" |
| 12:20 | <Philip`> | Hixie: I'd like a face mould so I can disguise myself as you with a latex mask |
| 12:20 | <Philip`> | (You shouldn't get in trouble because you'll have a great alibi, being in a different continent) |
| 12:20 | <Hixie> | wouldn't that be illegal for me to do |
| 12:20 | <Philip`> | Why would it? |
| 12:21 | <Hixie> | aiding and abetting, conspiracy to commit, you name it |
| 12:21 | <Philip`> | I can tell you it's for a fancy dress party, and you won't know any better |
| 12:21 | <Hixie> | luckily for me, i'm not so good with the masks |
| 12:21 | <Hixie> | now if you want some normative text... |
| 12:21 | <jacobolus> | wow, Hixie would be in great company if they start making latex masks of him. Nixon, Salinas, ... |
| 12:22 | Philip` | was thinking more of Tom Cruise |
| 12:22 | <Hixie> | maybe i could send some people wearing masks of me to commitee meetings at TPAC |
| 12:22 | <Hixie> | that would save me a lot of time |
| 12:23 | <jacobolus> | Philip`: you should just wear one of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Nixon_mask.jpg |
| 12:24 | <Philip`> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon_mask - "A Richard Nixon mask is a mask with the features of Richard Nixon." - wow |
| 12:24 | <jacobolus> | no one ever said wikipedia wasn't pedantic |
| 12:32 | <Lachy> | Hixie, leaving pubdate in is silly because it's a bad solution to the problem, regardless of whether or not there's another existing way to solve the problem |
| 12:32 | <Hixie> | it's not _that_ bad a solution |
| 12:32 | <Lachy> | we shoud remove pubdate and then focus on finding a better solution, rather than doing it the other way |
| 12:33 | <Lachy> | it has all the problems of duplicated, hidden metadata |
| 12:33 | <Lachy> | how is that good in any way? |
| 12:33 | <Hixie> | the perfect is the enemy of the merely good enough. Or in this case, the good is the enemy of the barely ok, but still. |
| 12:33 | <Hixie> | duplicated hidden metadata is to be discouraged where possible, but dates in general are always hidden data |
| 12:33 | <Hixie> | even <time> hides the time |
| 12:33 | <Hixie> | it's not a black-and-white world |
| 12:34 | <Hixie> | and other assorted aphorisms |
| 12:34 | gsnedders | sees grey, too |
| 12:34 | <Hixie> | (sorry, it's late and i've been watching too much west wing.) |
| 12:34 | <Lachy> | no, time annotates visible data with an unambiguous version |
| 12:34 | <Hixie> | that's duplication of information with a hidden copy |
| 12:34 | <Lachy> | anyway, I must go. i will respond to your e-mail later with improved arguments |
| 12:34 | <Hixie> | k :-) |
| 12:36 | gsnedders | wonders what he was going to buy today… something he needed to buy, but keeps forgetting… |
| 12:36 | <Philip`> | Paperclips? |
| 12:37 | <gsnedders> | No. |
| 12:37 | <Philip`> | Salt? |
| 12:38 | <gsnedders> | No, but maybe it was pepper… |
| 12:38 | <Philip`> | Hmm, I'm all out of ideas |
| 12:39 | gsnedders | needs to work out quite what he's doing this year |
| 12:49 | <Dashiva> | Hixie: Wouldn't <time rel=something> unambiguously link it to the article? |
| 12:49 | <Hixie> | <time> doesn't have a rel="" |
| 12:49 | <Hixie> | (rel="" is for links) |
| 12:50 | <Dashiva> | I know, but inventing an attribute that does the same (even or rel) |
| 12:50 | <Hixie> | i thought the problem was that we were using an attribute |
| 12:51 | <Dashiva> | That's part of it, another part is that it often duplicates the date |
| 12:52 | <Hixie> | adding an attribute that basically duplicates class="" but with special keywords seems a bit heavy-handed for this small use case |
| 12:52 | <Hixie> | but it might be the only solution that makes sense |
| 12:52 | <Hixie> | anyway, i really must sleep |
| 12:52 | <Hixie> | nn |
| 12:52 | <Dashiva> | Well, that's like pubdate duplicates time, isn't it? |
| 13:03 | <Dashiva> | I'm surprised Sam says this working group [htmlwg] has a lot of communication problems, considering other WGs like PF are unable to communicate at all outside telcons |
| 13:03 | <Dashiva> | How far does the scale go? |
| 13:03 | <Philip`> | Maybe you are mistaking quantity of communication for quality |
| 13:05 | <Dashiva> | Communication that doesn't happen is the worst quality of all |
| 13:07 | <Philip`> | Worse than e.g. offensive communication that causes people to stay away and avoid communicating again in the future? |
| 13:09 | <Dashiva> | Yes, better to try and fail than never to try at all. |
| 13:10 | <Dashiva> | Besides, we know from experience that these people tell other people about staying away, so we'll find out about it. |
| 18:15 | hsivonen | tries to find Big Buck Bunny as VLC-compatible 1080p Dirac but fails |
| 18:16 | <annevk42> | http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/index.php/download/ ? |
| 18:16 | <annevk42> | oh, Dirac |
| 18:16 | <annevk42> | sorry |
| 18:17 | <hsivonen> | I'm intrested in comparing 1080p CPU loads between Dirac, Theora and H.264 |
| 18:20 | <annevk42> | is Dirac still interesting once Google does the non-evil thing? |
| 18:20 | <hsivonen> | I don't know |
| 18:24 | <annevk42> | I still have a hard time seeing how not publishing data can be considered a good thing |
| 18:27 | <hsivonen> | I have a hard time understanding the absurdity of painting the HTML WG as an accessibility offender for suggesting publishing recordings of telecons when the telecon mode of communication is inaccessible before you hit the record button, and the HTML WG charter deliberately tries to downplay telecon and telecons are part of the traditional W3C/WAI communication culture |
| 18:30 | <annevk42> | it is indeed total crap |
| 18:53 | <virtuelv> | hsivonen: url? |
| 18:54 | <virtuelv> | annevk42: with regard to Google and on2? |
| 18:54 | <virtuelv> | I'm more worried about the shareholder lawsuit |
| 18:54 | <hsivonen> | virtuelv: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0764.html |
| 18:55 | <hsivonen> | virtuelv: is a shareholder lawsuit in a case like this something that may actually derail things or business as usual in the U.S.? |
| 18:58 | <TJAtkins> | They could always just trade the shareholders for GOOG shares. ^_^ |
| 18:59 | <hsivonen> | TJAtkins: isn't the suit simply about some shareholder wanting more GOOG shares? |
| 18:59 | <virtuelv> | hsivonen: unknown |
| 18:59 | <virtuelv> | I would assume it's for the purpose of raising the final price |
| 19:00 | <hsivonen> | virtuelv: hence, more GOOG shares, since it's a stock swap |
| 19:00 | <virtuelv> | yeah |
| 19:00 | <TJAtkins> | Oh, buh, I'm dumb. Sorry, wasn't aware that there was an actual lawsuit going on *right now*. |
| 19:01 | <TJAtkins> | My impressions is that that sort of thing is business-as-usual here in the US, but it could always blow up. |
| 19:02 | <annevk42> | TJAtkins is Tab Atkins? |
| 19:02 | <TJAtkins> | yeah |
| 19:02 | <annevk42> | welcome |
| 19:02 | <annevk42> | (unless I missed something I haven't seen you here before) |
| 19:02 | <TJAtkins> | Yo. ^_^ I've been sitting around with a different name for a while, but figured it was more productive to use the name I'm known by. |
| 19:02 | <TabAtkins> | Might as well take it all the way |
| 19:03 | <annevk42> | heh |
| 19:03 | <TabAtkins> | I've been trying to watch the chat more often lately, get a little more involved in WHATWG stuff. |
| 19:18 | <annevk42> | From that document Adam pointed out about cookie history (see http-state archives): ".3.1 Fixing the Incompatibility. Because the two extant major browsers dis-agreed on how to treat unfamiliar attributes, we were inexorably led to introduce one or more new headers to resolve the problem." |
| 19:18 | <annevk42> | I'm glad we're no longer doing that now and whenever someone proposes it we oppose it |
| 19:18 | <annevk42> | I hope one day someone writes a paper on writing "modern" standards... |
| 19:20 | <virtuelv> | I've read that transcript bit |
| 19:20 | <virtuelv> | I find the whole argument to be utterly bizarre |
| 19:21 | <virtuelv> | the choice is between making no data available, and making data available so that third-parties, if they so choose, can transcribe, and have 100% accuracy on what is being said |
| 19:21 | <virtuelv> | and some would prefer to see zero-data available |
| 19:22 | <virtuelv> | please tell me I misread these people |
| 19:25 | <annevk42> | sorry |
| 19:26 | <annevk42> | another interesting quote from that document: "RFC 2965, HTTP State Management Mechanism, took 5 1/2 years to become a Proposed Standard, and yet the major vendors largely ignore it" |
| 19:34 | <hsivonen> | interestingly, this guy doesn't focus on HTML5 and MPEG-LA issues: http://seekingalpha.com/article/154160-google-on2-deal-debunking-myths-questioning-vp8-s-quality |
| 19:47 | <hsivonen> | what's a "four-screen strategy? desktop, phone, TV, ??? |
| 19:48 | <inimino> | TV, desktop, laptop, phone |
| 19:48 | <inimino> | it's some marketing BS from some mobile phone company or other |
| 19:49 | <hsivonen> | hmmkay. What's the point of counting desktop and laptop as distinct? |
| 19:50 | <inimino> | mobility, leading up to the main point of our glorious cell-phone-enhanced future |
| 19:50 | <hsivonen> | ok. thanks |
| 20:02 | <gsnedders> | Settlers' II is damned addictive. |
| 20:06 | <Philip`> | Isn't that like 15 years old? |
| 20:06 | Philip` | remembers playing it like 15 years ago |
| 20:07 | <TabAtkins> | Hell, I'm still sort of addicted to Civ 2. |
| 20:07 | <gsnedders> | Philip`: Yes |
| 20:07 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: Likewise. |
| 20:07 | gsnedders | got both of them back in '97 or so |
| 20:08 | <gsnedders> | (Civ2 is probably my number one reason for booting Windows) |
| 20:08 | <gsnedders> | (And it saddens me it is 16-bit and doesn't run natively on 64-bit Windows) |
| 20:08 | <TabAtkins> | Heh, just virtualize it. |
| 20:09 | <TabAtkins> | You can run that thing on W95 |
| 20:09 | <gsnedders> | Win 3.1, too, IIRC |
| 20:09 | <gsnedders> | S2 runs in DOSBox fine :P |
| 20:10 | <inimino> | hsivonen: I just remembered, it's actually cinema, TV, PC, phone |
| 20:10 | <TabAtkins> | gsnedders: Find a copy of Master of Magic. DOSBoxes wonderfully, and it's a *great* game. |
| 20:11 | gsnedders | wonders if he really needs more timewasters |
| 20:11 | <TabAtkins> | You do. |
| 20:12 | <hsivonen> | inimino: oh, I see. what codecs do digital cinema systems use? |
| 20:13 | <inimino> | the over-the-top Nokia marketing video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V-2qQS3NY0 |
| 20:13 | Philip` | likes http://www.gog.com/ since their installer automatically includes stuff like DOSBox to make things work |
| 20:14 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: My diary's already, uh, three months and a half months behind |
| 20:14 | <TabAtkins> | Simple solution: cut it loose! |
| 20:18 | <hsivonen> | inimino: i can see what nokia's marketing speak means, but codec strategy-wise, the cinema case seems different from the cases where the decoder is shipped to the viewer rather than to a theater |
| 20:18 | <TabAtkins> | Agreed - I'm not sure how the two necessarily have to be related. |
| 20:19 | <hsivonen> | maybe my strategy mindset isn't broad enough |
| 20:23 | gsnedders | contemplates what to do |
| 20:28 | <hsivonen> | btw, why do people seem to assume that purchasing transcripts is an issue? |
| 20:29 | <hsivonen> | if the W3C has a policy requiring transripts, surely it would be sensible for the W3C to already have a mechanism for sending audio to a service provider and getting text back |
| 20:29 | <hsivonen> | does the policy exist withou such a mechanism in place? what's the issue here? |
| 21:02 | <hsivonen> | http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-ig-charter |
| 21:23 | <jacobolus> | gsnedders: isn't settlers II too easy? |
| 21:23 | <jacobolus> | TabAtkins: and likewise Civ II? |
| 21:23 | <TabAtkins> | Too easy? You're not playing it on a high enough difficulty. |
| 21:23 | <gsnedders> | jacobolus: No |
| 21:24 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: Depends on the dificulty |
| 21:24 | <jacobolus> | I suppose at Deity level, it's a bit slow to finish a game |
| 21:24 | <gsnedders> | s/Tabtkins/jacobolus/ |
| 21:24 | <jacobolus> | TabAtkins: the one city challenge is pretty tough, I guess |
| 21:24 | <jacobolus> | I never managed to do that one |
| 21:24 | <TabAtkins> | I've never been able to win a one-city challenge in Civ4 FfH... |
| 21:24 | <jacobolus> | but I didn't ever put too much time in on it |
| 21:25 | <jacobolus> | ffh? |
| 21:25 | <jacobolus> | Civ II was certainly harder than Civ III, to be sure |
| 21:26 | <gsnedders> | Civ2 IMO is the best of the Civ games |
| 21:26 | <TabAtkins> | Fall From Heaven - the absolute best mod for civ4. |
| 21:26 | <TabAtkins> | gsnedders: I'd agree for the vanilla game. |
| 21:27 | <jacobolus> | gsnedders: I was always a bit partial to SMAC |
| 21:27 | <jacobolus> | it's been quite a while though |
| 21:27 | <TabAtkins> | A mid-dev version of FfH is actually included in the Civ 4 release. The full version is better, though. |
| 21:28 | <TabAtkins> | Oh man, SMAC. I always forget to include that in the list of Civ games, because to me it was just "Alpha Centauri". |
| 21:28 | <TabAtkins> | So good... |
| 21:30 | <TabAtkins> | I just love SMAC's government system. |
| 21:31 | <kristallpirat> | Civ II very good, AC very good, Civ IV with Beyond the sword mod very good |
| 21:32 | gsnedders | should play Civ IV more probably |
| 21:32 | gsnedders | ought to get The Settlers II 10th Anniversary Edition too |
| 21:32 | <gsnedders> | (Basically Settlers II with 3D graphics) |
| 21:33 | <TabAtkins> | If I ever sat down to make a game, I'd reproduce Master of Magic with more modern graphics. And less bugs. |
| 21:33 | TabAtkins | remembers when he had an invisible decaying lizardman/airship that couldn't transport cargo and was immune to damage. |
| 21:34 | <TabAtkins> | It had some... issues... with buffer overflows overwriting game data. |
| 21:37 | <gsnedders> | Oh well, back to S2 for me. |
| 21:37 | <jacobolus> | gsnedders: anyway, how do you make settlers II hard? |
| 21:38 | <gsnedders> | jacobolus: By being shit at it :) |
| 21:38 | <jacobolus> | haha |
| 21:38 | <jacobolus> | my advice: just expand using as many of the cheapest mil. buildings as you can, and lots of wood choppers |
| 21:38 | <gsnedders> | Huh? |
| 21:39 | <jacobolus> | huh what? |
| 21:39 | gsnedders | thinks jacobolus is thinking of some other game |
| 21:39 | <gsnedders> | You don't buy mil. buildings |
| 21:39 | <jacobolus> | gsnedders: we're talking about the one with the little roads and people walking back and forth along them? |
| 21:39 | <gsnedders> | Or am I missing what you mean? |
| 21:39 | <gsnedders> | Just loads of barracks? |
| 21:39 | <jacobolus> | there are like 4 types of buildings |
| 21:39 | <jacobolus> | military buildings |
| 21:40 | <jacobolus> | you expand fastest if you buy only the cheapest ones |
| 21:40 | <gsnedders> | Yeah, right |
| 21:40 | <jacobolus> | and then destroy half of them afterward |
| 21:40 | <jacobolus> | if you're especially ambitious you can go replace them with very spaced out castles much later on |
| 21:40 | <jacobolus> | but that's not really necessary |
| 21:40 | <jacobolus> | then once you get close to enemies you build guardhouse thingums |
| 21:41 | <jacobolus> | er, watchtowers? |
| 21:43 | <jacobolus> | gsnedders: I imagine that playing settlers ii against humans is harder, but I never tried it |
| 22:03 | <Philip`> | http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/rad/2009/08/html5.html |
| 22:18 | <TabAtkins> | Any browser dev have any clue if/when XBL2 will ever be supported in your browser? |
| 22:19 | <TabAtkins> | Wondering about it's use in styling new input types, and if I should instead go ahead and get some work going on the CSS list for them. |
| 22:27 | <gsnedders> | jacobolus: The difficulty is establishing yourself on another continent |
| 22:29 | <jacobolus> | gsnedders: any particular map that's tricky? |
| 22:29 | <jacobolus> | I only ever spent about two weeks playing settlers ii, and it was very long ago |
| 22:29 | <jacobolus> | but I have some hazy recollection of some of them |
| 22:31 | <gsnedders> | jacobolus: Just any that involves establishing yourself on another land mass |
| 22:31 | <gsnedders> | Primarily avoiding your first mil. building being overrun almost straight away |
| 22:32 | <jacobolus> | oh, hmm. I think you might just have to go somewhere there's no enemy right next door |
| 22:32 | <jacobolus> | gsnedders: what if you build a big mil. building, so that a bunch of troops get shipped there? |
| 22:33 | <gsnedders> | jacobolus: There are maps where that isn't an option :) |
| 22:33 | <gsnedders> | jacobolus: I guess my issues then are normally not enough gold :) |
| 22:34 | <jacobolus> | gsnedders: the trick to that is to train as many of your troops as possible in big military buildings |
| 22:34 | <jacobolus> | it's much cheaper |
| 22:34 | <jacobolus> | the tiny ones are useless for training, and should have gold shipments turned off |
| 23:17 | <Hixie> | great, now i've been dragged into this nonsense debate |
| 23:21 | <aboodman_mac> | Does anyone know with access control what is supposed to happen if you request a cross-origin resource which redirects to a same origin resource, and there is no access control involved? |
| 23:21 | <aboodman_mac> | It looks to me like it should succeed. |
| 23:22 | <aboodman_mac> | I mean via XMLHttpRequest |
| 23:29 | <TabAtkins> | Sounds like it should work. The final resource being delivered is same-origin, and so as long as that information is passed along properly it should be ok. |
| 23:47 | <Dashiva> | Neat, JF answered my question. A bit strange to get the answer to an IRC question on email, but it works. :) |
| 23:56 | <JonathanNeal> | Hello all! |
| 23:57 | <JonathanNeal> | I'm a little confused about the proper usage of the "section" and "article" elements. Should either be used as a child of the other, or does it not matter? I see this @ http://www.alistapart.com/d/previewofhtml5/structure-div.gif and then this @ http://media2.smashingmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/images/html5/html5_structure.png |
| 23:58 | <JonathanNeal> | I meant to reference http://www.alistapart.com/d/previewofhtml5/structure-html5.gif from ala. |
