| 07:23 | <Tripknotix> | hey everyone |
| 07:23 | <Tripknotix> | long time no see |
| 07:23 | <Tripknotix> | i had a question on whether or not webgl or ogl would be implemented in html5, or if it will continue to only be pushed by the browser companies themselves |
| 07:26 | <Hixie> | i don't understand the difference |
| 07:30 | <othermaciej> | Tripknotix: html5 is a spec, not an implementation |
| 07:30 | <othermaciej> | so nothing will be "implemented in html5" |
| 07:31 | <othermaciej> | if you're asking whether the WebGL spec will be incorporated into the HTML5 specification, rather than being published as a separate specification by a different standards body, I believe the answer is "no". |
| 07:31 | <Tripknotix> | haha |
| 07:31 | <Tripknotix> | are you on the whatwg team? |
| 07:31 | <Tripknotix> | because that is interesting news =0 |
| 07:31 | <Tripknotix> | =) |
| 07:31 | <Tripknotix> | have not gotten a positive answer before |
| 07:32 | <othermaciej> | let me correct that and say the answer is "probably not" |
| 07:32 | <othermaciej> | in other words, WebGL will most likely continue to be a separate spec, published by Khronos |
| 07:33 | <othermaciej> | although I would not describe that as "only [] pushed by the browser companies themselves" |
| 07:33 | <Tripknotix> | well you know the difference |
| 07:33 | <Tripknotix> | =) |
| 07:38 | <Tripknotix> | thanks for the help |
| 11:53 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: interesting discussion about ruby annotations continues on the HTML5 Japanese IG list - |
| 11:53 | <MikeSmith> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-ig-jp/2010Mar/thread.html#msg7 |
| 11:54 | <MikeSmith> | at some point we'll probably want to post a summary of that to the public-html list |
| 11:58 | <MikeSmith> | note that Shinyu Murakami is an implementor of an XSL-FO engine that also now has CSS print support (like Prince) |
| 11:58 | <MikeSmith> | hmm, I guess that most of the substantive discussion there is all in English |
| 11:59 | <MikeSmith> | except for the examples |
| 11:59 | <MikeSmith> | Murakami-san's latest message is more about meta issues |
| 12:01 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: on Nikunj asking about review of the IndexedDB spec, I guess you've seen that Jeremy Orlow seems to have started on an implementation |
| 12:02 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: I've seen that he has been talking about it |
| 12:02 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: he's made at least one or two related commits so far, I think |
| 12:03 | <MikeSmith> | though the commit messages described them as "baby steps" or something |
| 12:03 | <othermaciej> | I am not sure why Nikunj asked me and not Mozilla |
| 12:04 | <othermaciej> | I am also not sure Apple will have substantially different feedback than Google, since if we ship it we'll likely use the same implementation |
| 12:04 | <MikeSmith> | maybe he asked because he's already talked with Mozilla off-list |
| 12:05 | <othermaciej> | (though I don't believe Jeremy consulted with anyone at Apple about his spec feedback or his nascent implementation) |
| 12:06 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: I think he may have actually written a design doc |
| 12:06 | MikeSmith | goes to look |
| 12:06 | <MikeSmith> | http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/design-documents/indexeddb |
| 12:08 | <MikeSmith> | maybe he is just planning to wait to get that posted to webkit-dev after more discussion within the chromium team |
| 12:09 | <othermaciej> | he did post a comment on webkit-dev, but not a pointer to the design document |
| 12:09 | <othermaciej> | and it was more of an "I'm doing it" comment than an "I want your input" comment |
| 12:35 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: in the recent public-html thread about conformance, you mention both authoring conformance and document conformance. Do you mean to make any distinction between those two, or are you using them synonymously? |
| 12:36 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: I meant them to be synonyms, but I may have used the in confusing ways |
| 12:36 | <MikeSmith> | no, not really confusing |
| 12:36 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: the biggest surprise to me was how many issues are purely editorial |
| 12:36 | <MikeSmith> | I just wasn't sure if it was intentional |
| 12:36 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: yeah, I saw your note about that |
| 12:37 | <MikeSmith> | given that the are just editorial, it would see likely that we could get agreement about those more easily |
| 12:38 | <MikeSmith> | or maybe I'm just being optimistic |
| 12:38 | <MikeSmith> | overly optimistic |
| 12:40 | <othermaciej> | if it was easy to get agreement about those topics, they wouldn't be tracker issues... |
| 12:41 | <MikeSmith> | true |
| 12:41 | <MikeSmith> | but there are some cases of bugs getting escalated prematurely |
| 12:41 | <MikeSmith> | "premature escalation" is the technical process term, I think |
| 12:41 | <MikeSmith> | from Robert's Rules of Order |
| 12:42 | <othermaciej> | I haven't heard the term |
| 12:42 | <othermaciej> | what do you mean exactly? |
| 12:42 | <MikeSmith> | I'm joking about the term |
| 12:42 | <othermaciej> | I see |
| 12:43 | <MikeSmith> | but I mean that some bugs have gotten escalated without much discussion |
| 12:44 | <MikeSmith> | or to look at it from another perspective, they maybe should not have been been moved to resolved=wontfix without more discussion |
| 12:44 | <MikeSmith> | but then some of them probably should not have been raised to begin with |
| 12:46 | <othermaciej> | I do think that for many of those editorial issues, there wasn't a good faith effort to work out an acceptable compromise |
| 12:46 | <othermaciej> | or to determine if the issue actually matters to anyone besides the original before escalating |
| 12:46 | <othermaciej> | not that those are required, but it would certainly save me work if people did that before escalating |
| 12:47 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 12:50 | <othermaciej> | oh, that reminds me, I promised to move old bugs to VERIFIED |
| 12:52 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: did I ever show you the graph I made of our bug in/out rate? |
| 12:53 | <othermaciej> | http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AoCAfo_LQ5_kdFFWWmpCMWxsLUN2TW9VYi1uNEJGenc&hl=en |
| 12:53 | <othermaciej> | I'm still not sure what happened in August that so massively increased use of the bug tracker |
| 12:53 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: I had not seen this yet |
| 12:55 | <othermaciej> | if you look at this chart, and also at issue in/out rates, you would conclude that we didn't start serious work until August 2009 |
| 12:55 | <Philip`> | August was when the automatic bug submission form was added to the spec, which might explain it |
| 12:56 | <MikeSmith> | Philip`: well, that would be one factor |
| 12:56 | <othermaciej> | ok, I thought that might be it (part of it, anyway) |
| 12:56 | <MikeSmith> | the other factor is that's when some people started putting serious effort into bug resolution |
| 12:56 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., Maciej |
| 12:57 | <Philip`> | Looks like over 50% of reported bugs come from that tool |
| 12:57 | <MikeSmith> | but most of those are typically less controversial |
| 12:58 | <othermaciej> | of those 211 bugs, 183 were originated by contributor⊙wo |
| 12:59 | <othermaciej> | conclusion: if we stopped publishing the WHATWG copy of the spec, we'd get 90% less feedback in bugzilla |
| 12:59 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 12:59 | <othermaciej> | total filed since last august: 1463; total filed by contributor⊙wo: 1097 |
| 13:00 | <othermaciej> | ok, so only 75% |
| 13:00 | <MikeSmith> | still, the biggest factor, for sure |
| 13:00 | <MikeSmith> | but not the most interesting factor |
| 13:01 | <MikeSmith> | I think the life cycle of most of those contributor⊙wo bugs is relatively short |
| 13:01 | <othermaciej> | right now the life cycle of nearly all bugs is short |
| 13:01 | <MikeSmith> | some of them are just background noise |
| 13:02 | <othermaciej> | I don't have a problem with lots of incoming bugs as long as the rate of resolving them keeps up |
| 13:02 | <MikeSmith> | also, a non-insignificant percentage of those contributor⊙wo bugs are spam |
| 13:02 | <othermaciej> | I think lots of incoming bugs is a very postive sign |
| 13:02 | <othermaciej> | very few bugs get closed as INVALID each month, so the spam proportion is pretty low |
| 13:02 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 13:03 | <othermaciej> | I think there's people who wish the whatwg copy of the spec did not exist, and they may be seriously underestimating the degree to which it helps us get good technical feedback, even in the HTML WG |
| 13:04 | <othermaciej> | I did not expect before looking that so many of our bugs came from the comment form |
| 13:04 | <othermaciej> | I personally hate the comment form because it makes it too hard to track bugs I filed, but clearly it is a powerful tool for getting feedback |
| 13:05 | <MikeSmith> | as far as any increase of the non-contributor⊙wo bugs, I think a big part of the reason for that would be that we began to advertise bugzilla to the group as being an encouraged means for requesting spec changes |
| 13:05 | <Philip`> | If I couldn't use the comment form, I'd just send email instead (because that's easier for me than manually filing bugs) |
| 13:05 | <Philip`> | so it probably wouldn't have a significant effect on the amount of feedback I would send |
| 13:05 | <MikeSmith> | we should add a comment form to the W3C version |
| 13:06 | <MikeSmith> | too |
| 13:06 | <Philip`> | (I track bugs by appending "[pt]" to each one, so they're easy to find in a Bugzilla query) |
| 13:07 | <Philip`> | MikeSmith: Then you'd need to run a CGI script on the domains that the spec is hosted on (dev.w3.org and www.w3.org, I guess) |
| 13:07 | <Philip`> | Is that easy/possible? |
| 13:08 | <MikeSmith> | anything's possible |
| 13:08 | <MikeSmith> | but dev.w3.org is not set up for now, at least |
| 13:08 | <othermaciej> | let's see how bugzilla does by mass-marking 500 bugs |
| 13:08 | <MikeSmith> | Philip`: I think maybe www.w3.org is not either |
| 13:09 | <othermaciej> | Philip`: you'd probably send email to whatwg⊙wo, but in your case I imagine it would go to public-html instead of the whatwg list didn't exist |
| 13:14 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: non-comment-form bug rate did not go up until September, but it has been about 2.5 times the previous level |
| 13:20 | <MikeSmith> | I see |
| 13:23 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: did you intend to include issue 5758 in those you moved to resolved=verified? |
| 13:24 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: I just did a batch move on all bugs that were resolved before last October |
| 13:24 | <othermaciej> | it looks like that was one of them, so yes |
| 13:24 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 13:25 | <othermaciej> | looking at it now, it looks to me like it should me marked with TrackerIssue and associated with ISSUE-9 |
| 13:25 | <MikeSmith> | yeah |
| 13:25 | <othermaciej> | (but still VERIFIED) |
| 13:26 | <othermaciej> | or reopened - I'm not really sure what to do with a LATER resolution |
| 13:26 | <othermaciej> | I wish our bugzilla didn't have LATER or REMIND because they don't make sense |
| 13:26 | <othermaciej> | I just count them as rejections when I make the monthly bug stats |
| 13:28 | <MikeSmith> | 155 new bugmail messages in my inbox.. |
| 13:34 | <nessy> | 5758 should not be counted as a rejection, indeed |
| 13:35 | <nessy> | but alas, I don't think we really need an open bug to introduce media a11y - we all know it's required :) |
| 23:04 | <wycats> | who goes there? |
| 23:43 | <annevk> | geez, waddup with the bugmail spam? |
| 23:46 | <Dashiva> | Is it the sound of accessibility? |
| 23:46 | <Dashiva> | No, it's the sound of bugs being marked CLOSED, I guess |
| 23:52 | <annevk> | and they're gone from my inbox |
| 23:58 | <Dashiva> | Now we wait two weeks for 500 more emails from all those being marked NoReply |