| 00:03 | <TabAtkins> | zcorpan_: Looks like not. I was just trying to use your demo on Chrome, and it doesn't do anything for the arrow keys. |
| 00:06 | <zcorpan_> | TabAtkins: so that means canvas games don't work in safari/chrome? |
| 00:06 | <TabAtkins> | Presumably! |
| 00:06 | <zcorpan_> | awesome |
| 00:08 | <MikeSmith> | http://www.oipf.tv/docs/Release1/Release1_1/OIPF-T1-R1-Specification-Volume-5-Declarative-Application-Environment-V1_1-2009-10-08.pdf |
| 00:10 | <MikeSmith> | peruse the table of contents there |
| 00:11 | <TabAtkins> | zcorpan_: I'm hearing that we intentionally only support keyup and keydown, not keypress. |
| 00:11 | <TabAtkins> | And just confirmed that swapping to onkeydown works as expected. |
| 00:12 | <zcorpan_> | onkeydown doesn't seem to work in safari 5 |
| 00:13 | <TabAtkins> | ... |
| 00:13 | <TabAtkins> | Well, it works in Chrome5 at least. |
| 00:13 | <zcorpan_> | yep, got it working in chrome |
| 00:14 | <zcorpan_> | so why not keypress? |
| 00:14 | <zcorpan_> | ie compat thing? |
| 00:15 | <TabAtkins> | No clue. I'm asking right now, but via a fairly async method, so I won't find out for a bit. |
| 00:15 | <zcorpan_> | k |
| 00:15 | <zcorpan_> | i'll get some sleep meanwhile, but do share when you know more :) |
| 00:16 | <TabAtkins> | Will do. |
| 00:16 | <zcorpan_> | cheers |
| 00:33 | <TabAtkins> | zcorpan: Got some explanation. We try to do some union of IE and Gecko key events. For keypress specifically, we only fire for "character generating" keys (this matches IE). |
| 03:04 | <MikeSmith> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-audio/2010Jun/0010.html |
| 03:04 | <MikeSmith> | http://chromium.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/samples/audio/specification/specification.html |
| 03:04 | <MikeSmith> | demos: http://chromium.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/samples/audio/index.html |
| 03:05 | <MikeSmith> | joining the Audio Incubator Group would be a good way to get involved in discussion |
| 03:06 | <MikeSmith> | although I guess you can also just subscribe to the mailing list: |
| 03:06 | <MikeSmith> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-audio/ |
| 03:13 | <MikeSmith> | so the new HTML5 tokenizer in Webkit is 5% faster on benchmarks than the old HTML parser |
| 03:13 | <MikeSmith> | https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2010-June/013244.html |
| 03:15 | <MikeSmith> | and from other discussions in that thread, it seems the new code is much more amenable to further optimizations than the old everybodys-afraid-to-touch-for-fear-of-regressions code |
| 03:16 | <MikeSmith> | so that eventually there will be further optimizations that could make it quite significantly faster than the old code |
| 03:25 | <othermaciej> | that's the old tree builder with the new HTML5 tokenizer |
| 03:25 | <othermaciej> | I am sure there is plenty more optimization juice in there |
| 03:31 | <roc> | oiks |
| 03:35 | <roc> | that audio API is somewhat ... complex |
| 03:52 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: fwiw, I personally wish we could put a complete moratorium on use of the word "objection" |
| 03:52 | <MikeSmith> | especially when it's preceded by the word "formal" |
| 03:52 | <othermaciej> | heh :-) |
| 03:56 | <MikeSmith> | I think it could be argued that the use of the word "objection", instead of ensuring that something doesn't get overlooked, instead just causes many people to write it off as an attempt to fast-track a disagreement to becoming an Issue |
| 03:57 | <MikeSmith> | instead of a good-faith attempt to actual defend a position on basis of technical merit |
| 03:57 | <MikeSmith> | *actually defend |
| 04:00 | <MikeSmith> | I think I the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeonmaster's Guide actually puts a limit on how many times a player can invoke the W3C formal-objection magic |
| 04:01 | <MikeSmith> | a quota |
| 04:01 | <roc> | each formal objection ages you by five years |
| 04:02 | <MikeSmith> | I think for this case the rules also require that the DM can't reveal to the player what the quota limit is |
| 04:02 | <MikeSmith> | instead, when the player reaches the limit, a big fricking lightning bolt shoots down and obliterates them completely |
| 04:02 | <MikeSmith> | and game play moves on from there |
| 04:03 | <MikeSmith> | with the other players learning a lesson from that |
| 04:25 | <MikeSmith> | I wonder how long it takes to implement an HTML5 tree builder |
| 04:25 | <MikeSmith> | relative to implementing a tokenizer |
| 04:26 | <MikeSmith> | seems like it only took 3 weeks or so from Adam and Eric to land the new tokenizer code |
| 04:26 | <MikeSmith> | or I guess maybe they had gotten started well before I noticed |
| 04:32 | <MikeSmith> | "Why do you persist in this game?" |
| 04:32 | <MikeSmith> | a wonderful existential question |
| 05:02 | <MikeSmith> | well, this is interesting |
| 05:02 | <MikeSmith> | I found a picture of the guy who's responsible for "scheduled maintenance" at Twitter |
| 05:03 | <MikeSmith> | http://a.gd/bad5df |
| 05:03 | <miketaylr> | :D |
| 05:03 | <MikeSmith> | guy looks of familiar |
| 05:04 | <MikeSmith> | *kind of |
| 05:05 | <MikeSmith> | perhaps that mobile handset he's sporting is symbolic of the cutting-edge nature of the technology they're using on the backend |
| 05:06 | <MikeSmith> | I asked somebody at Twitter why they hai |
| 05:06 | <MikeSmith> | I asked somebody at Twitter why they hired that guy |
| 05:06 | <MikeSmith> | and they said, "He interviewed well." |
| 05:06 | <MikeSmith> | not sure what they meant |
| 05:08 | <MikeSmith> | but I somehow get a sense that dude would be pretty good at putting forward a "formal objection" or two |
| 05:08 | <MikeSmith> | were he involved in standards discussions |
| 05:10 | <MikeSmith> | anyway, dunno why I brought this up |
| 05:10 | <MikeSmith> | or why I persist in it |
| 05:10 | <MikeSmith> | to paraphrase another great thinker: |
| 05:10 | <MikeSmith> | "To persist or not to persist... That is the question." |
| 05:11 | <othermaciej> | MikeSmith: I think they seriously have been working on it only a few weeks - they are both very fast programmers |
| 05:14 | <MikeSmith> | othermaciej: great to hear, then |
| 05:14 | <MikeSmith> | so I reckon they can make similar rapid progress on the tree builder |
| 05:15 | <MikeSmith> | nice to have stuff to look forward to, though |
| 05:15 | <MikeSmith> | it's going to be kind of less motivating once everything gets implemented |
| 05:15 | <MikeSmith> | as far as HTML5 |
| 05:16 | <MikeSmith> | but I guess we will have other new stuff coming along by then |
| 05:16 | <Hixie> | HTML5 is old hat |
| 05:16 | <Hixie> | already |
| 05:16 | <Hixie> | e.g. <device> |
| 05:17 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, at least we don't have worry about anybody implementing that for a while ;) |
| 05:18 | MikeSmith | heads off to lunch |
| 06:58 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: the HTML5 parser in Gecko is also significantly faster than the old parser. However, the HTML parser is a tiny part of the total pageload time, so making the tiny part smaller doesn't make a big difference to the overall perf |
| 07:00 | <hsivonen> | (and there's still room for perf improvements in the tokenizer in Gecko) |
| 07:04 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: yeah, I knew it didn't make any big difference in total pageload times |
| 07:05 | <MikeSmith> | just that part of the sentiment expressed in the discussion on the webkit-dev list was that it at least should not be any slower than the older parser |
| 07:06 | <hsivonen> | Yeah, it would be surprising if a fresh implementation of the spec were slower than an implementation that evolved over time |
| 08:23 | <annevk> | "100% of Task Force members voting on this recommendation via WBS voted to support it." ... that it's only a little over 20% of the Task Force doesn't seem to matter |
| 08:24 | <annevk> | What I mostly don't get though is this caret proposal. Do they still consider Bespin a valid example for <canvas> usage? |
| 08:38 | <Slaanesh> | http://twitter.com/fantasai/status/16181517781 :) |
| 08:39 | <annevk> | Seems the CSS WG is getting even better at not defining CSS... :/ |
| 08:54 | <Slaanesh> | The minutes from the 2008 GeoPriv BOF shouldn't be surprising to me at this point, but I'm still surprised how people don't understand users |
| 09:19 | <annevk> | fwiw, CORS now has http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/#http-access-control-expose-headers |
| 09:20 | <annevk> | I think the only thing that is stopping it from moving on is some coherent explanation of how you should not run untrusted script in your own origin and then let it talk cross-origin |
| 09:26 | <MikeSmith> | cool |
| 09:27 | <MikeSmith> | the CORS adventure has been quite an odyssey |
| 09:28 | <MikeSmith> | epic poems could be written about it |
| 09:29 | <annevk> | a meeting was had / a proposal was made / done it seemed / but three more years await |
| 09:29 | <annevk> | now the rest of it... |
| 09:29 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 09:29 | <MikeSmith> | brilliant |
| 09:30 | <MikeSmith> | take a break from spec writing and focus on the poetry for a while |
| 09:30 | <MikeSmith> | you may be on to something |
| 09:30 | <nessy1> | I hope the media fragment journey won't be such an odyssey |
| 09:30 | <MikeSmith> | tragic comedy |
| 09:31 | <MikeSmith> | is the main form of narrative we often seem to find ourselves in |
| 09:31 | <MikeSmith> | as far as work on technology standards |
| 09:31 | <jgraham> | Yeah, and I was told it would be erotic fiction |
| 09:32 | <jgraham> | Imagine my disappointment |
| 09:32 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 09:32 | <nessy1> | lol |
| 09:33 | annevk | is somewhat tempted to point out to Roy: "Didn't he just do that?" |
| 09:34 | <jgraham> | No point in getting in pissing matches with trolls |
| 09:34 | <annevk> | yeah, deleted the email |
| 09:34 | <annevk> | it's the thought that counts, I guess :p |
| 09:36 | <MikeSmith> | I sometimes find myself wanting to just put a plague on both the houses |
| 09:37 | <jgraham> | MikeSmith: Isn't that just your general God complex playing up again? |
| 09:38 | <MikeSmith> | there's clearly no god in this universe |
| 09:38 | <MikeSmith> | only a demiurge |
| 09:38 | <MikeSmith> | and I was thinking more in terms of what happened to Mercutio |
| 09:38 | <jgraham> | In any case I think a plauge of hotly-worded-emails is the modern day equivalent of frogs, at least |
| 09:39 | <annevk> | http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=44977&public=1 -- pretty much all W3C old-timers |
| 09:39 | <MikeSmith> | hotly worded e-mails are like the nurse in the play |
| 09:39 | <MikeSmith> | comic relief |
| 09:40 | jgraham | doesn't remember what happened to Mercutio, apart from the fact that he ended up dead |
| 09:40 | <MikeSmith> | or like Quentin Compson |
| 09:41 | <MikeSmith> | er, I mean Benji |
| 09:41 | <jgraham> | I saw them as more like the priest. Well intentioned, but ultimatley responsible for the tragedy |
| 09:42 | <MikeSmith> | or make that Benjy |
| 09:42 | <MikeSmith> | not the dog |
| 09:42 | <MikeSmith> | although if the story were told by a dog that would be maybe even be better |
| 09:45 | <MikeSmith> | hsivonen: when you're back around, I wanted to ask about how to proceed with that MathML update for v.nu |
| 09:46 | <MikeSmith> | based on my understanding from the offlist discussion, I have http://qa-dev.w3.org:8888/ confoir |
| 09:46 | <MikeSmith> | *configured to only allow HTML markup in <mtext> |
| 09:46 | <MikeSmith> | for now at least |
| 09:47 | <MikeSmith> | unless/until whatever ends up being added to the HTML5 spec says otherwiser |
| 09:47 | <annevk> | MathML needs to be updated for this, not HTML5, I think |
| 09:47 | <Slaanesh> | So now Roy is claiming that thousands of CMSes use Content-Language? |
| 09:48 | <jgraham> | Hixie: yt? |
| 09:48 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: I have had some offlist discussion about that, and it was pointed out to me that the MathML3 spec says this: "The draft HTML5 Recommendation, [HTML5], contains details for how MathML is included in HTML5 (and XHTML5)." |
| 09:49 | <MikeSmith> | http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/chapter6.html#interf.html |
| 09:49 | <jgraham> | Hixie: never mind |
| 09:50 | <MikeSmith> | btw, everybody, MathML3 is back at LC, with a deadline for comments of July 1 |
| 09:50 | <annevk> | MikeSmith, but not how HTML5 is included in MathML |
| 09:50 | <annevk> | (which is what the question is here) |
| 09:50 | <annevk> | Slaanesh, according to Roy browsers are hardly relevant |
| 09:51 | <Slaanesh> | I know that, but previously it's been vague suggestions that some unspecified CMS uses it |
| 09:51 | <Slaanesh> | Thousands is quite a step up |
| 09:52 | <Slaanesh> | I imagine you need a really loose definition of CMS for there to exist thousands of them |
| 09:52 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: true. perhaps I need to make an LC comment to ask for text to be amended to the that: "And how HTML content in included in MathML content within HTML documents." |
| 09:52 | <jgraham> | IS it actually only possible to change the selection in an element that has focus? |
| 09:53 | <Slaanesh> | jgraham: What if the element doesn't take focus? |
| 09:53 | <jgraham> | Slaanesh: My reason for asking is that http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2010AprJun/att-0054/2dcontext10-June-7.html#focus-management has setCaretSelectionRect which assumes the element with a selection is also focused |
| 09:54 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: I do now notice that sentence, "In the lax schema profile, elements from non-MathML namespaces are allowed in token elements, but not in other elements." |
| 09:56 | <jgraham> | Oh wait, maybe the "or is not a document descendant of the element with whose context the method is associated" applies |
| 09:56 | <jgraham> | yeah |
| 09:58 | <jgraham> | Argh. Logic fail |
| 09:59 | <Slaanesh> | Hum |
| 10:00 | <annevk> | MikeSmith, hmm yeah, though note that if browsers are to follow the HTML5 rules it will also work in "MathML documents" |
| 10:00 | <annevk> | there's no real distinction between those things in code |
| 10:00 | <Slaanesh> | I'm not quite sure I understand the problem, but e.g. text can be selected and won't trigger focus events (but it does blur the previous focus owner, if any) |
| 10:01 | <annevk> | Slaanesh, that can happen |
| 10:01 | <jgraham> | Slaanesh: If I do "select all" does that necessarily have to focus the control where the text is being selected? |
| 10:01 | <annevk> | Slaanesh, well actually, the document would have focus in that case so something is triggered (iirc) |
| 10:01 | <jgraham> | (assuming I am implementing with DOM) |
| 10:02 | <jgraham> | s/do/implement/ |
| 10:04 | <Slaanesh> | Besides, once you involve script they're definitely not connected, e.g. having a 'select text' button in the app UI |
| 10:04 | <jgraham> | Yes, exactly |
| 10:04 | <jgraham> | Nice example |
| 10:04 | <MikeSmith> | hmm, anybody been following work on this doc? - http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-proc-profiles/ |
| 10:05 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan_ maybe? |
| 10:05 | <MikeSmith> | see https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2010-June/013250.html |
| 10:06 | <MikeSmith> | [[ |
| 10:06 | <MikeSmith> | Basically, the profile would be much like what is described as the |
| 10:06 | <MikeSmith> | "minimum XML processor profile" except that reading the external |
| 10:06 | <MikeSmith> | subset would not be required. |
| 10:06 | <MikeSmith> | ]] |
| 10:06 | <MikeSmith> | indeed |
| 10:07 | <MikeSmith> | on the face of it, it seems odd that the minimal profile would require reading external markup declarations |
| 10:08 | <MikeSmith> | hmm, there is actually also a "minimum XML processor profile" that's meant to be simpler than the "basic XML processor profile" |
| 10:09 | <MikeSmith> | but it still requires support for reading external markup declarations |
| 10:09 | <annevk> | really? |
| 10:09 | <annevk> | silly |
| 10:10 | <MikeSmith> | as far as I can see, those are the only profiles it permits |
| 10:10 | <MikeSmith> | so browsers currently can't conform to this spec at all |
| 10:11 | <zcorpan_> | MikeSmith: i haven't seen that |
| 10:11 | <MikeSmith> | OK |
| 10:11 | <MikeSmith> | well, seems like it would be worthwhile to comment on it |
| 10:11 | <MikeSmith> | comments to public-xml-processing-model-comments⊙wo |
| 10:12 | <zcorpan_> | can't find any mention of it in my public-xml-core-wg inbox |
| 10:12 | <MikeSmith> | I guess maybe Alex Milowski is in that group |
| 10:12 | <MikeSmith> | zcorpan_: because it's a different group |
| 10:12 | <MikeSmith> | http://www.w3.org/XML/Processing/ |
| 10:13 | <MikeSmith> | not XML Core |
| 10:18 | <Lachy> | "I don't think the text should even appear in the HTML standard until it has been implemented with some consistency" -- Roy T. Fielding |
| 10:18 | <Lachy> | haha. How does he expect implementation to occur without a spec? |
| 10:19 | <zcorpan_> | it's certainly possible to implement something without a spec |
| 10:19 | <zcorpan_> | even with some consistency |
| 10:20 | <annevk> | if the spec is a mental image? |
| 10:20 | <Lachy> | well, yes, but it requires reverse engineering |
| 10:20 | <zcorpan_> | Lachy: yes. maybe that's what roy is advocating? |
| 10:32 | <annevk> | guess he missed the part of history where we were doing exactly that and felt miserable |
| 10:53 | <annevk> | oh god |
| 10:53 | <annevk> | confusion all over |
| 10:53 | <annevk> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-math/2010Jun/0069.html (W3C Member-only #$@) |
| 10:53 | <annevk> | not that it matters |
| 10:55 | <annevk> | http://www.w3.org/2010/06/09-xhtml-minutes.html -- 'sad news, steven VITAL (Visionary Technology in Library Solutions) is scrapping plans for integrating xforms so as to be "compatible" with HTML5' 'still trying to talk them into using XHTML M12n' |
| 10:57 | <jgraham> | The W3C should admonish people that post things to private lists that have no sensitive information in them |
| 10:57 | <annevk> | interesting news about XHTML M12n "please advocate amongst W3C members to vote and sign up for it -- need at least 10 votes in favor" |
| 10:59 | <annevk> | and WebApps has a new charter: http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/ |
| 11:00 | <annevk> | there are some interesting details attached to it, but alas, all W3C Member-only #$@ |
| 11:02 | <roc> | I wonder if I should bother digging out my password |
| 11:03 | <annevk> | roc, for WebApps WG you might want to, unless you're a member of the group, in which case you should gave gotten an email |
| 11:03 | <roc> | hmm |
| 11:03 | <roc> | is the charter public? |
| 11:04 | <annevk> | yes, should be |
| 11:04 | <annevk> | http://www.w3.org/2010/webapps/charter/,access says it is anyway |
| 11:04 | <annevk> | but considerations in drafting the charter are private |
| 11:06 | <annevk> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2010AprJun/0022.html which forwards http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2010AprJun/0056.html (both W3C Member-only) has the details |
| 11:06 | <roc> | interesting |
| 11:06 | <roc> | thanks |
| 11:07 | <roc> | ooh, we should have helped to try to get Widgets kicked out |
| 11:07 | <roc> | oh well |
| 11:07 | <roc> | grr |
| 11:08 | <roc> | man, this stuff needs to be in the open |
| 11:09 | <roc> | it's not fair to have people secretly blocking stuff |
| 11:09 | <annevk> | uhuh |
| 11:09 | <roc> | thanks |
| 11:21 | <hsivonen> | is there a back story to go along with http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=44977&public=1 ? |
| 11:31 | <karlcow> | hsivonen: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Newstd |
| 11:31 | <karlcow> | http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/ij-newstd-201005/#%281%29 |
| 11:31 | <karlcow> | http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Main_Page |
| 12:15 | jgraham | wonders if the usemap thing conflicts with the drawFocusRing changes |
| 12:27 | <hsivonen> | was the new vision group open to charter review at some point? |
| 12:28 | <annevk> | it's a special Task Force so I guess not |
| 12:28 | <hsivonen> | I see |
| 12:28 | <annevk> | I'm guessing it came out of the W3C getting a new CEO or some such |
| 12:29 | <annevk> | it's somewhat announced here: http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/06/the_mission_of_w3c.html |
| 12:29 | <annevk> | but not in a very concrete way |
| 12:29 | <annevk> | "we are building teams that will look at each of these topics" |
| 12:31 | <hsivonen> | I guess "Make W3C the best place for new standards work." semi-implies that it isn't already, which may not be an entirely wrong implication |
| 12:32 | <annevk> | right, but then putting mostly W3C old-timers in the "vision" Task Force does not give much hope for change |
| 12:33 | <hsivonen> | I find it interesting that Andy Updegrove is in the task force |
| 12:48 | <hsivonen> | I think the placement of "Impl." in http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/ij-newstd-201005/#%288%29 doesn't reflect reality |
| 12:50 | <jgraham> | No, the problem with reality is that it doesn't make for convenient slides or slogans |
| 12:52 | <annevk> | yes, lets blame reality |
| 12:55 | <annevk> | hmm |
| 12:56 | <annevk> | maybe XHR can be moved to CR if the WebApps WG can make a decision to that effect |
| 12:57 | <annevk> | it would also mean people would have to agree with the decisions made so far, but given the lack of email so far I guess that will go okay (or not) |
| 12:58 | <jgraham> | I'm not blaming reality; I'm pointing out that complex things are often poorly understood because they are hard to communicate so people communicate simple fantasies instead |
| 13:03 | <zcorpan_> | Hixie: "Let origin be the ASCII serialization of the origin of the script that invoked the WebSocket() constructor, converted to ASCII lowercase." - was the 'of the script' part deliberate? |
| 13:13 | <annevk> | zcorpan_, I think so |
| 13:13 | <annevk> | zcorpan_, XMLHttpRequest does it differently |
| 13:14 | <annevk> | zcorpan_, but it matters in e.g. an iframe scenario where the iframes are of different domains but can communicate to document.domain |
| 13:15 | <zcorpan_> | why does it matter? if they can talk to each other, there's no security reason to get the origin from the script instead of from the constructor |
| 13:17 | <annevk> | what do you mean "from the constructor"? |
| 13:17 | <annevk> | like XMLHttpRequest does it? |
| 13:17 | <annevk> | iirc XMLHttpRequest is quite exceptional |
| 13:18 | <zcorpan_> | i mean from the window object of the constructor |
| 13:19 | <annevk> | it's not that simple, you can copy the interface object |
| 13:19 | <zcorpan_> | how? |
| 13:20 | <annevk> | win.X2 = win2.XMLHttpRequest; x = new X2; |
| 13:21 | <zcorpan_> | that's not a copy though, just a reference. it's the same object |
| 13:21 | <zcorpan_> | does that change which origin is used? |
| 13:21 | <annevk> | no |
| 13:22 | <jgraham> | Running eval in the context of othre windows is "fun" |
| 13:22 | <jgraham> | *other |
| 13:22 | <karlushi> | hsivonen, annevk, any suggestions are super welcome for the task force. |
| 13:22 | <annevk> | the other thing in case of XHR is that the base URL is also based on the original document |
| 13:23 | <annevk> | unless you use XHR in the context of workers |
| 13:23 | <karlushi> | I can also step down if you think it will be better for it. I can only explain my goals joining it under invitation. |
| 13:23 | <annevk> | karlushi, no worries :) |
| 13:23 | <zcorpan_> | annevk: ok, but let's ignore baseurl since websockets doesn't have it |
| 13:23 | <annevk> | I'd focus on seeing how the process can be changed to meet reality |
| 13:24 | <annevk> | i.e. implementations happen before CR (before REC even, see also patent policy) |
| 13:25 | <karlushi> | My goals are to push w3c toward a more flexible way of working. It's a bit hard right now for one to spontaneously start things at w3c. I have no idea if it will happen but at least there is a door open and a welcoming hand. So let's try. |
| 13:25 | <annevk> | zcorpan_, most other contexts like window.location and such come to the base URL by using the "first script" (or whatever we call it now) |
| 13:25 | <annevk> | zcorpan_, so it would make sense to also get the origin there |
| 13:25 | <annevk> | zcorpan_, rather than the different way XMLHttpRequest goes about things |
| 13:25 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: in addition to the point annevk made, a major bug I see in the Process, and a bug that is actively harming HTML5, is the way dissent is handled |
| 13:26 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: specifically, "can live with" and "weakest objections" are ways to get a race to the bottom in terms of technical excellence if non-implementors start objecting a lot |
| 13:28 | <karlushi> | hsivonen, here you express the issue. What process implementation, do you propose? |
| 13:29 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: that WG decisions should be technically the best that implementors agree to implement even if the decisions draws loud objections |
| 13:30 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: that is, framing decisions in terms of technical merit instead of framing them in terms of least objection |
| 13:33 | <karlushi> | hsivonen, hmm it doesn't seem testable either. "should", "technical merit", "agree to implement" push a bit further the issue. |
| 13:33 | <karlushi> | Would it help if a controversial issue was raised to have test cases, and implemented code to finally make the balance (according to different class of products)? |
| 13:33 | <karlushi> | s/was raised/when raised/ |
| 13:34 | <jgraham> | I'm not convinced test cases help the class of problems we have had in the HTMLWG |
| 13:34 | <jgraham> | Except insofar as they can be used to demonstrate claims about existing behaviour |
| 13:35 | <karlushi> | jgraham, maybe that would be a good starting point. Taking the type of issues we had and see how practically we could solve them in a testable way. If possible. |
| 13:35 | <karlushi> | test cases are half part of the story. Implemented code is necessary too. |
| 13:36 | <jgraham> | For some issues (X would be better as a seperate document) it's hard to see what type of testcases you could even write |
| 13:36 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: like jgraham says, test cases only help establishing what the current state of implementation is |
| 13:37 | <jgraham> | (because the experiment you want to do is to have X in/out of the main document and see if the implementations are of higher quality in the long term, but you can't do that) |
| 13:37 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: basically, stuff like "remove X", "split out Y", "make a non-normative reference to Z" should not be taking a group's time |
| 13:37 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: and proposals to change technical substance should be decided on technical merit--not on who threates to complain the most |
| 13:38 | <karlushi> | jgraham, splitting out spec is an entire different issue which might be handled at the start and has nothing to do with technical merit that was the initial point of starting the discussion :) |
| 13:39 | <karlushi> | * technical merit of a feature |
| 13:39 | <karlushi> | * specs organization |
| 13:40 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: that could be partially solved by letting a participant make non-technical proposals (like splitting the spec) only after the participant has a track record of also contributing technically |
| 13:40 | <hsivonen> | (by sending in good review comments, implementing the spec, writing test cases, etc.) |
| 13:41 | <karlushi> | hsivonen, stackoverflow model. Good participants get more ways of participating. Getting credentials in a community. Could be interesting indeed. |
| 13:42 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: the basic problem is that working groups need to be open so that new people who contribute positively can come in |
| 13:42 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: but |
| 13:43 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: not so open that anyone can come in and start process trolling the group |
| 13:44 | <karlushi> | hsivonen, basically you are proposing: open read access, and progressive write access with positive contributions. Worth trying, would have to be modelled a bit to understand the possible issues. |
| 13:45 | <jgraham> | karlushi: It does have technical ramifications if it makes implementing harder, or affects the accuracy of the spec (because split documents diverge, for example) |
| 13:45 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: yes. also, an important point: one should be able to suggest technical "write" things right away but shouldn't feel an entitlement of getting one's suggestions accepted right away |
| 13:47 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: in fact, a strong sense of entitlement is part of the problem |
| 13:47 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: when I got involved, I didn't get paid to work on a browser |
| 13:48 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: I made suggestions, but I didn't have a grandiose feeling of entitlement |
| 13:48 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: that is, I didn't think the WHATWG were required to do things my way |
| 13:50 | zcorpan_ | has the same experience as hsivonen |
| 13:51 | <karlushi> | hsivonen, yep difficult issue. Even in free community (not paid and nothing to pay), I have seen people asking for things like if we were forced to do it. (example validators when the source code was available.) |
| 13:51 | <karlushi> | But I'm not sure this issue can be solved. |
| 13:52 | <karlushi> | I guess it is the "moral" stance of each individuals which drives them. Some people are respectful. Some less. :/ very hard issue. |
| 13:54 | karlushi | will point out Ian to this discussion and pushes further. Back to my daily work. Thanks hsivonen and jgraham |
| 13:54 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: thanks |
| 13:55 | <hsivonen> | karlushi: and one solution is that chairs tell people who walk in with a strong sense of entitlement that they need to adjust their attitude |
| 14:02 | <Slaanesh> | The "Public Accountability part of process" bullet point makes me wonder if that only applies to decision and not to rationale and discussion on private lists |
| 14:14 | Marcosc | notes roc "ooh, we should have helped to try to get Widgets kicked out", why would you do that? |
| 14:16 | <Marcosc> | yeah, I thought so... |
| 14:25 | <Slaanesh> | "For instance, it seems there may be resistance to finalizing CSS 2.1 out of concern it will not be maintained once a Rec." |
| 14:25 | <Slaanesh> | What is this about? |
| 14:30 | <hsivonen> | Slaanesh: where's the quote from? |
| 14:31 | <Slaanesh> | From the wiki page about the new vision thing |
| 14:35 | <MikeSmith> | somebody should please create a "Web platform" article at Wikipedia |
| 14:35 | <zcorpan_> | MikeSmith: just rename the "HTML5" article |
| 14:35 | <MikeSmith> | heh |
| 14:35 | <MikeSmith> | well, I was thinking something more along the lines of what hober has written up at http://edward.oconnor.cx/2009/05/what-the-web-platform-is |
| 14:38 | <MikeSmith> | and what hsivonen diagrammed at http://hsivonen.iki.fi/web-stack/ |
| 14:39 | <karlushi> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web |
| 14:39 | <karlushi> | maybe starts with a section here. |
| 14:40 | <MikeSmith> | yeah, that'd be one way to do it |
| 14:41 | <annevk> | seems there would be conflict of interest |
| 14:42 | <MikeSmith> | well, there would be if I were to do it at least |
| 14:43 | <MikeSmith> | annevk: or maybe I misunderstand what you meant |
| 14:43 | <annevk> | nope :) |
| 14:44 | <hsivonen> | annevk: the problem with wikipedia rules is that if you actually know a lot about a topic, you've probably crossed the conflict of interest line |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | no suggestion there |
| 14:50 | <Slaanesh> | hsivonen: You're also likely to run into the whole "need third party sources, preferably paper ones" issue :) |
| 14:51 | <hsivonen> | Slaanesh: my other writing is already authoritative enough to be cited on wikipedia, so it's worth trying to use my writing as a source for more :-) |
| 15:09 | <Lachy> | So it turns out that the iPhone 4 will be available unlocked in the UK, and will work on carriers worldwide. :-) |
| 15:10 | <Lachy> | I'm considering getting one. Though I want to evaluate some other alternatives before I commit. |
| 15:10 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: don't you want a phone that runs Opera Mobile 10.x? |
| 15:15 | <annevk> | so I finally got time to look into CSSOM again |
| 15:16 | <annevk> | the way getComputedStyle works in Gecko is indeed as Boris described (unsurprisingly) |
| 15:17 | <annevk> | it takes the style rules of the document of the window on which it is invoked and then applies those to the tree/fragment the element is from (irrespective of whether it is in fact the same document or not) and gives you an object with answerss |
| 15:17 | <Lachy> | hsivonen, I will look at the available Android phones first |
| 15:17 | <annevk> | whenever something changes that would affect the computations the object is updated |
| 15:18 | <Lachy> | I believe there are some android phones on the market with Opera 10 on them. I'm not sure which though |
| 15:18 | <hsivonen> | annevk: what do other browsers do if the owner doc and the window don't match? |
| 15:18 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: is Opera Mobile available for Android as a self-install download? |
| 15:18 | <annevk> | usually assume there are no style rules |
| 15:18 | <annevk> | but apparently developers like what Gecko does |
| 15:19 | <annevk> | some of them anyway |
| 15:19 | <annevk> | and I'm happy either way |
| 15:20 | <annevk> | I wanna discuss it with Rune who is mainly responsible for layout in Opera, but I doubt he feels strongly either way |
| 15:22 | <Lachy> | hsivonen, I don't know. |
| 15:22 | <Lachy> | I can find out |
| 15:24 | <Lachy> | hsivonen, gsnedders tells me that it's only avaialble on Android phones that are shipped with it pre-installed. |
| 15:24 | <Lachy> | I believe Mini is available though |
| 15:25 | <gsnedders> | Mini in beta |
| 15:35 | <Lachy> | hsivonen, apparently there aren't any android devices with Mobile either. Only mini. |
| 16:04 | <annevk> | hmm, does that new speech input proposal lack a link or is it just me? |
| 16:04 | <annevk> | or is the link in the old proposal email? |
| 17:47 | <TabAtkins> | I... have no idea what that vision document is going on about re: css 2.1. If anyone is resisting finalizing 2.1, it's certainly news to me, and I expect to the rest of the CSSWG. |
| 17:51 | <TabAtkins> | annevk: That status from fantasai was a joke. ^_^ |
| 17:58 | <hsivonen> | I hadn't realized tere was an ISSUE about the title of the ARIA section |
| 17:59 | <TabAtkins> | Ffs, really? |
| 17:59 | <hsivonen> | having the bikesheds as ISSUEs is kinda sad |
| 17:59 | TabAtkins | really isn't sure of proper policy in starting a sentence with an acronym that would be written lowercase... |
| 17:59 | <TabAtkins> | It's all about entitlement. Sigh. |
| 18:00 | <hsivonen> | TabAtkins: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/109 |
| 18:02 | <TabAtkins> | Double sigh. |
| 18:02 | <TabAtkins> | What's the w3c process for "this is frivolous bullshit, and no one cares"? |
| 18:02 | <AryehGregor> | I think W3C process isn't relevant, only HTMLWG process? |
| 18:03 | <TabAtkins> | Either one. |
| 18:03 | <AryehGregor> | Process in some WGs would be to say "shut up", or have a quick vote. Process in the HTMLWG appears to be the usual Decision Policy. |
| 18:07 | <hsivonen> | AryehGregor: "usual"? did you meand *un*usual? |
| 18:07 | <hsivonen> | s/d// |
| 18:08 | <AryehGregor> | Usual as in the same policy used to handle all other complaints in the HTMLWG, i.e., no difference between frivolous and non-frivolous. |
| 18:09 | <hsivonen> | now I feel like writing a counter-proposal to the ASCII ref ISSUE |
| 20:04 | <TabAtkins> | Hixie: Is there anything in particular preventing the WHATWG from adopting a similar patent policy to the W3C? |
| 20:12 | <othermaciej> | TabAtkins: it's definitely possible, but since there is no real concept of joining the WHATWG (you just subscribe to the list), so you couldn't require people or organizations to agree to it to join |
| 20:13 | <othermaciej> | I think it would be good for WHATWG to have a patent policy |
| 20:13 | <karlushi> | TabAtkins, you need a backup [money] when shit hits the fan. It can be super costly. |
| 20:15 | <AryehGregor> | othermaciej, you could require the employers of Steering Committee members to agree to it. And ask other parties nicely if they'd like to, I guess. |
| 20:17 | <othermaciej> | AryehGregor: that's certainly one option - though that would be a smaller set of IPR commitments than the HTML WG has |
| 20:17 | <AryehGregor> | Yes, I think considerably smaller. |
| 20:17 | <AryehGregor> | Adobe and Microsoft come to mind. |
| 20:17 | <othermaciej> | IBM also has a large patent portfolio |
| 20:17 | <AryehGregor> | Right. |
| 20:18 | <othermaciej> | besides large corporation patent portfolios, there is also the theoretical vulnerability of a patent troll deliberately proposing a feature on which they have a submarine patent |
| 20:19 | <othermaciej> | but the W3C process is vulnerable to that too, if the patent troll simply fails to join the WG |
| 20:19 | <AryehGregor> | That could happen just as well in the HTMLWG. Right. |
| 20:19 | <othermaciej> | so the main advantage is getting patent commitments from some of the relevant industry players |
| 20:19 | <Lachy> | getting all the lawyers and management from so many companies to agree to a whatwg patent policy would be a nightmare to deal with. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be as simple as just reusing the W3C patent policy either |
| 20:30 | <othermaciej> | I suspect you could get the three copyright holders plus google to agree, but someone would have to do the work |
| 20:30 | <othermaciej> | unfortunately, you probably have to be a lawyer to do anything useful on that front |
| 20:31 | <AryehGregor> | Are any HTMLWG members likely to sue anyone else for implementing an open standard anyway? |
| 20:31 | <AryehGregor> | I suppose so, if it came to it. |
| 20:32 | AryehGregor | reads the W3C patent policy |
| 20:32 | <AryehGregor> | s/reads/skims/ |
| 20:33 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, I'm sure that you could get at least that much commitment. Hopefully one could get MS to agree too. |
| 20:35 | <AryehGregor> | Okay, so does this policy only require licensing when the spec hits REC, or before that too? I'm not clear on that point. |
| 20:35 | <AryehGregor> | Also, what if a party holds a patent they didn't disclose? Is it auto-licensed? |
| 20:37 | <TabAtkins> | I *think* so, yes. You disclose a patent specifically so you *don't* want to license it. |
| 21:38 | <TabAtkins> | My hobby: annoying my wife with strange unicode smilies. |
| 21:41 | <othermaciej> | AryehGregor: the W3C Patent Policy is a little convoluted, but here is basically how it works: |
| 21:42 | <othermaciej> | (1) For any First Public Working Draft or Last Call Working Draft, there is a call for exclusion, which is an opportunity for WG Members to list specific patents or patent claims for which they will *not* agree to grant royalty-free licenses. Anything not excluded is assumed to be licensed. |
| 21:43 | <othermaciej> | (2) Technically, the license does not actually go into effect until the spec hits REC, but you do have to license anything you didn't exclude by LC. That's part of why specs have to go back to Working Draft if they have substantial changes made in CR - those changes could possibly entrain new IP. |
| 21:43 | <othermaciej> | (3) You can put certain limits on the RF license, such as basing it on the other party cross-licensing any essential claims they have on the spec. |
| 21:44 | <othermaciej> | You can read the whole thing if you want the gory details. |
| 21:44 | <AryehGregor> | So if someone actually wanted to sue someone over HTML5, they could do so anyway until 2022 or whatever. |
| 21:44 | <AryehGregor> | By which point most possible patents will probably be expired anyway. |
| 21:45 | <AryehGregor> | (since HTML5 qualifies as prior art for any essential claims, I'd think) |
| 21:46 | <jgraham> | Sigh, WebIDl is officially without an editor |
| 21:48 | <AryehGregor> | And people in the HTMLWG want to get rid of their existing highly active editor. :) |
| 21:48 | TabAtkins | is very, very glad he started binning HTMLWG when he did... |
| 21:49 | AryehGregor | is mildly interested to see what happens. |
| 21:49 | <TabAtkins> | I'll let you track it and summarize for me later. |
| 21:51 | <AryehGregor> | In short, Ian complained in rather undiplomatic terms about the chairs' decision-making, and various arguments ensued, with some flames directed in various directions from the people you'd expect, and calls to remove Hixie from the people you'd expect. Still ongoing. |
| 21:51 | <jgraham> | Yeah, the WebIDL thing is a real pain because WebIDL is a really important spec and it blocks other specs |
| 21:51 | <jgraham> | And of course almost no one is qualified to actually edit it |
| 21:51 | <TabAtkins> | Fun. |
| 21:52 | <othermaciej> | TabAtkins: I did reply to one of your direct questions, you may want to consider reading that post (though there were some flames in the follow-up) |
| 21:53 | <TabAtkins> | othermaciej: I'll go find it. My HTMLWG email is just getting auto-read-and-archived. |
| 21:58 | <daedb> | The spec for ASCII actually costs money? :O |
| 21:58 | <TabAtkins> | Yup. |
| 21:58 | <AryehGregor> | There's actually a spec for ASCII? |
| 21:59 | <AryehGregor> | Does it need one? |
| 21:59 | <daedb> | Apparently |
| 21:59 | <AryehGregor> | Can't you just read the Wikipedia article for the bits you haven't bothered to memorize? |
| 21:59 | <AryehGregor> | Do other W3C specs reference anything for ASCII? |
| 21:59 | <TabAtkins> | othermaciej: What's the title of the thread you responded to me in? |
| 22:00 | <TabAtkins> | Oh, I see, it's a top-level thread. |
| 22:00 | <TabAtkins> | nm |
| 22:02 | <AryehGregor> | TabAtkins, you should have it go to your inbox if it contains your name. |
| 22:03 | AryehGregor | has some Wikimedia lists set like that, so he only gets the stuff that contains his name or the name of other interesting people |
| 22:03 | <TabAtkins> | AryehGregor: Shrug, I can depend on it getting mentioned to me at some point if I don't respond directly. |
| 22:06 | <TabAtkins> | In other words, I'm willing to put the cost on the HTMLWG participants to make sure I get relevant email, because I'm purposely not caring about that list at the moment. |
| 22:23 | <jgraham> | hsivonen: I don't really see why .pdf.zip is not considered acceptable |
| 22:27 | <Lachy> | for a spec that no-one actually needs to read, the inconvenience of a zipped PDF seems negligible |
| 22:28 | <Lachy> | but the fact that there are other non-zipped alternatives available, it's preferable to go with those anyway |
| 22:30 | <jgraham> | Well sure |
| 22:31 | <jgraham> | But I wouldn't exclude something just because it was zipped |
| 22:31 | <jgraham> | If it was the actual useful reference |
| 22:37 | <TabAtkins> | othermaciej: Sorry for my email. :\ |
| 22:39 | <TabAtkins> | Urgh, HTMLWG stresses me out. |
| 22:42 | <gsnedders> | Do asteroids have to come from within the solar-system? |
| 22:42 | <TabAtkins> | No. |
| 22:42 | <gsnedders> | That's what I thought. |
| 22:43 | <TabAtkins> | There aren't very many rocks floating in intersteller space anyway, but you can call them asteroids if you find them. |
| 22:43 | <gsnedders> | That's what I thought |
| 22:43 | <gsnedders> | Yay for signs being wrong is museums. |
| 22:43 | <TabAtkins> | Does it say what interstellar rocks are called? |
| 22:45 | <karlushi> | gsnedders, the space is mostly empty. It is just that the asteroids are most likely to come from the solar system. They do not have to. Pave the solar system cowpath ;) |
| 22:46 | <gsnedders> | karlushi: :) |
| 22:46 | <TabAtkins> | Presumably the pathmakers are spherical frictionless cows. |
| 22:46 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: No, it just categorized rocks hitting the earth into two categories: asteroids from within the solar system, and comets, basically. |
| 22:47 | <gsnedders> | (or rather entering Earth's atmosphere) |
| 22:47 | <TabAtkins> | That's totally wrong. |
| 22:47 | <gsnedders> | Maybe the German was better, but I think it said the same |
| 22:47 | <gsnedders> | TabAtkins: Indeed, that's what I thought. |
| 22:47 | <TabAtkins> | Comets are quite distinct from asteroids. |
| 22:47 | <gsnedders> | I find it sad when my physics is better than a sign in a museum |
| 22:48 | <karlushi> | TabAtkins, indeed. They are a lot cuter, with long eyelashes |
| 22:48 | <TabAtkins> | Comets are the females of the subplanetary ecosystem? |
| 22:48 | <jgraham> | This isn't physics is it just naming things |
| 22:49 | <gsnedders> | When, physics related terminology |
| 22:49 | <karlushi> | In French at least. Un astéroïde, une comète. |
| 22:49 | <gsnedders> | *Well |
| 22:49 | gsnedders | hasn't drunk anything |
| 22:49 | <TabAtkins> | Astronymics! |
| 22:51 | <karlushi> | anyway, there are both SSSB since 2006 |
| 22:51 | <TabAtkins> | Solar System Smash Bros? |
| 22:52 | <karlushi> | Small Solar System Body |
| 22:53 | <jgraham> | karlushi: You got a reference for "asteroids do not have to come from the solar system"? |
| 22:55 | <jgraham> | I can't imagine that there are a significant number of bodies that make trans-stellar journies and velocity higher than the escape velocity of the solar system |
| 22:55 | <TabAtkins> | I doubt there are many either. But that doesn't make them not asteroids. |
| 22:56 | <jgraham> | It depends if "not many" means "none" |
| 22:56 | <jgraham> | Also, wikipedia disagrees with you |
| 22:56 | <TabAtkins> | The universe is a big place, and orbital dynamics is complicated. |
| 22:56 | <TabAtkins> | No it doesn't. Note the "traditionally". |
| 22:56 | <jgraham> | And I can't find the IAU definition |
| 22:57 | <TabAtkins> | Or rather, "historically". |
| 22:57 | <jgraham> | Sure, orbital dynamics is complicated and it is easy to believe that some material is ejected from solar systems |
| 22:59 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: Note that the "historically" applies to "of the inner slar system" |
| 22:59 | <jgraham> | *solar |
| 23:00 | <TabAtkins> | True. |
| 23:00 | <TabAtkins> | Still, I don't know if IAU has a better word for interstellar rocks, so I'm going with "asteroid" for them. |
| 23:01 | <othermaciej> | TabAtkins: wow, that's long; no time to read now |
| 23:01 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, sorry. No problem. |
| 23:01 | <TabAtkins> | Tell me when you respond, because I won't see it. |
| 23:02 | jgraham | defers to Feynman: "You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts." |
| 23:04 | AryehGregor | observes that cssquirrel.com's captcha is guessable with 50% probability, so doesn't seem very effective |
| 23:04 | <TabAtkins> | Just having *a* captcha of some kind is effective for preventing most spammers. |
| 23:05 | <TabAtkins> | Anyone know any django in the room? |
| 23:07 | <hober> | TabAtkins: a bit |
| 23:07 | <jgraham> | TabAtkins: No, but ask anyway |
| 23:08 | <TabAtkins> | Kk. I have a Test and a Comment class with a ManyToMany relationship. The Comment class has an Author field. I'd like to link things up so that Test has a reviewers field containing all the authors of comments connected to the test. |
| 23:08 | <TabAtkins> | Any automagic way to specify that, or do I have to create a getter that does it manually? |
| 23:11 | gsnedders | looks at how many photos he has from tonight, and wonders how many photos other people took |
| 23:12 | <jgraham> | I took about 4 |
| 23:12 | <jgraham> | Well more actually but about 4 with my camera |
| 23:13 | gsnedders | remembers drinking water would probably be a good idea now |
| 23:14 | <jgraham> | And sleep |
| 23:14 | <zcorpan_> | drinking sleep? |
| 23:14 | <gsnedders> | zcorpan_: You should've come! |
| 23:15 | <TabAtkins> | zcorpan_: You see my message to you from yesterday re: keypress reasoning in webkit? |
| 23:15 | <zcorpan_> | TabAtkins: yes, thanks |
| 23:15 | <TabAtkins> | kk |
| 23:15 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: Because I manage to get so much of that nowadays |
| 23:17 | <gsnedders> | There again, despite lack of sleep I manage to look amazing alert for the amount of sleep I do get |
| 23:20 | <gsnedders> | Hmm, I think I took around half of the 54 photos on my camera |
| 23:31 | <zcorpan_> | http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=683147 - people should write tutorials for converting common flash stuff to html5 |
| 23:32 | <TabAtkins> | Argh, their page-tracking script killed the tab. |
| 23:32 | <TabAtkins> | Ah, better this time. |