| 01:48 | <gsnedders> | jgraham, Philip`: was there not a discussion about importing them before? |
| 01:52 | <Philip`> | gsnedders: I think there have been many discussions |
| 01:52 | <Philip`> | but then nothing really happened |
| 01:53 | <Philip`> | (As far as I'm aware, Mozilla/WebKit/Opera have already got imported copies of the tests, so there's not much immediate practical benefit from importing it into anywhere else) |
| 01:54 | <Philip`> | (so I don't really care much about it myself at the moment) |
| 10:05 | <Dashiva> | shepazu seems to have the priority of constituencies principle backwards. The WHATWG spec is the one trying to accomodate authors and implementors by being useful and convenient, the W3C one splits and cuts for theoretical purity |
| 10:44 | <jgraham> | I should note that the W3C has never agreed to converge on the design principles adopted by the WHATWG, as we are unfailingly reminded whenever they come up |
| 11:18 | <Dashiva> | hsivonen: I would like to see evidence of these so-called webm lolcats |
| 12:55 | <MikeSmith> | "We don’t write firmware for missile guidance systems, we write applications that let you pretend to steal your friends’ cartoon cows." |
| 12:55 | <MikeSmith> | http://garann.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/defending-terrible-things/ |
| 13:05 | <erlehmann> | MikeSmith, I HATE THIS THING WORDPRESS DOES |
| 13:05 | <erlehmann> | i even defined my own quicktags that actually insert <i>s and <b>s |
| 14:48 | <karlcow> | do not ask what others do wrong, ask yourself what others do right, and what you do wrong ;) |
| 17:11 | <karlcow> | http://www.aldebaran-robotics.com/en/nao_robot_interactif |
| 17:12 | <karlcow> | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t1NWH6G1f0 |
| 17:12 | <karlcow> | programmable in python |
| 17:28 | <annevk> | requires Flash :/ |
| 17:36 | <karlcow> | annevk: yep, when in fact there is nothing requiring flash in these specific pages. |
| 18:13 | <AryehGregor> | karlcow, my impression is that: 1) The browser implementers wanted to create a W3C working group for Web Applications 1.0 or such, but the W3C administration (whoever has to approve new WGs?) denied it because it conflicted with the direction they were trying to take the web. 2) While people have certainly done lots of useful stuff in the W3C, almost all of that could just as well have been done in the WHATWG, and most would have been if the |
| 18:13 | <AryehGregor> | HTMLWG was never created. |
| 18:18 | <AryehGregor> | I freely admit to being a total ignoramus posting from the peanut gallery, though. |
| 18:19 | <karlcow> | AryehGregor: at a few occasions the W3C had workshop on the future of the Web (including html). Members decided to go towards XML. They had invested time and money into it. There is the 2004 workshop, but there is also the one before this. Anyway following the Process a majority of people agreed to continue going to the XML road. |
| 18:19 | <karlcow> | Only a handful of members wanted to reopen the work on html. Logically this is the road which has been followed. (not judging about the pertinence specifically at that time). I would count myself at that time in the XHTML camp for many reasons. Put let's put that aside. |
| 18:19 | <karlcow> | Maybe the mistake is to not have given the possibilities of two Working groups at the same time. BUT at this time, the W3C (aka organization means members) was often targeted for lack of inconsistencies by the public with regards to competing technologies such as css and xsl. |
| 18:19 | <karlcow> | it seems a natural and easy decision to make now. It was not in the past. |
| 18:19 | <AryehGregor> | So you're saying the decision was made by the non-implementer members of the W3C, not by its administration. |
| 18:19 | <karlcow> | nope |
| 18:20 | <karlcow> | different implementers, not the same market segment. |
| 18:20 | <AryehGregor> | Ah. |
| 18:20 | <AryehGregor> | . . . but not, like, implementers of mainstream web browsers. |
| 18:20 | <karlcow> | right. |
| 18:20 | <AryehGregor> | Okay. |
| 18:21 | <AryehGregor> | Thanks for the correction. |
| 18:24 | <karlcow> | no issue. It's difficult. because everything is happening in times with not necessary the same people either. People like annevk, hsivonen and Lachlan were not born (kidding), but let's say they are the 2nd if not the 3rd generation of implementers, and they have bitten the dust of web failures. There is often a generation conflict in the group. It is interesting to see. |
| 18:24 | <karlcow> | and I'm pretty sure when the html5 generation will be older, the new generation will be very tough on the decision we are making these days. :))) whatever we could say to justify them. |
| 18:25 | <gsnedders> | (and I get called a baby) |
| 18:25 | <gsnedders> | :P |
| 18:25 | <karlcow> | ;) |
| 18:29 | <AryehGregor> | Does anyone know how hard it would be to rewrite, e.g., the infobox in this article using non-table-based layout (working in IE6 is required)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States |
| 18:29 | <AryehGregor> | It seems like it would be pretty easy unless you insisted on the auto-width thing for the columns . . . |
| 18:30 | <AryehGregor> | You could probably just set a width of 50% on the columns and it would look fine. |
| 18:32 | AryehGregor | isn't so great at CSS. |
| 19:04 | <jgraham> | karlcow: One can make the reasonable claim that a Process in which implementors in one market segment can block work in a different market segment is pretty broken |
| 19:44 | <AryehGregor> | Phone numbers should be assigned so that the minimum pairwise Levenshtein distance is maximal. In particular, it should always be strictly greater than one. |
| 19:44 | AryehGregor | just got two people calling his cell phone by mistake in like the last hour |
| 19:51 | <invariable> | AryehGregor, my phone number is the same one a pharmacy had 20 years ago. I still get people calling for prescriptions |
| 19:52 | <AryehGregor> | :/ |
| 20:00 | <invariable> | karlcow, what market segments were pushing for XML? Where exactly is the dichotomy? |
| 20:16 | <hsivonen> | one problem the W3C has is that it pretends to be one happy community when there really are several communities |
| 20:18 | <hsivonen> | the Semantic Web community and the browsable Web community are almost disjoint and there's the ex-SGML community turned XML community somewhere in between |