| 16:13 | <annevk> | hey hey #whatwg |
| 16:13 | <annevk> | happy new year |
| 16:15 | <paul_irish> | happpy new year! |
| 16:20 | <espadrine> | happy 2011! |
| 16:21 | <gsnedders> | happy new year! |
| 17:16 | <Evet> | what is the best ui framework of 2011? |
| 18:46 | <hendry> | anyone noticed a well written Web interface to a Webcam I could get inspired by? |
| 20:24 | <gsnedders> | I wonder for blogging software whether it should be any harder to produce an Atom feed with in-line XHTML instead of escaped HTML given proper sanitization… |
| 20:27 | <annevk> | I think these days it probably needs to be tied in with twitter |
| 20:29 | <Ms2ger> | We should invent a new XML language for feeds, that will work |
| 20:30 | <annevk> | it's January 1 Ms2ger, not April 1 |
| 20:30 | <annevk> | oh wait, I think I just used logic #fail |
| 23:21 | <AryehGregor> | boxendirst, I don't work for Mozilla. I've got like two more or less trivial commits accepted by them, though. I also have a part-time contract to do spec work for Google over the next few months, which I'll probably start work on tomorrow. |
| 23:21 | <AryehGregor> | Why did you suspect I worked for Mozilla? |
| 23:22 | <AryehGregor> | My comments about WebKit's and Gecko's HTML5 forms implementation would be rather poor taste if I worked for Mozilla, actually. |
| 23:23 | <AryehGregor> | I'd have been much more reserved in criticizing their competitors if I did work for them. |
| 23:25 | <annevk> | congrats on the job thing AryehGregor |
| 23:25 | <boxendirst> | No offense AryehGregor. |
| 23:25 | <boxendirst> | And congrats from me as well |
| 23:25 | <AryehGregor> | Thanks. |
| 23:25 | <annevk> | slowly all of #whatwg gets employed and we become the cabal we have been made out to be from the start |
| 23:26 | <Dashiva> | You mean we aren't already? |
| 23:26 | <Dashiva> | How many indepedent agents are left? |
| 23:26 | <annevk> | sssh |
| 23:26 | <Hixie> | define "independent" |
| 23:26 | <Dashiva> | Supposedly without ties to the cabal |
| 23:27 | <Hixie> | so anyone who joins this channel or posts to any mailing list related to web standards is no longer "independent"? :-) |
| 23:27 | <AryehGregor> | I always assumed that the independent people were part of the cabal too. |
| 23:27 | <AryehGregor> | I was called a WHATWG Goon before I was employed by anyone. |
| 23:28 | <webr3> | well sometimes the tone of emails etc from some whatwg members does lend to people thinking you are a cabal seeking to overthrow the w3c in some regards... |
| 23:28 | <AryehGregor> | Seeking to overthrow the W3C, yes, possibly. |
| 23:28 | <webr3> | not saying that is the case, but it is how things come accross sometimes |
| 23:28 | <Dashiva> | It's possible to want to overthrow the w3c in a distributed, non-cabal way |
| 23:28 | <AryehGregor> | But that doesn't make us a cabal. |
| 23:28 | <AryehGregor> | I mean, cabals are supposed to be secret, aren't they? |
| 23:29 | Hixie | doesn't care about the w3c per se, he just wants to improve the web in terms of interoperability and features |
| 23:29 | <AryehGregor> | I think I participated in a grand total of one secret WHATWG-related e-mail discussion ever. |
| 23:29 | <abarth> | you mean this channel isn't secret? |
| 23:29 | <webr3> | you can be secret and open at the same time, you just have private discussions people don't realize |
| 23:29 | <Dashiva> | Maybe there's a second, hidden cabal behind the visible cabal |
| 23:29 | <Hixie> | and the w3c sometimes gets in the way of that :-) |
| 23:29 | <AryehGregor> | And maybe like five or ten private IRC conversations. |
| 23:29 | <Dashiva> | Also, there's #whatwg-secret-treehouse-no-patents-allowed |
| 23:29 | <AryehGregor> | Hixie, so you want to improve the web, by means of overthrowing the W3C? |
| 23:29 | <AryehGregor> | And where I say "you" I mean "we", because you are the cabal leader and we all believe everything you say. |
| 23:30 | <webr3> | lol, it would be nice to see more hand-holding and good feeling between w3c and whatwg in 2011, both contains great people with good intentions (and obviously the same people in both often) |
| 23:31 | <webr3> | sure would make life for some easier.. |
| 23:31 | webr3 | could be wrong, but hope I'm not |
| 23:31 | <Dashiva> | Eh |
| 23:31 | <annevk> | abarth, with questions like that you're not inspiring confidence as security expert ;p |
| 23:31 | <Hixie> | AryehGregor: i want to improve the web, the w3c isn't really relevant one way or the other to me |
| 23:32 | <Hixie> | AryehGregor: they can either take part, or get out of the way |
| 23:32 | <Hixie> | i don't much care either way |
| 23:32 | <Dashiva> | I'm sure X (for X in everyone) would love for everyone else to suddenly drop all their convictions and agree with X |
| 23:32 | <webr3> | Hixie, I've got to ask why you don't care, out of interest |
| 23:33 | <Hixie> | webr3: same reason i don't care about, i dunno, carl jr's. |
| 23:33 | <Hixie> | webr3: why would i? |
| 23:33 | <Hixie> | Dashiva: i'd rather people used rational thought and research to form their own opinions rather than have any convictions or agree with anything unquestioningly |
| 23:34 | <Dashiva> | Hixie: Are you saying there are people who do not consider themselves rational involved? |
| 23:35 | <webr3> | Hixie, working with, rather than for, or against, seems to make more sense to me - that's ultimately why I'd care - there are a lot of clever people w/ good intentions @ the w3c (and many other groups) and I respect that |
| 23:36 | <Hixie> | Dashiva: there are numerous people in the standards world who think that they should be trusted and that their word should not be tested |
| 23:36 | <annevk> | webr3, you make it sound like us vs them |
| 23:36 | <annevk> | webr3, many of the WHATWG are quite active in the W3C |
| 23:36 | <webr3> | annevk, i don't intend to at all :) |
| 23:36 | <Dashiva> | But surely they consider themselves and their communication to be fully rational |
| 23:37 | <annevk> | but I think many share the sentiment that is not really about any particular organization, but more about the end goal of having great web standards |
| 23:38 | <Hixie> | webr3: i'm happy to work with anyone who wants to make the web better |
| 23:39 | <Hixie> | Dashiva: i can't speak as to their own beliefs of their communications, only about what they say, and there are numerous people who have stated that their opinions should be taken on face value without any rationale or evidence to support their statements |
| 23:40 | <AryehGregor> | There are also simple differences of opinion even among rational people that are unduly tedious to resolve in the W3C. |
| 23:40 | <AryehGregor> | At least in the HTMLWG. |
| 23:40 | <AryehGregor> | I've remarked before on the fact that the other WGs I've been part of (admittedly, that's pretty much only CSSWG) aren't nearly as bureaucratic. |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | the csswg isn't as bureaucratic as the htmlwg, but it's also much slower at making progress in practice |
| 23:41 | <Hixie> | (i speak as someone who has edited more documents in the csswg than the htmlwg, and has spent as much time in both by now, if not more in the csswg) |
| 23:42 | <webr3> | Hixie, likewise, that's the caveat I have too - anybody who wants to make the web work better |
| 23:42 | webr3 | would be interested to know who doesn't though! |
| 23:43 | <AryehGregor> | It seems to me that the CSSWG suffers from lack of aggressive editors who make it their responsibility to resolve issues in a fixed timeframe. |
| 23:43 | <AryehGregor> | They often have protracted discussions that die out with no conclusion. |
| 23:44 | <Dashiva> | It's not ridiculous enough that it can be bypassed as irrelevant, but not efficient enough for optimal performance? :) |
| 23:44 | <webr3> | AryehGregor, tbh i think a lot of specs involve over work of the editors, and this is a key problem often, would be good to see more "i need some helps" and more peopel willing to co-edit, share the workload |
| 23:44 | <AryehGregor> | That's probably true. Hixie appears to be practically unique in actually finding spec editing fun. How many other people are paid to be full-time spec editors, actually? |
| 23:45 | <webr3> | no where near enough - that runs to problems at the core of the web & "open" communities though, everything from economic structure through to mentallity needs to change in many areas |
| 23:47 | <Hixie> | AryehGregor: yeah, one of the big problems in a lot of wgs at the w3c is that there's no one person who "owns" the responsibility for a decision, and so you get situations where nobody feels responsible to get the best result |
| 23:52 | <webr3> | would be good if that responsibility could be assigned to a 2 or three specialist, like a quick response per-issue-group w/ a 2 week timeline or suchlike |
| 23:56 | <AryehGregor> | One person is best, no more. |
| 23:56 | <AryehGregor> | That way no one can push it off onto anyone else. |
| 23:56 | <Hixie> | yeah responsibility can never be shared |
| 23:56 | <Hixie> | you always need a single point of blame |
| 23:56 | <Hixie> | that's the only way you get people motivated to not screw up |
| 23:56 | <AryehGregor> | Having multiple people just means no one can do anything officially except if they have a conference about that specific issue. |
| 23:56 | <AryehGregor> | Which is much more cumbersome. |
| 23:56 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 23:57 | <Hixie> | it also means that if there's a mistake, the blame gets shared and somehow everyone always justifies it to themselves as it being the other people's fault |
| 23:58 | <annevk> | blame game doesn't work though |
| 23:58 | <AryehGregor> | It works nicely if it's clear who to blame. |
| 23:58 | <annevk> | at least, employers might place blame, but nobody else really can |
| 23:59 | <AryehGregor> | It's only bad if it's not clear who to blame, then no one winds up taking it. |
| 23:59 | <annevk> | as it basically comes down to community service |
| 23:59 | <annevk> | e.g. you can point out a bug in XMLHttpRequest and I can decide not to care for now |
| 23:59 | <annevk> | you can blame me, but nothing will happen |