| 00:11 | <Wilto> | This is… very confusing; I’m sorry. |
| 00:12 | <Wilto> | I don't claim to be any smarter than the average developer, but that in and of itself should say a great deal. |
| 00:13 | <Wilto> | I've been trying to write this markup as though it were for real use cases, and it is just inscrutable. |
| 00:16 | <Wilto> | That's speaking as a core contributor to jQuery Mobile, and having worked on the responsive BostonGlobe.com designs—tailoring things for client capabilities is kind of my thing. |
| 00:16 | <Wilto> | I'll revisit it with fresh eyes later, I suppose. |
| 00:20 | <Wilto> | Now that the Community Groups are back online: there’s no small amount of consensus on that point. http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/05/11/respimg-proposal/#comments |
| 00:41 | <abarth> | is there a charter for the WHAT community group? |
| 00:41 | <abarth> | i can't find the link |
| 00:42 | <abarth> | maybe its the same as the WHATWG charter? |
| 00:45 | <othermaciej> | there is not |
| 00:45 | <othermaciej> | Community Groups don't have charters |
| 00:46 | <othermaciej> | also they can self-create an operating agreement |
| 00:46 | <othermaciej> | which is similar to a charter |
| 00:46 | <othermaciej> | but the WHATWG CG has not done so, at least so far |
| 00:56 | <|Kellan|> | Hi Everyone, I am redesigning my companies home page. We are a movie company. I am having a hard time deciding what is semantic for our photo gallery on our front page. Our page has 4 major sections. The first contains an image slider with our featured movies. The next section is a photo gallery of our 12 latest releases. 3rd section is photos of the stars we represent then finally DVD movie covers. Article doesn't seem right. I chose |
| 00:56 | <|Kellan|> | section but I am not sure it is right either. |
| 01:22 | <abarth> | othermaciej: thx |
| 01:22 | <abarth> | othermaciej: what defines the scope of a community group? |
| 01:23 | <abarth> | maybe they don't have a scope and the patent protections are on a per-document basis? |
| 01:27 | <abarth> | ah, there is a CLA and an FSA |
| 01:44 | <othermaciej> | abarth: the CLA and FSA are voluntary agreements that can be applied to any CG product, if a CG does not have an explicit operating agreement, then "whatever CG members want to work on" is about it |
| 01:46 | <abarth> | do you know of a CG that has an example of a well thought out operating agreement? |
| 01:51 | <abarth> | looks like these folks have a bunch of text at least http://www.w3.org/community/native-web-apps/charter/ |
| 01:53 | <abarth> | looks like most don't have an operating agreement (at least not in an obvious place on their pages) |
| 02:21 | <othermaciej> | I would like the WHATCG to have a well thought out operating agreement, though I am not sure if the distraction and debate likely to arise in the process of trying to create one would exceed the benefit |
| 02:55 | <Hixie> | abarth: the WHATWG CG's "charter" is the same as the WHATWG's, because it _is_ the WHATWG. The CG part is nothing but a way to provide the framework for patent licensing. |
| 03:00 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: so using the viewport dimensions instead of the containing block dimensions could work, i guess, since there's presumably a 1:1 relationship between viewport dimensions and the dimensions you'd expect the containing block to be |
| 03:00 | <abarth> | i wasn't sure if CGs needed to declare their scopes (like IETF working groups) |
| 03:01 | <Hixie> | abarth: there's a one-paragraph description, but no, they're pretty bureaucracy-free |
| 03:07 | <othermaciej> | Hixie: it depends on whether the w and h represent the image size or a desired target size |
| 03:07 | <othermaciej> | if the latter, then yeah, viewport size is totally adequate |
| 03:08 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: what's the difference? |
| 03:09 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: in the existing text, it's the size of the image. but i would change it to the max size of the viewport for the image. |
| 03:09 | <othermaciej> | well, if w and h indicate the size of the image, how would the algorithm combine that with a viewport size to pick one? |
| 03:09 | <othermaciej> | ok |
| 03:09 | <othermaciej> | yeah, it would have to be max size of the viewport or something along those lines |
| 03:10 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: the problem is that it makes it hard to reuse the src="" attribute for a default fallback -- in the existing text i can use the height="" and width="" and src="" attributes to provide a default so you don't have to repeat yourself |
| 03:10 | <Hixie> | othermaciej: but the perf issue is pretty serious |
| 03:16 | <tantek> | othermaciej - what's an example of what you would consider a good, well thought out, operating agreement? |
| 03:17 | <Hixie> | the empty string |
| 03:17 | <tantek> | LOL |
| 03:19 | tantek | is not even sure what is meant by an "operating agreement" in the context of a CG. |
| 04:09 | <abarth> | tantek: My understanding is that it's something you need to agree to in order to join the CG |
| 04:21 | <Hixie> | is there an equivalent of indexOf() on String that starts at a given index? |
| 04:44 | <abarth> | Hixie: indexOf takes a start offset |
| 04:44 | <abarth> | Hixie: it's the second parameter |
| 04:44 | <Hixie> | oh, good to know |
| 04:45 | <Hixie> | i should have looked it up! |
| 07:39 | tantek | reads logs to catch-up |
| 07:41 | <tantek> | abarth - a-ha, in that case, a good minimal CG operating agreement would be to require that all participants contribute everything via CC0 and OWFa FSA, per my recommendations here: http://tantek.com/2011/240/b1/w3c-community-groups-opportunities-suggestions-challenges#cg-opportunities - cc: othermaciej |
| 08:32 | <AryehGregor> | tantek, there are already licensing agreements required when you join any CG. |
| 09:33 | <othermaciej> | tantek: it's not clear to me from your blog post what benefits that would have over the existing CG CLA and FSA |
| 09:37 | <othermaciej> | tantek: in fact, the CG FSA and CLA look somewhat similar to the OWFa ones in their effect (including the copyright license) |
| 15:22 | <tantek> | AryehGregor, right, the W3C once again created a (yet another) custom (W3C-specific) license, I know that, duh. That doesn't dispute my post. |
| 15:23 | <tantek> | othermaciej, the advantages of CC0 and OWFa have already been well established. (just like MIT etc.) |
| 15:23 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, do you know if people have thought about testing worker apis? |
| 15:23 | <tantek> | the biggest ones are a) standard licensing (as opposed to bespoke W3C licensing), which leads to b) more portability. |
| 15:24 | <tantek> | No spec should be beholden to any one specific standards organization. Standards organizations should be a means to the ends of producing useful specs, nothing more. |
| 15:24 | <tantek> | They should be tools/services, not "owners". |
| 15:25 | <Ms2ger> | This is the W3C we're talking about, right? |
| 15:25 | <tantek> | Thus if the services/tools fail for any reason, or if better tools/services emerge, those working on the spec should have the freedom to move the spec to different tools/services. That's what you get with standard (organization independent) licenses. |
| 15:25 | <tantek> | Ms2ger - scroll up re: CGs / licensing / operating agreement. Yes this is re: my blog post about suggestions of how to better use CGs. |
| 15:26 | <tantek> | (link in the logs ;) ) |
| 15:26 | <Ms2ger> | I know |
| 15:26 | <Ms2ger> | I'm cynical. |
| 15:27 | <tantek> | this is why for example, Annevk and I put CC0 and OWFa on the Fullscreen spec. |
| 15:28 | <Ms2ger> | I note that neither is on the spec right now. |
| 15:29 | <tantek> | Ms2ger that's because Ian Jacobs demanded they be removed before the CG could publish the spec. |
| 15:29 | <Ms2ger> | Thank you for making my point. |
| 15:29 | <tantek> | This was a reversal of the policy as understood before (that CGs were allowed to multilicense) |
| 15:30 | <tantek> | so that's in dispute. we plan on putting those licenses back. |
| 15:30 | <tantek> | but for now, just wanted to publish a draft rather than to wait for that fight to finish. |
| 15:32 | <tantek> | also, I've worked with Mozilla's lawyers on this (had them review CG CLA vs. CC0 vs. OWFa), and I can say that yes, our lawyers determined that not only was it *ok* (compatible) to multilicense specs with CG CLA, CC0, OWFa, but that it's a *good thing* to do so. I'm working on a blog post accordingly with more details. |
| 15:33 | <tantek> | So yes, I can say that it is Mozilla's position (legal reviewed) that specs are best multilicensed with standard licenses, specifically CC0 and OWFa (in addition to whatever bespoke license any particular organization, like W3C CG CLA, that's required). |
| 15:33 | <tantek> | We're not giving up on this. |
| 15:36 | <Ms2ger> | Good to hear that |
| 15:37 | <Ms2ger> | I'll believe in the results when I see them |
| 16:31 | Ms2ger | likes how the Blob constructor should ignore the first element in the array per spec |
| 17:54 | <othermaciej> | tantek: CG FSA and OWFa FSA have word-for-word identical copyright licensing terms |
| 17:57 | <othermaciej> | tantek: the material difference appears to be in patent licensing, where the CG version seems superior, and where it would not be fun to figure out if the two are agreements that it is possible to offer simultaneously (since one is a royalty-free license and the other is a non-assert promise) |
| 18:01 | <othermaciej> | (sorry about the broken grammar there, hope the point is clear) |
| 18:09 | <Hixie> | don't the copyright terms even allow relicensing, or something? so long as attribution is given? |
| 18:10 | <Hixie> | if it's gpl-compatible it doesn't really matter what the terms are exactly, it's good enough for all intents and purposes |
| 18:10 | <Hixie> | (though certainly it's my opinion, and google's opinion, that furthering license proliferation is a mistake the w3c keeps making) |
| 18:38 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: zcorpan has written some tests We should release them, but they predate testharness.js (by a few weks iirc) |
| 18:39 | <jgraham> | *weeks |
| 18:42 | <espadrine> | Ms2ger: this Blob constructor thing is a bug, right? They mean "0 <= i < a.length", do they not? |
| 19:22 | <Ms2ger> | jgraham, mm, MS also submitted some |
| 19:23 | <Ms2ger> | I was wondering about a way to write worker tests without manually messing with postMessage |
| 19:28 | <Ms2ger> | espadrine, do they? :) |
| 19:29 | <espadrine> | ok ^^ |
| 19:39 | <jgraham> | Ms2ger: Oh, well we should release ours then and fix up the harness afterwards |
| 19:39 | <Ms2ger> | wfm |
| 19:39 | <jgraham> | Do Mozilla have any tests? :) |
| 19:52 | <Ms2ger> | Probably |
| 19:52 | <Ms2ger> | http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/workers/test/ |
| 22:39 | <Velmont> | tests tests |