| 08:20 | <lenny557> | hi out there.. |
| 08:22 | <lenny557> | is there are any simple option to do linebreaks on "context.fillText" in a <canvas> ? |
| 08:56 | <lenny557> | done tx |
| 09:26 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, yeah, IETF... |
| 11:28 | <Stevef> | tantek: FYI discussing <article> on HTMl WG list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jan/0109.html |
| 12:08 | <darobin> | Ms2ger: I haven't looked at the result, but Anssi just made: http://www.w3.org/mid/9577692B-0672-4269-9491-3D80A9F3919D⊙nc |
| 12:17 | <odinho> | Soeh, time to do some wiki editing I guess? :D :D -- I'll save it for this evening. |
| 12:17 | <smaug____> | hsivonen: so <main>. I assume it is something sane |
| 12:18 | smaug____ | doesn't see it in the spec |
| 12:19 | <smaug____> | oh, extension |
| 12:20 | <smaug____> | but https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-extensions/raw-file/tip/maincontent/index.html gives 500 |
| 12:23 | <Ms2ger> | <iframe name=foo></iframe> |
| 12:23 | <Ms2ger> | What is document.foo? |
| 12:29 | <stevefaulkner> | smaug____: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-main-element |
| 12:30 | <smaug____> | thanks |
| 12:30 | <stevefaulkner> | np |
| 12:31 | smaug____ | wonders if that will end up to html spec at some poitn |
| 12:31 | <smaug____> | point |
| 12:32 | <stevefaulkner> | smaug____: as its being implemented i guess so |
| 12:34 | <stevefaulkner> | though it is in the HTML spec, just not the one you were referring to |
| 12:34 | <smaug____> | in general we implement HTML spec from whatwg |
| 12:34 | <Ms2ger> | stevefaulkner, that's not "the HTML spec" :) |
| 12:34 | <Ms2ger> | stevefaulkner, at most, it's "the HTML 5.1 spec" |
| 12:35 | <stevefaulkner> | smaug____: yeah i realise that |
| 12:35 | <stevefaulkner> | Ms2ger: choose your brand ;-) |
| 12:36 | <Ms2ger> | stevefaulkner, I've chosen the right one, yes ;) |
| 12:36 | Ms2ger | writes tests instead |
| 12:36 | <Ms2ger> | Also, darobin... :) |
| 12:37 | <stevefaulkner> | right for your purposes, for non implementers... |
| 12:37 | <Ms2ger> | They would be better off reading the most recent spec too, and not worry about meaningless numbers |
| 12:38 | <Ms2ger> | I think it's sad the W3C is wasting so much time that could be used to improve the web |
| 12:38 | <Ms2ger> | Oh well |
| 12:39 | <darobin> | Ms2ger: you called? |
| 12:39 | <Ms2ger> | darobin, I believe I still have an outstanding pull request :) |
| 12:39 | <stevefaulkner> | 5.1 is up to date... |
| 12:40 | <darobin> | Ms2ger: yeah yeah, I'll get to it when my headache lifts :) |
| 12:41 | <Ms2ger> | darobin, so that my tests can give you another? ;) |
| 12:41 | <stevefaulkner> | and includes authoring advice and requirements not included elsewhere that improves the web |
| 12:41 | <darobin> | Ms2ger: yeah, I can only have one headache at a time |
| 12:41 | <darobin> | I'm straightforward like that |
| 12:42 | <Ms2ger> | stevefaulkner, like, "it's okay to use layout tables"? |
| 12:43 | <stevefaulkner> | reality alert, its not OK to use layout tables, but if you do as many do, (just say no doesn't work) there are ways to mitigate their use |
| 12:45 | <Ms2ger> | I know the arguments, but they simply don't outweigh the fact that the W3C announced that layout tables aren't so bad after all |
| 12:46 | <stevefaulkner> | nobody announced that, but its not worth arguing about |
| 12:47 | <Ms2ger> | That was what the webdev community took from the announcement nevertheless |
| 12:47 | <stevefaulkner> | oh really I missed that pointer? |
| 12:49 | <stevefaulkner> | i didn't even know there was an announcement |
| 12:49 | <hsivonen> | smaug____: <main> is one of those things that will need to land first for it to be in the WHATWG spec. |
| 12:51 | <Ms2ger> | stevefaulkner, oh, come on... The chair's email to public-html about the ISSUE |
| 12:52 | <smaug____> | hsivonen: ah |
| 12:52 | <darobin> | Ms2ger: I can't seem to dig up a pointer to the repo for the spec references data that Anolis uses (it's for tobie) |
| 12:53 | <Ms2ger> | darobin, it's on github/whatwg/xref |
| 12:53 | <Ms2ger> | IIRC |
| 12:53 | <stevefaulkner> | Ms2ger: i thought nobody of any consequence read html list, where is the spate of web dev articles hailing the return of layout tables? |
| 12:53 | <darobin> | Ms2ger: ah! and there I was looking all across bitbucket |
| 12:53 | <darobin> | granted, that only takes about ten minutes |
| 12:54 | <Ms2ger> | stevefaulkner, you were right, not worth my time to discuss |
| 12:55 | <Ms2ger> | darobin, and get rid of the index.html in the html-testsuite repo, please ;) |
| 12:55 | <stevefaulkner> | Ms2ger: right, getting all ornery as you does nothing |
| 12:56 | <stevefaulkner> | lets all get back to improving the web ;-) |
| 12:57 | <stevefaulkner> | me/ funny how people have a habit of falling off high horses |
| 12:58 | <darobin> | Ms2ger: done |
| 12:58 | <Ms2ger> | Thanks |
| 12:58 | darobin | trots off back to email stuff on his little poney |
| 13:02 | <Ms2ger> | Document doesn't have an indexed getter I'm missing in the spec, does it? |
| 15:53 | <chriho> | anybody here with experience of videos with multiple audio tracks in HTML5? |
| 16:24 | <dglazkov> | good morning, Whatwg! |
| 16:44 | <tantek> | SteveF - I share your skepticism about rdf/microdata http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jan/0114.html |
| 16:44 | <tantek> | so we do have the hAtom microformat which is well deployed by authors/developers (and supported by search engines) |
| 16:44 | <Stevef> | tantek: right, what about use for comments? |
| 16:45 | <tantek> | there's been some brainstorming around distinguishing comments |
| 16:45 | <tantek> | Stevef - so my thoughts on comments come from the #indiewebcamp perspective - which is that ideally, every comment you write would primarily be a post on your own site which you then syndicated out to wherever you wanted the comment to show-up. |
| 16:46 | <tantek> | thus I tend to lean a bit more strongly in the direction of considering comments as full fledged posts / articles of their own (with perhaps their own comments) |
| 16:46 | <Stevef> | OK - interesting |
| 16:46 | <darobin> | that's exactly what I was referring to with Habermasian optimism :) |
| 16:47 | <darobin> | "lol u SUK" doesn't fly so well as "primarily a post on your own site which you then syndicated out to wherever you wanted the comment to show-up" |
| 16:47 | <tantek> | one of my concerns with a lot of web standards / architecture is that since so much is being driven by large companies with large silos, they don't even consider (are typically blind to) the "classic" peer-to-peer distributed/decentralized actual *web* way of thinking |
| 16:47 | <darobin> | (though I love the heart of the idea) |
| 16:48 | <tantek> | so on those fronts, I feel I have to push extra hard to get that point not just across, and considered, but made *preferable* |
| 16:48 | <darobin> | I don't think it's a "big company" thing |
| 16:48 | <tantek> | web standards *should* be optimized for *web* like behavior, not silo-behavior |
| 16:48 | <darobin> | big companies can understand decentralisation better than smaller ones I find |
| 16:48 | <Stevef> | in the real world the current definition lends itself to less than optimal user experiences for the people who do consume <article> |
| 16:49 | <tantek> | darobin - big companies all have underlying cultural assumptions of why wouldn't you trust a small handful of big companies? |
| 16:49 | <tantek> | Stevef - perhaps we can start by documenting sites with problematic use of <article> |
| 16:49 | <tantek> | or did you already do that in the list of links you provided? |
| 16:49 | <tantek> | (wasn't sure if those were analyses of article or uses of or both) |
| 16:49 | <darobin> | tantek: oh I'm not saying that I particularly trust them, just that I'm not convinced that that's where the dividing line falls |
| 16:50 | <tantek> | darobin - there's no dividing line, it's a fuzzy cultural issue |
| 16:50 | <tantek> | and actually, it's apparently turning generational as well, as "new kids" don't even remember being "webby" - they've grown up on and are used to silos |
| 16:50 | <Stevef> | tantek: sure I linked to some 170 sites that use article as basis for anlaysis |
| 16:51 | <Stevef> | but haven't carried that out yet, but its pretty easy to find examples of where its been (i think) overused to no good effect |
| 16:51 | <tantek> | darobin: this is good: "I wonder if recommending to mark comments up as <article> inside <details> would address the sort of issue you had in mind." |
| 16:52 | <tantek> | Stevef - yeah, it would be good to analyze such examples to see if things like darobin's suggestion would help |
| 16:52 | <Stevef> | tantek: anwyay just wanted to make you aware of the dicussion as you may be interested |
| 16:52 | <tantek> | appreciated |
| 16:52 | <tantek> | Stevef - ah this is interesting: "the use of article to describe a one sentence comment |
| 16:52 | <tantek> | and a lengthy blog post seem at odds." |
| 16:53 | <Stevef> | as users have been complaining about section and article use and abuse |
| 16:53 | <tantek> | so tweets are often "one sentence comment[s]" - but they're certainly deserving of <article> - as they are their own posts, not necessarily "about" or in response to something (though sometimes they are) |
| 16:53 | <darobin> | tantek: what I like about details > article is that I believe it DTRT in AT *and* for sighted users |
| 16:54 | <tantek> | darobin - agreed. and here's a real world example of such a UI: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/looperexplained |
| 16:56 | <tantek> | Stevef - the distinction you point out, between "one sentence" and "lengthy blog post" (and frankly, also "comment") is a problem that the ActivityStreams community and more recently the #indiewebcamp and #microformats communities have been working on for quite some time. |
| 16:56 | <Stevef> | darobin: yes and no, once in the details, largenumbers of comments result in the same issue |
| 16:56 | <tantek> | you're essentially describing a few typical different kinds of posts |
| 16:57 | <darobin> | Stevef: yes, but you've deliberately decided to activate the details |
| 16:57 | <tantek> | what ActivityStreams calls "object types", and which, in this case call "note", "article", "comment" |
| 16:57 | <Stevef> | some subtyping of article would be nice |
| 16:58 | <tantek> | (they've also got a lot of faffing about verbs, but those have never really taken off, much more overdesigned than necessary for v1) |
| 16:58 | <darobin> | Stevef: if you've decided to enter the details/summary=Comments, then I think that "Article. LOL u SUK. End of article" makes sense |
| 16:58 | <tantek> | I'm giving you the very simplified summary of AS. There's much more and there's folks trying to critically extract a valuable subset: http://indiewebcamp.com/ActivityStreams |
| 16:59 | <tantek> | Stevef - so ActivityStreams essentially does that - subtypes "articles" |
| 16:59 | <tantek> | but HTML (tag markup in general) is very bad at "subtyping" |
| 16:59 | <tantek> | at least in anyway accessible to "ordinary" developers |
| 17:00 | <tantek> | (all the tag extensibility / is="" crap is pretty doomed to fail IMHO in terms of "normal" authors. heavy coders / developers may be able to use it - same folks that used XUL, but it doesn't really scale) |
| 17:00 | <Stevef> | darobin: if there are then 10/30 or more comments with nested replies using lists makes it much more understanadable and and navigable to users who consume the semantics |
| 17:01 | <tantek> | anyway - just wanted to invite folks, if you want to discuss different post types (note/article/comment etc.) - please feel free to hop into #indiewebcamp - as that's where a lot more of this has been *practically* discussed (people actually using the stuff on their own sites) |
| 17:02 | <tantek> | (I don't hold much hope for *web* post-type distinction discussions on peanut-gallery / support forum mailing lists) |
| 17:02 | <Stevef> | also sent this lengthy proposal/criticique on outlines (from one ben lord) to the list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jan/0126.html |
| 17:03 | <tantek> | of course I am still a fan of ditching <section> and the outline algorithm |
| 17:03 | <Stevef> | tantek: will lurk and see what I can learn/contribute |
| 17:03 | <tantek> | though I think it is inevitable that it will simply fail to exit HTML5 CR |
| 17:04 | tantek | is thinking more and more about writing up a series of posts on "HTML: The Good Parts" |
| 17:05 | <tantek> | so much useless and/or overly complex crap in *both* WHATWG HTML and HTML5 CR. and it's not worth wasting time whittling away at them by filing bugs on all of them. It might be easier to simply extract out the bits "that don't suck". |
| 17:06 | <darobin> | heh |
| 17:06 | <darobin> | I for one would love to read that |
| 17:06 | <tantek> | and by all means - if anyone else would like to write their own "HTML: The Good Parts" posts - please, go right ahead. I claim no copyright or anything else on the idea. |
| 17:06 | <tantek> | (to be fair, a lot of stuff is in the spec for more political than real-world reasons) |
| 17:07 | <tantek> | *specs I should say |
| 17:09 | <Stevef> | tantek: I think its worthwhile trying to tweak authoring advice and requirements in the spec |
| 17:10 | <tantek> | Stevef - sure |
| 17:10 | <tantek> | I just think there's so much noise in the spec that authors are going to go some place most of the time |
| 17:10 | <tantek> | which I suppose is what the authoring guide is for |
| 17:11 | <tantek> | darobin - do you actually *like* the schema defintions of Comment vs Article vs BlogPosting vs UserComment? (per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jan/0113.html ) ? |
| 17:11 | <darobin> | tantek: no, it's all too complicated |
| 17:11 | <darobin> | but it's there |
| 17:11 | <tantek> | ok, that was my impression too but I didn't want to presume |
| 17:11 | <darobin> | I was looking for something off the shelf |
| 17:11 | <tantek> | plus, Comment vs. UserComment? |
| 17:12 | <tantek> | talk about a mess |
| 17:12 | <darobin> | beats me too |
| 17:12 | <darobin> | I only found out about UserComment by following a link from BlogPost |
| 17:12 | <tantek> | my favorite is still http://schema.org/Volcano with property "faxNumber" |
| 17:12 | <karlcow> | tantek: what search engines do with hAtom. (I lived under a rock too long I think) |
| 17:13 | <Stevef> | I mean looking at the debates about how to use stuff example: http://html5doctor.com/html5-simplequiz-7-pinterest/ something is amiss |
| 17:13 | <darobin> | but putting my hacker cap on, I reckoned "there's this thing that exists, and I can easily just slap itemtype=whatever string they have, and go have beer" |
| 17:13 | <tantek> | karlcow - *some* search engines index the dates and times of posts, and *some* search engines even have validators that show you that they've parsed the hAtom and understand the components of it |
| 17:13 | <tantek> | I should say, at least one *major* search engine that starts with a G :) |
| 17:14 | <tantek> | darobin - "there's this thing that exists, and I can easily just slap … " is a compelling argument |
| 17:15 | <darobin> | yeah, anything more than that and the word "ontology" pops into my head |
| 17:15 | <tantek> | lol |
| 17:15 | <darobin> | given the magnitude of the headcold I have today, I would really just not |
| 17:15 | <karlcow> | tantek: is there a blog post somewhere about who does what. It might become handy very soon for a workshop. |
| 17:15 | <tantek> | get well soon |
| 17:15 | <darobin> | ta ;) |
| 17:16 | <tantek> | karlcow - as a one-slide summary - feel free to re-use (all the usual CC) http://tantek.com/presentations/2012/09/microformats2/#slide9 |
| 17:17 | <tantek> | (it's a build so you'll have to click to see the bullets if you're using a JS-enabled UA :) ) |
| 17:18 | <tantek> | karlcow if you're looking for search engine support in particular, this is a good start: http://microformats.org/wiki/search-engines |
| 17:18 | <tantek> | (and the "main article" pages it links to have many more details) |
| 17:18 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: left a comment on making it more similar to ws/http just in case |
| 17:19 | <tantek> | and any further questions, hang out in #microformats and happy to answer (as others are too) |
| 17:20 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, thanks |
| 17:21 | <annevk> | the problem with the ABNF stuff is that it's unclear you apply it after you already have distinct components |
| 17:21 | <tantek> | karlcow - what's the workshop you're teaching? |
| 17:21 | <annevk> | oh well, dinner time |
| 17:26 | <tantek> | Stevef that pinterest simplequiz poses quite a few challenges: http://html5doctor.com/html5-simplequiz-7-pinterest/ |
| 17:26 | <tantek> | so many things to markup there to make them useful |
| 17:38 | <karlcow> | tantek: at SudWeb in May, there will be a workshop on comments and specifically on aggregating blog posts answering each others. First as an experiment between friends. |
| 17:39 | <karlcow> | http://sudweb.fr/2013/ |
| 17:46 | <tantek> | karlcow - fascinating - definitely need to have you in #indiewebcamp then as that's exactly the kind of thing we discuss a lot |
| 17:47 | <tantek> | also on blog posts answering each others, you may be interested in the development of h-cite: http://microformats.org/wiki/h-cite |
| 17:53 | <karlcow> | thanks for the links |
| 18:10 | <Ms2ger> | darobin, the new idlharness looks equivalent on the DOM test, at least |
| 19:53 | <Hixie> | did anne really drop ebcdic? |
| 19:54 | <Ms2ger> | You like ebcdic? |
| 19:54 | <Hixie> | i wouldn't say _like_... |
| 19:55 | <Hixie> | it was endearing to have an encoding that in theory people could use with HTML despite it being crazytown and non-ASCII-compatible |
| 19:56 | <Ms2ger> | I'm not sure "endearing" was the word I'd use |
| 22:24 | <esprehn_> | tantek: ping |
| 22:33 | <tantek> | esprehn_ pong |
| 22:38 | <esprehn_> | tantek: caught you through email, wanted to discuss requestAutocomplete (or figure out who to talk to about it) |
| 22:39 | <tantek> | through email? |
| 22:40 | <esprehn_> | tantek: I sent an email to the address of yours I realized I had |
| 22:43 | <esprehn_> | tantek: It'd be great to align this API with what's going on at Mozilla in a similar space |
| 23:24 | <tantek> | esprehn - catching up and reading your email, and recalling our conversation from last month. |
| 23:24 | <tantek> | in short yes, would be great if we could do some collaboration, harmonization in this area |
| 23:25 | <tantek> | I wanted to get Ben Adida involved on the Mozilla end - he's the right person to talk to about this kind of identity stuff. |
| 23:25 | <tantek> | he does tend to hang out more in irc://irc.mozilla.org/identity |
| 23:26 | <tantek> | personally I'd like to also explore how to make any kind of identity related API, structure, etc. more "web"-like |
| 23:26 | <tantek> | meaning, being able to use any web site you want for your identity, not just one of a handful of "providers" |
| 23:26 | <tantek> | there's too much oligopoly-centric framing in a lot of today's API designs |
| 23:27 | <tantek> | whereas I think we should design open web platform APIs *preferring* scenarios where individuals own/control their own domains |
| 23:27 | <tantek> | if that kind of thinking interests you, there's a whole crowd of people self-dogfooding and figuring out how to make it work in the #indiewebcamp channel |