03:35:05 RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
03:35:05 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/03/21-html-wg-irc
03:35:24 DanC has changed the topic to: W3C HTML WG http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ (this channel is logged for all the world to see)
03:54:43 RRSAgent, make logs world-access
04:15:30 Lachy has joined #html-wg
04:17:22 Lachy has joined #html-wg
04:17:52 Hi DanC
04:25:32 marcos has joined #html-wg
04:50:15 kingryan has joined #html-wg
04:53:22 Kuruman has joined #html-wg
04:53:37 Kuruman has left #html-wg
04:58:28 Owner has joined #html-wg
05:23:06 bill has joined #html-wg
05:24:41 bfults has joined #html-wg
05:50:24 Lachy has joined #html-wg
05:52:15 Lachy has changed the topic to: W3C HTML WG http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ - http://www.w3.org/2007/03/21-html-wg-irc (logged)
06:20:15 Hixie has joined #html-wg
06:23:19 Hixie has joined #html-wg
07:00:51 bosky101 has joined #html-wg
07:01:16 greetings everyone...
07:26:01 Stefan has joined #html-wg
07:27:07 Good morning from austria.
07:36:11 henrik has joined #html-wg
07:37:34 Hello everyone!
07:44:05 Hello
08:00:49 Lachy has joined #html-wg
08:01:04 Lachy has joined #html-wg
08:13:52 NicolasLG has joined #html-wg
08:14:27 Hi everybody !
08:14:35 hello
08:15:15 is this a post or pre meeting chat ?
08:15:51 I don't know, I just received DanC's mail about this chan
08:16:09 I don't know when it start too..
08:17:32 Me too
08:18:26 I think it will be dificult to bring everybody at the sametime...
08:18:43 how about a round of introduction first then...
08:19:48 i presume most of you are from the academia?
08:21:05 I'm a 22 yrs old student ^^', I follow the mailing list since yesterday..
08:23:13 im a developer from india ,keen on all things that deal around events ,xml .
08:25:35 nice :) what time is it in india ?
08:30:09 its 2pm in the afternoon hmmm .... mar 21st ... ok i think i;lll just turn spectator now till we get into any discussions .(apart from the fact that this chat is archived ..so migh as well stick to the topic )
08:42:11 does anyone here deal with server side events ?
08:49:05 hsivonen has joined #html-wg
08:52:40 icaaq_ has joined #html-wg
09:04:00 krijnh has joined #html-wg
09:19:50 marcos has joined #html-wg
09:25:36 bkode, I think server-side events are beyong the scope of this channel
09:26:20 anne has joined #html-wg
09:28:09 marcos: i agree
09:28:41 :)
09:33:02 servers-side events are part of HTML5, fwiw
09:33:11 (and implemented in Opera)
09:35:28 I was just going to say that that one was best left for anne:)
09:35:59 I have not yet looked at what Opera is doing about that...
09:37:58 and related things
09:38:32 yeah, looks pretty cool. Kinda like flash's xml sockets
09:39:50 icaaq, maybe we make part of the scope :)
09:41:27 marcos: :)
09:41:52 did you guys read the charter?
09:42:08 I'm still in shock about the vision document
09:42:15 what vision document?
09:42:24 oh man, you are gonna love it!!!!
09:42:46 ...searching for it....
09:43:08 http://www.w3.org/2007/03/vision.html
09:43:10 http://www.w3.org/2007/03/vision.html ?
09:43:14 ok
09:43:18 that's the one :)
09:43:45 anne, I started reviewing XHR tonight
09:44:13 just a few editoral mistakes in it so far, but it's really good (I'm about 1/2 way through)
09:45:15 Hixie was right, it does read like one of his specs :-)
09:45:29 I tried to align it a bit more
09:45:30 the HXR doc?
09:46:08 marcos, please review http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
09:46:16 and not the version on TR/
09:47:02 that vision document is just there to please IBM and other XForms loving companies I think
09:47:58 anne, ok and ok
09:48:23 oh man, I'm in the second paragraph, and "for the mobile market..." has already made me laugh, cause mobile browsers are just tag soup at best
09:48:58 -Opera
09:49:16 Opera and WebKit are the exceptions
09:49:16 hehe, that one made me laugh too
09:49:35 but opera does tagsoup too, right anne?
09:49:43 yeah, it does both
09:50:36 character decoding is the dirty secret of browser XML support even when the XML support is otherwise non-bogus
09:50:47 marcos, yes, but at worst
09:50:57 although actually, tag soup parsing isn't that bad
09:51:02 it just needs to be standardized
09:51:10 in retrospect, browsers should have supported only UTF-8 and UTF-16 on the XML side
09:51:28 hsivonen, why?
09:51:32 to slow down adoption of XML even more?
09:51:43 not a bad idea, really
09:51:50 Lachy: to get rid of a huge legacy back door
09:51:52 although, I agree it would have been ideal, reality tells me it wouldn't work
09:52:14 anne: getting UTF-8 right is a lot easier than getting the other XML stuff right on the producer side
09:52:22 just as we're now getting requests for lenient XML parsers, we'd also get requests for legacy encodings
09:52:30 anne: most producer objections to UTF-8 are bogus
09:53:38 anne, from the xhr spec, what is the scope of 'this' in the following example:
09:53:40 var a = {funky: function(response){ alert(this)}}
09:53:42 var client = new XMLHttpRequest();
09:53:44 ...
09:53:46 client.onreadystatechange = a.funky;
09:54:19 this points to the object
09:54:26 as with all event listeners?
09:54:36 (this doesn't work in some browsers today, btw)
09:54:48 that is what I am wondering
09:54:58 because I've had problems with that
09:55:26 in the Yahoo! widget engine, for example, this is [XMLHttRequest]
09:55:58 and I think I got something different in Dashboard
09:56:03 webkit
09:56:24 you can get different results for every single feature I think
09:56:37 I don't recall the xhr spec being clear on this...
09:56:37 one of the reasons we try to standardize it in one way
09:56:51 Having another look
09:56:53 it's implicitly clear by making XHR an EventTarget
09:57:04 and having onreadystatechange take an EventListener
09:57:11 Ashe has joined #html-wg
09:57:39 so my above example would not work
09:58:00 depends on what yo umean with work and it would in Opera
09:58:08 and might work in nightly builds of Firefox
09:58:17 might work in nightly builds of WebKit, dunno
09:59:25 Ashe has joined #html-wg
10:28:47 chaals has joined #html-wg
10:31:05 rrsagent, pointer
10:31:05 See http://www.w3.org/2007/03/21-html-wg-irc#T10-31-05
10:32:03 that's nice
10:33:13 although in amounts of time you prolly lost one
11:00:59 jmb has joined #html-wg
11:08:32 i'd like to ask a general question . what would it take to add an tag or an attribute to an existing tag to be accepted by the w3c ? has it been made clear that it is saturated -or is there scope for more ?
11:09:16 dunno
11:09:27 we're already extending HTML
11:09:49 it would make sense if the W3C simply followed what's already been done
11:09:52 (to me, anyway)
11:11:22 This is something the working group will sort out for themselves. But I would suggest it would take more or less interoperable implementation in several browsers
11:11:57 well, to exit CR sure...
11:12:12 alright... the reason for that is that ... because it seems to me that more and more scripting functionality is being bundled into a tag. foe eg: the event-source . im sure as much the w3c wud like to accept it ...confinig to a sinle way is at best debatable ..right ?
11:12:52 is just a convenient shorthand for an API, actually
11:13:19 how close are we to closing in on an implementaion ?
11:13:32 it's implemented already
11:13:34 We have one at Opera.
11:13:52 so what if we found different ways of implementing it .
11:14:12 then we would have two different implementations.
11:14:24 If they are not interoperable, this would be a good argument to think harder...
11:14:33 bkode, what do you mean? Implementation details are not relevant
11:15:14 alright. thanks for enlightening me on that... taking anoterh example... we all know of the onclick
11:15:18 interoperable is quite a heavy term imo, almost nothing is interoperable at this point
11:15:22 but most of it is usable
11:15:49 if you are faimiliar with idempotent events... ie .. basically to prevent duplication .
11:16:18 what would ur thoughts be on introducing an onclickwhen or when attribute
11:16:42 rather than having the complexity in managing idempotent events on the server side
11:17:33 eg . a bank gateway...where duplicate clicks complexity could very well be made easier with a click that only accepts for say 'a time perio of 5 seconds'
11:18:35 i have a javascript implementaion of this ... just to show how it would be otherwise..and how an could easen things.
11:19:04 do you have some more elaborate documentation?
11:19:08 http://bhaskervk.com/libraries/reusableJS/examples/idempotentEvent.html
11:19:16 anyway, ideas are best posted on some wiki or the whatwg mailing list
11:20:50 thank you .
11:45:46 bkode, when suggesting ideas, it's best to present some clear use cases to be solved, rather than proposing a solution.
11:46:27 it may turn out that existing features can already satisfy those use cases without introducing any more, or a better solution can be found
12:11:42 ROBOd has joined #html-wg
12:33:07 icaaq_ has joined #html-wg
12:43:46 hasather has joined #html-wg
12:45:43 gavin has joined #html-wg
13:08:57 marcos_ has joined #html-wg
13:22:19 Charl has joined #html-wg
13:22:21 :)
13:54:39 glazman has joined #html-wg
13:54:44 hi there
13:55:41 allo
13:57:05 salut glazou
13:57:30 schnitz has joined #html-wg
13:57:38 hi
13:57:50 icaaq_ has left #html-wg
13:59:57 chaals: thanks for the forward to Art
14:00:58 no worries.
14:01:11 (anne is your contact at Opera for the WAF group, BTW)
14:01:40 rotfl
14:04:35 :p
14:07:07 usually reading lets me get to sleep, but last night it kept me up late
14:17:19 But mostly I am just lurking here a bit, since i have a day job already and we have a real live rep in the working group as well as zillions of people subscribed...
14:17:34 169
14:20:59 yup
14:21:14 any volunteers to collate http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/ftf07/results by member org? i.e. do we have interest in a May ftf from Apple, Opera, Volantis, etc?
14:22:30 opera and volantis said yes
14:22:55 apple hasn't checked yet afaik but I believe Maciej intends to fill it in
14:23:45 although actually, volantis didn't say yes for May
14:23:57 I'm a little paralyzed by the prospect of 2 international trips in May. I'm already behind on Banff travel details.
14:24:00 Dave Raggett is busy or something
14:24:19 yeah, the wbs isn't very forthcoming about where people are from.
14:24:50 well, in theory all have equal say...
14:25:49 hmm... what theory is that? I think it's worth giving priority to people that have a lot of influence in the way HTML is produced and consumed
14:26:39 aha... dom points me to http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/ftf07/results?view=compact , which has affiliations
14:28:10 voting theory: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Votes
14:28:11 i suppose
14:28:51 voting is for when consensus breaks down. if we can't get consensus on a 1st ftf meeting, I won't bother.
14:29:15 consensus meaning: a critical mass in favor, and no objections
14:29:59 for "critical mass", I'm looking for the "3 browsers" from the charter, plus at least a handful of authoring tools, content developers, etc.
14:30:44 hmm... I wonder about a WBS form with boxes for content developer, software library developer, etc.
14:31:01 otoh, F2F meetings can just be planned... iirc no real descisions can be made there anyway, right?
14:31:30 a WBS form can either be started or finished at a ftf meeting, but not both
14:32:21 I expect to give everybody a week to think about any formal decision; so that means proposals can be generated by ftf meetings, or proposals launched before ftf meetings can be finished, but not both ends.
14:32:52 what's a formal descision?
14:33:44 umm... a decision that follows some articulated form, I guess...
14:34:28 ... i.e. a decision of the WG, which would not be open for further discussion unless new information came to light
14:34:34 say x proposes a feature and y implements it in the spec
14:34:40 does formal descision take place?
14:34:46 a formal*
14:34:52 no
14:35:01 y could undo that part of the spec the next day
14:35:10 right
14:35:17 gorme has joined #html-wg
14:35:36 but then x might complain, and z weighs in, and perhaps consensus seems elusive; the chair then adds it to an issues list...
14:36:17 then, when a critical mass in some direction seems evident, the chair puts the question, collects positions for a week, and announces whether the question carried. if so, y is bound by the result.
14:36:39 as are x, z, and everybody else in the WG.
14:37:05 k
14:39:37 the 1st technical question is what spec(s) to start with. I have seen HTML5 advocated, but only buried in threads. I haven't lifted it to its own thread, because until Microsoft joins the WG, I can't compell them to give their considered opinion on the matter.
14:40:09 that and who'll be the editor is prolly what needs to be decided first, yes
14:40:15 right
14:40:58 and maybe do the form part separately or so, it's not entirely clear from the charter how that should work
14:41:16 agreed, that needs to be figured out
14:41:21 well, if the WG adopts the current HTML5 draft, Hixie is clearly part of the package; he has offered, and noone else has his knowledge of the text. I wouldn't formally decide who's the editor until we released a WD.
14:42:06 some people have suggested that the only choices are HTML5 and "start from scratch". I can imagine adopting parts of HTML5 but not others. e.g. there are more and less stable parts of it, yes?
14:42:24 most of it is intertwined
14:42:29 and needs to be
14:42:35 DanC, thats an interesting possibility, I had been thinking in that direction too
14:42:50 i suppose you can split some APIs, but it's not really feasible
14:42:57 also, some folks said that there are part of XHTML2 that seem interesting aswell
14:43:28 s/part/parts
14:43:44 oh? I guess I missed that. who advocated parts of XHTML2?
14:44:03 (btw, why is backwards compatibility not in the charter? is it implied?)
14:44:12 ok, wait, let me dig it up in the archives, brb
14:44:51 searching for "compatibility", I find "A serialized form of such a language using a defined, non-XML syntax compatible with the 'classic HTML' parsers of existing Web browsers."
14:45:25 billmason has joined #html-wg
14:45:36 yeah, syntax compatible...
14:46:32 oh well, if it's not compatible it won't get passed CR
14:46:34 if "compatibility" isn't sufficiently explicit in the charter, I'd welcome a brainstorming goal thread about it. I have a draft in progress on doing that for the 10% market threshold.
14:46:35 not much of an issue
14:46:53 oh cool
14:47:27 e.g. "Similarly, there are several things in XHTML2 that are not in HTML5
14:47:27 I don't expect to wait for CR for stuff like compatibility, testing, etc.
14:47:27 but which I think are architecturally more sound and should be in there."
14:47:36 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0085.html
14:48:02 he doesn't really elaborate much
14:48:20 does 0085 give any examples of such things? I don't see any.
14:48:23 or was that the / < section> debate?
14:48:54 I'm starting to think of the HTML WG as the QA department of the WHATWG.
14:49:25 well, without getting in too much detail, there might be the option of taking parts of HTML5 and XHTML2, and when discussion starts, some folks might provide more details... its a possibility, thats all, as DanC said
14:49:28 some people see it as the getting rid of patents department...
14:49:35 i.e. WHATWG brainstorms and designs, and then the HTML WG plays "defense", makes tests, worries a little about laywers, etc.
14:50:09 schnitz, only parts that are backwards compatible could be taken and afaik that has already happened
14:50:43 well, it's not a sufficiently clear possibility to act on, at this point. That's why I asked people to flesh out the details of any goal/issue/proposal to the point of attaching an example/test document.
14:51:37 DanC, thats right, and I thought that was a good start, lets see if people are holding back on issues just because we're not in shape yet
14:52:02