00:01:32 hasather has left #html-wg 00:11:36 gavin has joined #html-wg 00:40:45 chaals has joined #html-wg 00:45:43 hsivonen has joined #html-wg 00:50:12 kingryan has joined #html-wg 01:20:00 olivier has joined #html-wg 02:19:29 gavin has joined #html-wg 02:33:35 Bob_le_Pointu has joined #html-wg 03:14:46 glazou has joined #html-wg 03:29:30 quaiz has joined #html-wg 03:42:47 colin_lieberman has joined #html-wg 03:55:16 billmason has joined #html-wg 04:11:45 MikeSmith has joined #html-wg 04:26:39 gavin has joined #html-wg 05:10:53 MikeSmith has joined #html-wg 05:24:34 mjs has joined #html-wg 05:28:53 dbaron has joined #html-wg 05:29:28 bfults has joined #html-wg 05:33:53 marcos has joined #html-wg 05:57:57 Charl has joined #html-wg 05:58:24 quaiz has joined #html-wg 06:02:50 preston has joined #html-wg 06:34:25 gavin has joined #html-wg 06:48:10 Hixie has joined #html-wg 07:09:29 icaaq has joined #html-wg 07:25:31 anne has joined #html-wg 08:25:36 RRSAgent, make logs public 08:25:46 RRSAgent, pointer? 08:25:46 See http://www.w3.org/2007/03/22-html-wg-irc#T08-25-46 08:41:03 gavin has joined #html-wg 08:47:25 schnitz has joined #html-wg 08:50:24 hi everyone :-) 08:50:40 matt has joined #html-wg 08:52:02 morning 08:52:11 mornin' anne :-) 08:58:21 hello 09:10:48 why are the W3C list archives offline? 09:13:06 Morning. 09:35:02 MikeSmith has joined #html-wg 10:03:37 ROBOd has joined #html-wg 10:48:08 gavin has joined #html-wg 11:02:31 anne, yeah, weird, can't remember this ever happening before... 11:03:03 I also sent a message to public-html, and it doesn't seem to get thru 11:07:44 schnitz - unfortunately the W3C list server has been down for several hours 11:08:00 no W3C mailing-list mail at all is going through right now 11:08:05 MikeSmith, any idea when it will get back online? 11:08:52 anne - nope 11:09:15 might not be much happen until US/East systeam people get online 11:09:37 mjs has joined #html-wg 11:50:07 icaaq has left #html-wg 11:56:17 glazou has joined #html-wg 11:56:31 bonjour 11:56:52 DanC: ping 11:58:05 bonjour glazou :-) 11:58:32 goodday schnitz 11:58:48 long time no see 11:59:04 last time in mandelieu right ? 11:59:15 or ac in tokyo ? 12:00:35 mandelieu :-) 12:00:57 that was great 12:01:16 yeah, mandelieu was nice 12:01:25 yep :-) 12:01:55 what I love really is arriving by car from the highway, open the car's windows and let the mimosa smell go through the car 12:02:00 aren't we having one of those dark and cold bostom TPs this fall again? :-) 12:02:17 schnitz: I am freezing already only thinking about it :) 12:02:56 glazou, oh yeah, I've been driving to mandelieu all the way from munich, and in munich is was deep winter with lots of snow, and in mandelieu it was spring, that was amazing... 12:12:36 lists are online again... 12:17:19 ah 12:24:50 ok, lists are up again, I sent a message though earlier today, and it doesn't seem to get there... wondering whether I should re-send 12:25:22 dunno 12:25:39 hmm, I'll wait a little... 12:25:55 maybe some sys folks in boston are currently fishing for lost mail... 12:27:09 citoyen has joined #html-wg 12:56:34 glazou_afk, pong. but I've got an 8am telcon, and I'm chairing. 12:59:45 olivier has joined #html-wg 13:15:53 bbl 13:31:44 gavin has joined #html-wg 14:02:06 MikeSmith has joined #html-wg 14:33:17 bfults has joined #html-wg 14:33:51 bfults_ has joined #html-wg 14:38:54 billmason has joined #html-wg 14:42:57 ah 14:43:05 e-mails are arriving on W3C lists now... 14:45:18 apparently there was some problem with blogging that impacted other services, but I understand that this has now been fixed. 14:48:18 over 150 IE 14:48:21 s 14:50:21 we should conduct a survey to get a feeling for their backgrounds 14:51:10 what kind of information do we need to know about them? 14:53:00 it would be nice to know where they are based in the world, and what they do, e.g. role in development team, what kinds of websites they work on etc. 14:54:20 for statistics? 14:57:17 yes, preferably as pretty graphs 14:57:51 perhaps, but I find that kind of information isn't really useful till you have an idea of their personality, which is determined by the way the express themselves in their e-mails 14:58:05 MikeSmith, hmm, the latest HTML WD? 14:58:14 that's an awful document :) 14:58:20 anne, yeah that 14:58:26 that message 14:59:13 I'm wondering if Murray is aware of the WHATWG work at all 14:59:37 I don't appear to have received that e-mail yet. What's the subject line? 14:59:38 It would be unlikely that he isn't aware of it. 14:59:48 Lachy, refresh 14:59:55 I did 15:00:02 Lachy, "Straw man proposal to build an agenda/issue list" 15:00:13 I'll check the list archive\ 15:00:38 Dave, what is the URI for the latest draft? 15:01:08 w3.org/tr/html/ 15:01:12 Good question, in theory it should be on the WG page if Karl has done his bit 15:01:15 or maybe w3.org/tr/html4/ 15:02:29 /TR/html/ should change to HTML5 when it moves to W3C, /html4/ should stay as is 15:02:45 yeah, prolly 15:02:46 I am not sure where we are in respect to being able to make HTML5 into a formal WD though. 15:02:56 hmm, by "drafts", does Murray mean the public RECs? 15:03:03 a lot further than last year 15:03:05 good question 15:03:17 MikeSmith, there's not much else 15:04:38 Dave, we need to find out the exact conditions under which Apple, Mozilla, Opera and Hixie would agree to publish it at the W3C 15:05:09 One of them would probably be to ensure that the spec on whatwg.org and w3c.org are the same spec! 15:05:25 They could make a formal contribution subject to the Patent Policy, that's easy enough 15:05:34 but what about the other contributors? 15:05:58 I am sure that Ian could generate the WD format easily enough. 15:06:00 what about other significant text? 15:06:16 e.g. ? 15:06:21 have most of the invited experts come across from the whatwg? 15:06:22 dunno 15:06:27 you're bringing it up :) 15:06:53 Lachy - I don't know about "most" but there are many that have come from elsewhere 15:06:54 s/significant text/proposals/ 15:07:22 If there is some kind of record of who contributed to the spec then we can ask every such contribute to agree to W3C PP in regards to their contribution. 15:07:23 maybe significant proposals 15:08:19 hmm. looks like the subscriber list for whatwg is no longer available, so I can't compare the list of e-mails with the names in the HTMLWG 15:08:28 Current memebers of HTML WG have already made such a commitment. 15:08:32 I guess the WHATWG work could be seen being already existing work that attempts to accomplish the first part of what Murray suggests 15:08:34 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#acknowledgements 15:08:38 has all the names 15:08:47 but I wonder if that's really needed 15:08:57 only those who have contributed to the spec, none of the lurkers are included 15:09:20 Lurkers don't matter if they don't contribute to the spec. 15:09:52 I suppose the number of lurkers on the HTMLWG would be comparitively few 15:10:01 at the moment, anyway 15:10:01 Lurkers on WhatWG list that is. 15:13:41 The list of people given in the acknowledgements should be good enough if it is deemed to be reasonably accurate. 15:14:34 it still seems silly to me as you don't know who influenced those people, etc. 15:14:53 (and the same goes for current REC track documents, btw) 15:15:10 There are limits to what we can practically do to protect implementers (and end users) 15:15:37 W3C Patent Policy is the best we have been able to come up with so far. 15:16:10 I have been involved in several Patent Advisory Groups and so far things have worked out pretty good with exception of Eoalas case. 15:16:26 and that has been pretty bad 15:16:42 yes, it wasn't pretty 15:17:29 but going forward the work arounds aren't too bad. 15:22:43 kingryan has joined #html-wg 15:25:07 N-K has joined #html-wg 15:26:08 I have the lists of names prepared from each group, does anyone know a quick method of comparing them? 15:33:03 NicolasLG has joined #html-wg 15:33:21 Hi everybody! 15:34:24 allo 15:39:40 gavin has joined #html-wg 15:40:40 tylerr has joined #html-wg 15:41:35 Morning all. 15:44:33 Murray seems to live in the future 15:45:02 that's where we are all heading ... 15:45:19 He's right to focus on agenda and plans. 15:45:54 I'd rather he didn't actually. 15:46:13 DanC has changed the topic to: W3C HTML WG http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ - http://www.w3.org/2007/03/22-html-wg-irc (logged) 15:46:25 grumble... the log from yesterday is very incomplete. I sent a sysreq 15:46:40 DanC, http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/ 15:46:51 (has all the important logs) 15:47:00 with respect to HTML anyway 15:48:07 ah... thanks, anne 15:56:57 hi DanC 15:57:38 my potential host for the ftf pinged me this morning, they'd like to have more details (dates, number of attendees) to give their formal agreement 15:59:05 Hi Dan, have a minute to answer a question or two in PM? 16:00:15 DanC rather. 16:02:33 icaaq has joined #html-wg 16:09:55 ROTFL 16:10:07 we need a fortunes page in this HTML WG... 16:14:06 Well folks, just got accepted into the working group, glad to be here and to be working with all of you! 16:18:23 tylerr: congrats! 16:18:40 Thank you icaaq. :) 16:19:17 hi glazou . It would help if you would suggest a date 16:21:18 the survey shows 39 people interested in a meeting, though not all of them are interested/available for a meeting in france. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/ftf07/results 16:21:52 21-05 / 23-05, Paris 16:22:16 gna, re-sent my mail and still not getting thru, I guess it will pop up twice then, like tomorrow 16:22:24 that's 21 and 23 May? 16:22:25 21 May to 23 May 16:22:42 (if it's your typical three-day meeting) 16:22:53 I don't see anything typical about this meeting 16:23:05 :) 16:23:13 ;-) 16:23:30 it's the first Monday after XTech (which ends on Friday) 16:23:42 ups, s/thining/thinking :-) 16:24:02 I would need my company to fund my travel. Unfortunately we run a tight ship. **chuckles** 16:24:11 hmm... I'd like to go to xtech, and not stay over the weekend. 16:24:25 AH 16:24:29 now it came thru 16:24:30 maybe May 14-15? 16:25:06 that works too, although I believe some bits of XTech start on 15 16:25:24 yeah... I'm checking the XTech schedule... http://2007.xtech.org/public/schedule/grid 16:26:03 I'm here 16:26:09 but have to go home in 10 minutes 16:26:37 my host and xtech are not in the same part of paris 16:26:42 xtech is west 16:26:45 host is south 16:26:52 both inside city limits 16:26:59 Paris has a reasonable metro system... 16:27:00 well, it's the same airport, yes? 16:27:05 DanC: rofl 16:27:16 heh 16:27:24 schnitz, I've got your email now 16:27:28 er... I was serious; NY has more than one airport, as does the SFO area 16:27:34 probably 20 minutes by subway between both 16:27:48 ah... 20 minutes by subway means people don't even have to change hotels 16:27:55 DanC: sure 16:28:09 DanC: paris subway network is excellent 16:28:10 I'm OK with overlapping XTech on 15 May; that's the tutorial day 16:28:28 yeah, I think that day is reasonably available for us 16:28:40 I don't see any WG members on the tutorial schedule, though Steven P. might be interested to attend. 16:29:12 Hmm, I am chairing xtech ubiweb track on Tuesday May 15 16:29:21 Dave Raggett is on there 16:29:25 all day, dave? or just onen day? 16:29:30 phph. or just one half? 16:29:40 Let me check 16:30:02 DanC: are you suggesting 14 and 15 may ? 16:30:03 I can see when it starts from http://2007.xtech.org/public/schedule/detail/19 but not when it ends 16:30:13 yes, I'm thinking about May 14-15 16:30:21 ok 16:30:32 I have to go on daddy duty 16:30:33 bbl 16:30:35 enjoy 16:31:12 xtech ubiweb track is whole day, see http://2007.xtech.org/public/schedule/topic/7 16:31:19 ah. I see. 16:31:53 counter-proposal? or are you ok with attending just the 1st of 2 days? 16:32:42 I could be, depends on the agenda 16:33:16 MikeSmith is presenting on Wednesday 16th at 11am on the future of HTML 16:33:32 followed by Molly 16:33:35 yeah; I'd like to be there for that 16:35:43 Hey I see that Antoine Quint now works for Joost and is talking on the 17th 16:37:01 Henri Sivonen is talking on HTML5 conformance on morning of 18th 16:37:21 Dave - actually I'm not presenting that "Future of HTML" session, but just moderating. Because it's panel discussion. 16:37:28 Thx 16:39:25 MikeSmith, who's on the panel? 16:42:54 schnitz, how's that concrete? 16:43:53 well, we all know where the spec is? 16:43:56 :-) 16:44:04 I will expand, of course 16:44:31 what exactly does XForms Transitional address that HTML5 doesn't, etc. 16:44:36 anne, I'm a fan of small emails 16:44:44 well, that doesn't really help here 16:44:50 anne, the expressions that Dave went to in his last mail? 16:45:22 also separation between presentation and value stored in DOM 16:45:23 anne, come on, don't be so negative, I'm certainly not, I will expand, that was just the short answer for this minute 16:46:17 anne - haven't set final lineup for that panel 16:46:18 XHTML Modularization is the answer to the statement that HTML5 is heavily intertwined and cannot be modularized, not true, we did it in M12N 16:46:36 and XHTML M12N is very close to HTML 4.01 16:46:42 so no magic XHTML2 stuff here 16:46:43 FYI: XHTML Modularization has zero web browser implementations 16:46:50 (if something like that is even possible) 16:47:05 anne, FYI: M12N is not MEANT to be in the browser :-) 16:47:19 its a way of organizing a markup language 16:47:23 well, we need to pass some CR criteria in due course 16:47:33 CR? 16:47:41 what has that to do with M12N? 16:47:48 it means you need impl 16:48:17 did u read? M12N is not about being implemented in a UA, its about the ML itself 16:48:20 indeed, schnitz , I don't see how M12N addresses intertwining of parsing and document.write(), as detailed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0172.html 16:49:24 bewest has joined #html-wg 16:50:35 preston has joined #html-wg 16:52:50 I am not sure I understand DanC, for document.write it seems to be question of what markup you have before and after the write operation. 16:53:05 schnitz, if you're talking about just grouping some related elements that's already done 16:53:55 anne, well, ok, but, I am generally asking the question, and thats my message, whether the work of this group will divide over time with the rest of W3C, or not 16:54:10 i've no idea what that means 16:54:34 HTML5 is compatible with the DOM, CSS specifications and is largely compatible with HTML4 and XHTML1 where these are compatible with the web... 16:54:38 anne, so when you say grouping has been done, has it been done consistent with M12N for example? Can it be done? Does it make sense? Maybe? Should we? 16:54:51 I don't think M12N makes sense 16:54:53 (fwiw) 16:54:58 anne, ok thats fine 16:55:07 anne, still, its a valid question to ask 16:55:07 (or the whole XHTML Mod stuff for that matter) 16:56:18 its a valid as a directional question, and of course we can dive away into details, but thats not the point, what I am saying here, being explicitly general, whether we have a chance, for the benefit of the overall W3C story, that those technologies grow together over time, or not 16:56:38 i think it would be better if you reviewed HTML5 and said what would need to change in order for it to be more in line 16:56:49 thats the next step 16:57:14 first, this is brainstorming time, I would like to know whether the group feels at all whether this is a goal worth persueing 16:57:32 having everyone agree into something from which it's not clear what the consequences are seems silly 16:58:09 surely thinking about how thinks could pan out makes sense and avoids walking blindfold into dead ends. 16:58:19 s/thinks/thinking/ 16:58:41 s/how thinking/things/ 16:59:15 kingryan has joined #html-wg 16:59:15 the TAG discussions of tagSoupIntegration touch on modularization... 16:59:18 WHATWG has been thinking about HTML for over two years now... 16:59:33 except that future vision is much worse than hindsight 16:59:34 (and many on the WHATWG for a longer period) 17:00:01 why do we need modularization anyway? 17:00:08 on the web you don't want profiles etc. 17:00:15 in particular... http://www.w3.org/mid/1171386787.7497.1030.camel@dirk XHTML modularization and substitution groups (tag issue XMLVersioning-41, TagSoupIntegration-54, RDFinXHTML-35) 17:00:25 bewest, hindsight is like a hangover when you wake up with a headache having walked into something hard 17:00:30 DanC, interesting, thank you 17:02:05 Deeder has joined #html-wg 17:02:32 on the WG homepage, http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ , I have a few lists that are ordered, but I want bullets rather than numbers. how do I do that? 17:02:47 kingryan has joined #html-wg 17:03:02 the example in your email reminds me of the HTML+ mechanism for importing names which said treat this tag like that one. 17:03:03
    achieves "no numbers" but doesn't give a bulliet 17:03:20 list-style-type? 17:03:22 list-style:circle 17:03:30 yup 17:03:36 (rtfm: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/generate.html#lists ;)) 17:03:47 :-) 17:03:58
      works. thanks. 17:05:49 grumble... changing to
        doesn't seem to work. Is this wrong? ol.event_list { list-style: circle } 17:06:46 sounds like a buggy implementation 17:07:03 the underscore is likely an issue 17:07:15 hm... seems the problem was # comment syntax 17:07:29 that'd be another one :) 17:07:43 I suppose underscore now works in most browsers 17:07:52 why did karl grey out ? or is it visited links? 17:08:42 I find the grey on white text hard to read 17:09:59 BTW I would be happy to contribute HTML5 tutorials when we get a bit further along 17:10:20 Dave, always nice :-) 17:10:26 and could give some DOM/scripting stuff too. 17:10:32 http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/HTML5_Tutorial 17:11:09 different people have different needs for tutorials, so having more than one is good 17:11:19 yeah, definitely 17:11:47 (as opposed to specs, come to think of it) 17:12:23 anne, well.... ;-) 17:12:32 but lots of test cases is a must! :) 17:12:58 yeah, we should have a requirement for a number of testcases in our charter 17:13:05 so we won't slack off halfway 17:13:28 committed http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ Revision: 1.22 17:13:41 no more @@s 17:14:05 you can prolly drop everything after CR... 17:14:12 can you fix the grey text problem while you are at it? 17:14:17 oh nm 17:14:22 it already mentions where it comes from 17:14:36 I can fix things more easily if you tell me how. I seem to be late for a meeting meanwhile 17:14:55 let's leave it for now, as Karl isn't here 17:15:18 http://www.w3.org/html/css/screen.css 17:15:23 change the lines with :visited 17:15:33 but I'm not sure what a better color would be... 17:15:44 something with better contrast 17:16:14 purple 17:16:16 the light blue isn't great either 17:26:25 quaiz has joined #html-wg 17:34:50 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/browse_frm/thread/45ccb1fa7847fea1/39f7e00f8481e524 17:37:10 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/browse_frm/thread/68cc062324b71173/50049eff53cbb5f2 (never say never) 17:37:46 haha 17:37:52 heh 17:39:14 on May 2001 17:41:17 now we're in 2007 and there is a lot of people who believe more in HTML than in XHTML 17:41:41 Yep 17:43:55 I apologize for the lack of participation today in the conversation, I'm horribly busy at work. 17:45:02 you don't need to apologize for that 17:45:24 it's stated somewhere that you don't need to make time commitment or anything 17:46:04 Oh sure anne, read that today. :) I'm just rather excited to get involved and I wish I had more time today. 17:47:41 gavin has joined #html-wg 17:58:00 hasather has joined #html-wg 18:04:28 CWilso has joined #html-wg 18:04:55 bfults has joined #html-wg 18:09:40 woha 18:09:50 lol @ glazou 18:16:40 hasather has joined #html-wg 18:51:48 anne has joined #html-wg 19:05:21 phpht. ff crashed. now the big decision: restore session or just garbage collect? 19:06:52 use Opera? 19:13:11 anne: now, is that a bias opinion or not? :) 19:13:47 why is that a hard decision? 19:14:20 maybe I don't understand what you mean by "garbage collect" 19:14:51 icaaq has joined #html-wg 19:15:21 gsnedders, professional 19:15:31 anne: obviously 19:16:34 I use browser windows to represent tasks. but if a task is critical, I start a mail message. I count on evolution to keep drafts even if it crashes. but browser state is not critical. 19:16:43 so far 19:17:25 so sometimes, when I have a zillion windows and the browser crashes, it's better to start over than to restore the session and re-evaluate the relevance of each of 30 to 50 windows/tabs. 19:17:53 it's especially inconvenient that the windows all get restored on one workspace, where they were on separate workspaces before the crash 19:19:02 I pretty much stick to open source, anne. Release opera as open source, and I'll try it out again. 19:41:20 Dave-off: is there a cvs log somewhere of the changes to the draft? 19:42:30 I should be able to create that from CVS but don't quite have the skill to do as yet. What do you do to get such diff marked docs? 19:43:16 dunno, whatwg uses subversion 19:43:29 Essentially the change is to clarify that external functions shouldn't access form fields other than those passed as arguments (and hence subject to the dependency analysis). 19:43:32 (anne and others built http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker for html5) 19:43:51 Hmm I am hoping W3C moves on from CVS which is far too painful in practice. 19:43:58 Dave-off: how does that change the ua requirements? 19:44:29 i guess i still don't understand how it's supposed to be implemented 19:44:51 well you could look at my script if you want to see how I did it. 19:44:52 does the calculate="" field take JavaScript? 19:45:17 your script uses regular expressions to mutate the string into JS, which i assume isn't the "official" way 19:46:13 i don't really understand how you go from the value of a calculate="" field to a list of dependencies 19:46:25 specs should impose requirements but not overconstrain implementation, so I tried to do just that, maybe my wording isn't perfect but it can be improved. 19:46:51 okay, you use the syntax of JS expressions to pick out identifiers 19:47:10 e.g. if the field is calculate="document.forms[0][document.forms[0].field.value] + 1" 19:47:16 how do you know which fields that depends on? 19:49:07 it's also not clear to me how you're supposed to handle doing a topological sort on cyclic graphs 19:49:31 I think that the spec needs to be tighter than that, as there you are picking the name from the value of a field and that could indeed cause problems 19:50:00 so it is a matter of narrowing the valdity for expressions. 19:50:31 dbaron has joined #html-wg 19:51:13 Essentially, fields should be referenced by name. 19:51:47 i'm not making any statements regarding authoring requirements here 19:51:47 I will have a go at tightening the wording to eliminate corner cases. 19:51:53 my concern is only with ua requirements. 19:52:25 that's what we are talking about - what constitutes a valid expression 19:52:32 no 19:52:34 no 19:52:36 I would greatly prefer change control over wiki 19:52:38 i'm talking about what the ua must do 19:52:48 svn or mercurial would be good 19:52:55 what's a valid expression is an authoring requirement... 19:53:59 essentially the UA must be able to analyse the expression to identify the names of fields used in calcuate expressions in order to figure out in which order to apply then when one calculated field depends on another. 19:54:17 The sort algorithm can detect cyclic dependencies and report that as an error. 19:54:34 but how? 19:54:46 the algorithm? 19:55:02 _how_ must the ua analyse the expression to identify the names of fields used in calcuate expressions in order to figure out in which order to apply then when one calculated field depends on another? 19:55:22 gavin has joined #html-wg 19:55:28 topological sort - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_sorting 19:55:48 topological sort requires static analysis to greate an acyclic graph 19:55:58 here we have turing complete code that may create a cyclic graph 19:56:07 it is therefore impossible to apply a topological sort 19:56:24 it reduces to the halting problem followed by a mis-use of the topological sort algorithm 19:56:45 I think there is an implicit requirement that the UA must ignore anything but "obvious" references to fields 19:56:48 ECMA 262 defines the expression syntax, and as you rightly point out this requires a static analysis which thereby constrains what constitutes valid expressions. 19:56:54 for some definition of obvious 19:57:19 the ECMA 262 expression syntax cannot be statically analysed to determine without code execution what the references are. 19:57:26 e.g. the following code: 19:57:38 myObject[getFieldNameByCallingRemoteServer()] 19:57:55 ...may reference a different field each time it is called 19:58:05 and you cannot tell which it will be without actually running the code 19:58:11 A subset of ECMA 262 expressions certainly can be so analysed and this subset constitutes the set of valid expressions. 19:58:24 where is that subset defined? 19:58:39 that subset would not be able to use any external functions, which you explicitly allow. 19:58:51 I think we are discussing how to define the subset 19:59:00 you can propotype all kinds of objects which would even make the simplest "words" not trustable 19:59:23 yes, you are right, using functions to compute names wouldn't be statically analysable. 19:59:36 i'm not convinced it is possible to define such a subset while making it still be ECMAScript in any useful sense of the word 19:59:54 i think you'd have to define your own pseudo syntax 19:59:59 I am not sure what you mean by useful sense? 20:00:13 A grammar would be perhaps the best route. 20:00:21 it would be so restricted that knowing JavaScript wouldn't let you know how to write it 20:00:31 something would be ECMAScript in a useful sense of the word if it could be passed to a JS compiler without risk, e.g. 20:00:32 and having a JavaScript implementation would be not nearly sufficient to execute it 20:00:35 you would want a custom parser 20:00:42 yeah 20:00:48 at which point you have a new language 20:01:07 Only in the sense that a subset is a new language. 20:01:15 and if you can't use "real" JS, then you still need extended event listener attributes, so that people can escape to doing imperative things at validation time etc 20:01:19 so how is this much better than simply using event handlers? 20:01:24 a true subset would not require a new parser and compiler. this would. 20:01:36 It permits round tripping of semantics which is a huge win. 20:02:18 The preprocessor is only a few lines of code, as I have shown. 20:02:44 it has also been pointed out that it breaks in all kinds of ways... 20:03:30 the preprocessor could check for validity in a straightforward way using regular expressions. 20:03:38 I'm out, back later 20:03:49 ECMAScript's grammar is not a regular language 20:04:01 so no, you can't check it using regular expressions 20:04:10 calculate="x + y" is obviously executed in some scope right? 20:04:27 mjs, wrong, since we are talking about a subset 20:04:30 what if x and y are somehow getters that return random fields? 20:04:40 how would you know that in advance? 20:04:42 anne right. 20:05:16 It is in the context of the field owning the expression and the form it belongs to. 20:05:48 so in my implementation form is a local variable initialized from the field. 20:06:54 when eval is called the expression has been rewritten to use access fields via that variable. 20:07:53 I will have a go at defining the expression syntax subset via grammar or such like tomorrow, but it's late here so cheerio for today. 20:08:20 this sounds very much like a new language to me... 20:08:54 custom parsing, rewriting expressions, etc. 20:12:03 it really seems like way too much work for very small gain, given that you can do this using events and js and authors aren't clamouring for declarative expressions 20:12:53 yeah, maybe you should just define a valid subset of that and use that in some authoring language or something... 20:13:23 The authors in question don't know about HTML tags, CSS or JavaScript, so I think you are thinking of the wrong group of developers - the ones who are script hackers and can figure out what the scripts do. 20:14:37 i am pretty sure we have a pretty big cross-section of authors on the whatwg list by now 20:14:50 well in that case I'm not sure what the problem is Dave-off 20:14:55 and i'm pretty sure i'd have heard if google spreadsheets people or users needed this in html 20:14:57 they wouldn't ever touch the code... 20:15:31 I doubt very much that that includes non-techie authors who don't care and don't want to learn HTML. 20:16:47 If I went to a local college and asked the students there, I bet they would have different ideas as to what they found important. 20:17:24 anyway I really have to leave now, cheers! 20:17:27 as far as i can tell, college students are well represented in the whatwg demographic 20:17:29 Later. 20:17:31 and they haven't been asking for this 20:17:32 later 20:20:02 I was going to ask how the day's been going for you Hixie? 20:20:11 fine so far 20:20:15 Good good. 20:20:22 If you want to make HTML/CSS/Javascript easier to learn, you probably want to think more about taking things out, rather than adding new alternatives. 20:26:38 That would be ideal, but I think there have been needs that haven't been met with the current state of HTML/CSS/JavaScript that only additional specs can address. 20:27:57 Sounds like fodder for a working list of topics. What are those needs (and are they really needed)? 20:29:07 semantics for web applications is one 20:29:26 richer semantics for documents is another (such as
        ,
        ,