00:11:55 <krijnh> krijnh has joined #html-wg
00:17:33 <marcos> marcos has joined #html-wg
00:20:36 <edas> edas has joined #html-wg
00:21:01 <Zeros> Zeros has joined #html-wg
00:49:55 <Shunsuke> Shunsuke has joined #html-wg
01:06:38 <olivier> olivier has joined #html-wg
03:08:21 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
03:19:14 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
03:48:26 <marcos> marcos has joined #html-wg
03:54:07 <krijnh> krijnh has joined #html-wg
03:57:59 <marcos_> marcos_ has joined #html-wg
04:08:40 <myakura> myakura has joined #html-wg
04:19:25 <Shunsuke> Shunsuke has joined #html-wg
04:35:48 <Zeros> Zeros has joined #html-wg
04:57:32 <anne> anne has joined #html-wg
04:57:46 <anne> whoa
04:57:50 <anne> I'm in Australia!
04:58:11 <htmlr> htmlr has joined #html-wg
05:00:16 <MikeSmith> anne - welcome to the other half of the world
05:00:23 <MikeSmith> tbe better half
05:00:33 <marcos_> marcos_ has joined #html-wg
05:00:47 <anne> it's the warmer part anyway
05:00:49 <anne> not sure about better
05:16:18 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
05:20:31 <anne> heh
05:20:48 <anne> marcos seems to have teached gmail to filter out stupid messages on public-html :)
05:21:08 <Zeros> Need a design principal that asks emails to be of substance and no +1 "I agree" messages eh?
05:21:46 <anne> something like a "HOWTO write an e-mail"
05:21:47 <marcos> let me see... we have Mike (not smith), <indent> vs. <blockquote> thread, etc
05:21:54 <anne> or "E-mail for dummies"
05:22:08 <marcos> Lachy has written one of those
05:22:31 <marcos> I think he even points to an RFC
05:23:56 <marcos> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855
05:26:21 <Zeros> The <indent> vs. <blockquote> has been, um, interesting...
05:29:35 <sbuluf>  proposals in emails could be also posted to say some wiki, and +1's could be added there. probably a better model. current number of +1's and -1's could also additionally be added to the topic of echa proposal. 
05:30:28 <sbuluf> Re: <indent> vs. <blockquote> [+12, -5]
05:31:49 <anne> the use case for <indent> seems to be addressed by <i>
05:32:10 <anne> but maybe you want some kind of block level variant that sets text apart
05:32:13 <Zeros> The number of ±1 in emails isn't that important though sbuluf, its *why* they agree or disagree that's really relevant
05:32:23 <anne> yes
05:32:28 <anne> it's about arguments, not numbers
05:32:45 <sbuluf> zeros, agreed, mostly, but it could work for clearly stated, separate proposals
05:33:10 <sbuluf> arguments could be noted in wiki
05:33:38 <anne> those can be done by formal vote
05:33:40 <anne> if necessary
05:33:50 <anne> no need to express that in e-mail
05:39:47 <anne> sorry about my time zone nonsense
05:39:53 <anne> didn't notice it was still at +1
05:40:03 <anne> ah, more IE?!
05:40:04 <anne> great
05:40:24 <karl> well not really that great
05:40:57 <anne> well i think so
05:41:09 <karl> everything is a question of context, anne.
05:41:24 <karl> e.ve.ry. single. thing.
05:42:17 <anne> i'm not really debating the fact that processing new IE might not be so great
05:42:27 <anne> i'm just saying that having more IE is great
05:50:18 <Zeros> I hope people don't take the <!--[mode=IE8]--> suggestion too literally
05:51:26 <anne> IE will have something like that I think
05:53:12 <Zeros> That just means that HTML6 is going to end up specifying the "[mode] special annotation for comments" or some such other non-sense
05:53:36 <anne> i think we hope to avoid that the web will rely on that
05:53:52 <anne> much like it doesn't rely too much on <!--If[IE]--> now
05:53:59 <anne> (for non-IE browsers, that is)
05:54:36 <anne> if it indeed ends up in a complete fucked up way well yes... we have an issue
05:55:20 <anne> we already got quite close to vendor lock-in... this versioning proposal is a way to finish that...
05:55:42 <Zeros> close with respect to what feature?
05:56:15 <anne> all the features IE added in IE5 and IE6 that have since then been reverse engineered and implemented
05:56:33 <anne> netscape is also to blame for that I suppose
05:56:44 <Zeros> That's a failure of the specification too
05:57:01 <anne> oh yeah, HTML4 and CSS2 were horrid
05:57:04 <Zeros> Gecko has lots of special Gecko only behavior and Gecko only -moz- properties
05:57:15 <anne> but it appears Microsoft sees specifications as "Guides"
05:57:28 <anne> which may be incompatible with what other people think of then
05:57:30 <anne> them
05:57:56 <Zeros> Its just not as much a problem for Gecko since they don't have near the market permeation
05:58:05 <anne> yes, we have reverse engineered some Gecko behavior
05:58:36 <Zeros> If Gecko had 80% market share I'm sure we'd have the same problems with all the XUL features that leak into the public API and are exposed to pages that aren't actually XUL
05:59:10 <sbuluf> the history of the W3C teaches the lesson that the 800-pound gorillas
05:59:10 <sbuluf> *gotta* be listened to.
05:59:40 <sbuluf> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200010/msg00450.html  <--from here, interesting reading, if anyone wishes, about w3c origins and mechanics
06:01:09 <sbuluf> it also got me thinking if this spec might not end up being called html 5.2, for historical consistency
06:01:16 <anne> hmm, +100,000 for me!
06:01:23 <Zeros> sbuluf, would that gorilla be MS?
06:01:30 <sbuluf> zeros =P
06:02:50 <Zeros> sbuluf, At least the w3 doesn't charge for its specs. Can you imagine if the html4 spec was $99 per pdf like ISO?
06:03:01 <sbuluf> ugh
06:05:17 <karl> Zeros, sbuluf: many IETF wgs are driven by companies too. 
06:05:55 <sbuluf> i have very radical views regarding this too. but once again, i do not wish to disrupt or abuse this space, i should not. enough to say, paid specs are the polar opposite of what i wish. no cigar to w3c either, however, i'm more radical.
06:06:26 <Zeros> karl, didn't think otherwise
06:06:26 <sbuluf> karl, i see. thanks, i did not know.
06:06:52 <sbuluf> (i did not think otherwise either, but did not know, thanks)
06:07:02 <Zeros> "But by including the (sometimes horribly crufty) features that the major vendors demanded, W3C was also able to get them to agree to implement the other (horribly crufty) features that the competition insisted on, and by getting that agreement, also able to label certain things as "not standards-compliant HTML," and have that mean something."
06:07:06 <Zeros> that's a very interesting quote
06:07:52 <Zeros> Interesting that it went from that to semantics too
06:08:25 <sbuluf> tthe article sort of says w3c has two main modes, or moments, so to speak. if the market is quiet, they innovate. if the market (vendors) moves too fast, w3c goes into treaty-making mode (like now, this very group)
06:08:56 <sbuluf> (or like html 3.2)
06:08:57 <Zeros> sbuluf, The web is actually relatively stable right now
06:09:06 <Zeros> canvas is the biggest new thing in a long time
06:09:29 <Zeros> xmlhttp existed for ages before "Web 2.0" was even imagined
06:09:35 <anne> not in other browsers
06:09:47 <anne> although in Gecko it has existed for quite some time, yes
06:10:04 <Zeros> true, though that's not really the same as the separate competing innovation that this email is talking about
06:10:28 <Zeros> we don't have a NS and MS fighting each other with duplicate features with different faces or trying to 1-up each other
06:10:58 <anne> Mozilla realized that would be bad for the web, I think
06:12:13 <anne> although, the storage APIs do break with IE
06:12:22 <anne> I believe the IE model wasn't considered good enough or so
06:13:22 <Zeros> Some agreement needs to be reached and the other big 3 need to promote that if its going to catch on
06:13:35 <Zeros> One would hope it would take the same route as canvas
06:13:36 <sbuluf> who developed canvas? and is it patented?
06:13:58 <anne> Apple developed, patented it and donated it to the WHATWG
06:14:05 <sbuluf> ahhh
06:14:17 <anne> Hixie then specced and changed it slightly and Apple adopted those changes iirc
06:14:18 <sbuluf> and it is the main, biggest feature in html5?
06:14:23 <Zeros> sbuluf, it wasn't really designed as web feature, but rather a feature for Dashboard by Apple
06:14:25 <anne> no, it's one feature
06:14:38 <Zeros> as a*
06:14:56 <sbuluf> big, however? as in "it toook quite a bit of work to be developed"?
06:14:59 <anne> it's quite big, but I think <datagrid> is larger
06:15:09 <sbuluf> mm, i see
06:15:13 <Hixie> apple didn't "donate" canvas to the whatwg
06:15:29 <anne> I thought they agreed to donate it once other vendors asked for that?
06:15:41 <anne> maybe my facts are wrong, sorry
06:15:46 <Hixie> apple implemented and shipped it, mozilla copied the api and implemented something similar, i figured it would be better for everyone involved if we had something compatible so i specified the api
06:16:18 <Zeros> Has apple made an official comment about Mozilla and Opera duplicating it?
06:16:22 <sbuluf> and all parties involved will donate rights so everyone here can implement, right?
06:16:47 <anne> sbuluf, that's part of the reason the HTML WG exists, aiui
06:18:13 <sbuluf> so...microsft joins, they give up nothing, and they get the better part of the next new things in town (some pretty big), for free
06:18:26 <sbuluf> am i too far?
06:18:48 <Zeros> well MS created the contentEditable feature
06:19:13 <Zeros> and for better or for worse that seems to have some backing for HTML5
06:19:16 <anne> lots of the WHATWG stuff is based on MS inventions
06:19:31 <anne> which makes sense
06:19:37 <sbuluf> i see, so is sort of a balanced trade
06:19:40 <anne> why reinvent
06:19:54 <anne> (also one of the design principles)
06:19:56 <Zeros> anne, flawed designs
06:20:11 <Zeros> perpetuating poorly designed APIs doesn't solve much either
06:20:17 <sbuluf> (as usual, thanks all for answers and info)
06:20:18 <Hixie> who cares if it's a balanced trade
06:20:26 <Hixie> we just want to make the web a better place 
06:22:32 <anne> Zeros, well, those have not been taken (the storage API IE has is one such example iirc)
06:22:43 <anne> Zeros, same with the XHTML2 href= on every element proposal
06:27:15 <htmlr> htmlr has joined #html-wg
06:28:35 <Zeros> anne, yes, though other things like xmlhttprequest didn't get the same kind of consideration
06:28:43 <Zeros> of course its far too late to change that now
06:30:17 <anne> XMLHttpRequest was already widely deployed and handles HTTP requests quite ok
06:30:34 <anne> it's not the most obvious API, for sure, but we're slowly improving it
06:30:48 <Zeros> its also horribly named
06:31:05 <Zeros> most "ajax" that uses it doesn't actually exchange xml at all
06:31:06 <anne> if that's your only argument than I don't really see the problem
06:31:43 <Zeros> There's also the magic numbers for onreadstatechange
06:31:58 <anne> I changed those into constants
06:32:05 <anne> for readyState, you mean
06:32:11 <Zeros> yes
06:32:28 <Zeros> for use in*
06:37:09 <Zeros> anne, http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#xmlhttprequest-members suffers from the same kind of issues though
06:37:37 <Zeros> and worse the fixes for those similar issues "may or may not be implemented by user agents"
06:37:56 <Zeros> They took the MS API and made it into a w3 spec and didn't fix anything
06:38:16 <anne> where does it say that?
06:38:22 <anne> in what context?
06:38:27 <Zeros> http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#notcovered
06:38:29 <anne> i sure as hell fixed a lot
06:38:38 <anne> Zeros, those are features that are out of scope for this version
06:38:45 <anne> Zeros, they'll be added in a later one though
06:38:51 <anne> and fully defined
06:39:50 <Zeros> I hope
06:40:02 <Zeros> didn't define the constants in there either
06:40:48 <anne> that's because you're not looking at the latest version
06:40:55 <anne> you're looking at the latest TR/ version
06:41:23 <anne> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
06:43:33 <Zeros> ah okay
06:44:19 <Zeros> I see you're taking a page from the HTML5 spec and specifying procedural steps for processing as well
06:45:43 <anne> My work is inspired by Hixie, certainly
06:52:41 <loic> loic has joined #html-wg
06:53:10 <anne> how's <img src="toto.jpg">La tête à toto</img> better than <img src="toto.jpg" alt="La tête à toto"> karl?
06:53:24 <anne> (at this point in time)
06:53:29 <karl> hidden metadata ;)
06:53:52 <karl> You can use markup
06:54:10 <karl> list, paragraph, you can use language information with multilingual version etc.
06:54:20 <anne> I suppose the argument about hidden metadata is not valid for this case (at least)
06:54:26 <karl> You have a direct access to edit the description
06:54:31 <anne> I agree with that, but you hardly need it
06:54:46 <anne> karl, you could have that with alt="" too
06:54:56 <Zeros> You need it in the same way you'd need it for <audio> or <video>
06:55:08 <Zeros> Why not specify alt for those instead? or the same for canvas
06:55:36 <karl> context: the discussion started in an authoring tool when you drag and drop in an image in a mailer
06:55:40 <Zeros> It was already decided that fallback inside canvas (which it was also argued by mjs is just an <img> with dynamic content) is better off with the content being the fallback
06:55:48 <karl> what is the editing scenario of the image 
06:56:15 <anne> Zeros, for <canvas>, <audio> and <video> it would not be backwards compatible
06:56:28 <Hixie> the metadata in alt="" or in content is hidden either way.
06:56:48 <Hixie> the content design is better because there's no good reason to limit alternate content to text only
06:57:01 <Hixie> however at this point this is highly academic since <img> elements have no end tag in HTML
06:57:09 <Zeros> anne, those don't exist yet, what needs to be backwards compatible about them?
06:57:15 <karl> Hixie is hidden in *browsers* :) think out of the small box
06:57:28 <anne> Zeros, the fallback content
06:57:31 <Zeros> karl, IE makes the alt visible on hover
06:57:49 <karl> Zeros: don't tell me ;)
06:57:56 <Hixie> karl: the "metadata is better not hidden" concept is *entirely* about it being hidden in browsers.
06:57:57 <anne> Zeros, as the fallback content is specifically for browsers which don't support it (at least with <audio> and <video>)
06:58:11 <Hixie> karl: metadata is by definition not hidden in non-browser UAs that use that metadata
06:58:40 <karl> not always true.
06:58:53 <karl> interesting.
06:58:57 <karl> beliefs
06:59:05 <karl> assumptions.
06:59:05 <karl> community
06:59:34 <Hixie> what _are_ you talking about
07:00:11 <Zeros> anne, and the alt fallback is specifically for browsers that don't do visual representation of images
07:00:37 <Zeros> there's use cases for extended alt for accessibility as well
07:00:45 <karl> I'm talking about authoring :) 
07:01:02 <Zeros> I don't think adding it for authoring solves anything ;)
07:01:03 <karl> alt is often not easily accessible to the author when editing a document
07:01:25 <Zeros> karl, provided the image loads how is the content any different than the alt?
07:01:49 <anne> Zeros, <img> is already supported in the way it is, so the fallback content for browsers that don't support it reason wouldn't really apply to it
07:01:50 <Zeros> Nothing stops a smart editor from putting an input box over images to edit the alt text either
07:02:12 <karl> :)
07:02:16 <anne> karl, in authoring tools that did your suggestion you'd just have <img src></img>
07:02:28 <anne> same problem
07:02:28 <Zeros> karl, isn't that what your <img></img> email was about?
07:02:29 <karl> people do not read mail
07:03:10 <karl> Hixie: sure it is easier ;)
07:03:12 <karl> cavern
07:03:25 <karl> It promotes the idea of a model ala object
07:03:32 <karl> This would not work for backward compatibility.
07:03:38 <karl> I said it twice in the email
07:04:01 <karl> I was using |img| just as the concept example 
07:04:04 <Hixie> you said something i said wasn't necessarily true
07:04:19 <Zeros> karl, what were you suggesting then?
07:04:27 <Hixie> but i have no idea (a) what i said that isn't necessary true, (b) why it isn't so, or (c) why you keep speaking in one word sentences
07:04:28 <karl> and thinking that I hesitated to use <graphics> to avoid misunderstanding
07:04:31 <karl> I should have 
07:04:41 <karl> but people would have focus on the element graphics
07:04:46 <anne> how does <graphics></graphics> solve the problem?
07:04:54 <karl> bingo !
07:04:58 <karl> CQFD
07:05:01 <anne> of hidden metadata
07:05:25 <anne> I just asked the same about <img></img> btw but you didn't reply to that either
07:05:40 <anne> Hixie has been asking the same thing for a while too, but you don't seem very responsive to that...
07:05:42 <karl> *It promotes the idea of a model ala object*
07:05:56 <anne> how does that solve anything?
07:06:16 <Zeros> karl, yes, we all agree that video, audio et al. are consistent with fallback in content and that img is different... for historical reasons.
07:06:19 <karl> 1. alt="" is difficult to author.
07:06:33 <anne> won't the tools save us? :)
07:06:48 <karl> 2. How can we improve the content model that it makes it easier to author
07:07:23 <Zeros> karl, what is more difficult about alt compared to editing the content?
07:07:42 <Zeros> or was that in reference to "No markup, no multiple choices and in terms of usability difficult to edit."
07:08:01 <karl> 3. alt="" can't contain markup
07:09:08 <karl> Zeros: Have you ever author an HTML email? Have you used a wysiwyg authoring tool
07:09:22 <karl> what is simpler?
07:09:37 <anne> 1,2,3 > <object>?!
07:09:48 <karl> put the description under the image? or go to the menu to try to access the alt attribute if accessible in the editing UI
07:10:26 <anne> when you copy an image into an environment that doesn't support images it should just paste the contents of alt=
07:10:41 <Hixie> alt text isn't for descriptions in the first place, btw
07:10:46 <kazuhito> kazuhito has joined #html-wg
07:10:55 <karl> anne: imagine that you drag and drop an image. and it generates for you the object element, open a temporary text area under the image that you can edit. ala Flickr
07:11:22 <karl> Hixie: alt text is a text equivalent of the image :)
07:11:45 <karl> if I have a photo of the beach. I can say either Beach under the sun. Beach with coconut tree, etc
07:11:55 <Hixie> those would all be stupid alt texts
07:12:05 <karl> it all depends on the descriptive equivalent you want to give to your image
07:12:07 <Hixie> alt text is for alternative text, text that is _equivalent_ to the image
07:12:12 <Hixie> not text that describes the image
07:12:17 <Zeros> karl, DW gives a UI to edit the alt attribute in the property pane, hand editing you type out alt yourself, neither seems more difficult than the other.
07:12:21 <karl> doh!
07:12:27 <Hixie> if the whole point of hte image is the image itself, then no amount of alt text will be helpful
07:12:50 <karl> arf.
07:12:50 <anne> we should have something that makes that clear
07:12:52 <Zeros> HTML email editing tools don't actually use HTML for HTML, its used a rtf serialization
07:13:00 <Zeros> as a
07:13:07 <anne> it seems better if alt= is optional for Flickr for instance
07:13:24 <anne> but I'm not sure how you'd distinguish that from the case with a missing alt=
07:13:28 <Hixie> alt: yeah, already have that noted in the list of things to deal with
07:14:28 <Hixie> er
07:14:30 <Hixie> anne:
07:14:32 <Hixie> not alt:
07:14:32 <karl> Hixie: the choice of descriptive text is entirely depending on the context. There is no absolute truth about it
07:14:34 <anne> :)
07:15:13 <Zeros> anne, what's wrong with alt for flickr?
07:15:18 <Zeros> alt="Picture of friends and me"
07:15:53 <Zeros> or better worded would be "Friends and me, at the park..."
07:16:21 <kazuhito> kazuhito has left #html-wg
07:16:36 <Hixie> which would be useful how?
07:16:48 <Hixie> flickr is basically useless if you don't have the images
07:16:49 <anne> that sounds more like a title= to me
07:16:51 <Hixie> why bother with alt text
07:16:54 <Hixie> what anne said
07:17:10 <kazuhito> kazuhito has joined #html-wg
07:17:55 <karl> flickr is a community
07:18:00 <Zeros> anne, no browser displays the title in the document when the image doesn't load, or for a text mode browser.
07:18:05 <karl> where many people exchange
07:18:22 <karl> it comes in a context of narrative telling about images. sharing emotions, etc.
07:18:23 <Zeros> flickr also has comments and other content on the page
07:18:28 <karl> images are one part of it
07:20:45 <Hixie> sure, there are parts of flickr that are very useful when you don't have the images. the actual images however, aren't part of that. there's no content they could convey without actually being present themselves.
07:21:00 <Hixie> doesn't matter how big a community is around an image, it's still an image
07:21:20 <karl> do you have dreams?
07:21:34 <karl> same process.
07:21:43 <karl> do you have imagination when reading poetry?
07:21:48 <karl> same process.
07:21:50 <Hixie> once again i have no idea what you're talking about
07:21:57 <Zeros> Hixie, the image ceasing to exist changes the meaning of the page
07:21:57 <karl> etc etc.
07:22:29 <karl> very very very interesting.
07:23:08 <Zeros> Hixie, without alt, when there's no image, what else is there? From an accessibility standpoint alt is also much more accessible than title since it actually gets rendered.
07:23:45 <karl> I have my train to catch and 1h30 of dreaming with the train community.
07:23:48 <anne> how is the title relevant if you can't see the image?
07:23:59 <Zeros> anne, that was your suggestion
07:24:01 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
07:24:10 <anne> Zeros, i'm saying your text is not good alt= text
07:24:19 <anne> I didn't gave suggestions I think
07:24:28 <anne> Well, I said your text was better suited for title=
07:25:24 <Zeros> "Picture of friends and me" is the logical representation. The comments on the page are in reference to that.
07:25:37 <Hixie> Zeros: certainly the user can be told there's an image -- e.g. [Image] -- but that's got nothing to do with alt text
07:26:16 <anne> oh yeah, the img + title can be exposed to the user
07:26:31 <anne> it should be clear though that it's a title, not text that can replace the image
07:26:57 <anne> (or that the image has replaced that text, however you phrase that)
07:27:17 <Zeros> I'm not sure img[title]::after { content: attr(title); } is a proper solution
07:28:16 <anne> ?!
07:30:19 <Zeros> that's how you'd go about exposing it to a user in a cross UA manner
07:30:34 <anne> the UA would expose it
07:30:36 <anne> not you
07:30:40 <Zeros> What UA?
07:30:56 <Zeros> No UA has that behavior yet, IE doesn't even show the title to the user at all
07:31:05 <Zeros> some make it a tooltip
07:31:12 <anne> yes
07:31:16 <anne> IE does too
07:32:46 <anne> having said all that, those things might make sense in <figure> <img> <legend> here </legend> </figure>
07:34:21 <Zeros> err, okay. you're right, it exposes alt if title is no present
07:35:38 <anne> well, that's a bug
07:35:53 <anne> alt= should only be exposed if there's actually no img visible
07:36:02 <anne> or if images are turned off
07:37:14 <kazuhito> anne: Is that a bug? Does Microsoft explain so?
07:37:48 <anne> i'm not sure if they consider it to be a bug
07:37:57 <anne> it has been reported as one though
07:38:18 <kazuhito> I just wonder that's the way Microsoft implement alt txt in their way,
07:38:29 <kazuhito> and they do  not want to call it as a bug.
07:39:50 <anne> i remember them having said it was a feature
07:40:15 <kazuhito> Hmm, can be.
07:40:49 <anne> hmm, 2.44 messages an hour on public-html
07:41:13 <anne> expected total this month: 1800+
07:41:23 <anne> average a day: 58 (up from 50)
07:42:15 <Zeros> its an active list
07:50:54 <anne> if labs.opera.com is being read karl might get some more work...
07:51:00 <marcos_> marcos_ has joined #html-wg
08:13:52 <sbuluf> http://labs.opera.com/webstandards/  --> chaals   -->  The web took off because HTML was simple, easy to author, and vendor-neutral.
08:14:37 <sbuluf> sort of ironic. now is not simple, not easy to author, and...perhaps not even quite vendor-neutral either.
08:14:59 <anne> the core is still simple
08:15:14 <anne> the more complex things are now possible as opposed to impossible
08:15:38 <anne> and the quite complex things are now easier (e.g. <meta charset=utf-8>)
08:16:08 <anne> i'd therefore only agree on the last of your points
08:16:23 <anne> but even there the same argument applies
08:18:40 <sbuluf> mm, when timbl made his browser, it was a browser, a wysiwyg editor, you need not see the core, html was thought that way (till browser venderos went amok)...and i dunno if there were vendors, at all, or interop problems
08:19:00 <sbuluf> s/core/code/
08:19:17 <marcos> Sbuluf, have you read his book yet?
08:19:27 <sbuluf> marcos, which one?
08:19:35 <marcos> Weaving the Web
08:19:48 <anne> sbuluf, yes, things evolve over time
08:19:57 <sbuluf> mm, i think i did not, i read some of his design section essays, though
08:20:10 <marcos> Seriously, it's all in the book.
08:20:17 <marcos> I highly recommend you read it
08:20:44 <sbuluf> thanks. i discussed some of this with him, btw.
08:21:14 <sbuluf> "why people hand codes is the biggest mistery!"  <--timbl
08:21:29 <marcos> because we like coding! its fun
08:21:52 <marcos> Working out how stuff works is also lots of fun
08:22:00 <anne> because editors don't do what we want
08:22:15 <anne> or are less trivial to work with than just doing it by hand
08:22:35 <marcos> how hard is it really to write some tags :P
08:23:02 <marcos> I'll give Timbl a copy of DreamWeaver next time I see him
08:26:10 <sbuluf> http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2006-07-16.html#T06-23-51  <--this is the log, might be amusing for some (I'm Biblio)
08:26:55 <sbuluf> (i didn't have a clue at that time that timbl was timbl, btw
08:30:44 <marcos> Anything with rdf in the title is funny :) 
08:34:10 <anne> or for that matter, most things my manager says :)
08:36:02 <marcos> yeah, he's pretty funny
08:36:17 <marcos> kinda scary looking, but funny
08:40:58 <hasather> hasather has joined #html-wg
08:56:33 <Shunsuke> Shunsuke has joined #html-wg
08:58:15 <ROBOd> ROBOd has joined #html-wg
09:04:59 <htmlr> htmlr has joined #html-wg
09:31:04 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
10:09:06 <zcorpan_> zcorpan_ has joined #html-wg
10:45:11 <vz> vz has joined #html-wg
10:46:35 <loic> loic has joined #html-wg
11:10:09 <marcos_> marcos_ has joined #html-wg
11:25:06 <marcos_> marcos_ has joined #html-wg
11:37:45 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
11:56:17 <edas> edas has joined #html-wg
12:02:23 <olivier> olivier has joined #html-wg
12:11:08 <gsnedders> gsnedders has joined #html-wg
12:39:20 <hasather_> hasather_ has joined #html-wg
12:48:22 <hasather_> hasather_ has left #html-wg
12:58:39 <Shunsuke> Shunsuke has joined #html-wg
13:03:54 <hasather_> hasather_ has joined #html-wg
13:06:02 <hasather_> hasather_ has left #html-wg
13:09:04 <ROBOd> ROBOd has joined #html-wg
13:30:30 <Shunsuke_> Shunsuke_ has joined #html-wg
13:36:11 <polin8> polin8 has joined #html-wg
13:45:45 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
14:03:13 <h3h> h3h has joined #html-wg
14:04:03 <polin8> polin8 has joined #html-wg
14:14:47 <DanC> tidy gave up
14:17:33 <hsivonen> DanC: ElementTree 1.2 seems to have XPath support. which version does html5lib support?
14:18:09 <DanC> html5lib supports elementtree?
14:19:04 <mjs> hello DanC 
14:20:28 <DanC> hi
14:26:02 <beowulf> beowulf has joined #html-wg
14:39:53 <polin8> polin8 has joined #html-wg
14:46:01 <DanC> ah... it wasn't my bank statement that tidy gave up on. saving this bank statement is tricky! firefox downloads it again every time I try to save it, and the re-downloaded copy is bogus (the bank site is goofy)
14:46:19 <DanC> the only way to save it is to view source, select all, copy, paste to another editor, and save from there.
14:46:46 <DanC> html5lib seems a little confused: <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head/><body><HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Home
14:46:46 <DanC> Banking Info</TITLE>
15:19:37 <icaaq> icaaq has joined #html-wg
15:36:57 <edas> edas has joined #html-wg
15:53:38 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
16:14:01 <h3h> that is terrible
16:15:29 <Voluminous> Voluminous has joined #html-wg
16:15:53 <olli-> olli- has joined #html-wg
16:23:50 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
16:46:11 <myakura> myakura has joined #html-wg
16:53:16 <icaaq> icaaq has left #html-wg
16:55:34 <nickshanks> nickshanks has joined #html-wg
17:00:03 <hober> hober has joined #html-wg
17:03:40 <zcorpan_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Apr/0037.html
17:04:23 <nickshanks> what does he mean by "magic" ?
17:04:38 <nickshanks> <body> isn't magic
17:04:49 <zcorpan_> in html, it is
17:04:58 <nickshanks> how so?
17:05:12 <zcorpan_> e.g. if you don't specify a background for the root element, the body element's background will cover the canvas
17:05:32 <zcorpan_> (as if it was applied to the root element)
17:05:40 <zcorpan_> not so in xhtml
17:05:46 <zcorpan_> i want it to be so in xhtml
17:05:52 <nickshanks> well that's because the body is the same size as the root
17:05:56 <zcorpan_> no
17:06:03 <zcorpan_> it's not
17:06:09 <nickshanks> sure it is
17:06:15 <nickshanks> why wouldn't it be?!
17:06:17 <zcorpan_> try to specify a border
17:06:24 <zcorpan_> it *isn't*
17:06:38 <nickshanks> the border is outside the viewport
17:06:48 <nickshanks> is that what you mean?
17:07:01 <zcorpan_> well, try in something other than ie in quirks mode... :P
17:08:00 <zcorpan_> or specify a background on the root element as well, in which case you will see where the body element is
17:10:16 <nickshanks> hmm, that's not what i thought would happen
17:10:32 <nickshanks> but it's probably correct
17:10:48 <zcorpan_> yes
17:10:57 <nickshanks> hang on, showing you
17:11:42 <nickshanks> what do you see at http://web.nickshanks.com/test
17:12:01 <nickshanks> i get red showing through on the margin, black border and blue inner
17:12:41 <nickshanks> but then i can never remember whether the body element had padding or margin
17:12:46 <nickshanks> it seems it was margin
17:12:55 <zcorpan_> i don't get any background at all there, just some text in blockquotes
17:13:25 <zcorpan_> same as http://web.nickshanks.com/test.html
17:13:27 <nickshanks> oops, wrong test.html uploadded :)
17:13:52 <nickshanks> try now
17:14:11 <nickshanks> oh crap
17:14:33 <nickshanks> what do you see at http://web.nickshanks.com/temp
17:14:47 <nickshanks> it was the link that was wrong
17:15:45 <nickshanks> as i say, i don't see anything magic happpening
17:15:53 <zcorpan_> in firefox (that supports :root -- opera doesn't yet) i get a red background and a black border around an empty block box
17:16:11 <nickshanks> just red showing through at the margin, black border and blue body
17:16:33 <zcorpan_> that page doesn't trigger the magicness
17:16:42 <zcorpan_> remove the background from the root
17:16:56 <zcorpan_> then the canvas will turn blue
17:17:05 <nickshanks> oh shit
17:17:11 <nickshanks> it's blue outside the border
17:17:15 <zcorpan_> yes
17:17:21 <nickshanks> that's a bug, it's not "magic"
17:17:25 <zcorpan_> it's not a bug
17:17:30 <nickshanks> sure it is
17:17:31 <zcorpan_> it's per css 2.1
17:18:05 <zcorpan_> why don't you trust what i say here? :)
17:18:17 <nickshanks> the default viewport colour should be used (i.e. grey on Mosaic/Netscape, White on modern browsers)
17:18:37 <nickshanks> because what you say is illogical
17:18:40 <hasather> nickshanks: zcorpan_ is right
17:18:51 <nickshanks> so the spec has an error :P
17:18:54 <nickshanks> lets fix it
17:19:02 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: the web depends on it. can't change it now
17:19:23 <nickshanks> the web is fluid, it doesn't depend on anything
17:19:25 <zcorpan_> what we *can* do is make it consistent between html and xhtml (currently this magicness doesn't apply to xhtml)
17:19:51 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: it depends on loads of stuff. browsers can't change this without losing market share
17:20:14 <krijnh> IE could change it *g*
17:20:19 <nickshanks> we need to infiltrate someone into the MSIE team
17:20:43 <nickshanks> if IE changed it, web developers would fix their mistake
17:20:54 <nickshanks> then every other browser could adjust
17:21:06 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: you said yourself you expected the body to cover the canvas. with this rule it does, or it appears to do
17:21:12 <hober> why would MS gratuitously break lots of paying customers?
17:22:14 <zcorpan_> the web doesn't use xhtml, so not having this rule in xhtml doesn't break the web
17:22:40 <zcorpan_> but i want them to be consistent to avoid confusion among authors
17:23:07 <zcorpan_> i haven't heard a good reason for them to be different
17:23:49 <zcorpan_> the "do other xml languages do this?" is to me irrelevant. we're already doing it for html. html in xml should not be different from html in tag soup
17:24:09 <nickshanks> i think Bert is right, people writing XHTML should know the difference and i think not having the root inherit the background colour of it's content element is correct
17:24:15 <zcorpan_> ...more than necessary that is
17:24:31 <nickshanks> XHTML is just for maths geeks anyway
17:25:04 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: so you want the barrier to use xhtml be higher than it could be?
17:25:14 <zcorpan_> just because they "should know better"?
17:25:16 <nickshanks> yes
17:25:23 <zcorpan_> ok. i disagree.
17:25:27 <nickshanks> in fact, http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/ should be the only site that uses XHTML
17:25:32 <nickshanks> :-)
17:25:55 <nickshanks> everyone else can (and should) use HTML5
17:26:08 <zcorpan_> agreed
17:26:09 <zcorpan_> but still
17:26:15 <zcorpan_> why should xhtml be different here?
17:26:26 <nickshanks> because it's based on XML not on HTML
17:27:00 <nickshanks> it needs to have XML's solid inheritance rules
17:27:14 <nickshanks> even for things as "trivial" as CSS
17:27:14 <hober> If I happen to serialize a both-XHTML5-and-HTML5-compatible DOM into one of the two syntaxes, I can't imagine why they should render gratuitously differently in browsers
17:27:23 <zcorpan_> what inheritance rules?
17:27:48 <zcorpan_> and from an implementation's point of view, css operates on the dom, not on the serialization
17:27:54 <nickshanks> zcorpan_: ones that say :root {} should not inherit from :root > body !!
17:28:12 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: this has nothing to do with inheritance
17:28:38 <zcorpan_> this does not affect the computed value of 'background' on the root element
17:28:55 <nickshanks> well on my test page, if :root has no background-color property, it inherits the background-color of it's child body element
17:29:08 <nickshanks> then why did it go blue?
17:29:19 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: please read the spec, i'll dig up a link for you
17:29:44 <nickshanks> i think CSS 2.1 is a bit of a farce anyway
17:30:05 <zcorpan_> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/colors.html#q2
17:30:13 <zcorpan_> 4th paragraph
17:30:16 <nickshanks> what does CSS 2.0 say about the matter?
17:30:19 <krijnh> nickshanks == mike schinkel?
17:30:25 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: css 2.0 is irrelevant
17:30:47 <nickshanks> css 2.0 is superior, because it has @font-face
17:31:21 <nickshanks> and decent typography is better then anything in CSS 2.1
17:31:51 <zcorpan_> css 2.1 dropped @font-face due to lack of implementations. css 2.1 has *lots* of bug fixes compared to css 2.0
17:32:26 <zcorpan_> css 2.0 is not relevant to implementors
17:32:44 <zcorpan_> you can find @font-face or some successor of it in css3, i'd presume
17:33:00 <nickshanks> yes, it's in css3/web-fonts
17:34:41 <mjs> @font-face is ridiculously over-engineered for what it does
17:35:03 <edas> edas has joined #html-wg
17:35:49 <nickshanks> hmm, so CSS 2.1 §14.2 ¶4 seems like a case of "lets make what Browser X does into the official specification"
17:36:08 <nickshanks> rather than something that was logically thought through
17:36:26 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: yes
17:37:42 <mjs> zcorpan_: we should probably try to make an HTMLWG group decision on whether to advise the CSS WG on this with regards to XHTML5; but maybe it can wait
17:37:47 <kingryan> kingryan has joined #html-wg
17:38:44 <zcorpan_> mjs: thought about that too
17:39:05 <zcorpan_> should i say i disagree with the resolution or not? (would it matter?)
17:39:48 <mjs> zcorpan_: it does matter somewhat
17:39:52 <nickshanks> zcorpan_: can you come up with a list of sights blighted by this? if we could get the top 100 or so users to switch to using an XHTML-compatible background-colour declaration then perhaps we can get rid of this magicness nonsense?
17:40:36 <nickshanks> i would imagine that 99% of sites do not set borders on their body element anyway
17:40:52 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: this has nothing to do with whether or not there are borders
17:41:12 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: most sites do set the background on body and not the root
17:41:14 <zcorpan_> and they want to fill the canvas
17:41:27 <asbjornu> asbjornu has joined #html-wg
17:41:37 <nickshanks> we need another name for 'canvas'
17:41:38 <nickshanks> :)
17:42:43 <nickshanks> there's no harm in moving body { background-colour: puke; } to the html element, is there?
17:43:03 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: the web depends on this rule, and we cannot change the web. all browsers have implemented this, and changing it for html would break the web and thus the browser would lose market share, and thus they can't change it.
17:43:13 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: no there isn't, go ahead and do it
17:43:43 <krijnh> Although background-colour wouldn't work
17:43:47 <nickshanks> well in that case we can start by changing the recommendation from "we recommend that authors specify the background for the BODY element rather than the HTML element" to the other way around
17:44:17 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: go ahead and suggest it on www-style
17:44:29 <nickshanks> am not on that list
17:44:31 <zcorpan_> i don't disagree with removing that recommendation
17:44:53 <zcorpan_> subscribing is trivial
17:45:21 <krijnh> Anyone can post to www-style?
17:45:31 <zcorpan_> don't know
17:45:44 <zcorpan_> perhaps you have to subscribe first
17:45:50 <zcorpan_> anyone can subscribe
17:45:51 <nickshanks> zcorpan_: you're more of a "don't be disruptive, leave things as they are" type of guy, i'm more of a "lets try and get web developers to fix their sites with a bit of carrot and a bit of stick" kind of guy
17:46:09 <krijnh> zcorpan_: But you don't have to be in the WG?
17:46:09 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: i used to be your type of guy
17:46:15 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: i got over it
17:46:23 <nickshanks> you defected
17:46:26 <zcorpan_> krijnh: no
17:46:26 <nickshanks> doo hiss!
17:46:29 <nickshanks> *boo
17:46:55 <zcorpan_> nickshanks: your type of thinking is what got us into quirks mode / standards mode hell
17:47:06 <zcorpan_> afaict
17:47:37 <krijnh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0894.html - "for every people that excel at what they do, there is an army of others who just don't care enough to dig a little deeper than what is expected from them."
17:47:47 <krijnh> So true
17:48:08 <mjs> nickshanks: your idea assumes there is some concept of "right" and "wrong" that applies to standards
17:48:39 <nickshanks> the quirks mode/standards mode is not inheriently a problem, what is a problem is that IE, FF and Safari don't say anywhere on the page "this site contains 23 errors and generated 54 warnings"
17:48:43 <mjs> nickshanks: unfortunately for you, browser developers are unwilling to punish end users to force authors to live up to your standard of purity
17:49:01 <nickshanks> mjs: you don't need to punish end users
17:49:17 <nickshanks> just make is sufficiently embarrassing for the content owner
17:49:32 <gavin> users won't blame the content owner
17:49:36 <gavin> they'll blame the browser
17:49:45 <nickshanks> you can do that in the UI and render the website as before
17:50:01 <zcorpan_> more specifically, they'll move back to their old browser or to a competitor that doesn't complain about 93% of pages being broken
17:50:03 <nickshanks> gavin: i don't think so, not if it is unobtrusive
17:50:17 <gavin> if it's unobtrusive, they'll ignore it
17:50:21 <nickshanks> right
17:50:27 <mjs> scary warnings that don't actually indicate real harm are a penalty
17:50:42 <nickshanks> but CEOs will say "hey why does the site you created for me have 23 errors"
17:50:45 <mjs> if they are so unobtrusive as to not be annoying, then they won't be noticed and do no good
17:50:46 <gavin> no, they won't
17:50:54 <gavin> exactly
17:51:30 <mjs> having a way to conformance-check your content might be a useful developer add-on to browsers
17:51:32 <nickshanks> i'm thinking here of how iCab and the Safari Tidy plug-in do this; have any of you used these?
17:51:52 <mjs> but it would probably be easier for it to just use an existing conformance checker on the web
17:52:04 <nickshanks> mjs: i believe that browsers should have developer tools built in, the web inspector is a great example of this
17:52:08 <Philip`> You need to punish the right people - Visual C++ 2003 fixed loads of standards-compliance bugs, and wouldn't compile most programs that were written for VC6
17:52:12 <mjs> both of iCab's users seem to like the way it works
17:52:32 <nickshanks> mjs: haha, don't be so cynical
17:52:41 <gavin> trying to make users care about HTML as much as you do by giving them "developer tools" isn't likely going to work ;)
17:52:45 <nickshanks> it is a useful feature both ofr end users and for content developers
17:52:54 <Philip`> and presumably it was successful since VC++2005 fixed more bugs and removed more non-standard behaviour (allowing some non-standard bits via optional compiler flags)
17:53:33 <mjs> Philip`: note, however, that Visual C++ is a developer tool - Windows still runs the old nonconformant compiled programs
17:53:37 <Philip`> and people appear to respect VC++ as being one of the best C++ compilers; which is far from the situation with IE/HTML
17:53:50 <nickshanks> end users can see "hmm, this site has 500+ errors in it's code, i'm not going to trust it much" and *casual* web developers (i.e. the ones who've never heard of the W3C) will finally discover they are emitting tag soup
17:55:12 <Philip`> mjs: Indeed - I assume it works because it's annoying the people who have the power to fix the problem directly
17:59:54 <Philip`> (...which does not include a web site's visitors, and often not even its developers since they're relying on someone else's dynamic-site-generation code; so I don't know how you'd find the right people to automatically annoy)
18:01:43 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
18:03:50 <nickshanks> Philip basically said what I have been trying to imply: the quickest way to get stuff changed is to annoy those with the power to change it. if the owner of CNN used a Mac he'd demand that the videos on cnn.com were made mac-friendly immediately. clearly he doesn't because this hasn't happened, and as such my access is denied.
18:05:05 <kingryan> nickshanks: annoying your customers is not good for business
18:10:09 <nickshanks> kingryan: are you talking about browser vendors being W3C's customers; web developers being browser vendor customers; website owners being the web developer's customers; end users being the website's customers; or ultimatly, end users being the W3Cs indirect customers.  I try to think holistically from the last of those perspectives. what can we do with standards to make the end user experience better. annoying the middle men, browser vendors and web de
18:11:13 <kingryan> I'm talking about web users being the customers of browsers. You annoy them, they'll switch browsers to one that's not as annoying.
18:11:35 <nickshanks> there is no need to annoy end users whatsoever
18:11:38 <polin8_> polin8_ has joined #html-wg
18:12:01 <nickshanks> everything I mentioned can be done in a browser's "web developer mode" that users need never activate
18:12:33 <Ashe> Ashe has joined #html-wg
18:13:14 <nickshanks> e.g. in web developer mode you can have draconian error handling, in granny mode you can just display a little note in the status bar that this site has HTML errors and may not be worth spending your money at
18:13:52 <nickshanks> whic people will most likely ignore, but the money men hiring contract web developers will want rid of
18:15:37 <nickshanks> i cringe when i read www-html from 1994 and see things like "we already have so many pages, even though that solution is better we have to do such and such this way because otherwise we'll break all 500 websites out there!"
18:15:59 <nickshanks> and think to myself "if only they had done it the other way and fixed those 500 sites...
18:16:26 <mjs> nickshanks: you're probably not going to like the output of this group, then
18:18:08 <nickshanks> well there are only a few tens of billions of pages now; in 50 years' time we may have 10^30 web pages and the 10^10 of them coded in tag soup HTML 4 and "last updated in 2007" will seem utterly insignificant
18:20:20 <nickshanks> i guess i just think forwards-compatibility is more important than backwards-compatibility, especially when most sites and browsers are being actively maintained and can be easily changed.
18:20:44 <hober> I don't think I understand what you mean by "can be easily changed"""
18:21:13 <nickshanks> well website owners can upload new HTML files to their sites; browser vendors can change their code and put out updates
18:21:49 <hober> where do you get "easily" from that?
18:21:51 <nickshanks> does anyone do surveys of last modified dates on web pages?
18:22:37 <polin8> polin8 has joined #html-wg
18:22:51 <nickshanks> it takes me about 0.2 seconds to update a web page, basically the time it takes to press command and S together
18:23:03 <nickshanks> that's fairly easy by most regards
18:24:07 <nickshanks> i appreciate most people may have to use FTP, ssh or rsync to update their websites, but i don't see how it can be anything other than easy
18:24:14 <krijnh> Better spend that 0.2 seconds figuring out how reality works :)
18:26:19 <xover> Rather a defeatist attitude for leading the web to its full potential...
18:26:28 <nickshanks> and what is reality if it's not a case like my own?
18:26:59 <nickshanks> if updating websites was difficult, do you think we'd have so many?
18:27:49 <polin8> polin8 has joined #html-wg
18:28:04 <nickshanks> if updating browsers was difficult, do you think vendors would keep at it and not just give up (okay, so MS gave up at one point, but that's not my point :)
18:29:01 <hober> I don't think you're appreciating the level of complexity present in pretty much all web browsers and in many web applications...
18:29:25 <mjs> updating browsers is difficult
18:29:58 <nickshanks> mjs: have you seen nightly.webkit.org  and updated browser every day, created automatically! wow, that's really hard
18:30:05 <nickshanks> *an
18:30:34 <krijnh> lol
18:30:58 <krijnh> yeah mjs, have you?
18:30:59 <mjs> nickshanks: experimental nightly build != browser update
18:31:21 <mjs> nickshanks: if I tried to ship a random nightly I would probably be fired from my job
18:31:55 <hober> existence of automated build procedure for complex project != "the project is not complex"...
18:31:57 <mjs> anyone here who has actually shipped a browser raise your hand
18:32:25 <xover> Appeal to authority?
18:32:48 <mjs> appeal to experience
18:33:08 <mjs> I have first-hand experience on how hard it is to update a browser
18:33:25 <mjs> you don't have to trust me, but my opinion is likely to be more informed than that of someone who hasn't
18:33:55 <gavin> what do you mean by "update a browser"?
18:34:09 <mjs> I dunno, nickshanks's term, not mine
18:34:10 <nickshanks> gavin: me or maciej?
18:34:16 <gavin> either of you
18:34:29 <gavin> presumably you're talking about the same thing :)
18:34:30 <mjs> I assumed he meant "ship a new version of an existing browser"
18:34:44 <nickshanks> i was referring to getting a new version into as many current user;s hands as possible, and getting the old version out of use
18:34:48 <mjs> but if you think his term is ambiguous, better for him to explain
18:35:48 <nickshanks> e.g. the old version has bug X; the new version doesn't, lets make it as easy as possible for users to a) realise they are out of date, and b) download the new version
18:36:26 <mjs> those parts are easy
18:36:36 <nickshanks> Safari has it easy in this regard because Apple Software Update nags users every week (by default) to update Saafari
18:36:40 <mjs> the hard part is making sure the new version doesn't introduce new bugs Y and Z
18:37:09 <nickshanks> mjs: well i am assuming we're already past the QA stage of the release
18:37:39 <gavin> sounds like mjs is talking about code->bits, and nickshanks is talking about bits->users :)
18:38:22 <mjs> nickshanks: ah, ok, so you are saying the easy part of delivering a new browser version is easy
18:38:26 <mjs> well, no argument there
18:38:42 <mjs> but don't forget about the hard part of actually doing the development and testing
18:39:12 <nickshanks> I'm saying CSS 4.0 introduces new-fangled-rule, and IE12 and FF 4 implement it; it's easy for web developers ot add new-fangled-rule to their CSS files and upload it, and it (should be) just as easy for end users to update their browsers
18:39:57 <nickshanks> (mjs: i concur, but someone asked how easy it was for people to update their websites)
18:43:25 <nickshanks> mjs: also, i think all current vendors have a problem, and that is differentiating themselves from the competition. if all they were concerned about was fixing extant bugs in their code, and not trying to win new users by adding cool features (not denying that cool new features aren't appreciated) then i think it would be easier to put out updates. it would also help if updates *to consumers* were more frequent, say every two weeks, with the trunk code 
18:44:10 <nickshanks> currently this only happens with security fixes
18:44:21 <mjs> nickshanks: actually, fixing web content bugs is *much* more risky and more difficult than adding new UI features
18:44:40 <gavin> indeed
18:44:44 <mjs> nickshanks: so, I kinda think you don't know what you are talking about
18:45:28 <nickshanks> mjs: yeah, i've never shipped a browser (but would like to!)
18:45:40 <polin8> polin8 has joined #html-wg
18:45:43 <nickshanks> what do you mean by "risk" ?
18:45:52 <mjs> risk of causing regressions
18:46:23 <Ashe``> Ashe`` has joined #html-wg
18:46:28 <nickshanks> risk that joebloggsesflashywebsite.com will not look like it did before?
18:46:40 <mjs> web content bug fixes have a very high risk of breaking other web sites
18:46:51 <nickshanks> and that's okay
18:47:00 <kingryan> nickshanks: no it's not
18:47:16 <nickshanks> breaking a few websites here and there (that were using broken code to start with) should not be considered a problem
18:47:19 <mjs> risk that cnn.com will have its layout mangled into unreadability; risk that yahoo.com will crash; risk of introducing security holes or hangs
18:47:24 <kingryan> when a browser breaks my grandma's online banking site, then she can't buy me a birthday present, that's *not good* :D
18:47:44 <nickshanks> i'm not talking about mangled beyond readability
18:48:05 <nickshanks> i'm talking from the viewpoint of my own experience, which is fixing CSS bugs in Safari
18:48:12 <nickshanks> things like making a ~ b work
18:48:41 <nickshanks> that fix should have gone out 1.5 years ago when i submitted the patch and it was accepted
18:48:59 <nickshanks> presently it's only available via nightly builds
18:49:06 <mjs> adding new features is somewhat less risky, but still risks crashes, hangs, security holes, bad performance in pathological cases, etc
18:51:29 <nickshanks> which we test for, you can't guarantee that any line of code in any piece of software is 100% safe, but if it works in all conceivable usage cases, is that not "good enough" ?
18:56:13 <DanC> ok, I caught up on the "formal definition" thread and chimed in. here's hoping that doesn't stir up more discussion of it, or if it does, that the discussion is productive.
18:58:35 <DanC> on the "poor authorship" thread, I have wondered about "best practices" enough to check the charter once or twice; it's not in there explicitly.
19:01:33 <briansuda> briansuda has joined #html-wg
19:02:02 <xover> Hmm. DanC: You do not view formal definition in a machine parseable format (EBNF/DTD/XSD/Foo/Etc.) as a fundamental requirement for this WGs output standard?
19:02:19 <DanC> indeed, I do not, xover.
19:03:06 <DanC> I'm happy for us to produce one, but I can imagine us succeeding without one.
19:03:28 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #html-wg
19:04:36 <DanC> dbaron, hi... mjs was saying a day or so ago that he thinks it's time to put the question on the design principles. after I asked a few questions, he went to check on a few more things...
19:05:02 <polin8> polin8 has joined #html-wg
19:05:03 <dbaron> hi
19:05:09 <DanC> I haven't finished reviewing them. but I wonder if I should consider myself way behind.
19:05:09 <mjs> DanC: mainly I wanted to read and respond to new feedback - I thin I am caught up now
19:05:12 <dbaron> I don't think I can pretend to be following the list anymore -- too much traffic.
19:05:37 <mjs> DanC: I think the non-disputed ones are ready to be put to a decision
19:06:05 <DanC> I think a lot got lost between dbaron's 2 pages or so on "don't bread the web" and the 1 paragraph that made it to the wiki.
19:06:15 <mjs> DanC: I can write up an actual proposition and you and Chris W. can decide how best to actually decide the matter
19:06:47 <DanC> well, I suppose a proposition is always in order... though I'm not sure when is the best time for it just yet.
19:06:54 <DanC> I did some updating of my issues list last Friday.
19:07:04 <DanC> I really should get over my reluctance to schedule a teleconference.
19:07:48 <DanC> a teleconference can really help with the "I don't think I can pretend to be following the list anymore -- too much traffic." syndrome. a teleconference agenda is a natural feedback mechanism that puts a damper when there's too much traffic.
19:08:04 <nickshanks> is breaded web better than webbed bread?
19:08:32 <nickshanks> sorry, i was in another channel ;)
19:09:16 <DanC> Chris hasn't responded, directly, to your last proposal, mjs. I don't know how big of a pipeline you want to maintain ;-)
19:09:27 <DanC> I should talk with Chris about it.
19:10:07 <DanC> "Why even care about incompetent web developers?" oh my.
19:10:32 <mjs> DanC: well, the last proposal needed discussion - although that now seems to have settled down
19:11:30 <DanC> yeah... so now I need to find out if Chris is happy to put the question (or have me do it) or Microsoft wants more time to discuss it.
19:12:36 <DanC> "being a web developer requires some skill that a lot of people just don't have". but there's an awful lot of web content not produced by so-called "web developers".
19:13:18 <mjs> DanC: it sounded like he wanted to give some feedback from Microsoft's POV
19:13:43 <xover> But should it be created directly by such users, or by tools with suitable levels of abstraction?
19:13:49 <DanC> his "versioning and html[5]" message might be a response to the HTML5 proposal. not entirely clear.
19:14:25 <DanC> xover, the question of how it *should* be created is somewhat academic. The fact is, it *is* created by a decreasingly sophisticated authorship.
19:15:22 <mjs> DanC: I think his message is solely about whether to have version syntax, not a response to the HTML5 proposal - he was planning to write it since before the HTML5 proposal was made
19:15:40 <xover> And increasingly by way of tools such as Microsoft Word, Bloxom, blogger.com, etc.
19:15:59 <DanC> bloxom and blogger let authors type markup, no?
19:16:23 <DanC> oh crud. I missed a 2pm appointment.
19:17:02 <xover> Is your "unsophisticated authorship" really interested in editing raw HTML?
19:18:35 <DanC> no; they're interested in photos of the party last weekend. but raw HTML is the shortest path to the target, currently. (assuming myspace lets you type <b>OMG</b> and such; I don't even know.)
19:19:12 <kingryan> xover: they're also interested in copy/pasting raw html (ref: myspace themes)
19:20:18 <xover> kingryan: the theme, yes; but the HTML itself?
19:20:37 <kingryan> xover:  the theme is written in html/css/js
19:20:39 <bewest> bewest has joined #html-wg
19:21:47 <xover> I would assume myspace lets you click on “Upload Image” to achieve that goal.
19:22:29 <DanC> but what about captions and comments? <b>OMG</b> was intended as part of a comment
19:23:21 <xover> Have a look at Apple's .Mac Homepage and Picture Albums service. Not a bracket in sight...
19:23:34 <DanC> and the market share is...?
19:23:57 <xover> I'm sure mjs could tell you if you're really interested...
19:24:24 <kingryan> xover:  I'm not sure of the connection between "upload image" and the html/css/js needed to layout and style the page
19:24:30 <DanC> meanwhile, flickr allows html in comments and captions. flickr gets more exposure in my world. I dunno the real market numbers.
19:25:33 <xover> More to the point, the current activity is presumably meant to produce something of some longevity which will hopefully lead the web in the direction of its full potential.
19:26:44 <DanC> the web is designed to reflect the breadth of human experience. 80% of everything is drek (or 90% or 97%, depending on who you ask); I don't expect the web to be different.
19:27:26 <DanC> if you try to constrain away the 80%, you risk losing the really best 1%
19:27:34 <xover> For instance, better support of web applications (think AJAX, just for frame of reference) should lower the bar for providing the decreasingly sophisticated authorship with increasingly sophisticated tools.
19:29:27 <DanC> sure. I'm losing the relevance to the HTML WG's work.
19:29:53 <xover> Hence, the spec need not be authored to "pander" to a decreasingly sophisticated authorship, provided it "panders" to the increasingly sophisticated toolsmiths.
19:31:18 <DanC> ok, that makes sense. It involved not *ignoring* the "incompetent web developers", but making extra effort to balance them.
19:31:29 <DanC> involves
19:31:34 <DanC> now I must dash...
19:31:42 <xover> ttyl (and thanks for your time)
19:59:01 <mjs> DanC: Alexa and Google PageRank can tell you how visited and how linked things are, though can't really tell you to what extent users upload content
19:59:52 <mjs> DanC: more and more platforms for end-user generated content are using rich text editing that hides the angle brackets, though many have escapes for experts
20:08:53 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
20:18:13 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #html-wg
20:38:08 <gsnedders> gsnedders has joined #html-wg
20:42:08 <DanC> hmm... we passed 300 at some point. 342 now. http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318&public=1
20:42:46 <DanC> Miller Abel is new to me... from Microsoft.
20:43:25 <DanC> hmm... I don't recall hearing much from AOL.
20:44:11 <DanC> "Galen O\'Hanlon". sigh. wonder where that bug is.
20:44:35 <kingryan> php/mysql?
20:45:02 <DanC> pretty likely
20:47:14 <kingryan> magic_quotes_gpc is the likely cuprit then
20:47:17 <kingryan> culprit*
20:53:33 <bewest> DanC: is it feasible to put the stats summarizing the page at the top of the page instead the bottom?
20:55:00 <DanC> I'm sure it's a matter of a few lines of php... but it's a scrip that's shared by all WGs. The shortest path is probably for you to mail that suggestion to site-comments@w3.org, cc me and karl.
20:55:34 <DanC> site-comments has a public archive
20:56:00 <bewest> ok
21:00:50 <DanC> when I read Chris's "I'm just waiting for the press to pick up one of these threads" messages, I was tempted to reply "smile, you're on slashdot!". But didn't want to encourage that sort of thing.
21:01:24 <DanC> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230515&cid=18704035
21:20:53 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #html-wg
21:26:52 <DanC> hoot! [[
21:26:53 <DanC> Apparently the standard was practicing catch-and-release, because it  
21:26:53 <DanC> wasn't captured firmly enough to actually be interoperable.
21:26:54 <DanC> ]]
21:26:57 <mjs> DanC: I'm sure he has noticed by now, at least if Microsoft's marketing folks pay as much attention to web commentary as ours do
21:31:35 <Dashiva> I haven't seen Chris respond to the "If you release often, people won't have time to lock into bugs" line of talk yet
21:34:49 <Voluminous> Chris is out of office for today and tomorrow I thought.
22:03:43 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
22:16:15 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
22:36:07 <zcorpan_> zcorpan_ has joined #html-wg
22:36:42 <zcorpan_> "The most common problem is a white gap around your page if you have a background on the body, no background on the html element, and any kind of spacing between the elements, such as a margin, padding, or a body height under 100% (browsers typically have some combination of these by default)." -- http://www.thewebcreator.net/2007/04/16/why-you-should-be-using-html-401-instead-of-xhtml/
22:36:50 <zcorpan_> hear hear.
22:37:12 <zcorpan_> (that article does have some things that are incorrect, which i intend to point out)
22:50:27 <karl> karl has joined #html-wg
22:52:28 <marcos_> marcos_ has joined #html-wg
22:53:08 <zcorpan_> hm. pointing out all the errors would result in a long comment
22:53:36 <zcorpan_> i guess i'd only point out the major ones and mumble about the rest
22:54:22 <zcorpan_> i'd also like opera to support 'resize:both' for textareas. :)
23:04:28 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #html-wg
23:16:05 <hasather> hasather has left #html-wg
23:19:00 <Hixie> it's very hard to have rational discussions with people who use things like "it's about empowering people" or "it's like a community" as arguments
23:19:34 <mjs> who used that argument?
23:20:04 <Hixie> murray to you just now and karl to me last night
23:20:08 <Hixie> respectively
23:20:12 <mjs> oh, Murray
23:20:33 <mjs> the only actual arguments he has made on the list amount to "I disagree" and "I've been doing this for 30 years!"
23:21:05 <Hixie> yeah
23:21:45 <Hixie> i'm not ignoring him, but i am ignoring e-mails empty of actual substance (e.g. only +1, or "I disagree", or "Flowers!")
23:21:52 <Hixie> but it amounts to the same thing
23:22:26 <karl> Hixie: rational discussions are driven by openess, not by closed assumptions. The use of "Stupid", for example, will never lead you to a good discussion.
23:24:01 <karl> Hixie: I disagree with this pointing for many reasons. But I'm not sure it is worthwhile to debate because I will have to use the word community and discussions
23:26:22 <hober> karl: do you have a specific example in mind?
23:28:18 <karl> I respect a lot "open" communities. Though we would have to define to what open means. Let's say the *current* working/participation mode of whatwg is open like the one of the html wg.
23:28:21 <karl> it means
23:29:04 <karl> we only have done 30% of the work in the openess, all the rest is done by sharing work, inviting people to talk, not being dismissive, harsh, brutal, respect cultural differences and opinions.
23:29:15 <karl> and that is the hardest part in debates
23:29:27 <karl> putting aside a bit your own ideas to be able to listen others
23:29:55 <karl> For example, a very good answer to my mail about image drag and drop, was the one of maciej
23:30:10 <karl> it is sensitive, considering, etc.
23:30:40 <karl> It is what I call an intelligent answer. I may agree or disagree, it's not that much important, but it helps to build the thought process.
23:31:39 <mjs> I try to be polite when replying to people
23:32:01 <mjs> but it is much more difficult to reply sensibly to a message that gives no supporting arguments, or only uses vague generalities
23:32:25 <mjs> karl: your messages about images in email, on the other hand, was very specific and you explained your reasoning
23:32:32 <mjs> so I think that is an example of a good message
23:33:13 <mjs> one challenging thing about technical communities is that you both want to base things on rational arguments, and be generally nice to people, and sometimes the two are at odds
23:34:09 <mjs> I think Murray has, per his own claims, more than enough experience in the field to give clear supporting arguments
23:36:02 <sbuluf> sbuluf has joined #html-wg
23:36:35 <karl> yes, the problems in communities is how to get the voice of people who disagree or let say have a different opinion but are too shy, because of the general tone of the people.
23:36:58 <karl> I have received already a few messages in this sense, and it's always for me heart-shattering
23:38:59 <kazuhito> kazuhito has joined #html-wg
23:39:54 <xover> «You need two things on Usenet — a civil tongue and a thick skin.»  - Steve Dorner
23:41:19 <Preston> Preston has joined #html-wg
23:44:55 <hober> I think I may have missed the email with "Stupid" in it...
23:50:48 <heycam> heycam has joined #html-wg
23:53:28 <olivier> olivier has joined #html-wg