00:03:59 gsnedders: according to my research, about 0.0014% XHTML is served as XML 00:04:05 (iirc) 00:15:59 is that counting text/html pages with known xhtml doctypes as "xhtml"? 00:16:53 or ? 00:18:59 zcorpan, he said "served as XML", so it would seem that it doesn't include text/html pages 00:20:21 Lachy: he said 0.0014% of "xhtml" is served as xml 00:20:23 that's just pages served with an XML MIME type, not text/htlm 00:20:24 what's the rest? 00:20:29 ah 00:20:35 let me rephrase that 00:20:38 it's not 0.0014% of xhtml 00:20:48 then 0.0014% of xml is xhtml 00:22:12 I took it as meaning 0.0014% of pages on the web are served as XML 00:23:08 what is |page on the Web|? 00:23:14 gavin: I'm saying the attitude that they have the best solution already is what makes people reticent. 00:23:41 family of XHTML + HTML ? (excluding RSS for example) 00:23:54 that's what I assumed 00:32:44 xover: ah, that I can understand. I don't think that is a concern unless people think that "they" are unreasonable and unable to objectively consider different opinions. 00:33:23 http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20070422#l-225 00:33:30 big problem with this hack 00:33:48 because it relies on a lack of strictness of a browser 00:34:06 which means if/when the browser is fixed. the hack doesn't work anymore. 00:37:39 the page displays in ie but it's treated as generic xml, thus no default styles, no links, no extracted semantics or anything 00:41:51 that hack of theirs doesn't even work in IE7 00:42:00 only IE6 00:43:49 gavin_ has joined #html-wg 00:43:59 so, if the url ends in .html and there's a , then ie6 will treat it as text/html? correct? 00:44:22 somehow I'm not particularly surpirsed that the XHTML2 WG's conclusion isn't something like "IE doesn't support XHTML, we should provide an HTML alternative", but rather "IE doesn't support XHTML natively, what bugs can we exploit to work around it and maintain our illusion that XHTML can be used on the web?" 00:44:51 anne5 has joined #html-wg 00:48:26 can someone translate matthew's last email? 00:49:47 the one that starts with "Dan who?"? 00:49:55 "important work by the SVG WG"? 00:50:00 guess they haven't published that yet 00:50:25 "Yeah, Dave Hyatt is just going to have to realize that because of his participation in the Conspiracy of Light back on Babylon 5, his career in the Earth Alliance military is over." 00:50:46 http://www.w3.org/mid/462C01C7.8070903@earthlink.net 00:51:16 oh right, just received it 00:52:18 I think it was supposed to be a joke 00:53:04 but i'll leave it at that 00:56:43 is the former intended to refer to whatwg, and the latter to apple/safari? 00:57:24 Zeros has joined #html-wg 01:03:01 I'm thinking it means 'because of his participation in the WHATWG, his career in the HTML WG is over' (since it was in a response to a comment that sort of (but not really) disagreed with having Dave due to his past WHATWG involvement). But I don't think it's the greatest example of clear communication 01:03:51 ah, right 01:04:07 and indeed 01:04:49 if that's a policy that should also go for all people who gave us HTML4 :p 01:05:45 right, because we don't want people with actual experience working on this spec do we? :-) 01:06:59 ok, HTML4 might be a bad example 01:07:04 if you put it like that 01:08:04 acutally, anne5, I was responding to the general idea of not having Dave work on the spec, not your comment about HTML4 editors 01:09:31 I don't really like the editor thread at all... People are just complaining a bit without actually finding proper solutions 01:10:12 maybe, some people are expressing concerns because it is another browser persons for editing. Concerns are always interesting they express feelings from one part of the community. 01:10:16 Maybe I'm too practical 01:10:58 Because everyone knows xhtml2 is much more useful in the real world than quirks mode html 01:11:11 Because everyone uses e-mail which was specced by ... 01:11:39 anne5, Lachy, there is something you keep forgetting. it is a question of community, or more exactly communities. 01:12:15 being practical is a good way for doing work, not for juding, or you will hit the social interactions wall quite fast. 01:12:17 karl, I find it really hard to understand what you keep saying in this channel now and then 01:12:29 right, and the WHATWG community is much larger and has more involvement from the community than many W3C specs 01:12:34 fwiw 01:12:36 zcorpan: sorry, my battery ran out mid-conversation and i had to go home to get power again! 01:12:53 anyway, time to travel for 30-35 hours... yay 01:12:53 zcorpan: it was 0.0014% of pages that I surveyed used an XML MIME type 01:12:57 Lachy: the whatwg mailing list is one view. 01:13:14 Hixie: ok, thanks 01:13:41 so the amount of xhtml on the web is a subset of that 01:14:45 anne5: :) 01:14:47 yeah 01:15:11 zcorpan: about 15% of pages had xmlns="...xhtml" attributes on the element 01:15:32 wow, higher than I'd expect 01:15:53 Hixie: did the sample contain the RSS feed? or just html/xhtml type (with the bias on what is a real html/xhtml) 01:16:00 and about 50% had doctypes of any kind 01:16:07 s/feed/feeds/ 01:16:17 karl: i believe i specifically excluded RSS, but i'd have to go to work to check 01:16:27 ok thanks 01:16:29 it's hard to tell what is one or the other, in practice 01:16:39 (q.v. the algorithm in the html5 spec) 01:16:43 yes it's what I thought too :/ 01:17:28 google doesn't index feeds though, does it? 01:17:44 and even so, .0014% seems low if it includes feeds 01:18:09 most feeds are served as text/plaoin or text/html 01:18:22 heh. nice 01:19:30 Hixie: how feasible is it to be hired into your "team" at Google? 01:20:34 http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/index.html 01:20:55 yeh, no open req for "work with Hixie on HTML5" 01:21:03 heh 01:21:05 and I sincerely doubt there ever will be 01:21:11 that's the kind of job you have to grease your way into 01:21:53 h3h: if you have the desire to work for Google in the first place. But that's another topic ;) 01:22:06 oh I do indeed have that desire :) 01:22:10 plus the fact that you can easily contribute publicly to this work 01:22:20 "easily" is relative 01:22:37 especially when working a more-than-full-time job 01:22:37 hi! html5 is teh coolest shit!! i want to work with hixie at google so i can make up tags 01:22:38 yeah if you want to be paid by google to work on this stuff, i recommend going about it the way i did 01:22:41 h3h: yes it takes time 01:23:00 that is, spend years working with browser vendors, writing tests, working with working groups, etc 01:23:26 and start your own working group to fill the gaps in the web :) 01:23:32 Or just send `em a resume; at the rate they're amassing employees... :-) 01:23:53 indeed 01:25:27 That's just what we need... another WHATWG for every person seeking employment by Google 01:25:33 haha 01:27:56 karl: You may want to point yod at mjs' . 01:28:30 I'm going about it exactly the way Hixie did... get a job at opera (trying to), work on specs, etc. :-) 01:29:37 :-) 01:29:41 xover: I'm looking at that. It is a day-off today in Keio SFC, but I will pass it. 01:29:54 yod has days off? SInce when? :-) 01:29:55 who wants to set up the IWAJAGWG (I want a job at Google working group) ;-) 01:30:13 xover: well as you see ;) I'm here too and I should not :p 01:30:19 heh heh 01:30:25 Speaking of which... 01:30:38 have a good night 01:33:52 xover: who is yod? 01:35:06 mjs: yod on freenode:#validator is olivier on W3C channels 01:35:12 aka Olivier Thereaux 01:35:42 ah, so he might be interested in helping with a test suite for conformance checkers? 01:36:27 or at least to have access to the test and automate them for the validator. I think so. 01:37:07 http://validator.w3.org/dev/tests/ 01:48:30 i'll probably be working on tests at opera this summer, and i'll look into labeling each test as syntatically conforming/syntatically non-conforming, so they can be used as conformance checker tests as well as browser tests 01:51:30 Lachy: since you were discussing Safari's handling of