00:00:17 <kazuhito> kazuhito has joined #html-wg
00:23:44 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
00:25:15 <mjs> so much scrollback to read
01:07:33 <Hixie> i'm really starting to think that john boyer isn't discussing the form issues in good faith
01:09:03 <schepers> why do you say that?
01:09:39 <Hixie> because he keeps asking what's wrong with xforms, but always ignores the replies, and never response to questions about what's wrong with web forms 2
01:09:52 <Hixie> furthermore, he repeatedly has stated incorrect facts about web forms 2
01:10:04 <Hixie> despite having been corrected multiple times
01:10:18 <marcos> marcos has joined #html-wg
01:10:49 <schepers> he may not have understood 
01:11:01 <Hixie> then he should say so
01:11:25 <schepers> you don't always know when you've misunderstood something :)
01:11:51 <schepers> but he may be looking at it with XForms-colored glasses
01:12:53 <schepers> or, as you say, he may be operating from vested interests (as are the browser vendors)
01:13:56 <Hixie> i have no objection to him operating with vested interests. But there's no point having a discussion if one of the people in the discussion isn't actually interested in using logical, fact-based argumentation.
01:14:08 <schepers> fair enough
01:25:51 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
02:22:31 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
02:30:03 <Hixie> mjs: when you do the line count stuff, you have to add up html4 + dom2 html + xhtml1
02:31:40 <Hixie> vs wf2 + wa1
02:32:06 <zcorpan> html4 refers to sgml for parsing, so...
02:32:13 <Hixie> as it's important not to forget xhtml1 :-)
02:32:18 <Hixie> hm
02:32:26 <Hixie> i guess you could indeed argue that you should also include sgml
02:37:57 <zcorpan> hmm, html4 has many normative references
02:38:25 <zcorpan> esp [HTML40] surprised me for being normative
02:49:06 <Hixie> html4?
02:52:07 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #html-wg
02:56:59 <zcorpan> yes. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/references.html
03:17:46 <billmason> billmason has joined #html-wg
03:20:28 <Hixie> weicd
03:20:29 <Hixie> weird even
03:27:04 <Voluminous> Voluminous has joined #html-wg
03:32:23 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
03:40:55 <myakura> myakura has joined #html-wg
04:15:47 <Shunsuke> Shunsuke has joined #html-wg
04:36:23 <Shunsuke> Shunsuke has joined #html-wg
04:48:35 <myakura> myakura has joined #html-wg
04:55:58 <Shunsuke> Shunsuke has joined #html-wg
04:57:05 <hyatt> hyatt has joined #html-wg
05:19:01 <Shunsuke> Shunsuke has joined #html-wg
05:34:52 <Zeros> Zeros has joined #html-wg
05:39:03 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
05:57:52 <xover> Hixie: You can and should include SGML.
05:58:24 <Hixie> in the count of lines that html5 is replacing?
05:58:32 <xover> yes
05:58:42 <Hixie> that's what, 500 pages?
05:59:09 <xover> And this is the biggest fundamental problem with html4 IMO; the lack of public (web) availability of the ISO 8879 spec.
05:59:18 <xover> Summjat like that, yeah.
06:00:23 <Hixie> so html5 is like a third of the size of the specs its replacing
06:00:24 <Hixie> wow
06:00:51 <xover> Quite likely, yes.
06:01:14 <xover> But note that that's not /necessarily/ a compliment.
06:01:36 <Hixie> given how much more detailed html5 is, i'll take it as one :-)
06:01:59 <Zeros> SGML is quite a bit more complex than html5
06:02:39 <Zeros> If you bundled all the previous CSS and DOM specs and the HTML5 spec that'd be pretty dense too
06:03:20 <Zeros> hmm. call it "Web Platform Specification" and charge $99 per copy and you have ISO
06:05:16 <schepers> that size comparison is not quite fair
06:05:59 <schepers> the mode for those specs was to reference other specs, to build on technologies
06:06:27 <schepers> you are simply taking all the relevant parts and putting them in one place
06:06:37 <Hixie> yeah, sgml is equivalent to xml
06:06:41 <Hixie> not xml+dom+css+...
06:06:42 <schepers> not that that's bad
06:06:55 <xover> I sincerely hope HTML5 tries to stand on various proverbial shoulders here!
06:06:56 <Zeros> Hixie, sgml defines quite a lot more than xml
06:07:10 <Hixie> not really
06:07:17 <Zeros> I was talking size though
06:07:21 <schepers> I'm just saying it's not a true comparison
06:08:58 <xover> schepers: No such comparison could be claimed to be "accurate". But I think, put in context, it can be an _apt_ comparison.
06:09:09 <Zeros> Hixie, if that were true then there'd be no need for xml, we'd just use sgml
06:09:18 <schepers> apt to what?
06:09:39 <schepers> I mean, what are you claiming it says?
06:09:41 <Hixie> Zeros: sgml defines a syntax. xml defines a syntax. it just so happens the sgml syntax is way more expressive.
06:09:52 <Hixie> Zeros: they're still equivalent technologies
06:10:18 <Zeros> Hixie, Um, equivalent in the way that csv is the same as xml I guess.
06:10:24 <Zeros> one is just more expressive
06:10:32 <Hixie> right
06:11:16 <Zeros> That wasn't the parallel I was trying to make though
06:11:17 <xover> schepers: It illustrates, for instance, the point that HTML5 — whatever else one may think about it — does go to great lengths to specify parsing rules that HTML4 handwaves somewhat to SGML.
06:11:49 <xover> Which, btw, is an argument both pro and con the HTML5 approach in my book.
06:12:04 <schepers> huh? how does the length of a spec have any bearing on that, xover?
06:12:45 <xover> Strictly speaking it doesn't; it "illustrates" it, not "proves" it.
06:14:26 <xover> Of course, the mere weight of lines is one of the reasons I'm still on the fence.
06:14:56 <schepers> I didn't say anything about "proof"... anyway, nm, it just struck me as a silly exercise... carry on
06:15:08 <xover> Then we're in agreement. :-)
06:15:20 <schepers> I doubt that :)
06:15:55 <xover> Or perhaps "instructuve" would be more appropriate.
06:19:51 <tH> tH has joined #html-wg
06:20:14 <Zeros> hmm, html5 is 211 pages
06:20:20 <Zeros> not including web forms
06:20:36 <Zeros> and its not done yet. Doesn't seem that much smaller
06:20:43 <Hixie> it's not far from done
06:20:58 <Hixie> other than the rendering section, i'd be surprised if we added more than 50 pages
06:21:12 <Hixie> the rendering section might be 50 to 100 pages of its own
06:21:21 <Hixie> we have to add wf2, though
06:21:43 <Hixie> but don't forget that it replaces sgml, html4, dom2 html, and xhtml1, all at once
06:21:54 <Hixie> which together probably add up to 2000 pages or more
06:25:42 <Zeros> part of that is related to whitespace
06:25:50 <Zeros> HTML5 is very very dense
06:27:12 <Zeros> I think the HTML4 spec is much easier to read too honestly
06:28:47 <Hixie> it would be easy to make the html5 spec easier to read if it failed to say anything like html4 does...
06:30:08 <Zeros> that's no reason for it to be so dense
06:30:09 <Zeros> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2 => http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-a
06:30:40 <Zeros> The definition of the attributes is clearly defined in a nice list there. Separated and easy to approach. You have it buried in paragraphs of text.
06:31:29 <Hixie> the list of attributes in the html4 spec says almost nothing normative
06:31:54 <Hixie> we can certainly add more (informative) text to the spec at some point when it's stable
06:31:59 <Hixie> but that's not spec material
06:32:37 <Hixie> and the html5 spec has a little contents list for jumping to the attribute definitions, if you actually want that
06:32:44 <Zeros> It's not just that. The organization of the spec is dense
06:32:57 <Zeros> If you don't know what you're looking for the HTML5 spec requires a lot more reading to find anything useful.
06:33:25 <Hixie> that's because there simply isn't anything useful _in_ the html4 spec
06:33:37 <Hixie> so if you want to find something useful in teh html4 spec, you can immediately know it's not there without looking
06:34:45 <Zeros> hah
06:34:49 <Zeros> you're way too biased
06:35:13 <Zeros> and much too close to the HTML5 spec to see how dense it really is. The person writing it understands it clearly. Of course it makes sense to you.
06:35:51 <Hixie> well, i'd be happy to rearrange the html5 spec to be easier to read, if you have any concrete suggestions
06:36:33 <Zeros> Hixie, break out the attributes into lists with nice headers. Starting the definition inline and making it red requires more scanning.
06:37:05 <Zeros> hmm, the Media Query [MQ] links don't work in Safari
06:37:28 <Hixie> the [...] links don't work at all, i haven't done the references section yet
06:37:33 <Hixie> the attributes wouldn't work that way
06:37:46 <Hixie> e.g. the link attributes are defined in an entirely different section
06:38:13 <Hixie> and some of the attributes have multiple definitions depending on the other attributes
06:38:33 <Hixie> generally i don't like keying things from attributes, because the attributes aren't what matter
06:40:10 <Zeros> Right now trying to find information about an attribute is a lot of work
06:40:27 <Zeros> Where do you define that an attribute is optional unless it says "required" next to it?
06:41:37 <Hixie> attributes are optional or required based on what it says next to their definition
06:41:45 <Hixie> the (required)/(optional) stuff is old and will all be removed
06:41:49 <Hixie> because it's often wrong
06:41:57 <Hixie> usually an attribute is required if something else applies
06:42:06 <Hixie> e.g. "one of these attributes must be present"
06:43:25 <Zeros> That's not very approachable to have to dig through a paragraph of prose to figure out if something is required or not
06:43:36 <Hixie> i don't really know how else to do it
06:43:46 <Hixie> attributes aren't just optional or required
06:45:53 <Zeros> Some are defined that way. It says the src attribute is required 
06:46:24 <Zeros> You also jump around in the prose which makes it hard to find what you're looking for. It goes from talking about the src attribute, to talking about alt, to talking about the src attribute again
06:46:29 <anne> requiring src doesn't always make sense for <embed>, if type is already present for instance
06:46:31 <Hixie> <img src>?
06:46:37 <Zeros> yes, not embed
06:46:41 <anne> (same for data and type on <object>)
06:46:42 <Hixie> yeah, <img src> might be required. that's one of the few ones.
06:46:59 <Hixie> but why would anyone need to know that src= was required?
06:47:04 <Hixie> it's not like they're going to use it without
06:47:12 <Hixie> the element is pretty useless without
06:47:26 <Zeros> that's a pretty big assumption to make
06:47:31 <Hixie> is it?
06:47:35 <Hixie> doesn't seem so to me
06:47:43 <Zeros> <img id="foo"> lets set it with JS later
06:47:57 <Hixie> that's a good arguemnt for not making src= required
06:48:02 <Zeros> yes
06:48:07 <Zeros> its a good argument for being explicit
06:48:12 <Hixie> explicit about what?
06:48:21 <Hixie> you just argued it shouldn't be required
06:48:24 <Zeros> About if something is required or not and when
06:48:35 <Hixie> well, it _is_ explicit
06:48:41 <Hixie> it's just not in note form anywhere
06:48:57 <Hixie> the problem with note form is that for more attributes you'd have to say "see prose"
06:49:10 <Hixie> because the rule would be complicated
06:49:12 <Zeros> It says its required right now, yes.
06:49:15 <schepers> schepers has joined #html-wg
06:49:30 <Hixie> anyway, i gotta go home
06:49:33 <anne> Zeros, wat are you arguing for?
06:49:38 <Zeros> I'm not taking about img specifically though, I'm talking about the spec itself
06:49:40 <Hixie> i recommend sending concrete suggestions to whatwg@whatwg.org
06:49:42 <Zeros> the usemap attribute is defined in the middle of a paragraph
06:49:45 <Hixie> so that i can fix the spec
06:49:53 <Zeros> ok
06:50:04 <Zeros> anne, organizing the spec better
06:50:05 <Hixie> but before i go i'll just reiterate that i don't really consider attributes important
06:50:20 <krijnh> krijnh has joined #html-wg
06:50:26 <Hixie> i think that considering the spec to be a description of elements and attributes is one thing that made html4 as bad as it is
06:50:37 <Hixie> (as opposed to making it a description of a language that happens to have elements and attributes)
06:50:57 <Zeros> There needs to be some middle ground
06:51:06 <Hixie> i'm not even really convinced that having sections per element is a good way of doing it
06:51:13 <Hixie> e.g. <Legend> doesn't really work having its own section
06:51:24 <Hixie> it should be defined in the <details> section and the <fieldset> section
06:51:29 <krijnh> (Sorry for not updating the logs yesterday - my connection dropped)
06:51:29 <Hixie> same with <dt>/<dd> and <li>
06:51:37 <Hixie> anyway really gotta go
06:52:01 <Zeros> later
07:09:44 <anne> Dmitry Turin seems to want declarative features as well... it's funny how he seems to ignore all main threads and just does a bunch of fature requests
07:11:13 <Zeros> Be nice if we could get past finalizing editors, adopting the spec and other matters first
07:12:33 <anne> It would be nice if the design principles were settled upfront
07:12:58 <anne> Would've saved us all quite some time
07:13:31 <anne> And if people read the spec and don't assume that browser vendors are evil
07:14:19 <Zeros> there is some reason to be apprehensive with respect to browser vendors
07:14:55 <Zeros> evil, no. Business, yes.
07:15:43 <anne> I'm not sure how you can do much innovation without business involved
07:16:13 <anne> (not that this is about innovation)
07:18:57 <heycam> heycam has joined #html-wg
07:23:13 <mw22> mw22 has joined #html-wg
07:27:57 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
07:31:04 <gsnedders> gsnedders has joined #html-wg
07:45:41 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
07:58:54 <loic> loic has joined #html-wg
08:06:22 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
08:25:50 <wilhelm> wilhelm has joined #html-wg
08:26:12 <Hixie> Hixie has joined #html-wg
08:28:26 <hsivonen> hsivonen has joined #html-wg
08:28:47 <Dashiva> Dashiva has joined #html-wg
08:33:37 <hsivonen> come morning and we have a formal objection from John Boyer
08:34:15 <hsivonen> and unlike Gareth Hay, he objects to the choice of editors as well
08:35:04 <anne> heh
08:35:25 <anne> pointer to the survey?
08:37:08 <ROBOd> ROBOd has joined #html-wg
08:38:07 <MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results
08:41:00 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
08:42:01 <loic> loic has joined #html-wg
08:45:27 <anne> "Regarding the Forms component of HTML 5, the HTML and Forms working groups are chartered to work together on forms that align with XForms."
08:45:28 <anne> lol
08:45:33 <anne> we're not
08:46:08 <zdenko> zdenko has joined #html-wg
08:46:23 <Lachy> there is no way I would be happy with having someone from the XForms working group be an editor for WF2 for the reason John Boyer stated.  Editors should be chosen on their own merits, not their association with other groups
08:49:01 <anne> hmm, Julian Reschke seems to confuse the Atom MIME type with what's being used for Atom
08:49:02 <anne> oh well
08:49:28 <hsivonen> Lachy: what if Hixie joins the forms WG?-)
08:51:04 <Lachy> that would be fine, he has been chosen based on his own merits
08:52:08 <hsivonen> Microsoft hasn't, either
08:52:40 <Lachy> we can fairly safely assume that Opera will vote yes
08:53:14 <Lachy> I'm not quite so sure about MS, but given Chris' earlier response on the list, whcih was fiarly positve, they'll most likely vote yes to
08:56:41 <anne> when does the voting close?
08:56:55 <Lachy> Friday night, Boson time
08:57:03 <anne> oh ok
08:57:14 <anne> I'll check with lbolstad tomorrow then, no rush
08:57:46 <krijnh> krijnh has joined #html-wg
09:03:39 <Lachy> I'm trying to think of a few examples of non-backwards compatible changes to help explain the difference between back compat and graceful degradation.  Any suggestions?
09:03:54 <Lachy> I have one: renaming <script> to <handler>
09:04:02 <Lachy> (borrowed from XHTML2)
09:04:15 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
09:04:22 <Lachy> ah, redefining the <label> element would be another good one :-)
09:05:53 <beowulf> gareth hay's recent email is annoying
09:07:23 <beowulf> i'm a newcomer, i've asked for explanation of a lot of things, browser vendor types have been very courteous in dealing with my ignorance and on the other side of the fence i've been flat ignored twice
09:08:50 <hyatt> honestly i don't even know what we're arguing about any more
09:08:52 <Lachy> beowulf, you'll find that's because they don't actually have any technical arguments to back themselves up, just more moral-based, or fallacious arguments
09:09:21 <beowulf> Lachy: that appears to be true
09:09:43 <hyatt> i don't understand the aversion to defining error handling behavior
09:09:50 <Lachy> the problem is trying to get them to realise that, without getting to impatient and angray with them
09:10:03 <hyatt> i haven't gotten impatient/angry at all
09:10:04 <Lachy> s/angray/angry/
09:10:14 <hyatt> but i also feel like i'm just talking to people who don't really pay attention to logic
09:10:19 <Lachy> hyatt, I didn't say you did
09:10:41 <hyatt> i feel like i'm talking about religion or politics
09:10:44 <hyatt> with some die hard believers
09:10:49 <hyatt> in a certain way of doing things
09:10:50 <beowulf> yup
09:10:57 <Lachy> +1
09:11:00 <Lachy> :-)
09:11:13 <hyatt> whereas i just want to have my browser that i work on actually render web pages
09:11:34 <hyatt> and if that means defining error recovery to be like winie to help me do that, whats the harm
09:12:32 <beowulf> i need your browser to render pages, inaccurate ones, badly written ones. I wrote some of them.
09:12:55 <hsivonen> hyatt: it seems to me that some people have totally failed to realize the importance of legacy content in browser competetition. for some reason, the significance of legacy content is understood much better by those who discuss word processor formats.
09:13:18 <hyatt> i think the point of confusion
09:13:29 <hyatt> may just be that people think that we want this error handling to somehow imply these bad documents are ok
09:13:35 <hyatt> they're not ok
09:13:38 <hyatt> they're still bad content
09:13:44 <hyatt> but why not define how to handle bad content
09:13:45 <hyatt> css does
09:13:50 <hyatt> why shouldn't html
09:14:19 <Lachy> anne's last email was a good one! :-)
09:14:32 <Lachy> now to read Gareth's reponse...
09:15:15 <hyatt> honestly i'd even be ok with making an html5 spec that was pure for the w3c
09:15:19 <hyatt> and just overlaying in the whatwg stuff
09:15:22 <hyatt> in the whatwg's doc
09:15:33 <hyatt> but all that would do is cause everyone to view the whatwg's one as the official doc
09:15:39 <hyatt> and the w3c one as the lame subset
09:15:52 <Lachy> that would basically make the W3C's spec irrelevant
09:15:53 <hyatt> would just further cement the whatwg's status as the true designers of html5
09:17:08 <Lachy> I would rather suggest that certain objecters move over to the XHTML2 WG, who share many of the same opinions with them.
09:19:31 <hyatt> this is such a weird situation
09:19:47 <hyatt> having two groups both doing html5 at the same time
09:29:03 <anne> it's not clear yet what the HTML WG will be doing...
09:29:13 <hyatt> wasting time in email apparently
09:29:14 <hyatt> instead of working
09:29:18 <anne> yeah
09:29:22 <anne> not sure who's to blame
09:29:32 <hyatt> i may just stop responding
09:29:34 <anne> prolly the W3C for not getting the charter right
09:29:39 <hyatt> majority clearly supports whatwg's position
09:29:51 <hyatt> so no real need to continue to argue
09:29:58 <anne> and maybe the browser vendors for not demanding a more accurate charter
09:30:09 <anne> you got a point there
09:30:12 <hyatt> maybe so... we complained a lot about the first charter though
09:30:17 <hyatt> (apple did i mean)
09:34:39 <loic> loic has joined #html-wg
09:35:44 <krijnh> krijnh has joined #html-wg
09:36:31 <Dashiva> That last post from html60 seems to be eerily close to xforms. I wonder if they'll join forces :)
09:39:03 <krijnh> Ping
09:39:11 <hyatt> html60?
09:39:38 <hyatt> anne: i especially don't get the html5 should break backwards compat argument
09:39:53 <Dashiva> Dmitry Turin
09:39:54 <hyatt> anne: thats what xhtml does so there would be no point to html5 
09:41:10 <anne> yeah
09:41:37 <anne> I suppose people think HTML5 will actually get implemented so they try to force XHTML2 design into HTML5 without realizing that it doesn't help
09:52:43 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
10:39:08 <anne> whoa
10:39:13 <anne> was I inpolite or something?
10:42:52 <krijnh> krijnh has joined #html-wg
10:44:39 <hsivonen> Gareth Hay withdrew his formal objection
10:44:57 <hsivonen> IBM's formal objection is still standing
10:46:11 <hsivonen> "one of the XForms opponents even asked recently how a particular simple WF2 form would be written in XForms, so the objections are not even based on firm knowledge of XForms but rather on having developed WF2" -- John Boyer
10:48:26 <Lachy> that just indicates that XForms doesn't leverage existing skillsets, which is a problem
10:49:05 <hsivonen> Lachy: that's a good point to make on the list
10:49:41 <Lachy> do you know where I can find the email he's referring to, and his to response to it?
10:51:51 <hsivonen> Lachy: my guess is that he is referring to mjs but he didn't properly respond to mjs. (presumably he didn't have a logical and technical refutation to mjs' points)
10:52:20 <Lachy> ok, I'll search their emails
10:53:38 <Lachy> ooh, so is Gareth leaving the group?
10:53:45 <Lachy> "Fine. I think today will be my last day on the list. "
10:55:40 <hsivonen> so it seems
10:56:56 <Lachy> I should explain to him that his arguments were dismissed on technical, logical and practical grounds, and that he should not take it to heart.
10:57:42 <Lachy> he says he's a newcomer, and so he needs to understand that there are a lot of people with significantly more experience than him, but that doesn't mean his feedback isn't welcome
10:58:17 <Lachy> he just needs to be prepared think about issues, listen to others and learn.
11:00:09 <anne> he already said he was clearly wrong...
11:00:30 <anne> Which objections against XForms?
11:01:13 <anne> I have enough knowledge of XForms to know that it isn't based on HTML4 and isn't based at all on HTML4 or the XML version of HTML4 forms.
11:01:26 <hsivonen> Lachy: actually, I think John Boyer was referring to Anne--not mjs
11:01:32 <anne> I think so too
11:02:02 <anne> But I was more asking because I know it to be more complex
11:02:13 <anne> because of the separation between controls and data and such
11:08:04 <claudio\out> claudio\out has joined #html-wg
11:20:21 <olivier> olivier has joined #html-wg
11:34:25 <gsnedders> in parts it seems as if Gareth hasn't read the charter (which you have to say you've read to join the WG)
11:52:51 <hsivonen> in particular, with the concepts of marginal benefit, opportunity cost and the basics of Game Theory
11:53:12 <gsnedders> no. implement every standard ever written :P
11:54:32 <Dashiva> Too bad just watching 'a beautiful mind' doesn't give enough info about Nash equilibria
12:00:03 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
12:14:22 <zcorpan> zcorpan has joined #html-wg
12:25:50 <Lachy> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/01/internet_explorer_standards/
12:27:28 <beowulf> hsivonen: urls? :)
12:28:18 <hsivonen> beowulf: in Wikipedia :-)
12:29:09 <beowulf> i have to work for knowledge?? i did not sign up for this! spoon feed me! 
12:31:20 <hsivonen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_benefit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
12:32:02 <beowulf> hsivonen: gosh thanks, i was only joking about spoon feeding
12:33:40 <beowulf> on gareth hay's point about making the web better and html5 not doing that, aiui a better web is one that conforms to the w3c standards (largely) this is manifested by people running their site through the w3c validator and proving it's valid, no-one ever links to the actual standard always to the validator
12:34:13 <beowulf> so make a validator that complies with the 'good and proper' recommendations in html5
12:34:31 <hsivonen> beowulf: working on it ;-)
12:35:00 <beowulf> hsivonen: cool, i saw that :)
12:35:32 <beowulf> but is that not correct, no-one ever points to the actual spec to say they are valid, always to the validator results?
12:36:54 <hsivonen> beowulf: yeah, people tend to point to the validator. which is why it important to have a conformance checker instead of a mere validator
12:38:23 <beowulf> well, from my now developing point of view i don't think there's any need for two specs, just one from which a 'good and proper html' conformance checker can be built
12:38:42 <anne> HTML5 already has "two specs"
12:38:45 <anne> they are just intertwined
12:38:59 <anne> see for instance the syntax section
12:39:10 <anne> (which actually has two separate sections, not a good example...)
12:40:07 <hsivonen> anne: we need better marketing of the nature of the spec on this point
12:40:11 <beowulf> cool, i was referring to my suggestion from yesterday that two versions of the html5 spec might help gareth ad tina
12:40:46 <gsnedders> I read that as "gareth to tina"
12:41:05 <hsivonen> beowulf: zcorpan wrote a style sheet to that effect
12:41:11 <beowulf> gsnedders: apologies :)
12:41:27 <gsnedders> beowulf: I'd normally correct such things in my head, but not today :)
12:41:53 <beowulf> if i focus on just one channel maybe my typing will improve :)
12:42:46 <Lachy> wow, the commenters on that article on The Register just don't seem to grasp the issue
12:42:53 <beowulf> right, now for the dumbass questions, what's the difference between a conformance checker and a validator?
12:43:07 <anne> register?
12:43:16 <Lachy> see the link I posted above
12:45:17 <hsivonen> beowulf: a conformance checker checks for violations of the machine-checkable conformance criteria. a validator checks if the document is valid according to a schema
12:45:40 <hsivonen> beowulf: if the schema does not capture all the machine-checkable conformance criteria, there is a difference
12:45:51 <hsivonen> beowulf: (in practice schemas don't)
12:46:54 <beowulf> hsivonen: thank you
12:46:57 <gsnedders> Lachy: I like how one of the comments says that MS only implement standards they are involved in creating. There are plenty of standards that they were involved in that they don't implement (either at all, or properly).
12:47:25 <Lachy> which comment # was that?
12:47:43 <gsnedders> 4
12:47:47 <gsnedders> "Tom"
12:47:50 <beowulf> zcorpan: that stylesheet is great
12:48:22 <gsnedders> quite of lot of the commentors seem to think it's possible to just write a standards compliant browser overnight.
12:48:45 <zcorpan> beowulf: thanks
12:49:22 <hsivonen> gsnedders: which is why the IETF "consensus *and running code*" is better than mere "consensus"
12:49:39 <gsnedders> hsivonen: agreed.
12:49:45 <hsivonen> actually, IETF is "*rough* consensus and running code"
12:50:19 <gsnedders> the fact that HTML5 has multiple people already implementing the parsing section, and looking over with it with fine-toothcomb, undoubtedly helps
12:59:22 <zcorpan> perhaps we should do this at ietf instead?
13:00:14 <anne> one reason not to do that is their text/plain specs
13:00:24 <gsnedders> originally the HTML WG was at IETF, IIRC
13:01:06 <anne> yeah
13:02:05 <gsnedders> (not that I was involved with the web then, obviously :))
13:03:38 <anne> zcorpan, did you ever get around filing bugs on us regarding XHTML and CSS?
13:05:31 <gsnedders> can I kill the computing exam? Mb != MiB!
13:11:47 <hsivonen> anne: it would be fun to see if the anti-irc, anti-mailinglist, pro-campfire, pro-forum people would find the IETF spec format old school ;-)
13:21:37 <zcorpan> anne: no not yet
13:22:55 <zcorpan> spec violation? not yet ;)
13:33:32 <Shunsuke> Shunsuke has joined #html-wg
13:37:50 <zcorpan> anne: #263168
13:42:05 <zcorpan> what component is this in mozilla? Core->Style System (CSS) ?
13:42:27 <anne> likely
13:44:52 <olivier> olivier has joined #html-wg
13:45:24 <Lachy> who is Dominik Tomaszuk and I wonder why he voted no?  He didn't provide any reasons.
13:46:12 <zcorpan> two "no"s now? wow
13:47:21 <anne> seems that we voted
13:47:44 <Dashiva> Two form nos from Boyer and two void nos from Tomaszuk...
13:50:38 <hsivonen> is it just me or does the International Webmasters Association look more Italian than International?
13:51:32 <hsivonen> what does it do?
13:51:47 <beowulf> carries out clandestine operations on the web
13:51:54 <beowulf> assasinations, that sort of thing
13:52:16 <hsivonen> looks like they certify Web professionals
13:52:18 <hsivonen> http://www.iwanet.org/
13:52:28 <beowulf> oh. that's much less interesting.
13:53:39 <Lachy> ooh, thers another XHTML2 telcon starting in a few minutes
13:53:51 <hsivonen> Lachy: will you attend?
13:54:03 <Lachy> in IRC only
13:54:10 <Lachy> probably just watch
13:56:35 <anne> yay, people did studies for headers= 
13:57:40 <anne> I suppose headers= is easier to implement
13:58:48 <anne> however, the use cases are addressed with scope and implicit header finding algorithms as well
13:58:58 <anne> maybe headers= should just be supported in the processing algorithm
14:04:18 <loic> loic has joined #html-wg
14:08:10 <Lachy> hey, Tina did join the XHTML2 WG :-)
14:12:46 <Sander> Sander has joined #html-wg
14:24:04 <Lachy> they ignored my questions.  oh well.
14:24:17 <Dashiva> Isn't that what xhtml2 has become famous for?
14:24:32 <Lachy> yeah, but it's fun to play with them a little
14:25:55 <Philip`> Maybe that's why they're ignoring your questions?
14:27:55 <Lachy> oh, steven wrote "Lachy, as chair, I have to tell you that you are not a member of the WG, and therefore we are obliged not to take your comments into account during WG meeting. You are free however to send comments to the list."
14:28:09 <krijnh> :)
14:28:52 <Philip`> Ah, so play with them on the mailing list and it should be fine :-)
14:29:00 <Lachy> yeah
14:30:24 <billmason> billmason has joined #html-wg
14:38:48 <mw22> mw22 has joined #html-wg
14:45:35 <AGraf> AGraf has joined #html-wg
14:46:18 <AGraf|mb> AGraf|mb has joined #html-wg
14:46:19 <briansuda> briansuda has joined #html-wg
14:50:30 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
15:06:49 <tH> tH has joined #html-wg
15:13:09 <hasather> hasather has joined #html-wg
15:15:31 <anne> how would an author view of the spec help people reading it?
15:15:41 <anne> i mean, why would they start reading the spec?
15:16:19 <zcorpan> perhaps it would help people who do read it understand it better
15:16:27 <anne> sure
15:17:04 <Preston> Is there are better way to get a clearer grasp of the HTML5 spec with a minimal time investment?
15:17:35 <anne> read the introductory parts and what you're interested in
15:18:14 <anne> just reading section 1 would probably help a lot
15:19:06 <xover> Actually, it would help a lot if the WHATWGers would point to specific parts of their spec when talking about its properties, what the spec does and does not do, and what the "intentions" of something is.
15:19:56 <anne> I think we point to the spec now and then
15:20:06 <xover> I'm sure you do.
15:20:11 <anne> saying things that are not at the other end of the pointer seems weird to me
15:20:21 <anne> because it might give an incorrect view
15:21:29 <Lachy> when we discuss specific issues, we usually do point to the relevant sections
15:23:04 <anne> Anyway, at this point it's not really relevant to discuss specific sections anyway I think
15:23:57 <anne> More about finding out whether we want to do something or not... it seems.
16:11:21 <edas> edas has joined #html-wg
16:34:35 <h3h> h3h has joined #html-wg
17:05:39 <gavin> gsnedders: I'm pretty sure that Jeff was being sarcastic!
17:05:50 <gsnedders> gavin: didn't come across :)
17:06:03 <gavin> the application/eckshtml didn't trigger your sarcasm meter? :)
17:06:32 <gsnedders> gavin: I'd've sent it anyway replying to some other email
17:06:44 <gsnedders> gavin: too many people seem to be forgetting what we're chartered to do
17:07:56 <gsnedders> gavin: and I've seen all too many people posting seemingly silly things while meaning them
17:08:04 <Philip`> We need to define a good parsing algorithm for <sarcasm>, given the constraints that its usage in existing content relies on both the start and end tags being optional
17:08:15 <gsnedders> :)
17:08:38 <mw22_> mw22_ has joined #html-wg
17:09:15 <tH> tH has joined #html-wg
17:16:47 <Philip`> Does anyone have an existing example of the type of document they'd like for authors, e.g. good comprehensive tutorials or guides to HTML4, that could demonstrate what the HTML WG should try to produce?
17:17:04 <Philip`> (I would assume that such a thing either exists already (for some language other than HTML5), or else is impossible)
17:18:27 <gsnedders> something along the lines of the majority of other HTML reference documents
17:18:58 <Philip`> (It would be fun to have something like Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby...)
17:19:52 <gsnedders> (link?)
17:20:01 <Philip`> Are there specific ones of those other HTML reference documents that you think are good?
17:20:29 <Philip`> (http://poignantguide.net/)
17:20:53 <Philip`> (I've only ever looked at a few pages, but it looks more interesting than many other guides)
17:21:08 <gsnedders> I like the general layout of the <http://w3schools.com/tags/default.asp>, though I think there really should be a better ToC, as well as better description :P
17:22:25 <gsnedders> though of course there are a billion ways to do it
17:23:45 <gsnedders> but there again, we proper should have some ultra-basic document, as a proper guide.
17:24:03 <gsnedders> starting with the reader knowing no HTML
17:24:07 <gsnedders> *probably
17:24:26 <gsnedders> (or any other non-spoken language)
17:30:38 <mw22_> mw22_ has joined #html-wg
17:55:41 <mw22_> mw22_ has joined #html-wg
18:03:46 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
18:04:25 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #html-wg
18:11:38 <zcorpan> zcorpan has joined #html-wg
18:11:57 <tH> tH has joined #html-wg
18:12:22 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
18:25:06 <briansuda> briansuda has joined #html-wg
18:34:23 <hober> hober has joined #html-wg
18:42:30 <ROBOd> ROBOd has joined #html-wg
18:51:26 <mjs> it's becoming impossible to keep up with public-html
18:51:52 <hober> It's quite a firehose, yes
18:53:19 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
18:54:03 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #html-wg
18:56:10 <h3h> it's actually pretty easy to keep up if you just ignore the babbling in the same 10 threads
18:56:41 <mw22> mw22 has joined #html-wg
18:58:55 <mw22_> mw22_ has joined #html-wg
18:59:30 <zcorpan> zcorpan has joined #html-wg
19:03:17 <anne> lol, people are suggesting new MIME types
19:03:38 <gavin> well, I think only one person was
19:04:00 <anne> right
19:04:08 <gavin> dbaron suggested it was the only way to transition to draconian error handling, and then someone said "hey good idea!" not realizing that it wasn't what dbaron was proposing
19:04:24 <gavin> and then Jeff posted his sarcastic reply to that
19:04:48 <dbaron> sarcasm doesn't work in email
19:06:33 <hober> We all know how well the switch to draconian error handling coupled with a new media type went last time!
19:07:00 <anne> heh, html60 would do good to actually read specs first...
19:07:07 <anne> <ol start=> and <li value=> ..
19:11:02 <h3h> somehow I expected more than random IRC trolling-style discussion from this list
19:11:18 <h3h> it's just a pile of FUD, ad homs and misinterpretations
19:15:46 <anne> the problem is that everything seems to be up in the air and that key people (the chairs) are not making clear what is in scope and out of scope
19:16:00 <anne> but maybe everything should be discussed first, dunno
19:16:22 <anne> at the rate this is going WHATWG will have HTML6 done by the time we publish some heavily compromised design principles
19:16:50 <DanC> DanC has joined #html-wg
19:17:46 <DanC> any CSS WG members about? I'm learning about this "overlapping table cells" issue http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css2-src/issues/issues-4.html#issue-3 , where evidently the CSS WG made a decision over the objection of Anne
19:18:21 <zcorpan> zcorpan has joined #html-wg
19:19:25 <anne> I'm a CSS member
19:19:43 <anne> Not sure if that helps here :)
19:20:00 <DanC> yes, you're on record as objecting. Evidently Hixie, Glazman, and Hyatt are also members.
19:20:15 <DanC> I'm trying to figure out their role in this decision.
19:21:14 <anne> The larger issue is that table layout is not defined at all
19:21:42 <anne> The minor issue this is about is that table layout for HTML and XHMTL is supposedly to be done different (per the CSS 2.1 spec)
19:22:28 <anne> And then there's the member only issue about CSS not moving to CR for reason X
19:22:59 <zcorpan> defining tables is something i might look into in due course
19:23:02 <DanC> oh phpht. /Style/Group/
19:23:47 <anne> zcorpan, good luck!
19:24:11 <zcorpan> anne: thanks :)
19:25:18 <beowulf> beowulf has joined #html-wg
19:26:14 <mw22> mw22 has joined #html-wg
19:28:51 <mw22> mw22 has joined #html-wg
19:31:00 <DanC> "The CSS WG decided to _not_ change the spec based on Anne van Kesteren's  comment" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Apr/0047.html . That's public. Which CSS WG members were involved in that decision/
19:31:02 <DanC> ?
19:31:30 <DanC> one of our databases lists Hixie, Hyatt, and Glazman as CSS WB members; I wonder if they were aware.
19:32:30 <anne> dunno
19:33:03 <DanC> how does the CSS WG make decisions?
19:33:16 <DanC> it seems to me that you'd know which WG members you were talking with. the group isn't _that_ big.
19:33:23 <anne> I believe during telcons and meetings
19:33:36 <anne> I attend neither
19:33:51 <anne> usually
19:33:58 <mjs> DanC: I can't imagine Hixie or Hyatt agreeing with those decisions
19:34:08 <gavin> was "WB" above a typo for "WG"?
19:34:13 <mjs> but I don't think they attend most of the f2fs or telecons
19:34:19 <anne> gavin, yes
19:34:38 <hsivonen> anne: does that mean the the CSS WG chose to blatantly disregard the way Presto, Gecko and WebKit interoperate with overlapping table cells? (and Trident, too, in text/html)?
19:35:16 <anne> hsivonen, yes, as seen in Hixie's twitter logs sometimes issues are disregarded because a page is using scripting...
19:35:36 <hsivonen> anne: sad, sad
19:36:18 <hsivonen> anne: I used to think the CSS WG was the WG that put the W in the WG at the W3C
19:36:48 <anne> I think it was mostly Hixie
19:37:11 <hsivonen> anne: did they find two fringe implementations that actually implement what the spec says about cell that would overlap in real browsers?
19:37:25 <anne> Hixie since moved on to fry bigger fish
19:37:56 <anne> hsivonen, I believe so, but not particularly convincing implementations iirc
19:38:33 <anne> The Adobe Mars project and XHTML Print profile implementations?
19:38:51 <hsivonen> I feel guilty about procrastinating with filing my research on this issue in the CSS 2.1 issue tracker
19:40:06 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
19:43:59 <anne> x-wing
19:44:14 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
19:46:20 <hyatt> hyatt has joined #html-wg
19:47:12 <hyatt> hyatt has joined #html-wg
19:59:26 <billmason> billmason has joined #html-wg
20:03:30 <asbjornu> asbjornu has joined #html-wg
20:23:04 <gsnedders> Philip`: (that Ruby guide is really rather good)
20:33:09 <hober> hsivonen: :)
20:40:45 <mjs> John Boyer's Formal Objection doesn't appear to "cite technical arguments"
20:40:54 <anne> that's ok
20:40:57 <anne> makes it ignorable
20:40:58 <Hixie> nor does the other one
20:41:27 <mjs> the other one doesn't even have a comment
20:41:27 <anne> we have two again?
20:41:39 <mjs> John Boyer and Dominik Tomaszuk
20:41:48 <anne> oh ok
20:42:31 <kingryan> kingryan has joined #html-wg
20:46:04 <loic> loic has joined #html-wg
20:46:23 <gsnedders> the Forms WG seems to be chartered to draw on WF2 for XForms Transitional
20:46:36 <gsnedders> therefore, it makes as much sense to start from WF2 as it does from XForms Transitional
20:48:16 <h3h> h3h has joined #html-wg
20:49:03 <mjs> It doesn't really make sense to identify XForms as a starting point, since XForms is not part of HTML, nor is it intended to be
20:49:17 <mjs> it's like saying the HTML WG should adopt SVG as a basis for review
20:50:25 <schepers> are you trying to draw me in here? ;)
20:58:12 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has joined #html-wg
21:01:21 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #html-wg
21:01:31 <John_Boyer> anybody know the link for the rrsagent minutes of this conversation?
21:01:46 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make minutes
21:01:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-html-wg-minutes.html John_Boyer
21:02:16 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make log public
21:02:35 <anne> John_Boyer, see the topic
21:02:50 <anne> John_Boyer, much better logs than RRSAgent
21:03:07 <gavin> RRSAgent: pointer?
21:03:07 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-html-wg-irc#T21-03-07
21:04:05 <anne> all this nonsense about multiple specs and such
21:05:32 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has left #html-wg
21:05:42 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has joined #html-wg
21:05:52 <John_Boyer> Too bad mjs just left...
21:06:12 <John_Boyer> He claimed that my objection is ignorable because it doesn't cite technical args
21:06:15 <John_Boyer> sure it does
21:06:28 <John_Boyer> the question for vote was one of process, not technical
21:06:37 <John_Boyer> so my answer was technical regarding the process
21:07:04 <anne> except that your conclusions from the charter are wrong, afaict
21:07:30 <John_Boyer> We spent 9 months negotiating the conclusions I have from the charters with the director and CEO of the W3C
21:07:33 <John_Boyer> how can they be wrong???
21:07:48 <anne> the HTML WG charter says nothing about aligning with XForms
21:07:50 <John_Boyer> Did noone in this group see the vision document
21:07:58 <anne> it says something about architectural consistency
21:08:03 <anne> the vision document is non-binding
21:08:05 <John_Boyer> nor timbls blog for that mattter?
21:08:06 <anne> and is not the charter
21:08:18 <John_Boyer> the vision document provides further clarification of the charters
21:08:22 <anne> timbl's blog is interesting, though not the charter
21:08:36 <anne> the vision document is quite silly imo
21:08:41 <John_Boyer> Observe that the ONLY thing the HTML charter does say about forms is that the HTML WG will work with the Forms WG
21:08:52 <John_Boyer> Fine, then go back to the director
21:08:55 <John_Boyer> and get rechartered
21:08:56 <John_Boyer> again
21:08:58 <anne> no, it's non binding
21:09:05 <John_Boyer> Yes the charter is binding
21:09:05 <anne> only the charter is binding
21:09:09 <John_Boyer> and it says we have to work together
21:09:17 <anne> well, sort of, yes
21:09:28 <anne> not about aligning with XForms though
21:09:35 <John_Boyer> Right, the not-working-together working together solution
21:10:14 <anne> I think so far we've been pretty willing to cooperate investing time in reviewing XForms Transitional and pointing out flaws, etc.
21:10:23 <John_Boyer> We've had all these discussions already with myself and your chairs
21:10:36 <John_Boyer> quite unclear why they aren't taking a leadership role in clarifying what we'resupposed to be doing
21:10:37 <gsnedders> "The HTML WG and the Forms Working Group will work together in this Task Force to ensure that the new HTML forms and the new XForms Transitional have architectural consistency and that document authors can transition between them"
21:10:48 <John_Boyer> Yes, thanks
21:10:50 <gsnedders> that's all the charter says on the matter
21:10:52 <John_Boyer> yes
21:11:10 <John_Boyer> and what it DOESNT say is "and you can go off and deliver your own separate technology for forms too"
21:11:20 <gsnedders> it doesn't say we can't
21:11:22 <John_Boyer> where does it say you can do WF2 in your charter?
21:11:25 <gavin> it doesn't say a lot of things
21:11:26 <anne> Web Forms 2 is architectural consistent with XForms
21:11:29 <John_Boyer> You're not chartered to
21:11:37 <anne> John_Boyer, it mentions new controls under deliverables
21:11:45 <John_Boyer> ok
21:11:51 <anne> John_Boyer, the charter is quite explicit, I think
21:12:20 <anne> Anyway, you still haven't negated my original point about your argument
21:12:36 <gsnedders> the Forms WG charter (which you chair) says you will work in a task force _jointly with the HTML WG_
21:12:52 <John_Boyer> Still, I joined this conversation to defend the objection, which is that it cites technical issues related to the process-oriented question being voted on
21:13:08 <John_Boyer> Yes
21:13:46 <John_Boyer> Our charter is very clear about developing a new "hybrid" that is heavily influenced by WF2 while also allowing us to map the features onto XForms architecture
21:13:47 <anne> Frankly, at 11PM I hardly care about this
21:13:57 <gsnedders> the forms WG charter also says you will draw on the WF2 work. This  means there are two options for startings points: 1. The (X)HTML Web Forms 2, or 2. XForms
21:14:12 <anne> I'd love to see a more concrete proposal than talk about architecture, but I suppose that may be hard to extract out of the XForms WG
21:14:13 <gsnedders> both seem reasonable starting points
21:14:15 <John_Boyer> or 3 is a new document which draw on both
21:14:25 <John_Boyer> that's what I argued we should be doing
21:14:29 <John_Boyer> in the objection
21:15:00 <hober> I assumed that the Forms WG would start with their document, the HTML WG would start with its document, and then the TF would work toward architectural compatibility. So I don't see what the problem with the HTML WG starting with WF2 is.
21:15:21 <anne> I have an identical interpretation of the charter
21:15:28 <John_Boyer> It preempts the whole process that the *joint task force* should go through
21:15:30 <anne> thanks hober
21:15:39 <John_Boyer> forms is a joint project
21:15:49 <anne> No it's not
21:15:54 <anne> forms architecture is
21:16:01 <anne> whatever that means
21:16:25 <John_Boyer> I just told you what it means
21:16:37 <gsnedders> "It is a goal that this work, which will be conducted in a task force jointly with the HTML WG, draw on the Web Forms 2 work (which moves from the Web Application Formats Working Group to the HTML Working Group) and be integrated into the XForms architecture (following design principles such as the separation of presentation from content)."
21:16:39 <John_Boyer> Please stop ignoring the requirement we have from the W3C AC to work together
21:16:41 <gsnedders> Forms WG Charter
21:16:49 <anne> I don't share your interpretation in that case
21:16:58 <John_Boyer> that's the problem
21:17:01 <John_Boyer> and the reason for my objection
21:17:09 <John_Boyer> your chairs are supposed to be making this clear to you
21:17:17 <gsnedders> I have the same interpretation as John_Boyer 
21:17:21 <hober> I think the HTML WG's charter is reasonably clear on this point...
21:17:29 <gsnedders> I, however, think WF2 should be used as the starting point.
21:18:18 <John_Boyer> I just want a process that makes it easy to say "whatever is in this document is mappable to an XForms construct" and "if possible, it is equal to or very similar to what WF2 already says"
21:18:45 <anne> lol
21:18:52 <John_Boyer> The onus is different
21:18:52 <gsnedders> and if it is the be equal or similar to WF2, I think WF2 is the logical starting point
21:19:04 <anne> HTML4 + DOM2HTML is the starting point
21:19:09 <anne> WF2 is compatible with that
21:19:12 <anne> XForms, so far, is not
21:19:28 <gsnedders> the problem really is the HTML WG Charter and the Forms WG Charter say different things about how they should work together
21:19:33 <anne> WF2 is compatible with the XForms architecture, as explained in WF2
21:19:34 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: did I read correctly that you don't want this WG to publish Web Forms 2.0 as part of out REC?
21:19:56 <John_Boyer> yes
21:20:25 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: do you have a technical reason why Web Forms 2.0 would be bad to publish as part of our REC?
21:21:30 <John_Boyer> I think you want to preempt the detailed technical work that needs to be done
21:21:59 <John_Boyer> We are chartered to produce a forms technology that is based on XForms and WF2.
21:22:01 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: no, I am trying to come to an understanding on why you object to Web Forms 2.0.
21:22:34 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: people who have worked on Web Forms 2.0 send feedback on Raggett's XForms Transitional
21:22:49 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: why are you dodging technical debate about Web Forms 2.0?
21:22:50 <John_Boyer> It's a huge document that I don't want to swallow wholesale like a foreign organism without consideration of the features
21:23:00 <gsnedders> John_Boyer: "we" being the forms WG?
21:23:36 <John_Boyer> I prefer positive addition of features to a document rather than throwing in everything, having everyone come to some wrong conclusions, then have to claw back things as we find they have problems
21:24:13 <John_Boyer> People who sent feedback on XF transitional continue not to recognize it's a joint process that is just getting started
21:24:23 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: from the point of view of HTML, XForms is the spec that throws away everything up front
21:24:27 <John_Boyer> so they sent it to public-html without cc to publid-forms
21:24:31 <hober> hsivonen++
21:24:43 <John_Boyer> that's why it's not the starting point either
21:24:57 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: is the requirement to base technology on both WF 2.0 and XForms based on a technical argument?
21:25:02 <gsnedders> anyhow, I've got four exams tomorrow. g'nite.
21:25:11 <John_Boyer> it is a charter requirement
21:25:11 <gsnedders> hsivonen: the Forms WG charter
21:25:22 <John_Boyer> both
21:25:22 <hsivonen> a charter is not a technical argument
21:25:25 <John_Boyer> html and forms
21:25:38 <John_Boyer> asking what document to start with is not a technical question
21:25:47 <John_Boyer> having a vote on that was inappropriate
21:25:55 <John_Boyer> or at least
21:25:56 <hober> I still don't follow how each WG starting with its own document and then working together in the TF toward architectural compatibility is in any way a bad thing.
21:25:57 <gsnedders> John_Boyer: the HTML WG Charter doesn't say it has to be based on both. It says it needs to be artichturally consistent.
21:26:00 <John_Boyer> if it was appropriate
21:26:13 <John_Boyer> then the answers need to be technical in the context of the process question
21:26:21 <John_Boyer> this is a new group that is different than the past
21:26:35 <John_Boyer> so the W3C process rules need some bend in them
21:26:49 <John_Boyer> please don't hide behind them when it is convenient and ignore them when it is convenient
21:26:56 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: Web Forms 2.0 has technical properties. so has XForms. the choice of stating point could, therefore, be made on their technical merit
21:27:15 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: (I'm including network effects here in technical merit--not just pure technology value)
21:27:30 <John_Boyer> and the third option, required by the charters is to "start" with both and create a new form tech
21:27:45 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: I haven't appealed to the W3C process at all here
21:27:45 <John_Boyer> that's what my "objection" actually says
21:28:01 <hober> Right, you guys start with XForms, we start with WF2, and then (after many moons of wrangling) meet in the middle somewhere.
21:28:30 <John_Boyer> That's not a "work together" process option
21:28:45 <John_Boyer> that's a "not working in good faith of the charters" option
21:28:55 <hober> It's exactly a work together option -- work together to acheive architectural compatibility, like our charter requires.
21:28:59 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: no offense, but let's do a third thing in order to avoid choosing from the two sounds like a political argument--not a technical argument
21:29:44 <hober> I think it's precisely in good faith with the HTML WG charter
21:29:52 <hober> I can't speak to the Forms charter as I haven't read it
21:29:56 <John_Boyer> Hmm. How about instead, we work together in good faith to create a forms technology that takes the best of XForms and WF2?
21:30:07 <hober> That's exactly what I'm saying.
21:30:27 <John_Boyer> Right, so the "start" of that document is the empty document
21:30:28 <gavin> I don't see how "work together" precludes using one of two documents as a starting point
21:31:13 <hober> Well, *that* document is the one that describes the architectural compatibility of the XForms WG artifacts and the HTML WG artifcats
21:31:13 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: so far, whenever people who have worked on Web Forms 2.0 have asked the XForms folks, what "best of XForms" they'd like to bring that Web Forms 2.0 lacks, the discussion veers to charters instead of technical features
21:31:21 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: which is why discussion is hard
21:31:25 <hober> And yes, that document is currently empty so far as I know
21:31:41 <John_Boyer> Discussion is hard because the task force is not formed and committed to doing the work.
21:31:50 <John_Boyer> My role is not to single-handedly do all the work
21:31:56 <John_Boyer> for all of you because I can't
21:32:18 <hober> What a strange thing to say.
21:32:21 <John_Boyer> My job is to make sure the right people start getting together and working together and agreeing on how they're going to start
21:32:27 <John_Boyer> and what they're going to produce
21:33:21 <John_Boyer> The push now from both WGs *should* be to get this forms task force started and let them run so the rest of the WGs can focus on the rest of their business
21:33:29 <John_Boyer> that push should go to the chairs
21:33:55 <John_Boyer> and this whole business of preempting what the task force is supposed to do should stop
21:34:10 <John_Boyer> I have to go now.  Please send email to list...
21:34:10 <hober> I don't think anyone's trying to preempt what the TF is supposed to do
21:34:21 <John_Boyer> that's exactly what this vote is about.
21:34:28 <hober> No, it's not.
21:34:52 <John_Boyer> The vote asks us to start out by constraining what the TF is supposed to do.
21:35:02 <John_Boyer> What is the purpose of the proposal?
21:35:04 <gavin> Where does it mention any type of constraint?
21:35:10 <John_Boyer> Why are we rushing to some conclusion...
21:35:11 <hober> No, the vote asks the HTML WG to start with WF2
21:35:17 <gavin> It mentions a starting point, and editors, and a name
21:35:20 <hober> How is a start a conclusion?
21:35:22 <John_Boyer> OK, back to the charters.
21:35:25 <John_Boyer> Going in circles here
21:35:36 <hober> I stand by my interpretation of the HTML WG charter.
21:35:41 <John_Boyer> HTML WG is not chartered to go off by itself and build forms tech
21:36:00 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: it doesn't preclude the forms WG finally saying what they find is technically wrong about WF 2.0 so that this WG could fix WF 2.0 accordingly
21:36:03 <gavin> You just claimed that the vote is constraining future work, I think it'd be a good idea to explain that statement before changing the subject again.
21:36:05 <hober> It's chartered to pursue, via the joint TF, architectural compatibility with whatever the Forms WG does.
21:37:26 <John_Boyer> gavin, perhaps the vote is very poorly worded.  But it is already obvious that WF2 is supposed to be taken as serious input to the new forms tech (see Forms WG charter).  So...
21:37:42 <hober> Why *shouldn't* WF2 be taken as serious input????
21:37:51 <gavin> I think it's quite explicitly stated in the proposal and the vote that it's about a starting point, not a conclusion.
21:37:52 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: are you sayig that WF2 shouldn't be taken as serious input?
21:37:52 <hober> It's the product of years of hard work...
21:38:00 <John_Boyer> Didn't say it shouldn't
21:38:04 <John_Boyer> just finishing the answer now...
21:38:59 <John_Boyer> So, since it is obvious that WF2 is input to the new forms tech, what is the point of the proposal and vote?  My interpretation of the question is that the proposer wants to use WF2 as the first version of the spec
21:39:19 <John_Boyer> I am advocating using empty document as the start of the new forms spec
21:39:35 <schepers> I think that a compromise can be made
21:39:40 <hober> Ahh
21:39:46 <hober> I think I see the misunderstanding now
21:39:56 <hober> The vote is about what the HTMLWG's starting point is
21:40:12 <schepers> John_Boyer: I agree with you that the work should be done in unison and in good faith
21:40:16 <hober> And you're interpreting that to mean something about the starting poing of the TF
21:40:39 <John_Boyer> There is not supposed to be a difference between starting point for HTML WG and starting point for the task force
21:41:03 <John_Boyer> The HTML WG component of the task force IS the set of people who should be participating in the forms work
21:41:10 <hober> This gets right back to my point re: each WG having their own documents, and the TF ensuring they become & remain architecturally compatible
21:41:12 <John_Boyer> and they should be starting with an empty document
21:41:35 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: do you believe the full HTML WG should not be participating in forms work?
21:41:36 <John_Boyer> That's the point I'm saying you are mistaken about
21:41:42 <John_Boyer> that's not the intent of the charters
21:41:46 <gavin> It might help make things clearer if you posted to the list with the reasons you think starting with a blank document is a better choice than starting with WF2
21:41:46 <schepers> but I also recognize that the vote for using WHATWG as a starting point is subject to heavy revision if necessary... that's not strongly stated in the poll, but it is there
21:42:09 <hober> I think my interpretation of the HTMLWG charter is a fair and reasonable one on this point, but, as I said before, I haven't read the other charter
21:42:44 <hober> It's entirely possible that the charters themselves are different on this point.
21:42:51 <hsivonen> John_Boyer: btw, the design goals of this WG imply that we couldn't start with and empty spec. we should start with what is implemented in major browsers anyway
21:42:57 <John_Boyer> That's part of the problem.  The HTML charter requires liaison with another WG on a significant component of work, so it is necessary to read that WG charter as part of the interpretation of how the work is to be done
21:43:39 <John_Boyer> That's still empty document, followed by design requirements that say things like "need to support old-style forms"
21:43:56 <John_Boyer> Like, I so really really have to go now though
21:44:18 <John_Boyer> I hope it is at least a bit clearer where my feedback is coming from.
21:45:32 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make minutes
21:45:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-html-wg-minutes.html John_Boyer
21:45:34 <hober> I think it is, yes, thanks
21:46:24 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make minutes
21:46:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-html-wg-minutes.html John_Boyer
21:46:28 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has left #html-wg
21:58:45 <schepers> looks like sometime late last night...
21:59:11 <billmason> It's in a charter somewhere, probably.
21:59:38 <schepers> man, this crowd can be pretty snide...
22:00:22 <hsivonen> schepers: what was snide?
22:01:57 <schepers> well, almost everything anne said to boyer, for example, and then also anytime someone makes a typo or disagrees with some aspect of the WHATWG work, or brings up W3C process... that will do for starters, I guess?
22:04:06 <hsivonen> schepers: it is perfectly reasonable to ask for technical detail when someone objects to the WHATWG work. how else could it we fixed?
22:04:31 <schepers> hsivonen: do you really think that's what I'm talking about?
22:05:06 <hsivonen> schepers: I don't know. What are you talking about?
22:05:07 <schepers> it's not... I'm talking about the tone of the discussions
22:05:35 <mjs> mjs has joined #html-wg
22:06:08 <hsivonen> mjs: you missed a discussion about forms and charter
22:09:21 <Hixie> at the risk of being called snide, "avoided" might be a better word
22:10:22 <schepers> Hixie: you're snide!
22:12:00 <schepers> (not that I actually think that was snide)
22:13:04 <mjs> hsivonen: summary?
22:13:06 <mjs> or should I read the logs?
22:13:38 <hober> Reading the log shouldn't be too bad
22:14:07 <schepers> boyer made minutes here:  http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-html-wg-minutes.html
22:14:12 <mjs> I still have 40 unread public-html emails so I'd find a summary helpful, but of course no obligation
22:14:50 <hsivonen> mjs: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20070502#l-381
22:15:14 <hsivonen> mjs: John Boyer objected to adopting WF 2.0 as a starting point citing charters
22:15:43 <hsivonen> mjs: also objected to this wg developing forms tech on its own
22:16:27 <hober> Basically, he objects to the following interpretation of the HTML WG charter
22:16:32 <mjs> so he cited political arguments in lieu of technical ones to support his Formal Objection?
22:16:45 <hsivonen> mjs: in summary, yes
22:16:55 <gavin> technical arguments about the process was the way he put it I think
22:17:04 <gavin> since the question at hand was a process question and not a technical one
22:17:53 <hober> (the interpretation) "The HTML WG starts with HTML5, the forms WG starts with XForms, and the goal of the Joint TF is to ensure that both documents converge on architectural compatibility"
22:17:59 <gavin> as I understand it, he is opposed to using WF2 as a base
22:18:10 <gavin> so it makes sense for him to formally object
22:18:25 <gavin> what's not clear are the reasons why he objects
22:18:35 <schepers> it does seem in bad faith to interpret the charter that way, to me
22:18:36 <gavin> (not clear to me)
22:18:52 <hober> His interpretation is that neither WG has anything about forms in independent documents, that the TF starts with an empty document and produces something in the spirit of a smerge of xforms and wf2, and then gives this to each wg
22:19:01 <hober> or something like that; it wasn't entirely clear
22:19:24 <schepers> I think that's a fair summary
22:19:44 <Hixie> as far as i can tell what's happened here is that some proponents of xforms got the w3c to agree that xforms would be part of the html5 language in some way, and then the w3c opened up the working group to the public, and the majority of people on the group now couldn't care less about xforms
22:20:00 <hober> Given that interpretation, he saw the HTML WG's vote to adopt WF2 as a starting point as an attempt to subvert the TF before it starts
22:20:03 <mjs> so the XForms REC would be resciended under his proposal?
22:20:03 <Hixie> and so as i see it there are three ways forward:
22:20:17 <mjs> or does he require only the HTML WG to drop existing forms features pending TF results?
22:20:21 <Hixie> 1. ignore the majority, honour the earlier agreement with xforms, and push xforms through this wg
22:20:32 <hober> mjs: I don't know
22:20:38 <Hixie> 2. create a task forcee to create a new language from scratch that involves xforms wg members
22:20:58 <Hixie> 3. ignore the prior agreement with xforms, and push an html-specific language through this wg (i.e. base the work on wf2)
22:21:14 <Hixie> 1 would basically cause a big chunk of the wg to quit
22:21:19 <schepers> would it?
22:21:27 <mjs> probably
22:21:38 <hober> I don't think those are the only three options
22:21:50 <schepers> I thought you said that the majority doesn't matter, that only technical arguments matter?
22:22:01 <hsivonen> Hixie: #2 sounds like a compromise designed to make everyone equally inconvenient
22:22:10 <Hixie> 2 would cause the forms part to never be finished, because you'd end up with the same kind of stand-off situation we had with sXBL (probably very similar, again with me in the position of annoying guy who won't compromise)
22:22:11 <mjs> well, there are no technical arguments on the merits for option 1
22:22:12 <schepers> and I agree that those aren't the only 3 options
22:22:20 <Hixie> and 3 would cause the xforms people to blow their top
22:22:43 <hsivonen> schepers: what other options you see?
22:22:45 <hober> I think the "each wg has own document, and (via the tf) try to come to some kind of compatible middle without killing each other" could be option #4 (and is the current option, at least the way I read the charter)
22:23:03 <Hixie> hober: that's 2
22:23:14 <Hixie> s/from scratch// if you like
22:23:19 <mjs> I don't think #4 and #2 are the same
22:23:21 <hsivonen> I see this: adopt WF 2.0 as part of W3C HTML5, extend parsing algorithm to produce DOMs that XForms extensions can hook to
22:23:45 <mjs> #4 would make the TF advisory to two separate specs, rather than in charge of a single co-owned spec
22:23:54 <hober> Well, 2 sounded like the TF starts with nothing -- on my read #4 means the TF produces, not a form language, but a document showing (if possible) that the two wgs' form tech are in some sense compatible, whatever that means
22:24:11 <hober> mjs: yes, exactly
22:24:18 <Hixie> well you can certainly create lots of process that makes 1, 2, and 3 above _look_ like other options
22:24:20 <schepers> 1a. honor the earlier agreement with xforms, and come up with a technically sound and useful upgrade path from some variant on wf2 to some variant on xforms 
22:24:22 <mjs> hober: not "compatible" but "architecturally consistent"
22:24:33 <hober> perhaps with a third, non-spec document coming out of the tf
22:24:46 <hober> mjs: yes, again excatly :)
22:24:49 <mjs> schepers: the problem is there's no clear meaning for what "architecurally consistent" means
22:25:00 <mjs> thus, it is not clear what, if any, changes to WF2 are needed
22:25:10 <mjs> John Boyer refuses to even propose specific changes to WF2
22:25:10 <hober> schepers: that presumes that that's an upgrade path
22:25:13 <mjs> so that makes it less clear
22:25:15 <Hixie> the thing is at the end of the day the xforms proponents and the proponents of the proposed html5 design guidelines have fundamentally incompatible goals.
22:25:17 <schepers> then let's come up with one in good faith, how about?
22:25:38 <mjs> my interpretation is that WF2 and XForms are already architecturally consistent
22:25:42 <mjs> they live in different namespaces
22:25:49 <Hixie> john boyer doesn't care about architecturally consistent
22:25:51 <mjs> and WF2 has enough features to machine-translate XForms content to it
22:25:52 <schepers> that's not good faith
22:25:54 <Hixie> that's not what he wants
22:26:06 <hsivonen> schepers: can't we admit in good faith that the goals are incompatible so there are two form technologies in different namespaces?
22:26:18 <mjs> schepers: I sincerely think that's architecturally consistent
22:26:19 <Philip`> mjs: I think he was refusing to propose specific changes before the TF is formed, because that's meant to be the TF's job
22:26:22 <Hixie> anyway
22:26:29 <hsivonen> schepers: what's good faith?
22:26:31 <Hixie> i don't see this conversation going anywhere productive
22:26:39 <Hixie> so i'm gonna go back to work :-)
22:27:01 <mjs> my preference would be to let Boyer's FO go to the Director with suitable response from us
22:27:12 <mjs> as far as procedure goes
22:27:50 <schepers> hsivonen: I'm not going to be backed into defining every word I use... I think maciej knows what I mean
22:27:51 <mjs> and The Director can give it all due consideration
22:28:15 <mjs> schepers: I honestly don't -- do you think I'm insincere in my claim that I believe that constitutes architectural consistency?
22:29:02 <mjs> obviously you can't have a language that's syntactically compatible with both existing XForms and existing HTML Forms
22:29:05 <schepers> I can't comment on your sincerity, but I don't think that was the intent of the charter
22:29:15 <mjs> so that can't be what "architecturally consistent" means
22:29:48 <mjs> I would take it to mean "no conflicts if you implement both in one implementation" or something like that
22:29:59 <mjs> the way JPEG is architecturally consistent with GIF
22:30:22 <mjs> Philip`: people say "The Director" instead of "Tim" because, I guess, it sounds more imposing
22:30:27 <Hixie> the way that the svg text model is not architecturally consistent with css? :-)
22:31:58 <schepers> we're getting feedback about specific ways in which certain implementations are finding issues with implementing both CSS and SVG text, and we're hoping to take that into account... it may be that there is no solution, but we hope not
22:32:31 <schepers> we've also gotten implementor feedback to the contrary
22:35:03 <mjs> from an implementation that's shipped? (the only such feedback I heard was from Adobe on an implementation that hadn't yet shipped at the time, and I believe their SVG plugin has since been desupported)
22:35:43 <schepers> does that matter?
22:36:25 <schepers> it's about technical assessments, not popularity contests, right?
22:38:14 <schepers> but in any case, as I said, we're hoping to find a path forward for those implementations that did have a problem
22:40:40 <mjs> it does matter, because you can't check whether an unshipped implementation got it right
22:40:56 <schepers> fair enough
22:41:15 <mjs> implementations that are not available to the public carry no weight for things like "2 interoperable implementations" requirements
22:42:28 <mjs> well, at least the CSS WG requires them to be shipping products available to the public and not experimental or testing only
22:42:37 <schepers> I'm not sure why you're ignoring my larger point, though
22:42:58 <mjs> I think your larger point, that you are taking implementation issues into account on this matter, is a good one
22:43:08 <mjs> or rather, it is welcome news to me
22:43:47 <schepers> if it were up to me, there are lots of things I'd change about SVG
22:44:17 <schepers> but this is OT for #html
22:46:00 <mjs> yeah, not really relevant here
22:52:20 <zcorpan> zcorpan has joined #html-wg
23:03:36 <Zeros> Zeros has joined #html-wg
23:22:19 <heycam> mjs, i believe "architecturally consistent" means having a (non-trivial) mapping to the same underlying model
23:22:42 <heycam> at least that's my interpretation, i wasn't there during the months of charter teeth-gnashing
23:24:23 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has joined #html-wg
23:24:32 <John_Boyer> rrsagent, make minutes
23:24:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-html-wg-minutes.html John_Boyer
23:24:43 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has left #html-wg
23:25:30 <mjs> heycam: clearly both have a mapping to a Turing machine, but that's hardly non-trivial
23:25:36 <mjs> I don't know what counts as non-trivial
23:25:46 <heycam> non-trivial and useful then :)
23:26:01 <mjs> it's hard to think of a model that XForms and XForms Transitional both map to that Web Forms 2 doesn't
23:26:15 <heycam> and the most obvious one to my mind is a model of form fields, expressions, and so on
23:26:51 <mjs> what's the expression language model to which we can map both JavaScript and XPath?
23:27:02 <mjs> is there any model for that higher-level than "turing machine"?
23:27:03 <heycam> actually i take expressions back
23:27:17 <heycam> i think it's the data model that's the bit that neds consistency
23:27:40 <heycam> so, defining how a WF2.0 form maps to an xforms data model
23:28:06 <heycam> maybe with something like what mark birbeck was suggesting for xforms (being able to write forms without defining the model)
23:28:10 <heycam> (explicitly)
23:28:19 <mjs> it's easy to define that in the abstract
23:28:30 <mjs> the name of each field is the name, and the type for each is string
23:28:39 <Hixie> (in fact, wf2 does define that)
23:28:44 <mjs> (since HTML forms fields are not strongly typed)
23:28:44 <Hixie> (as the xml submission model)
23:29:00 <heycam> why not map type='number' to xs:number etc.?
23:29:03 <John_Boyer> John_Boyer has joined #html-wg
23:29:06 <heycam> (or xs:whateverItIs?)
23:29:18 <John_Boyer> Hixie, your characterizations of me and what I want are slanderous
23:29:25 <John_Boyer> please stop doing that
23:29:33 <Hixie> hey John
23:29:34 <John_Boyer> If you would stop and actually read what I said,
23:29:42 <mjs> John_Boyer: maybe you could state clearly what you do want?
23:29:49 <mjs> cause I personally have been unable to determine that
23:29:50 <John_Boyer> Please read the logs
23:29:52 <Hixie> did you have any specific characterisations in mind?
23:30:12 <John_Boyer> just reading the minutes and I cannot believe the thigns you say about me when I am not around
23:30:22 <John_Boyer> your behavior is scandalous
23:30:27 <Hixie> i have no interest in misrepresenting you, i assure you any such misrepresentations are purely based on my misunderstanding your position
23:30:40 <Hixie> if you could cite what it is you think i misunderstand and correct me, that would be most helpful
23:30:50 <John_Boyer> What did you intend when you said "johnboyer does not care about architectural consistency" for example
23:32:54 <Hixie> is it not the case that you are interested more in having the actual xforms model in html5 rather than having something that is merely similar in an architectural sense?
23:33:00 <John_Boyer> or "that's not what he wants" (seemingly in response to "good faith"
23:33:33 <Hixie> by "that's not what he wants" i meant that you didn't want mere architectural consistency
23:33:39 <Hixie> am i wrong in this assumption?
23:35:22 <John_Boyer> Hmm. your actual quote is quite different
23:36:25 <Hixie> i assure you that the lines you have quoted were not intended to mean any more than what i have just now stated
23:36:31 <John_Boyer> I don't think the nascent work on "transitional" is reflective of any attempt to "force" an xforms model in html5, if by that you mean at the markup/lexical level
23:36:41 <John_Boyer> ok thanks
23:37:46 <John_Boyer> For starters, I am trying really hard NOT to get drawn into a rathole of technical fault-finding with WF2.
23:37:49 <Hixie> i must admit that it would be helpful if you could clearly state what your technical requirements for html5 are in terms of the forms capabitilities, as it hasn't been possible for me to understand your requirements from your e-mails and IRC discussions so far
23:38:27 <John_Boyer> The main reason for that is that I am trying not to do the work of the task force in order to justify what work the task force should be doing.
23:39:43 <John_Boyer> I have to chair a WG, edit a spec (that's 100% by itself), try to help get the right people together on a TF, try to help with nailing down what that TF will actually do, not to mention holding down a day job.
23:39:57 <John_Boyer> Lots of other people need to be doing this besides just me.
23:40:24 <John_Boyer> So grinding through WF2 for technical faults would be about as useful to me as grinding through XForms on the same mission.
23:40:36 <John_Boyer> But what I want is, roughly, this
23:41:07 <John_Boyer> 1) I want a tag set that means the same thing whether it is serialized as XML or not
23:41:55 <mjs> HTML Forms (serialized as HTML or XHTML) provides such a tag set
23:41:57 <John_Boyer> 2) I want a tag set that maps to data model constructs in the XForms architecture where appropriate
23:42:03 <mjs> so I'm guessing you have more requirements than that
23:42:11 <Hixie> please, mjs, allow John to finish his list of requirements
23:42:15 <mjs> ok
23:43:49 <John_Boyer> 3) I can see there is a desire to attach data model properties to UI controls; fine, so let the names of the UI controls suggest the data model...
23:44:09 <John_Boyer> and let the hierarchic structure of the UI suggest the structure of the data...
23:44:30 <John_Boyer> and let the properties defined on those controls suggest properties on the data.
23:45:38 <John_Boyer> 4) It should be possible to submit the suggested data as XML, and to indicate either receipt of a new replacement document or a new data
23:46:39 <mjs> is it ok if I write down these requirements and send them to the list when you are done stating them? (or you can do it yourself if you prefer)
23:46:52 <John_Boyer> 5) It should be really easy to grow or shrink "repeated" data (as expressed by repeated controls)
23:47:29 <John_Boyer> Yes, I am trying to just think of the basket of things off the cuff though; I had really hoped that the task force would nail all of this down.
23:47:42 <John_Boyer> so apologies in advance if I don't get it all...
23:48:08 <sbuluf> sbuluf has joined #html-wg
23:48:24 <Hixie> Could you elaborate on your second requirement? I don't really understand what you mean by "data model constructs" or "the XForms architecture", or how to determine if it would be appropriate or not. Do you just mean the <model> feature?
23:48:36 <mjs> I'm hoping writing them down earlier can lead to refinement by HTML WG and Forms WG members even in advance of having an official Task Force
23:49:01 <John_Boyer> 6) it should be easy to receive prepop data for things that repeat and yet still have a way to add new "rows" that are empty
23:49:38 <John_Boyer> 7) It should be possible to delete until a repeating construct is empty and then be able to insert to get an empty one row "Table"
23:50:48 <John_Boyer> 8) It should be possible to express relevance, readonlyness, datatype, constraints on value, and calculated value
23:51:18 <John_Boyer> The last one is somewhat in answer to the question about #2
23:52:00 <Hixie> ah so your second requiremnt is more about the <bind> feature of XForms?
23:52:44 <John_Boyer> Sort of.  I think it is not hard to set up attributes on the controls that "suggest" so-called binds for things like constraints or calculated values.
23:53:06 <John_Boyer> Would love to be able to say
23:53:20 <John_Boyer> <input name="lowpage" ...
23:53:33 <Zeros> WHy not just add a Bind() object for JS?
23:53:56 <John_Boyer> <input name="highpage" constraint="highpage >= lowpage" ...
23:55:21 <John_Boyer> The constraint *could* be implemented as a shorthand for some JS, or it *could* be implemented by creating an implicit xf model with an implicit xf bind that contains the given constraint as an expression
23:55:51 <Zeros> Are we talking about html forms or xforms?
23:55:58 <heycam> John_Boyer, do you think the syntax for the constraint needs to be identical for xforms and html5's forms?
23:56:17 <heycam> or can they have two different syntaxes that map to the same model-y thing?
23:56:55 <Hixie> John_Boyer: so as far as i can tell, web forms 2.0 as it currently stands addresses all of these requirements, except that there is no formal mapping to xforms (which seems to be what you are asking for in your second requirement, though i admit i'm not sure i understand exactly what you mean there)
23:57:20 <Hixie> John_Boyer: but it would be great if you could forward these requirements to the mailing list so that we can more carefully examine each one and see if they are indeed addressed.
23:57:37 <Hixie> John_Boyer: possibly i could give code samples for each one and/or point to the relevant parts of the specification.
23:58:11 <mjs> John_Boyer: if it turns out that WF2 already addresses most or all of your architectural consistency technical requirements, would you withdraw your Formal Objection to adopting it as a basis for review?
23:58:21 <heycam> John_Boyer, if this discussion is pre-empting the taskforce, then perhaps the taskforce can be created asap, so that these things can be discussed?
23:59:19 <Zeros> Hixie, where's the data binding between controls in XF2?
23:59:39 <John_Boyer> Have been corresponding with DanC about task force set up.  Should be coming along soon.
23:59:44 <heycam> great