00:00:06 deltab has joined #html-wg
00:00:12 -MikeSmith
00:00:12 "works in IE6" probably would, though I'm not suggesting that as a replacement.
00:00:20 CMN:I think that accessibility is a reason to support markup that doesn't break in most browsers, even if it isn't strongly supported across browsers.
00:01:14 Maybe the right focus is to say "real-world, existing content on the current web should be given the most weight."
00:01:29 ... which is sort of related to the "don't reinvent the wheel principle". Maybe that is strong enough to carry the point, if mentioned in the universal access principle
00:02:07 Chris: Validity is perhaps not the best target given today's web. "cross browser as representative of the real world web"
00:02:21 chaals: obviously some of this is too fuzzy to quantify, but I think both the amount of content and how many browsers it works in is relevant
00:02:29 what about: "Browsers should retain residual markup designed for a specific purpose, such as accessibility or internationalization. Simply because new technologies and superior mechanisms have been identified, not all of them have been implemented. Moreover, disabled users are more likely to be users of "legacy technology" because it is the only technology that interacts correctly with third-party assistive technologies"
00:02:34 chaals: also popularity of specific sites
00:02:41 billyjack has joined #html-wg
00:02:52 [mjs: amount and number of browsers makes sense to me]
00:03:07 Zakim, please call Mike-Mobile
00:03:07 ok, billyjack; the call is being made
00:03:08 +Mike
00:03:26 [... popularity of specific sites is mor difficult to measure... There are some hideously popular Indian sites with appalling markup...]
00:03:49 Chris: if you factor in both quantity and popularity of content, I think "cross-browser" is a fairly good standard
00:03:59 Okay. I think we want wording, then, that captures "real-world, existing content on the web" and "cross-browser" standard.
00:04:08 Chris: the basic idea is if there is some Firefox-only intranet site, we don't necessarily want to cater to every detail it depends on
00:04:51 Chris: in part because we have no way to be aware of all such sites or know anything about what they depend on
00:05:14 I get that. But what about IE behavior on the public web, that a lot of public web content relies on.
00:05:40 CMN: So I am happy with "cross-browser real world content" given this is just a principle, and will make further suggestions in relation to other principles.
00:05:54 If there is a large number of reasonably popular sites that depend critically on some IE-only feature, and currently fail in all other browsers, we should cater to that
00:05:57 I'd like to capture cross-browser (I do value that), and "real-world" as separate principles.
00:06:06 i don't understand what "cross-browser real world content" means
00:06:14 sorry, not principles - inputs to this principle.
00:06:18 I agree
00:06:28 -Sam
00:06:40 [mjs not necessarily, since there is a lot of very popular korean content that depends on ActiveX and won't get supported whatever we say...]
00:06:56 "Real-world content, particularly that supported across browsers, should be given the most weight."?
00:07:00 ["sites that are known to work reliably across browsers"]
00:07:20 CMN: Like Mike's wording
00:07:23 Mike - that captures x-browser, but not real-world. They're not necessarily the same set.
00:07:49 GJR: + and with third party assistive technologies or APIs
00:08:30 chaals: support for ActiveX is out of scope for HTML I think
00:08:36 real-world = production sites that are not manufactured for testing but are intended to provide real information or real services to users
00:08:41 my plus was to mikesmith's "sites that are known to work reliably across browsers"
00:08:57 Chris: I will take a shot at rephrasing it to indicate that multiple factors are relevant
00:09:22 CMN: When you have the two factors together, they are more important than they would be individually
00:09:36 chaals: defining a cross-browser ActiveX ABI might aid interoperability but I don't think it is a task for this WG
00:10:10 I would question whether there is a lot of popular content that only works when you have ActiveX, because we don't get a whole lot of bugs where that turns out to be the case
00:10:15 but that seems like a side issue
00:11:17 OK. I suggested thinking of marquee as an example rather than activex.
00:11:31 Propose: MJS come up with wording that clarifies the importance of cross browser, real world, accessible, and the combination of these
00:11:38 Safari supports marquee and I think Mozilla might as well
00:12:08 as long as there is user control to stop scrolling, and a means to obtain the contents of the stream, then , yeah, put in marquee
00:12:12 Mozilla didn't the last I checked. (Note that I use that as an example because I HATE that #$%*ing tag. :))
00:12:14 s/accessible/working with accessibiltiy technologies/
00:13:03 The current FF 2.0 does support marquee.
00:13:12 heh
00:13:29 I know the Emacs-w3 author... :)
00:14:11 doesn't understand Karl's feedback
00:14:15 Chris: You can't parse and not make something functional in HTML 5 ...
00:14:52 oedipus - actually, he's been one of my best friends for the last dozen or so years...
00:14:56 RESOLUTION: MJS come up with wording that clarifies the importance of cross browser, real world, works with accessibility technology, and the combination of these
00:15:22 -Mike
00:15:28 ACTION: Chris follow up with Karl about his comment on "support existing content"
00:15:47 Nik Thierry doesn't acre about supporting old content.
00:16:01 mjs_ has joined #html-wg
00:16:05 Zakim, please call Mike-Mobile
00:16:05 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
00:16:06 +Mike
00:16:13 Chris: Think this is a minority opinion
00:16:22 rrsagent, make log public
00:16:54 Philip Taylor thinks valid cross browser content should be given most weight, invalid content ignored.
00:17:17 nice sentiment, but would put most conent behind a firewall
00:17:25 CMN: I would like to support that, but given the web today I think it is unrealistic
00:17:33 Chris: There is invalid and invalid...
00:17:35 olivier has joined #html-wg
00:18:02 I'd like for my legacy in 20-30 years to NOT be overlapping and tags... but the pragmatist in me doesn't know how to avoid that.
00:18:44 Philip` - what's your middle initial?
00:19:01 thing one and thing two? :) Sorry, my daughter's two and in to Dr. Suess...
00:19:03 J
00:19:28 I think we should just have a duel to the death
00:19:48 that would be simpler, yes.
00:19:53 let's take a resolution on Philip`'s suggestion
00:20:22 Chris: I'm hoping HTML5 will make conformance checking a more appealing and therefore hopefully more widespread practice
00:20:55 (by removing bogus reasons that content might fail checking and enabling it to find new kinds of problems like table integrity failures)
00:21:00 Chris: It would be nice to have two manuals for HTML 5. One for browser implementors to read, and one for everyone writing content to read.
00:21:31 (Not really, but something to discourage poor practices that must still be supported)
00:22:12 CMN: That is the principle behind deprecating things in HTML 4, and there is such a concept in the draft already. maybe we can ask mjs to capture that more clearly?
00:22:34 Maciej, do you think HTML5 will discourage poor practices (even though they're still supported, as they must)?
00:22:39 worried about splintering of HTML5 along implementer/author lines
00:22:55 chaals: one thing I'd like to do is add an introduction to the design principles is to make clear the distinction between the conforming language and the supported language
00:22:59 karl has joined #html-wg
00:23:00 Don't worry, oedipus, I don't really mean it.
00:23:11 chaals: because some of the principles apply only to one or the other, and it's kind of confusing as is
00:23:16 mjs - I like that idea.
00:23:29 mjs, me too :)
00:23:30 I think it might need to extend to this principle, or be mentioned in it.
00:23:50 (That "support" does not necessarily mean "condone".)
00:24:31 Chris: I think if we can make conformance checking have a great benefit/cost ratio, and market it effectively as a good and beneficial practice, we might be able to reduce the incidence of poor authoring practices
00:24:45 CMN: maybe this is actually a principle in its own right: Authors shuld use good markup, but it is helpful to tell browsers how to support existing stuff even if it is bad.
00:25:00 it's unavoidable
00:25:01 right now a lot of people violate HTML4 conformance in some trivial way because they think they have to, and then they just give up and throw out the baby with the bathwater
00:25:01 agreed. Not sure I see the way clear to that as well as you do right now, but I agree.
00:25:22 poor authoring
00:25:42 need as strong AU compliance as UA compliance!!!
00:26:02 I agree it is unavoidable; I think we should both encourage more good authoring, and make sure we deal with not-as-great authoring as well as we can
00:26:21 exactly. Capture that. :)
00:27:14 RESOLUTION: We ask MJS to bring out more strongly in the draft that we need to encourage good authoring, and explain how to deal with not-so-good authoring... :)
00:27:15 the first two principles? :)
00:27:40 -Mike
00:27:44 I might have time to do some more feedback gathering and perhaps some editing later tonight
00:27:53 OK, that's all the time we have for today, folks. Dan will chair next week's telecon.
00:27:57 so the next telecon picks up on "Do Not Reinvent the Wheel" or reviews this telecon's proposed resolutions and completed action items?
00:27:58 OK.
00:28:25 picks up DNRtW. review of this telecon is in email.
00:28:42 ok
00:28:50 thanks all.
00:28:58 ADJOURNED
00:29:13 -[Microsoft]
00:29:13 I'm hoping I can field some of the feedback in advance of the telecom progress through it, maybe that will help
00:29:34 Bob_le_Pointu has joined #html-wg
00:29:44 zakim, who is here?
00:29:44 On the phone I see Gregory_Rosmaita, chaals
00:29:45 On IRC I see Bob_le_Pointu, karl, olivier, mjs, MikeSmith, deltab, oedipus, hober, sbuluf, johnst, robburns, rubys, Zakim, aroben, chaals, bogi, laplink, gsnedders, xover,
00:29:49 ... billmason, jmb, tH, hendry, zcorpan_, jgraham, Philip`, Thezilch, krijnh, Lachy, drry, Hixie, gavin_, beowulf, Yudai, Dashiva, RRSAgent, DanC
00:29:56 RRSAgent, draft minutes
00:29:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/08/31-html-wg-minutes.html chaals
00:30:24 RRSAgent, make log public
00:31:56 (About separate documents for implementors and authors: I tried writing some bits at http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/misc/ref/ref.html a while ago and I think it's much easier to read than the original spec)
00:32:39 (and it seems more practical than the earlier attempts to hide non-author-relevant bits of the spec with CSS)
00:32:49 Philip, I agree that in the end it is good to split them out - but first we need to get a spec together that works, and that will involve working with something that is hard to read as far as I can tell :(
00:32:53 ok, i'll have to have a listen, then
00:35:20 gavin has joined #html-wg
00:36:55 -Gregory_Rosmaita
00:37:06 -chaals
00:37:08 HTML_WG()7:00PM has ended
00:37:09 Attendees were [Microsoft], Gregory_Rosmaita, Sam, DanC, chaals, billyjack, MikeSmith, Mike
00:37:51 philip`: you should send that URI to the public-html list
00:38:15 MikeSmith: you there?
00:39:12 ah crud. Note for starting this telecon: RRSagent, this meeting spans midnight
00:39:55 chaals: yes I acknowledge that :) but I still wonder how to better express what I think.
00:40:37 There are classes of products which do not have to support all features of HTML.
00:41:00 Hmmm. I think I see your point...
00:41:34 Many principles are written for browsers and not for HTML
00:41:40 it was one of my general comment
00:41:49 it is not HTML design principles
00:42:01 but Browser design principles as it is written today
00:42:56 yeah, I get it.
00:44:50 oedipus: I've been meaning to sort out something like that, but haven't quite got around to it yet. (I probably need to be careful about copyright issues with copying bits of the HTML 5 spec directly, if there's any chance of it being used for something official, so I want to at least fix that)
00:45:08 understand
00:45:33 you should query the chairs, or just ask karl, who's here
00:49:39 chaals - aqui
00:50:51 MikeSmith: chaals may be manually cleaning up the minutes with karl - the meeting spanned midnight and only a third of it is public visible
00:51:32 karl: Do you know if there would be problems with me blatantly copying bits of the HTML5 draft for a new document which could conceivably be used by the HTML WG in the future?
00:51:40 oedipus - I see - thanks
00:52:02 chaals - http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-irc.html is now Public perms
00:52:02 I'm using the WHATWG's identical copy which says "You are granted a license to use, reproduce and create derivative works of this document", in case that matters :-)
00:52:09 oops
00:52:21 but chaals need the minutes
00:54:39 Philip`: if you're using the WHATWG's copy, then you can abide by its copyright declaration -- just don't put any W3C boilerplate stuff in it, or explicitly say "this draft does not reflect the opinions or consensus of anyone but the author." -- that's usually what i do when trying to work around the legal niceties
00:58:20 Philip`: it depends on what you want to do with it.
00:58:23 oedipus: Okay, that sounds sensible
00:58:32 chaals - http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-html-wg-minutes.html now available and Public
00:58:52 it's not about the copyright I'm worried for now, but about parallel efforts
00:59:44 stress that this is an informative, experimental version of making the spec (which is rather large) clearer
00:59:44 hmm I see that the minutes needs to be polished indeed
01:01:21 that no one should consider this normative, nor approved by anyone, but simply an effort to ascertain if the spec is easier to read (and write) along the following lines....
01:02:53 about my comment on design principles. I would like that mjs write the document, replacing every occurences of browsers by implementations or softwares for himself, and then see if the principle is logical.
01:03:42 If the sentence doesn't work anymore, it means that there is something specific toward a class of product, and then that it has been generalized and then declined for different class of products
01:04:05 makes sense -- mjs are you still around?
01:05:15 I am
01:05:21 that it has to be generalized
01:05:23 I will look into generalizing references where appropriate
01:05:31 I would appreciate if someone could record that suggestion on the wiki
01:05:35 thanks mjs
01:07:23 mjs_ has joined #html-wg
01:09:45 mjs: is the 21 august 2006 draft of WF2 which was submitted to and accepted by the w3c still the only draft of WF2 in w3c space? i can't locate another...
01:11:09 MikeSmith: I am still talking, and then I am going to bed I think :(
01:11:33 oedipus: I don't know offhand
01:12:40 oedipus: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/web-forms-2/Overview.html?rev=HEAD is 12 October 2006
01:12:45 chaals - I see
01:13:12 schepers has joined #html-wg
01:21:19 thanks Philip`
01:25:33 robburns has joined #html-wg
01:27:57 mjs has joined #html-wg
01:38:59 sorry Mike. Got another phone call, so won't happen until tomorrow afternoon my time...
01:39:08 chaals - fine by me
02:05:13 rubys has left #html-wg
02:06:49 robburns has joined #html-wg
02:07:20 mjs has joined #html-wg
02:28:55 robburns has joined #html-wg
02:30:08 robburns_ has joined #html-wg
02:31:26 robburns has joined #html-wg
02:33:28 robburns has joined #html-wg
02:41:22 robburns_ has joined #html-wg
02:42:31 gavin has joined #html-wg
02:56:19 Lachy has joined #html-wg
02:57:33 mjs has joined #html-wg
03:10:39 robburns has joined #html-wg
03:14:44 robburns has joined #html-wg
03:45:10 robburns has joined #html-wg
04:18:53 billyjack has joined #html-wg
04:49:46 gavin has joined #html-wg
04:53:49 heycam has joined #html-wg
05:05:43 mjs has joined #html-wg
05:25:17 schepers has joined #html-wg
05:48:06 mjs has joined #html-wg
06:03:41 aroben has joined #html-wg
06:06:26 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html
06:26:50 olivier has joined #html-wg
06:33:04 xover has joined #html-wg
06:56:34 gavin has joined #html-wg
07:05:41 Lachy has joined #html-wg
07:08:26 sbuluf has joined #html-wg
07:08:48 mjs has joined #html-wg
08:16:40 heycam has joined #html-wg
08:33:31 mjs has joined #html-wg
09:03:48 gavin has joined #html-wg
09:20:30 hasather has joined #html-wg
09:27:11 schepers has joined #html-wg
10:59:51 tH_ has joined #html-wg
11:03:42 myakura has joined #html-wg
11:09:28 jmb has joined #html-wg
11:11:47 gavin has joined #html-wg
12:05:41 Sander has joined #html-wg
13:16:16 poor DanC, being shot down by dean edridge... :)
13:19:01 gavin has joined #html-wg
13:19:12 that certainly was a nice rant by Dean :-)
13:35:49 xover has joined #html-wg
13:49:57 robburns has joined #html-wg
13:53:36 matt has joined #html-wg
14:03:20 MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
14:04:36 MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
14:24:55 billmason has joined #html-wg
14:29:06 icaaq has joined #html-wg
14:57:44 xover has joined #html-wg
15:01:07 matt has joined #html-wg
15:59:25 heycam has joined #html-wg
16:07:07 aroben has joined #html-wg
16:25:44 gavin has joined #html-wg
16:45:36 billyjack has joined #html-wg
17:29:59 hasather_ has joined #html-wg
17:35:44 hasather has joined #html-wg
17:43:58 though I don't know if that means they're actually doing fun things with IE's namespaces-in-HTML support
18:01:49 drry_ has joined #HTML-WG
18:09:05 Zeros has joined #html-wg
18:25:48 robburns has joined #html-wg
18:29:46 laplink has joined #html-wg
18:32:19 gavin has joined #html-wg
18:48:16 gavin_ has joined #html-wg
18:55:39 aroben has joined #html-wg
19:18:52 robburns has joined #html-wg
19:59:56 aroben has joined #html-wg
20:02:02 Zeros has joined #html-wg
20:29:24 robburns has joined #html-wg
20:57:47 aroben_ has joined #html-wg
20:58:51 aroben_ has joined #html-wg
21:56:48 robburns has joined #html-wg
21:58:54