IRC log of html-wg on 2007-12-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:00:02 [dedridge]
The spec is writen in such a way that xhtml5 would be impossible to implement. I have suggested ways to improve this and you refuse to listen to them
00:00:06 [Lachy]
dedridge, good ideas do get added to the spec, or will in due course
00:00:25 [dedridge]
NO they don't Lachy!
00:00:28 [Lachy]
xhtml5 is not impossible to implement at all
00:00:40 [dedridge]
Yes it is.
00:00:44 [Lachy]
how?
00:01:01 [dedridge]
There needs to be support for application/xhtml+xml
00:01:08 [Hixie]
i have over 3600 e-mails to reply to, i'll reply to them all in due course. see http://whatwg.org/issues/ for the list of e-mails I still have to reply to, and http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/1 for the HTMLWG's list of issues that I will reply to.
00:01:23 [Hixie]
if you have sent something that isn't on those lists, then speak to smedero about adding it to the issues list
00:01:30 [dedridge]
if it is a opt in, it can't be supported
00:01:31 [Lachy]
dedridge, the spec supports application/xhtml+xml.
00:01:59 [Lachy]
wtf?
00:02:11 [mjs]
dedridge: what do you mean by "impossible to implement"?
00:02:18 [hsivonen]
dedridge: if you want application/xhtml+xml support in browsers that don't have it already, I suggest you publish killer content *only* as application/xhtml+xml
00:02:20 [dedridge]
But the spec says that support for application/xhtml+xml is optional
00:02:37 [Lachy]
dedridge, that doesn't make it impossible to implement. It just makes it a choice
00:02:54 [hsivonen]
dedridge: you can stop content negotiation today
00:03:06 [hsivonen]
nn.
00:03:16 [Hixie]
nn hsivonen
00:03:36 [Lachy]
there are UAs for which supporting xhtml is not necessary or desired. That doesn't stop any other UA from supporting it
00:03:43 [dedridge]
How about that spec say that support for text/html is optional
00:03:52 [Philip]
I thought it did say that text/html was optional
00:03:58 [anne]
text/html _is_ optional
00:04:07 [Philip]
"Implementations may support only one of these two formats, although supporting both is encouraged."
00:04:09 [Lachy]
dedridge, it says UAs can implement either
00:04:28 [dedridge]
BUt we all that it will be supported (text/html) so its nonsense
00:04:31 [anne]
one of the reasons innerHTML uses an XML parser in XML
00:04:56 [Philip]
People making HTML UAs other than web browsers could quite reasonably not support text/html
00:05:21 [dedridge]
Philip: I know
00:05:51 [Hixie]
dedridge: the spec saying that something "must" be supported doesn't make it supported, whether we leave it optional or required will not change microsoft's plans.
00:06:23 [dedridge]
Yes it will, because they wont be able to say the support the spec
00:06:28 [Lachy]
will IE8 still not support XHTML?
00:06:33 [Hixie]
dedridge: has that stopped them before?
00:06:48 [dedridge]
Lauchy: You tell me?
00:07:05 [anne]
now seems like a good time to leave, g'night!
00:07:15 [Hixie]
dedridge: (also, by not making it required i'm not ignoring your feedback -- we also have feedback that says it should be optional. when there are conflicting requests, i can't make everyone happy. why should i make you happy instead of someone else? it's just a matter of balancing the technical arguments.)
00:07:21 [Hixie]
nn anne
00:07:27 [dedridge]
appendix c stopped them last time
00:07:40 [dedridge]
now we have a new appendix c
00:07:46 [Hixie]
they didn't implement all of css2.1 but they say they do
00:07:58 [Hixie]
they didn't implement all of html4 but they say they do
00:08:04 [Hixie]
(this applies to all browsers, not just microsoft)
00:08:59 [dedridge]
But is just so happens that it works out the way you like Ian
00:09:02 [smedero]
indeed, I don't think anyone has a completely valid xhtml1 or html4 parser
00:09:03 [mjs]
I think if you want IE to support XHTML, the best thing to do is make the request to Microsoft
00:09:07 [dedridge]
Funny that
00:09:25 [dedridge]
It's not just IE
00:10:01 [kingryan]
dedridge: Hixie doesn't like everything in the spec
00:10:05 [kingryan]
neither do I
00:10:06 [mjs]
if you're talking about mobile browsers, they already pretend to support XHTML badly (sometimes only XHTML)
00:10:34 [dedridge]
You guys don't want people to use XHTML. Just have the courage to admit it
00:10:39 [mjs]
if you're talking about Safari/Firefox/Opera, I can't imagine any of those removing XHTML support
00:11:01 [Lachy]
dedridge, no-one is against people using XHTML if they choose to use it
00:11:12 [kingryan]
dedridge: I use XHTML. I don't care if others do and we don't really have any power to make them do it.
00:11:16 [dedridge]
Why would you name a spec html5 if it was truly xhtml too
00:11:30 [mjs]
WebKit has pretty good XHTML support that we are regularly improving
00:11:48 [mjs]
there's no real web compatibility need for it
00:11:56 [dedridge]
Kingryan: No, that's the point
00:12:08 [kingryan]
dedridge: ?
00:12:19 [mjs]
so I don't know why you think I would be against people using it
00:12:23 [dedridge]
not everone needs to use xhtml. We just need ua support for it
00:12:42 [kingryan]
dedridge: how do you propose that this group get UAs to support xhtml?
00:12:50 [Hixie]
there are indeed a growing number of things in the html5 spec that i don't like. silly technical arguments always getting in the way of what i want. :-P
00:12:52 [dedridge]
BY your attitude mjs, the things you say
00:12:57 [Lachy]
dedridge, 3 out of 4 major UAs do support it. Your problem is with MS
00:13:03 [mjs]
so words speak louder than actions?
00:13:26 [kingryan]
mjs: I've always thought that "code is law" :)
00:13:35 [dedridge]
I can't lobby MS if the spec doesn't require it
00:13:59 [kingryan]
dedridge: yes you can
00:14:01 [Hixie]
the xhtml spec requires it
00:14:11 [kingryan]
coffee time, bbiab
00:14:30 [dedridge]
But the xhtml spec is nonsense
00:14:34 [smedero]
how so?
00:14:40 [dedridge]
no one will use xhtml1.x
00:14:43 [Hixie]
yeah well no argument from me there
00:15:00 [dedridge]
any one wanting to use xhtml will use xhtml5
00:15:02 [Hixie]
(incidentally, i actually would quite like the spec to require xhtml support. i just don't see that the arguments in favour are very strong compared to the arguments against.)
00:15:30 [dedridge]
Think of it this way...
00:16:19 [dedridge]
if 2% of users used xhtml5 you would still need 100% of ua support for xhtml5
00:16:48 [Hixie]
i don't think anyone here disagrees
00:16:55 [smedero]
requiring XHTML, requires implementing an XML parser ... if you are building a consumer electronics device with limited system memory... you may not want to have an entire XML stack you have no interest in using.
00:16:59 [dedridge]
You can't get 100% support for it without it being compulsary
00:17:02 [mjs]
I don't know if we'll even get 100% of UAs to support the non-x version of html5
00:17:02 [Hixie]
if we didn't want xhtml, we wouldn't have so much of the spec dedicated to defining how it works
00:17:07 [smedero]
for instance... there are consumer electronics devices like the Chumby
00:17:18 [smedero]
which actually uses xHTML widgets
00:17:27 [smedero]
but let's just say they only HTML
00:17:34 [smedero]
and in no other way would they want to use XML
00:17:45 [smedero]
why force them to bundle an XML library with their software?
00:17:59 [Philip]
The parser is only a fairly minor part of a browser engine, so it wouldn't make that much difference
00:18:06 [dedridge]
OK, do you think that someone can use xhtml5 in 5 yers time with out content-negotiation?
00:18:19 [wilhelm]
No.
00:18:52 [dedridge]
wilhelm: why? how about 10 years?
00:19:37 [dedridge]
the spec can change that I think
00:19:53 [Hixie]
you are far too optimistic about the power of specifications
00:19:56 [smedero]
anyway, Hixie points out the fallacy with assuming a MUST will make a UA implementor magically do everything the spec says.
00:20:12 [smedero]
history is very much against you on this point.
00:20:14 [wilhelm]
Even if MS did implement XHTML support in IE8, IE7 will not be gone in five years.
00:20:21 [dedridge]
A must is a good start
00:20:38 [Philip]
dedridge: Which "someone" do you mean? (I've already got some XHTML-only pages; Google wouldn't require XHTML support until approximately nobody uses IE7; other people will be at varying points in the middle, depending on what users they care about)
00:21:21 [dedridge]
wilhelm: i can deal with ie7 later
00:21:26 [Hixie]
yeah, i made an xhtml-only site about 7 years ago
00:22:02 [dedridge]
I agree with most of what you are saying...
00:22:05 [dedridge]
but...
00:22:28 [mjs]
HTML5 is probably not going to be on Microsoft's radar for a while
00:22:31 [dedridge]
is xhtml5 going to be usable
00:22:50 [mjs]
I suspect they will implement XHTML before they start taking HTML5 support seriously
00:23:10 [dedridge]
mjs: I think we can change that, we have to
00:23:26 [Hixie]
how can we possibly change microsoft's priorities?
00:23:58 [dedridge]
by getting people to use better browsers that offer new features
00:24:07 [mjs]
doing my best on that one :-)
00:24:08 [wilhelm]
dedridge: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990418.html <- this is still valid today, maybe even more so
00:24:24 [mjs]
as are Mozilla and Opera
00:24:28 [dedridge]
you must have a plan right? :)
00:24:59 [Hixie]
dedridge: that's other browsers, that's not the working group
00:26:38 [kingryan]
dedridge: indeed, getting the market to put pressure on MS is a valid way to get them to change
00:26:51 [kingryan]
but the market and the spec are two different things
00:26:59 [kingryan]
and the former controls the latter
00:27:58 [dedridge]
But I can't lobby MS to support xhtml5 if there is no such official language and the spec says that xhtml support is optional
00:28:28 [kingryan]
dedridge: are you saying that MS won't support a technology unless a W3C spec says they must?
00:28:34 [inimino]
dedridge: but adding MUST requirements to the spec for political reasons weakens the spec
00:29:11 [dedridge]
inimino: no. not at all. but it certainly helps
00:29:49 [Hixie]
you can ask for support even if it's optional
00:29:56 [Hixie]
just say "please support xhtml"
00:30:23 [dedridge]
It's not actually political reasons. It's simply to enable the use of xhtml
00:30:34 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
00:31:05 [inimino]
but lobbying Microsoft or anyone else to support XHTML in the absense of market forces is basicall politics, no?
00:31:06 [kingryan]
dedridge: this is where I think you're wrong. must's don't enable anything.
00:33:12 [Thezilch]
Thezilch has joined #html-wg
00:37:29 [dedridge]
hixie: I have asked - > http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/12/05/internet-explorer-8.aspx#6679356
00:39:15 [dedridge]
Kingryan: i disagree, without a MUST , MS will always be able to say that support is optional
00:39:47 [kingryan]
dedridge: but support *is* optional, because html5 is optional
00:39:59 [kingryan]
microsoft don't have to do anything this group says
00:41:52 [dedridge]
html5 will not be optional? Once it is finished it will be a W3C rec. then it will be an official "web standard"
00:42:22 [dedridge]
then opera can take MS to court if they don't support it
00:42:23 [kingryan]
dedridge: it's still optional then. no one *has* to follow the w3c's recommendations
00:43:04 [dedridge]
I think that needs to change. Goverments should enforce standards
00:43:43 [wilhelm]
XHTML1 is a W3C recommendation.
00:43:51 [Philip]
Microsoft said their goal is interoperability, and standards are just a way to reach that goal - they won't support standards simply because they're standards (and I'm not aware of anyone else who does that either)
00:44:10 [Philip]
[They didn't say the bit after the hyphen, I think]
00:44:57 [dedridge]
LOL xhtml1 was a joke. appendix c killed that one off
00:45:16 [Hixie]
i really don't think the goverments should get involved in software development and deployment. that would be a disaster.
00:45:19 [kingryan]
dedridge: then we should make sure that html5 isn't a joke :)
00:45:38 [Hixie]
i can't even begin to imagine how bad that would be
00:45:44 [Philip]
Is it possible to enforce standards on software? If there were e.g. specific requirements on making a Java implementation, it's trivial to make e.g. a J++ implementation and no longer have to follow those rules
00:45:48 [kingryan]
governments have more important things to deal with, like war and poverty
00:46:24 [dedridge]
What about the netherlands?
00:47:27 [kingryan]
the netherlands don't have any poor people?
00:47:45 [dedridge]
Govenments enforce standards for all sorts of things. Why not the web
00:48:40 [dedridge]
I don't know if the NL's have any poor people or not. But don't they have strict standards on for web sites
00:49:10 [inimino]
Governments are already involved
00:49:22 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
00:49:32 [inimino]
but if you think they should mandate HTML5, you should be asking your government, not the W3C
00:50:52 [dedridge]
inimimo: No, the w3c must come first. I can't get my government to supprt something that isn't an official standard
00:51:29 [Philip]
Wouldn't it have to be something like ISO before it would be considered "official"?
00:51:30 [inimino]
dedridge: yes, but as W3C standards do not carry force of law, they must be written with a careful consideration of market forces
00:54:55 [Lachy]
AFAIK, the only W3C spec to get any sort of government backing has been WCAG 1.0
00:55:29 [Lachy]
and that's not all governments
00:56:15 [dedridge]
anyway, my point was that xhtml5 is unusable without compulsary support for application/xhtml+xml. No one's convinced be otherwise, or justified the need to keep the spec as it stands
00:56:34 [Philip]
Has any government required WCAG for anything other than their own sites?
00:57:33 [dedridge]
Philip: not sure.
00:58:34 [inimino]
dedridge: even if that's true, that's not necessarily an argument for making it a MUST in the spec
00:59:41 [inimino]
dedridge: essentially you want the HTML5 spec to be a tool to force XHTML adoption, but it's not clear that that would work
01:03:02 [dedridge]
inimimo: please don't tell me what I want :)
01:04:44 [dedridge]
inimino: it only makes sense to require support for the language that is being specified in the spec. The spec isn't just text/html
01:05:54 [dedridge]
does the html 4 spec say that support for the text/html media type is optional? I doubt it.
01:06:42 [dedridge]
why should the xhtml5 spec say that support for it's media type be optional?
01:07:08 [inimino]
dedridge: that was my interpretation of your remarks about Microsoft and XHTML support, if I misinterpreted then I don't know what you want
01:07:24 [inimino]
dedridge: it is not optional for XHTML support, it is just that XHTML support is optional
01:12:28 [trackbot-ng]
trackbot-ng has joined #html-wg
01:12:34 [trackbot-ng]
Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
01:13:50 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
01:32:41 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
01:54:24 [Thezilch]
Thezilch has joined #html-wg
03:10:09 [DougJ]
DougJ has joined #html-wg
03:15:10 [DougJ]
DougJ has left #html-wg
03:36:45 [dbaron]
dbaron has joined #html-wg
03:44:10 [Thezilch[FH]]
Thezilch[FH] has joined #html-wg
04:04:25 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
04:04:30 [shepazu]
Hixie, mjs, ping
04:53:19 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #html-wg
05:16:35 [Thezilch]
Thezilch has joined #html-wg
06:48:06 [adele]
adele has joined #html-wg
06:48:52 [adele]
adele has joined #html-wg
07:52:39 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
07:53:33 [mjs]
shepazu: pong
07:55:16 [shepazu]
mjs, just wanted to note that I don't think DanC is backing off from publication, just wanting to get the ducks in a row for a January publication (that's my impression)
07:55:53 [shepazu]
also, in an unrelated note, Safari's FF support is pretty good :)
07:55:57 [shepazu]
oops
07:56:05 [shepazu]
I mean, Safari's SVG support
07:56:31 [mjs]
shepazu: I wasn't (vociferously) complaining, but I don't understand what the remaining delay is
07:56:53 [shepazu]
I'm still waiting on Safari's support for Firefox, that's a much-needed implementation
07:57:00 [mjs]
I do think it's fair to wait until after the holidays to start the patent clock if that is the issue, but I'm not really clear on what the issue is
07:57:03 [mjs]
thanks for saying so
07:57:32 [mjs]
shepazu: we're polishing up support for SVG in <html:img> and CSS background images for the next release
07:57:38 [mjs]
and there will be more advanced text support
07:57:55 [shepazu]
mjs, I'm not sure either, but the immediate issue is that there's a moratorium on publication
07:58:05 [shepazu]
due to holidays and such
07:58:15 [shepazu]
looking forward to that
07:58:23 [mjs]
well, there's a moratorium now
07:58:30 [mjs]
there wasn't earlier today or yesterday
07:58:45 [shepazu]
right... the deadline was noon EST
07:58:48 [mjs]
but I can see that sliding it in under the wire might not be the best choice
07:59:22 [shepazu]
yeah, I do think that in Dan's mind it was a matter of propriety (my interpretation)
07:59:52 [shepazu]
and honestly, a couple of weeks won't change much
08:00:08 [shepazu]
and hopefully that's all it will be
08:00:50 [mjs]
I'm happy with the fact that there is a deadline set
08:01:04 [shepazu]
yes, I think we all are
08:01:49 [shepazu]
and that's a far deadline, one I don't think we'll come close to reaching... I'm hoping for FPWD in January
08:02:05 [shepazu]
... of 2007 ;)
08:02:05 [mjs]
me too (now that December is off the table)
08:02:28 [shepazu]
anyway, that was all
08:02:30 [shepazu]
thanks
08:05:16 [mjs]
one of us.... one of us...
08:05:22 [mjs]
don't worry, it's not a cult
08:06:34 [shepazu]
for me, the main problems are switching between apps (and subwindows, like emails), and trying to find replacement tools for familiar functionality
08:06:56 [shepazu]
I'm missing a good text editor and CVS client like TortoiseCVS
08:07:18 [shepazu]
but it's very zippy and I like spotlight a lot
08:08:50 [mjs]
cmd-tab to switch apps, cmd-~ to switch windows within an app
08:08:59 [mjs]
or better yet, set up expose to trigger from a screen corner
08:09:05 [mjs]
if you like the rodent
08:09:09 [mjs]
expose fucking rocks
08:09:55 [shepazu]
I like expose and I use cmd-tab... it's more that I'm used to the windows taskbar... I'll adjust
08:10:47 [shepazu]
I'm used to different kinds of notifications about events like activity in a chat window (though I quite like Colloquy and Adium)
08:11:13 [shepazu]
I know about the corner thing, but that's not my speed
08:11:52 [mjs]
the top thing I have found that confuses windows switchers, even after a while, is that many apps do not quit when you close the last window
08:11:58 [mjs]
(document-based apps basically)
08:12:18 [shepazu]
I have Growl, too, and I think I can customize that
08:12:25 [shepazu]
yeah, that is confusing :)
08:13:10 [shepazu]
but I'm starting to get used to cmd+Q
08:13:37 [shepazu]
... I just have to kill some stray apps once in a while
08:14:06 [shepazu]
I hear BBEdit is good, but I'm not impressed with the free text editors I've tried
08:15:23 [shepazu]
I have a good friend who's going to give me lessons, though, so I'm sure I will adapt soon enough
09:00:36 [tH_]
tH_ has joined #html-wg
09:05:46 [olivier]
olivier has joined #html-wg
09:43:12 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
09:47:12 [trackbot-ng]
Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
09:54:17 [ROBOd]
ROBOd has joined #html-wg
09:55:36 [trackbot-ng]
trackbot-ng has joined #html-wg
09:55:42 [trackbot-ng]
Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
09:55:56 [anne]
ah, cmd-~, didn't know that one
11:07:12 [anne]
http://www.zeldman.com/2007/12/19/let-me-hear-your-standards-body-talk/
11:44:47 [dedridge]
dedridge has left #html-wg
12:14:47 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
12:15:03 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
12:16:00 [anne]
hi MikeSmith!
12:16:55 [MikeSmith]
anne - hei
12:17:15 [wilhelm]
'Morning. (c:
12:17:17 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
12:17:46 [xover]
Aren't you supposed to be on vacation Mike?
12:18:51 [MikeSmith]
wow, first time I've seen wilhelm on #html-wg (at least as far as I can remember)
12:19:02 [MikeSmith]
xover - yep, sorta partial vacation
12:19:38 [xover]
No rest for the…, etc.
12:19:55 [wilhelm]
I've been randomly lurking for a while.
12:27:29 [dedridge]
dedridge has joined #html-wg
12:56:47 [zcorpan]
zcorpan has joined #html-wg
13:03:05 [aaronlev]
aaronlev has joined #html-wg
14:01:37 [trackbot-ng]
trackbot-ng has joined #html-wg
14:01:43 [trackbot-ng]
Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
14:08:36 [trackbot-ng]
trackbot-ng has joined #html-wg
14:08:42 [trackbot-ng]
Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
14:17:42 [myakura]
myakura has joined #html-wg
14:22:06 [gsnedders]
gsnedders has joined #html-wg
14:22:38 [smedero]
smedero has joined #html-wg
14:27:57 [matt]
matt has joined #html-wg
14:49:42 [hasather]
hasather has joined #html-wg
14:58:15 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
15:12:14 [anne]
so IE now does <p><table> as <p></p><table> thanks to Acid2
15:12:20 [anne]
I'm not a big fan of that
15:13:03 [anne]
It's compliant with HTML4 and all but I rather have less differences in quirks mode than more and being slightly more compliant with HTML4
15:14:27 [Dashiva]
Is having other browsers do <p><table> more practical?
15:17:05 [anne]
I'm not entirely convinced "practical" matters here, but then I'm representing a browser vendor and have a background in QA
15:17:17 [anne]
And at this point it's probably a lost cause
15:17:19 [anne]
anne has left #html-wg
15:17:34 [anne]
anne has joined #html-wg
15:18:01 [anne]
oops
15:18:17 [anne]
Ctrl+Q is too close to Ctrl+W (or vice versa)
15:18:23 [Dashiva]
Lock tab
15:19:18 [anne]
Lock tab doesn't help with Ctrl+Q as that closes down the browser
15:19:57 [Dashiva]
But it removes the need to press ctrl-w (since it won't do anything) :)
15:20:25 [gsnedders]
anne: no, the annoying thing is when you ctrl+q with the focus on something apart from what you mena :P
15:20:27 [gsnedders]
*mean
15:29:48 [billmason]
billmason has joined #html-wg
15:31:14 [dedridge]
dedridge has left #html-wg
15:33:05 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
15:36:37 [trackbot-ng]
trackbot-ng has joined #html-wg
15:36:43 [trackbot-ng]
Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
15:42:10 [DanC]
DanC has joined #html-wg
15:53:30 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #html-wg
15:58:13 [billmason]
billmason has joined #html-wg
16:26:17 [trackbot-ng]
trackbot-ng has joined #html-wg
16:31:17 [trackbot-ng]
trackbot-ng has joined #html-wg
16:36:17 [trackbot-ng]
trackbot-ng has joined #html-wg
16:42:17 [trackbot-ng]
trackbot-ng has joined #html-wg
17:47:26 [adele]
adele has joined #html-wg
18:04:47 [Sander]
Sander has joined #html-wg
18:07:21 [aaronlev]
aaronlev has joined #html-wg
18:18:54 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
18:30:43 [hober]
hober has joined #html-wg
18:40:03 [jgraham]
jgraham has joined #html-wg
18:40:08 [jgraham_]
jgraham_ has joined #html-wg
18:50:21 [tH_]
tH_ has joined #html-wg
18:53:49 [kingryan]
kingryan has joined #html-wg
18:57:10 [kingryan]
kingryan has joined #html-wg
19:06:17 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
19:15:32 [adele]
adele has joined #html-wg
19:16:06 [adele]
adele has joined #html-wg
19:26:35 [aaronlev]
aaronlev has joined #html-wg
19:55:03 [Sander]
Sander has joined #html-wg
20:08:00 [mjs]
mjs has joined #html-wg
20:08:22 [preston]
preston has joined #html-wg
20:10:49 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
20:14:32 [Lachy]
Lachy has joined #html-wg
20:17:03 [matt]
matt has joined #html-wg
20:22:49 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
20:39:43 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
20:46:24 [preston]
preston has joined #html-wg
21:04:31 [timbl]
timbl has joined #html-wg
22:51:29 [Thezilch]
Thezilch has joined #html-wg
22:57:19 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
22:57:39 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-wg
23:05:39 [smedero]
smedero has joined #html-wg
23:09:38 [oedipus]
oedipus has joined #html-wg
23:14:36 [oedipus]
oedipus has joined #html-wg
23:14:57 [olli]
olli has joined #html-wg
23:21:30 [Thezilch[FH]]
Thezilch[FH] has joined #html-wg
23:56:15 [DanC]
RRSAgent, pointer?
23:56:15 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2007/12/20-html-wg-irc#T23-56-15
23:56:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #html-wg
23:56:24 [DanC]
Zakim, this will be HTML
23:56:24 [Zakim]
ok, DanC; I see HTML_WG()7:00PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
23:56:42 [Lachy]
Hi
23:57:00 [DanC]
agenda + Convene HTML WG teleconference of 2007-12-21T00:00UTC
23:57:33 [DanC]
hi Lachy
23:57:55 [DanC]
agenda + ISSUE-19 html5-spec release
23:58:15 [DanC]
agenda + overlap with HTTP; new issue?
23:58:20 [Thezilch]
Thezilch has joined #html-wg
23:58:48 [DanC]
agenda + ISSUE-7 video-codecs
23:59:55 [DanC]
agenda + Web Developer's Guide to HTML5, ACTION-34