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
00:06:33 <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