**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Thu Apr 12 05:39:36 2007 Apr 12 05:39:36 * Now talking on #xhtml Apr 12 05:39:36 * Topic for #xhtml is: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Apr/0004 Apr 12 05:39:36 * Topic for #xhtml set by Steven at Thu Apr 12 00:01:18 2007 Apr 12 06:06:36 * You are now known as Lachy Apr 12 06:43:01 * Steven has quit (Ping timeout) Apr 12 12:11:03 * Disconnected (Operation timed out). **** ENDING LOGGING AT Thu Apr 12 12:11:03 2007 **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Thu Apr 12 12:11:15 2007 Apr 12 12:11:15 * Now talking on #xhtml Apr 12 12:11:15 * Topic for #xhtml is: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Apr/0004 Apr 12 12:11:15 * Topic for #xhtml set by Steven at Thu Apr 12 00:01:18 2007 Apr 12 17:48:00 * Steven (Steven_@128.30.52.30) has joined #xhtml Apr 12 17:52:35 hey Steven Apr 12 17:52:52 Hi there Apr 12 17:53:11 Lachlan Apr 12 17:53:18 just wondering if this issue was discussed during your telcon and what the resolution was http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-html-wg/2007AprJun/0002.html Apr 12 17:53:28 * Steven looks Apr 12 17:53:51 I couldn't find the minutes Apr 12 17:56:40 and also, it was stated here that XHTML2 will be using the XHTML1 namespace. I'm wondering if that decision has been reversed and XHTML2 will continue to use its own ns http://www.w3.org/mid/200609120801.k8C81Pm1023273@htmlwg.mn.aptest.com Apr 12 17:57:40 Unfortunately we ran out of time just before that agtenda item: http://www.w3.org/2007/04/11-xhtml-minutes.html Apr 12 17:57:45 sorry about that Apr 12 17:58:03 It will be top of the agenda next week Apr 12 17:58:49 sweet. btw, now that the XHTML WG is a public group, will the minutes from telcons be made public also? Apr 12 17:59:04 at least, from future telcons Apr 12 17:59:11 yes; you can see those minutes can't you :-) Apr 12 17:59:25 I'm an invited expert, so I could see them anyway Apr 12 17:59:29 aha Apr 12 17:59:35 which group are you an IE on? Apr 12 17:59:52 * markbirbeck has quit (Quit: markbirbeck) Apr 12 18:00:19 yeah, they seem to be public, I just checked in a browser that I'm not logged into w3.org Apr 12 18:00:32 I'm in Web API, WAF and the other HTMLWG Apr 12 18:01:29 ok Apr 12 18:02:34 do you have an answer about the namespace issue? Apr 12 18:03:07 sorry, on a teleconference at the moment Apr 12 18:03:12 Back later Apr 12 18:03:13 ah, ok **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Thu Apr 12 18:25:09 2007 Apr 12 18:25:09 * Now talking on #xhtml Apr 12 18:25:09 * Topic for #xhtml is: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Apr/0004 Apr 12 18:25:09 * Topic for #xhtml set by Steven at Thu Apr 12 00:01:18 2007 Apr 12 19:08:53 * sbuluf (dakdp@200.49.140.181) has joined #xhtml Apr 12 20:54:07 * sbuluf has quit (Ping timeout) **** ENDING LOGGING AT Thu Apr 12 21:14:28 2007 **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Thu Apr 12 21:14:35 2007 Apr 12 21:14:35 * Now talking on #xhtml Apr 12 21:14:35 * Topic for #xhtml is: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Apr/0004 Apr 12 21:14:35 * Topic for #xhtml set by Steven at Thu Apr 12 00:01:18 2007 Apr 12 21:16:16 * Lachy has quit (Ping timeout) Apr 12 21:43:21 * markbirbeck (markbirbec@195.40.123.90) has joined #xhtml Apr 13 00:30:27 * ShaneM (ShaneM@208.42.66.13) has joined #xhtml Apr 13 00:35:11 * ShaneM has quit (Ping timeout) Apr 13 00:55:16 * ShaneM (ShaneM@208.42.66.13) has joined #xhtml Apr 13 00:56:33 * You are now known as Lachy Apr 13 00:58:47 * ShaneM has quit (Connection reset by peer) Apr 13 03:09:12 * ShaneM (ShaneM@208.42.66.13) has joined #xhtml Apr 13 03:38:10 * markbirbeck has quit (Quit: markbirbeck) Apr 13 07:05:24 * Steven has quit (Ping timeout) Apr 13 08:04:59 * ShaneM has quit (Ping timeout) Apr 13 09:52:23 * sbuluf (kzxdkz@200.49.140.77) has joined #xhtml Apr 13 09:56:44 hi, lachy Apr 13 09:56:53 from the minutes... Apr 13 09:56:56 Remember that you should only send mail to the public-xhtml2 mailing list. The old working group mailing list is deprecated. Apr 13 09:56:56 This mailing list is viewable by the public, but only working group members can join the mailing list. Apr 13 09:59:50 sbuluf, which mail are you talking about? The ones that were sent before public-xhtml2 existed or the one in response to a thread on www-html? Apr 13 10:02:41 lachy, i was just quoting the minutes of the xhtml group Apr 13 10:02:56 those two lines above are theirs, not mine Apr 13 10:03:23 i just pasted cause you mentioned this group was now open, if i remember correctly Apr 13 10:03:47 but apparently...is just open to be seen, not to be touched Apr 13 10:10:21 anyone can join the XHTML2 WG if they wish Apr 13 10:13:11 right. but you have to pay. you can not contribute if not, apparently. Apr 13 10:44:21 * ShaneM (ShaneM@71.220.92.5) has joined #xhtml Apr 13 13:00:48 sbuluf, that's not true. Anyone can join the XHTML2WG as a public invited expert, just like anyone can join the HTMLWG. Apr 13 13:02:03 sbuluf, see http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/32107/instructions Apr 13 13:06:26 lachy, i see, thanks Apr 13 13:06:47 yah - cmon in. its a fun group. Apr 13 13:11:19 ShaneM, it's fun to watch you guys play around with XHTML2, but I don't think it's worth joining the group Apr 13 13:15:49 ouch Apr 13 13:20:17 ShaneM, personally, it's because I'm a web developer and I'm interested in technologies that are actually going to be implemented by major browsers, not those that are limited to intranets and "walled gardens" Apr 13 13:21:27 obviously we think these technologies are superior and will be implemented, but you are of course entitled to your opinion Apr 13 13:21:53 IE, Mozilla, Opera and Safari have already stated that they will not be implementing XHTML2. Apr 13 13:22:19 ok Apr 13 13:22:26 which UAs do you believe will implement XHTML2? Apr 13 13:23:02 or what is the target audience for XHTML2? Apr 13 13:23:02 all of those. either directly or indirectly. we can support xhtml2 in all of those today I am pretty sure. there are working prototypes already. Apr 13 13:23:15 and the web development community is definitely the target audience. Apr 13 13:24:29 and to do so, they make use of proprietary extensions to implement some features and/or transform the document into HTML Apr 13 13:25:01 ok Apr 13 13:26:00 what is your opinon of HTML5? Apr 13 13:26:24 there's a lot of philosophy here. the semantic web vision needs the rich expressive capabilities of xhtml 2 (or xhtml 1.1 + rdfa... see http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts/xhtml-rdfa ) Apr 13 13:26:33 my opinion? rather not go there. Apr 13 13:27:57 why not? Don't worry about offending me or anyone else, I'm interested in what people think, regardless of whether I agree or not Apr 13 13:30:18 lachy said this group was going public. that surprised me, i thought this group was always public. i read the minutes, and said only members could post to the list. you could say we were checking the policy when you arrived, out of curiosity. Apr 13 13:30:52 its public but you have to be a groupp member to participate / post Apr 13 13:30:59 on th emailing list.... same as the html wg Apr 13 13:31:12 lachy is pro html5, as you probably guessed. i'm not, i'm something different. Apr 13 13:32:40 actually, unless they've changed it, anyone can post to public-html but only participants who've agreed to the patent policy, etc. can subscribe Apr 13 13:32:49 I assume it's the same for the xhtml2 list Apr 13 13:34:02 well... I dont know how to test your theory. Apr 13 13:34:25 I could try posting to it, but I have nothing useful to say on the list yet Apr 13 13:34:42 ive been migrating all the publication activities to be public over the last couple of weeks. Apr 13 13:34:45 pain in the butt Apr 13 13:35:41 move page, list, irc channel, etc etc, right? if so, i don't envy you. Apr 13 13:35:43 sbuluf, if you're not pro-html5, what are you? Apr 13 13:36:19 ShaneM, what's the difference between this channel and #html? Is that the old, member only channel? Apr 13 13:36:19 we have 10 documents in active development with a rich publication management environment.... that all had to be switched over too Apr 13 13:36:44 Lachy: we have been told to start using this channel.... there is no difference really. Apr 13 13:37:00 ok, so #html will be discontinued then? Apr 13 13:37:16 guess so Apr 13 13:37:44 ok, I won't bother hanging out in that one then. Is this channel going to be logged? Apr 13 13:37:56 no Apr 13 13:38:01 why not? Apr 13 13:38:03 lachy, i want to replace html altogether. xhtml is way closer to what i'd look for, but still not close enough. on top, like you, i have doubts it will ever happen. Apr 13 13:39:05 HTML is here to stay forever, it's not going anywhere. It's better to improve what we have, than try to forget about the billions of pages in existence today and invent something new Apr 13 13:39:49 its nice that the new working groups marketing is working Apr 13 13:39:59 what marketing? Apr 13 13:40:18 which WG are you referring to? Apr 13 13:40:36 all the blogging, public letters, etc. that convinced someone like you they are right and HTML is here forever so we should keep evolving it. kills me Apr 13 13:40:59 whatwg Apr 13 13:41:18 lachy, i can not agree, unfortunately. i think someone should really try to do things right, all the way to semweb functionality and all. imho, html5 = perpetuation of errors. ever increasing complexity. Apr 13 13:41:20 do you honestly think there is a chance of leaving HTML behind? What kind of time frame would you put on replacing the entire web? Apr 13 13:42:05 you dont hae to leave it behind. Apr 13 13:42:30 but that's exactly what you guys did before the WHATWG picked it up again Apr 13 13:43:07 lachy, if you are asking me: chances are very little. *even* knowing that, however, i think is better to try. and yes, as shane says, html can keep there. we just need a better system. if then some people see it as superior...well, perhaps they would start changing to the new. Apr 13 13:43:20 not quite... we were waiting for those people to support the recommendation that was already out there, which, for the record, they STILL do not do. Apr 13 13:43:59 HTML4.01? It is *impossible* to implement in the real world Apr 13 13:44:18 dont be ridiculous. Apr 13 13:44:56 what? Do you honestly think that it's possible to implement HTML4 with SGML parsing and everything exactly as defined, without significantly breaking the web? Apr 13 13:45:09 of course. Apr 13 13:45:29 and I suppose you have evidence to support that? Apr 13 13:45:48 well - first of all, it doesn't require SGML parsing. and implementing the acttual markup language. Apr 13 13:45:57 c'mon. no reason that has not been done Apr 13 13:46:23 HTML4 is defined as an application of SGML, so yes it does require SGML parsing to be fully conforming Apr 13 13:46:49 but if you think it doesn't, then where are the parsing requiremenets defined? Apr 13 13:50:01 SGML defines parsing requirements. appendix B lists features that were not commonly implemented. Apr 13 13:51:49 right, but you just said "it doesn't require SGML parsing". Also, appendinx B is non-normantive and listing features as unimplemented doesn't actually define what to do when they're encountered Apr 13 13:52:29 but you could leave that aside.... I find the argument spurious. not supporing obscure SGML features is not on the same level as not supporting, for example, optgroup. give me a break Apr 13 13:53:58 so the vocabularly can and is somewhat supported by most browsers (they all support optgroup, AFAIK), but the actual parsing requirements aren't compatible with the web Apr 13 13:55:24 in what way are they not compatible with the web? do you think that there are parsing requirements in SGML that would invalidate the web? and if so..... and if those documents claim to be HTML 4.01.... oh well. Apr 13 13:55:45 seriously. if your document is invalid... its not HTML. I dont know what it is, but it is NOT HTML. by definition Apr 13 13:56:23 yes, here's some examples of markup that is widely used in the real world, and would break pages if it were implemnted according to SGML Apr 13 13:57:02 link (note: no quotes around attribute value that contains "/") Apr 13 13:57:14
(equivalent to
>) Apr 13 13:57:36 boldbold italicitalic Apr 13 13:58:21 * Lachy is looking up some more examples... Apr 13 13:58:24 and why, oh why, do I want any of those things to be treated as valid by any user agent I use? Apr 13 13:58:29 they are nonsense, and illegal Apr 13 13:59:01 yes, but they are widely used on the web. And if browsers handled them according to SGML rules, those pages (many millions of them) would break Apr 13 13:59:02 stop the maddness Apr 13 13:59:48 better they break and get put than my user agent guesses what they meant and guesses wrong. Apr 13 13:59:59 s/put/fixed/ Apr 13 14:01:20 perpetuating this tag soup nonsense is just going to continue to encourage people to do dumb things. Apr 13 14:01:25 one more example ... (note: ⟨ is an entity reference in HTML) Apr 13 14:01:44 there's a reason you can't buy fireworks in minnesota any longer. people blew their fingers off. Apr 13 14:02:16 better for who? Users? Developers? Someone else? Apr 13 14:02:30 a fine example. and invalid. W3C validator would tell anyone to fix that. and they should. and yes, that's dogmatic. Apr 13 14:03:00 better for everyone. as a developer, I know that my stuff is valid. and I know that valid stuff will be treated the same why everywhere, 'cause no one has to guess what I meant. Apr 13 14:03:29 how would you like it if your browser was upgraded to use SGML parsing and a site you visited regularly that worked fine in your old browser no longer worked in the new version because of all the incompatibiliteis? Apr 13 14:04:47 well, first of all - that would never happen and we all know it. but me personally - wouldn't bother me that much. I would prefer it if my user agent warned me instead of just failing the page outright, but... I would get over it. Apr 13 14:05:00 and if it were a service I was paying for, i would be screaming at them. like my bank Apr 13 14:05:44 but now think like an average user who has no idea about what HTML is, they just want to use their banking site in their browser without any hassel Apr 13 14:06:23 turn it around... I am a bank. and I want my site to work right on every user's screen. I am testing my site as i develop it, 'cause I am not stupid. Apr 13 14:06:30 most users would turn around and blame the browser. The would either continue using the old version that worked for them or switch to a competitior Apr 13 14:06:32 if there is stuff hat is invalid, it won't work. Apr 13 14:06:43 so I, as the bank, would fix it. Apr 13 14:07:09 in reality, what we in the XHTML working group did was draw a line in the sand. Apr 13 14:07:09 you're speaking of an ideal world where all developers do that. Think about the real world for a change where that simply doesn't happen everywhere Apr 13 14:07:44 and then you crossed back over that line in the sand when you said XHTML as text/html is ok Apr 13 14:07:46 we said use XML. clear parsing model. declare your document with the right media type and doctype. browsers, when you see that use your XML parser. invaliddocuments need not apply. Apr 13 14:07:54 and of course, we were soundly ignored Apr 13 14:08:13 well - we only did that because microsft insisted, fwiw Apr 13 14:08:50 really? Is there evidence for that somewhere in the mailing list archives or something? Apr 13 14:09:10 if there is, it would be member only and private. sorry. shouldn't have said anytning. Apr 13 14:09:19 it's ok, I have member access Apr 13 14:09:41 yes, of course its in the history. dont know where. doesn't really matter. Apr 13 14:10:01 and I disaree that it is an ieal world. all you need to do is break the cycle. Apr 13 14:10:07 for example: Apr 13 14:10:19 we say there is a new doctype.... HTML 4.02. it has this FPI Apr 13 14:10:55 user agents, when you see documents that use that doctype, you MUST use SGML parsing rules and you MUST report errors. (this isn't going to happen, its an example). Apr 13 14:11:18 then, as people started writing content ysing that DOCTYPE... it would perforce be valid and therefore protable content Apr 13 14:11:43 that would require all browsers to ship with full support for SGML parsing and to correctly trigger it on that and all future DOCTYPEs before HTML4.02 became widely used by developers Apr 13 14:11:59 okay. Apr 13 14:12:03 it would also requrie most users and developers to have upgraded their browsers first Apr 13 14:12:21 okay Apr 13 14:12:48 look at XHTML. Developers all over are using it every day, even though it's not as widely deployed for the majority of users Apr 13 14:12:51 how is that any different than any other seachange? like html5 Apr 13 14:13:04 HTML5 intends to remain compatible with the web Apr 13 14:13:33 yeah right. pull the other one. if you are adding elements or attributes or changing content models.... you are not compatibl with existing browsers. by definition Apr 13 14:13:48 it is defining how to handle todays content and future HTML5, 6, 7, etc. content Apr 13 14:14:17 content models are only changed where such changes are compatible with existing browsers. Apr 13 14:14:34 the irony is that we started taht ages ago with xhtml m12n and its compatibility rules.... what if you held a standard and nobody came? Apr 13 14:14:52 e.g. we can't change the content model of because that would break existing UAs. Apr 13 14:15:22 we also can't allow
    in

    , for instance, in text/html because that would also break compat Apr 13 14:16:03 but we can introduce new elements and attributes and we can change content models where parsing wouldn't be broken in incompatible ways Apr 13 14:16:08 so the definition of forward evolution is "will it still work in IE4" ? that's insane Apr 13 14:16:26 it will degrade gracefully Apr 13 14:16:41 I wish you luck. Apr 13 14:16:46 thank you. Apr 13 14:16:55 we are succeeding, fwiw Apr 13 14:17:04 too early to tell Apr 13 14:17:35 do you honestly think HTML5 will fail? Apr 13 14:18:05 yes. I think the w3c proces will cause some change that hickson wont like and the whole thing will go to shit. Apr 13 14:18:36 i think the deciding moment is now Apr 13 14:18:48 more particularly, the chris wilson message Apr 13 14:18:56 and you think XHTML2 and XForms have a much greater chance of success, even though they've been widely rejected? Apr 13 14:19:35 I dont follow the html working group at all, so i dont know anything about a chris wilson message. Apr 13 14:19:38 Chris Willson needs to wake up, nothing he wrote made a lot of sense Apr 13 14:19:52 chris is the chair. i hope he is making sense Apr 13 14:20:08 not in his recent essay on public-html Apr 13 14:20:37 shanem, if you want to see the thing in a nutshell: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0612.html Apr 13 14:20:38 his arguments for versioning are anti-competitive and not foward-thinking Apr 13 14:21:15 as to xhtml2 - its a vision thing. there isn't anytnig in there earthshattering. it would be nice if IE would accept content using media type xhtml+xml, but other than that... yes, I think it will succeed Apr 13 14:21:16 actually, what he's really asking for is browser sniffing, and there's no way in hell that is going to happen again Apr 13 14:21:25 imho, thats whatwg vs microsoft. the true clash. Apr 13 14:22:12 versioning is critical to success.... but i know there are people like hixie who disagree Apr 13 14:22:14 3 major browser vendors strongly disagree with MS, it's MS that needs to really think about what they are saying Apr 13 14:22:42 and what would happen to HTML if they went through witth their misguided plans Apr 13 14:22:56 opera and apple are not major vendors... sorry. I value their input, but they are also-rans. Apr 13 14:23:31 what does "they are also-rans" mean? Apr 13 14:23:50 they were in the race, they ran too - they didn't win. they "also ran" Apr 13 14:24:16 do you consider mozilla a major vendor? Apr 13 14:24:21 yes Apr 13 14:24:56 what stats are you basing your opinion on and what percentage do you draw the line? Apr 13 14:25:52 please don't tell me this is another case where you clearly haven't done your research Apr 13 14:27:33 its not about percentages.. but if it were, market penetration would say IE and Firefox +Netscape far outdistance opera Apr 13 14:28:06 and safari... well. I mean, its on every mac, but everyone I know, including all our mac using customers, install and ues firefox 'cause it just works better. Apr 13 14:29:02 IE has roughly 85%, Mozilla has roughtly 10% Apr 13 14:29:31 Opera and Safari make up most of the remaining 5% Apr 13 14:29:33 if we were talking about percentages.... the openwave WML/XHTML Mobile Profile platform would outdistance all of those other browsers. Apr 13 14:29:44 hundreds of millions of platforms. that no one uses. Apr 13 14:29:45 hence, whatever microsoft wants, happens. and if they do not want something, it does not happen. all the rest is academic, including the whole w3c Apr 13 14:30:40 Microsofts monopoly is certainly a major problem, but it's not a show stopper Apr 13 14:30:48 sbuluf: that's a little harsh. remember that much of the web isn't about user agents, but about data exchange. semantic web stuff. Apr 13 14:31:06 sno? you think the html wg would go anywhere they do not want? Apr 13 14:31:25 well - the last html wg did lots of times Apr 13 14:31:36 but chris wasn't the chair Apr 13 14:31:59 excuse me. may i run my version of events? the whole thing, i mean. i reckon you might find it interesting. Apr 13 14:32:18 go for it. Apr 13 14:32:23 (lachy? Apr 13 14:32:30 sure Apr 13 14:32:45 thank you both, i'll be as brief as possible Apr 13 14:32:52 the web is anarchy Apr 13 14:32:58 nobdy rules Apr 13 14:33:13 more particularly, nobody can enforce any standard. whatsoever. period Apr 13 14:33:49 hence, w3c "standards by consensus" is the closest thing we can have Apr 13 14:34:22 many people think somebody rules, but that's false, we have just w3c and other standard bodies Apr 13 14:35:01 and w3c "consensus" is basically consensus among those who pay w3c bills. mostly, corporations Apr 13 14:35:28 within that context, tim berners lee aims for clarity, when he can Apr 13 14:35:51 for instance, the whole migration to xml, xhtml, and eventually, semantic web Apr 13 14:36:10 error perpetuation is sheer madness, on the long run Apr 13 14:36:32 but again, w3c does not really rule Apr 13 14:36:50 if microsoft wants or does not want something, they de facto rule Apr 13 14:37:01 it happened before with html Apr 13 14:37:12 and is happening now again, exactly as before Apr 13 14:37:23 correct till now? Apr 13 14:37:48 you are not wrong Apr 13 14:38:30 lachy, you probably do not agree with the need to break back compat at some time or other, i assume Apr 13 14:38:42 of course not Apr 13 14:38:46 (which xhtml 2 was abound to do) Apr 13 14:38:59 i see. and that is the major split we have today Apr 13 14:39:12 that's why we have html5 and xhtml2 Apr 13 14:39:33 now...what about tim berners lee? Apr 13 14:40:06 he obviously want to break backwards compatibility. he knows is better and needs to be done if we will ever have a better woirld Apr 13 14:40:34 hence, he impulses xml, xhtml, and xhtml2 Apr 13 14:40:42 but Apr 13 14:40:50 it apparently will never happen Apr 13 14:40:57 cause microsoft does not want it Apr 13 14:41:31 he has some pull, and a bit of power, so he still tries, for years, but microsoft does not give ground Apr 13 14:41:48 finally, he gives in...to html5 Apr 13 14:42:08 his post justifying it, is totally ridiculous Apr 13 14:42:16 roger that Apr 13 14:42:24 "to add quotes around attributes was too difficult" Apr 13 14:42:35 nobody here believes that, right? Apr 13 14:43:01 so, if the justification he gave was risible Apr 13 14:43:13 we would need to ask ourselves...why did he do it? Apr 13 14:43:36 one answer: as long as someone requests working groups, he gets checks Apr 13 14:43:40 simple - 'cause if he did not let them in they were going to do it anyway outside of the w3c. Apr 13 14:43:51 shanem, exactly Apr 13 14:43:59 this way there is a measure of control. Apr 13 14:44:07 exactly again Apr 13 14:44:14 andf what did he request? Apr 13 14:44:26 (using the little power he had) Apr 13 14:44:50 he has immense power - no document can be published withouth his approval Apr 13 14:45:14 microsft has a lot more power