IRC log of html-wg on 2009-05-21
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 16:09:41 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #html-wg
- 16:09:41 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-html-wg-irc
- 16:09:53 [annevk]
- scribenick: annevk
- 16:10:33 [masinter]
- http://www.nabble.com/IETF---Uri-review-f13113.html
- 16:10:34 [pimpbot]
- Title: Nabble - IETF - Uri-review forum & mailing list archive (at www.nabble.com)
- 16:11:11 [Julian]
- zakim, unmute me
- 16:11:11 [Zakim]
- Julian_Reschke was not muted, Julian
- 16:11:19 [Julian]
- zakim, mute me
- 16:11:19 [Zakim]
- Julian_Reschke should now be muted
- 16:12:40 [annevk]
- Topic: Processing requirements for ARIA
- 16:12:40 [annevk]
- Cynthia: The goal is to have a WD by June 8
- 16:12:40 [annevk]
- Cynthia: By the end of May to have a document that describes the existing mappings from HTML
- 16:12:40 [annevk]
- Cynthia: From there we want to figure out what is missing.
- 16:12:40 [annevk]
- Cynthia: Two things: implementation guidelines + mappings
- 16:12:41 [annevk]
- Cynthia: CR by the end of the year if we decide to go normative
- 16:12:43 [annevk]
- Cynthia: aggressive schedule but we think it is possible
- 16:12:45 [annevk]
- SR: report progress again in a couple of weeks?
- 16:12:47 [annevk]
- Cynthia: June 11 is ok
- 16:12:49 [annevk]
- Topic: <!DOCTYPE html>
- 16:12:51 [annevk]
- JR: draft for about: has been submitted
- 16:12:53 [annevk]
- JR: no discussion about the draft
- 16:12:55 [annevk]
- JR: now we have to start the discussion on the URI mailing list
- 16:12:57 [annevk]
- SR: good progress
- 16:12:59 [annevk]
- JR: I'll report in two weeks
- 16:13:01 [annevk]
- Topic: profile attribute
- 16:13:03 [annevk]
- JR: I would like to help speccing, but had no time yet so I thought it would be good to summarize my thoughts
- 16:13:05 [annevk]
- JR: I have no time in the next few weeks but can take ownership of the action
- 16:13:07 [annevk]
- JR: it has not been posted to the URI list yet
- 16:13:09 [annevk]
- JR: it's not clear whether the authors wanted to do that or whether one of us has to do that
- 16:13:29 [annevk]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 16:14:19 [masinter]
- I will start discussion of about: scheme
- 16:14:22 [annevk]
- LM: I will make a post to the URI list
- 16:14:31 [annevk]
- ISSUE-59?
- 16:14:31 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-59 -- Should the HTML WG produce a separate document that is a normative language reference and if so what are the requirements -- OPEN
- 16:14:31 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/59
- 16:14:32 [masinter]
- to the appropriate list for review of new URI schemes
- 16:14:32 [pimpbot]
- Title: ISSUE-59 - HTML Weekly Tracker (at www.w3.org)
- 16:14:39 [DanC]
- ("the URI list" is ambiguous, fwiw)
- 16:14:50 [annevk]
- Topic: normative language reference
- 16:15:19 [annevk]
- SR: no meaningful process on the HTML5 XHTML namespace
- 16:15:30 [annevk]
- LM: any progress on the discussion with mr Pemberton?
- 16:15:48 [annevk]
- SR: not in the last couple of weeks and haven't come to any conclusion that would be of interest to PLH just yet
- 16:16:09 [annevk]
- DS: I think it would be fruitful to have a discussion between PLH and SR to get things going
- 16:16:26 [annevk]
- SR: I did have such a discussion on RDFa and have not yet anything meaningful to report
- 16:16:57 [annevk]
- SR: [...] the ball is in my court to get various people to participate in RDFa
- 16:17:21 [Julian]
- zakim, unmute me
- 16:17:21 [Zakim]
- Julian_Reschke should no longer be muted
- 16:17:28 [billmason]
- billmason has joined #html-wg
- 16:17:42 [annevk]
- SR: Will follow up on the action on Ian on the mailing list
- 16:17:46 [Julian]
- zakim, mute me
- 16:17:47 [Zakim]
- Julian_Reschke should now be muted
- 16:17:57 [annevk]
- Topic: any other issues?
- 16:18:02 [annevk]
- [silence]
- 16:18:15 [aroben]
- aroben has joined #html-wg
- 16:18:26 [annevk]
- Topic: Maciej's suggestion on DP consensus
- 16:18:35 [annevk]
- SR: LC made some comments on the maing list
- 16:18:42 [annevk]
- SR: does this need to be discussed?
- 16:18:45 [annevk]
- [silence]
- 16:19:20 [annevk]
- LM: I have some comments...
- 16:20:21 [annevk]
- LM: The question is not so much whether the DP document is self-reasonable, but whether or not it has in fact been used appropriately in the document
- 16:20:36 [annevk]
- LM: The DP document is ambigious
- 16:21:26 [annevk]
- LM: What the document says about [Paving the Cowpaths] is that we should consider widespread authoring practice rather than inventing something totally new
- 16:21:40 [DanC]
- contra-positive
- 16:21:45 [annevk]
- LM: It has been used in the contra-positive
- 16:22:03 [masinter]
- if A then B turns into if not A than not B
- 16:22:53 [annevk]
- LM: e.g. <head profile>
- 16:23:17 [annevk]
- [a side discussion between masinter and dsinger is unfortuantely not minuted]
- 16:23:35 [annevk]
- LM: which things are considered widespread and which things aren't; it seems like this has been applied inconsistently
- 16:23:37 [dsinger]
- i.e. if something has been previously specified, but failed to make a cowpath, then it should be de-considered
- 16:23:42 [annevk]
- AvK: what makes you say that?
- 16:23:51 [dsinger]
- the above is NOT a stated principle but it seems to be used as such
- 16:24:05 [annevk]
- LM: I could come up with some examples, but there were some discussions that I would have to do some research on
- 16:24:34 [annevk]
- LM: to give you an indication of what I think the issues are
- 16:25:49 [Laura]
- Laura has joined #html-wg
- 16:25:52 [annevk]
- LM: that wording of the DP was changed during the discussion of the DP itself
- 16:26:09 [Laura]
- The principles are open to various interpretations. In practical use, no real consensus exists on what they mean.
- 16:26:18 [annevk]
- LM: existing practice was used as a benchmark against wich contervailing proposals didn't have any use against existing practice
- 16:26:20 [Laura]
- Group members have fundamental differences with them.
- 16:26:47 [annevk]
- LM: my question is that the document itself may be reasonable but the practice in which the document has been used may not which is the nature of my concern
- 16:27:23 [Zakim]
- -Cynthia_Shelly
- 16:27:24 [shepazu]
- q+
- 16:27:31 [annevk]
- AvK: that sounded really vague and incoherent and my scribing might have reflected that for which I apoligize
- 16:27:33 [shepazu]
- q-
- 16:28:00 [Laura]
- There has been no meeting of the minds on the content of the design principles.
- 16:28:14 [annevk]
- LM: my question was whether publishing the document today would actually describe the practices we use today
- 16:28:16 [shepazu]
- q+
- 16:28:19 [dsinger]
- why does the document need to be published or gain any more status? it's a guideline to help move the group along, isn't it, and hence internal?
- 16:28:55 [annevk]
- AvK: to answer dsinger's question it has been published at some point so it's not internal
- 16:28:59 [shepazu]
- q-
- 16:29:27 [annevk]
- SR: it was on the agenda because Maciej wrote an email to address an issue and LC had concerns
- 16:29:38 [annevk]
- SR: I'm happy to move it forward or leave it as is
- 16:29:42 [Laura]
- If we are not going to have another poll to find out if we have real consensus of the content of the principles document, I propose that the entire document be obsoleted.
- 16:29:49 [annevk]
- LM: I'm ok with leaving it as historical anecdote
- 16:30:08 [annevk]
- DS: I think it helps as a general document documenting the way we think
- 16:30:14 [annevk]
- DS: I don't think it's useful as rulebook
- 16:30:26 [annevk]
- AvK: I agree with DS and would be happy to leave it as is
- 16:30:44 [annevk]
- DS: I'll ping Maciej
- 16:30:47 [annevk]
- SR: great
- 16:31:21 [Laura]
- If it is decided to publish the document as a note anyway, I propose that at a minimum, a disclaimer is attached saying:
- 16:31:29 [annevk]
- DougS: I think it is worth noting that when we first discussed these TimBL chimed on to say they are not useful as rule but more as describing how people arrived somewhere.
- 16:31:29 [Laura]
- "Publication of this document does not constitute endorsement. There is no working group consensus on the content of these principles but it was decided that further effort to refine them and gain consensus was not a productive use of time.”
- 16:32:11 [dsinger]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 16:32:11 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see [Apple], Julian_Reschke (muted), Sam, Masinter, Laura (muted), Shepazu, [IPcaller], annevk, +1.503.712.aaaa, DanC, smedero
- 16:32:11 [annevk]
- [For the minutes: DS might refer to both DaveS and DougS before I started using DougS. Sorry!]
- 16:32:11 [masinter]
- i would question whether they reflect actually how decisions were made
- 16:32:13 [Zakim]
- [Apple] has dsinger
- 16:32:35 [annevk]
- Topic: process proposals
- 16:32:40 [annevk]
- SR: I may have created some confusion
- 16:32:43 [shepazu]
- s/somewhere./somewhere. they are mostly used as a rhetorical tool, in practice/
- 16:32:57 [annevk]
- SR: What I tried to say is that for things that are not in the spec that should be in the spec we need text
- 16:33:07 [annevk]
- SR: Things that are not specced will obviously not be included
- 16:33:39 [annevk]
- DougS: is there some indication that spec text will be taken into account as IH has gone out of his way to reject proposed text in the past
- 16:34:02 [annevk]
- SR: If that happens I will ask someone else to do the merging
- 16:34:28 [annevk]
- AvK: can you point to examples?
- 16:34:43 [annevk]
- DougS: the most specific example is spec text the SVG WG put forward
- 16:35:24 [annevk]
- SR: I don't think there's consensus on what DougS has proposed
- 16:36:26 [annevk]
- DougS: it might be of interest to this group when I was at a recent meeting of authoring vendors. When I mentioned that SVG would be put into HTML there was deep concern among SVG authoring vendors that there would be changes they were not informed about
- 16:36:37 [annevk]
- DougS: I suggested that they post to public-html and www-svg
- 16:36:44 [annevk]
- DougS: I will follow up with them as well
- 16:36:57 [annevk]
- SR: thanks for that
- 16:37:51 [annevk]
- [adjourned]
- 16:37:51 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 16:37:52 [Zakim]
- - +1.503.712.aaaa
- 16:37:53 [Zakim]
- -Sam
- 16:37:54 [Zakim]
- -Julian_Reschke
- 16:37:54 [Zakim]
- -Masinter
- 16:37:54 [Zakim]
- -annevk
- 16:37:56 [Zakim]
- -[IPcaller]
- 16:37:56 [Zakim]
- -[Apple]
- 16:37:58 [Zakim]
- -smedero
- 16:37:59 [Laura]
- bye
- 16:37:59 [annevk]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 16:37:59 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-html-wg-minutes.html annevk
- 16:38:06 [Zakim]
- -Laura
- 16:38:09 [Zakim]
- -Shepazu
- 16:38:10 [Zakim]
- HTML_WG()12:00PM has ended
- 16:38:11 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Cynthia_Shelly, Julian_Reschke, dsinger, Sam, Masinter, Shepazu, Laura, [IPcaller], annevk, +1.503.712.aaaa, DanC, smedero
- 16:39:13 [annevk]
- DanC, should I email the minutes?
- 16:39:19 [annevk]
- DanC, and to where?
- 16:39:32 [DanC]
- yes, to public-html and the announce list
- 16:41:19 [LeifHS]
- LeifHS has left #html-wg
- 16:45:32 [annevk]
- okidoki
- 16:45:33 [annevk]
- done
- 16:53:23 [annevk]
- contra-positive is apparently written as contrapositive
- 16:56:34 [aroben_]
- aroben_ has joined #html-wg
- 17:02:28 [annevk]
- DanC, did you mean uri@w3.org vs public-iri@w3.org btw or some IETF URI list?
- 17:03:27 [DanC]
- in which case?
- 17:03:29 [masinter]
- I agreed to post to "the appropriate list" which I believe is uri-review
- 17:04:11 [annevk]
- DanC, you said '("the URI list" is ambiguous, fwiw)'
- 17:04:15 [masinter]
- as per http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395
- 17:04:16 [pimpbot]
- Title: RFC 4395 - Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes (at tools.ietf.org)
- 17:04:39 [masinter]
- Send a copy of the template or a pointer to the containing
- 17:04:39 [masinter]
- document (with specific reference to the section with the
- 17:04:39 [masinter]
- template) to the mailing list uri-review@ietf.org, requesting
- 17:04:39 [masinter]
- review. In addition, request review on other mailing lists as
- 17:04:42 [masinter]
- appropriate. For example, general discussion of URI syntactical
- 17:04:46 [masinter]
- issues could be discussed on uri@w3.org; schemes for a network
- 17:04:49 [masinter]
- protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that protocol.
- 17:04:52 [masinter]
- Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments. Four weeks
- 17:04:55 [masinter]
- is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
- 17:05:08 [masinter]
- I think html-wg is sufficient for the "about:" scheme since it is a browser-specific scheme and most browser vendors are here
- 17:06:25 [DanC]
- yes, the ambiguity I had in mind was uri@w3.org vs public-iri@w3.org
- 17:06:39 [DanC]
- er... no... vs uri-review@ietf.org I think
- 17:07:59 [annevk]
- ah, I didn't know about uri-review
- 17:08:01 [annevk]
- subscribed
- 17:09:13 [annevk]
- I think at least "about:blank" has leaked into Web content so it's not that browser specific anymore
- 17:12:33 [annevk]
- Julian, how do you determine the query part?
- 17:13:11 [Julian]
- naive answer: using the parsing rules in RFC3986?
- 17:13:53 [annevk]
- those rules don't care about unexpectec bytes and such there?
- 17:13:58 [annevk]
- unexpected*
- 17:15:04 [annevk]
- also, the layer approach doesn't work with respect to Unicode normalization iirc
- 17:15:15 [Julian]
- I think Roy pointed out recently that RFC3986 specifies how to decompose the URI even if it contains non-URI characters.
- 17:15:16 [annevk]
- pretty sure I pointed that out before
- 17:15:25 [annevk]
- interesting
- 17:15:29 [annevk]
- I'll take a look
- 17:15:58 [Julian]
- Are the normalization requirements any different from those in IRIs?
- 17:16:21 [Julian]
- Oh, you're referring to that special case we discussed something like 6 weeka go, right?
- 17:16:45 [Julian]
- In which case I think the IRI spec needs fixing.
- 17:16:59 [maddiin]
- maddiin has joined #html-wg
- 17:17:33 [Julian]
- The alternative is to layer on top of URI instead of IRI, and have custom rules for how to transform non-URI characters
- 17:17:41 [annevk]
- better to fix IRI first then...
- 17:18:03 [annevk]
- I can't find where the URI spec allows things outside the unreserved range
- 17:18:27 [annevk]
- other than sub-delims and pct-encoded of course
- 17:19:28 [annevk]
- which seems logical given that the IRI spec had to define a new grammar too
- 17:19:34 [Julian]
- Back to your question.
- 17:20:19 [Julian]
- As far as I can tell, the first "?" starts the query parrt, the first "#" ends it.
- 17:21:02 [Julian]
- Roy may have been referring to the regex in http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.B
- 17:21:04 [pimpbot]
- Title: Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax (at greenbytes.de)
- 17:22:41 [annevk]
- yeah, that's not normative :)
- 17:23:22 [Julian]
- So do we need more than a rule which tells us where the query part sits?
- 17:25:33 [annevk]
- I suppose with a lot of trickery you can make it work, but it seems better to bite the bullet and define something that reflects reality
- 17:25:56 [annevk]
- It seems that there is some support in that direction as well from various IRI editors
- 17:36:34 [annevk]
- anyway, replied so those issues are archived yet again
- 17:36:49 [annevk]
- guess they might not have hit www-tag yet
- 17:36:56 [Julian]
- if the end product is an IRI spec that can be used in HTML5, that's good
- 17:37:14 [annevk]
- we need it for CSS, XMLHttpRequest, SVG, too
- 17:37:18 [Julian]
- I just don't want to see URI + IRI + LEIRI + yetanotherspec
- 17:37:52 [annevk]
- I agree that'd be silly
- 17:37:59 [Julian]
- I'm not convinced it's needed for all of these.
- 17:38:13 [annevk]
- I am :)
- 17:38:15 [Julian]
- I do believe you that it may be needed outside HTML5
- 18:29:01 [Hixie]
- rubys: i just learnt that the tpac meeting is going to have a registration fee
- 18:29:51 [Hixie]
- rubys: is there anything we can do to remove that for the people in the group who are invited experts?
- 18:34:01 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #html-wg
- 18:35:02 [Hixie]
- woah, i misread the price
- 18:35:11 [masinter]
- i'm looking at would it would take to merge the various specs
- 18:35:21 [Hixie]
- there's no way i can justify $250 to attend
- 18:35:25 [masinter]
- ffor IRI + LEIRI + HTML5 web address
- 18:38:13 [masinter]
- your employer, when they nominated you as a member of the working group, agreed to fund your travel
- 18:38:31 [masinter]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#ReqsAllGroups section 6.2.1.1 ....
- 18:38:32 [pimpbot]
- Title: 6 Working Groups, Interest Groups, and Coordination Groups (at www.w3.org)
- 18:38:43 [masinter]
- "3.A statement that the Member will provide the necessary financial support for participation (e.g., for travel, telephone calls, and conferences).
- 18:39:35 [masinter]
- similarly for Invited Experts, 6.2.1.3 Invited Expert in a Working Group
- 18:40:06 [masinter]
- To be able to participate in a Working Group as an Invited Expert, an individual MUST do all of the following: ... provide a statement of who will provide the necessary financial support for the individual's participation (e.g., for travel, telephone calls, and conferences)...
- 18:40:18 [Hixie]
- travel, yes
- 18:40:27 [Hixie]
- this isn't travel.
- 18:40:38 [masinter]
- it's a conference
- 18:40:39 [hober]
- masinter: do you seriously expect all ~500-odd public invited experts to attend F2Fs?
- 18:40:42 [Hixie]
- this is a blatent surcharge on top of an already ridiculous membership fee.
- 18:41:07 [masinter]
- it's a purple surcharge on top of a green membership fee
- 18:41:19 [Hixie]
- the whatwg has managed to develop html5 fine without ever charging anyone anything
- 18:41:22 [Hixie]
- why can't the w3c?
- 18:42:03 [masinter]
- no, I think having 500-odd public invited experts is not in keeping with the spirit of the W3C process. I understand why it was done, but it's inconsistent
- 18:42:32 [Hixie]
- the w3c process is broken in this respect, indeed.
- 18:43:00 [masinter]
- there are different kinds of organizations. IETF, W3C etc have staff who get paid and offer oversight, as well as volunteers
- 18:43:22 [masinter]
- ISO and ITU and other organizations have yet different funding and meeting rules
- 18:43:53 [masinter]
- I don't like it that there's a meeting charge
- 18:44:25 [anne]
- Hixie, there was some lawyer cost involved in the WHATWG as well as yearly hosting charges that have to come from somewhere
- 18:45:09 [anne]
- Hixie, furthermore some people are paid to contribute their time to the WHATWG (though some might do that regardless of whether they are paid)
- 18:47:22 [masinter]
- sitting on the Financial Task Force for W3C, getting costs to cover expenses is a big issue
- 18:47:37 [masinter]
- especially if you want to be independent of national government influence at least to some degree
- 19:01:01 [takkaria]
- why can't people just have a spec which defines all URL-like things?
- 19:02:13 [anne]
- 'cause people involves politics
- 19:03:29 [Dashiva]
- Bordering on religion? :)
- 19:05:15 [anne]
- that they're separated is only said to make you feel good
- 19:21:37 [masinter]
- the separation of IRI and URI was made to allow for systems relying on 7-bit URI to upgrade or not
- 19:21:55 [masinter]
- i don't think politics or religion have much to do with that split
- 19:22:24 [masinter]
- the LEIRI vs. IRI vs. WebAddress split seems to have been based, though, on non-technical reasons, more like "difficulty of collaboration"
- 19:22:38 [masinter]
- which isn't religion, really, but is a kind of politics
- 19:25:22 [anne]
- (I was joking about the separation between politics and religion)
- 20:14:13 [aroben]
- aroben has joined #html-wg
- 20:52:24 [Hixie]
- anne: i've personally paid out of pocket all the hosting fees for whatwg, the lawyer fees were not required (they were desired by those paying the fees), and nobody has to pay anyone to take part in the whatwg
- 20:52:30 [Hixie]
- anne: though they are allowed to do so if they want
- 20:53:56 [takkaria]
- masinter: you can still have a spec which deals with both URIs and IRIs, surely?
- 20:54:01 [takkaria]
- maybe it's more complex than it's worth
- 20:54:13 [takkaria]
- but it does seem to be worth defining all important URI-related stuff in the same place
- 21:26:06 [Julian]
- Julian has joined #html-wg
- 21:29:24 [Julian]
- Hixie, 250 USD sounds totally cheap considering that many of us do standards works with nobody paying for it at all. So do not complain to the W3C, but to big corporations such as Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and yes, Google, for not fiunding standards work sufficiently.
- 21:31:55 [Hixie]
- it's not $250, it's $68,750
- 21:32:12 [Hixie]
- which google pays every year
- 21:32:25 [Hixie]
- (well we pay $68,500, this is adding an additional $250)
- 21:32:28 [Hixie]
- (per person)
- 21:33:02 [Hixie]
- and given that google also sponsors ietf, i think your statement is ridiculous
- 21:33:12 [Hixie]
- standards work is not expensive
- 21:36:28 [Julian]
- So, you're saying $68,500 is a lot of money for one of the biggest companies of the world? Well, I beg to differ.
- 21:36:51 [Hixie]
- no
- 21:36:52 [Hixie]
- it's not
- 21:36:55 [Hixie]
- that's the ENTIRE POINT
- 21:37:07 [Hixie]
- it's a lot of money for the people who AREN'T big companies
- 21:37:47 [Hixie]
- there should not be ANY money required to be paid to partake in standards development
- 21:38:09 [Julian]
- Yes, that's a problem.
- 21:38:16 [Dashiva]
- E.g. why not $2500 extra on the Member fee instead of $250 for everyone
- 21:38:17 [Hixie]
- whether to standards organisations, people, airplanes, hotels, anything
- 21:38:24 [Julian]
- My company, 5 people, would have to pay 1/9 of what Google pays.
- 21:38:37 [Hixie]
- your company, like google, shouldn't have to pay anything
- 21:38:42 [Julian]
- THAT is ridicolous.
- 21:38:52 [Julian]
- So, who's going to pay then?
- 21:39:07 [Hixie]
- why is there anything to pay?
- 21:39:14 [Hixie]
- whatwg works fine without charging anyone anything
- 21:39:23 [Julian]
- Ah, so this is about the W3C stadd?
- 21:39:26 [Julian]
- staff?
- 21:40:08 [Hixie]
- no, it's about standards development being a pay-to-play model and this only getting worse
- 21:40:24 [Julian]
- I dunno at lot about the W3C; the IETF has certain fixed costs, like the Secretariat, infrastructure, and the RFC-Editor.
- 21:40:44 [Julian]
- I'm not happy with all of that overhead, but some of this is hard to avoid.
- 21:40:49 [Hixie]
- not really
- 21:43:02 [Julian]
- If you really believe that it should be easier for small companies to participate, then you should lobby with Google to fund that.
- 21:43:21 [Hixie]
- google has already funded independent people to attend w3c meetings
- 21:43:25 [Hixie]
- and we've sponsored ietf
- 21:43:50 [Julian]
- Like, taking the cost for invited experts to attend meetings (that includes travel, attendance, and time)
- 21:44:23 [Hixie]
- meetings are 90% of the problem
- 21:44:27 [Hixie]
- get rid of meetings
- 21:44:31 [Julian]
- So why "there's no way i can justify $250 to attend"
- 21:44:36 [Julian]
- ?
- 21:44:52 [Hixie]
- because i think it's ridiculous to charge people to attend
- 21:44:55 [Hixie]
- same reason i didn't go to ietf
- 21:45:11 [Julian]
- I can see why you're objecting on behalf of others, but what excatly is the problem for *you*?
- 21:45:34 [Hixie]
- why should i partake in something that isn't open to everyone?
- 21:45:52 [Hixie]
- it's not like these meetings are useful anyway
- 21:46:05 [Julian]
- I'd recommend that you let those people who are *really* affected by this speak for themselves.
- 21:46:45 [Hixie]
- they won't, the perceive the process as being so stacked against them that they don't even consider complaining
- 21:46:46 [Julian]
- For people who do not get paid for this, attending the meeting inclused travel + hotel anyway, so 50 USD per day is a difference, but not as big as a difference you make it.
- 21:47:21 [Hixie]
- the meetings are the problem, as i said
- 21:48:23 [Julian]
- Meetings are a problem, thus it's important that they aren't more than needed, and that they are indeed useful.
- 21:48:58 [Julian]
- For instance, IETF meetings three tmes a year with something like 2 hours F2F time for a WG are problematic.
- 21:49:51 [Julian]
- TPAC (last year) on the other hand had ~2 days of HTML WG time, which is a big difference.
- 21:50:16 [Hixie]
- the htmlwg meeting last year was a complete waste of time
- 21:50:19 [Hixie]
- we made zero progress
- 21:50:31 [Hixie]
- and it slowed down development for 3 weeks
- 21:51:33 [Julian]
- Depends on how you measure progress; and I'm also not sure how you get from a few days to three weeks.
- 21:52:30 [Hixie]
- i was out of work for 7 days for that meeting, traveling for a few days around that, and a week to catch up with the e-mail afterwards
- 21:54:34 [Hixie]
- and i measure progress in terms of how much closer we were to getting interoperable implementations
- 21:55:36 [billmason]
- billmason has left #html-wg
- 21:56:49 [Hixie]
- getting interoperable implementations of the features that forward the web :-)
- 22:01:13 [masinter`]
- masinter` has joined #html-wg
- 22:31:51 [heycam]
- heycam has joined #html-wg
- 22:46:21 [MarcoAchury]
- MarcoAchury has joined #html-wg
- 23:09:20 [ChrisWilson]
- ChrisWilson has joined #html-wg
- 23:52:12 [MarcoAchury]
- Hello I'm now here, just curious about howdecission are made, very interested in to know more about future "tag soup" support
- 23:55:02 [MarcoAchury]
- Your theme "Bringing Web standards back to reality?" sounds really good for me