IRC log of swhack on 2001-07-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

21:45:35 [logster]
logster has joined #swhack
21:45:35 [niven.openprojects.net]
Users on #swhack: logster sbp @AaronSw
21:45:58 [sbp]
Perhaps we could keep a log of all the W3C SWAD stuff that isn't posted on the SWAD page, and ping them about it
21:46:07 [AaronSw]
Heh
21:46:14 [sbp]
stuff like identity-uri, tan, and so forth. I forget most of them
21:46:15 [AaronSw]
I tried doing that with the chump
21:48:42 [logster]
logster has joined #swhack
21:48:42 [sagan.openprojects.net]
Users on #swhack: logster @AaronSw sbp
21:48:47 [sbp]
Oh
21:48:54 [AaronSw]
I was trying to fix something... didn't work
21:49:24 [sbp]
Heh
21:50:11 [sbp]
How are we doing with xWebL?
21:50:40 [AaronSw]
That's a good question
21:50:55 [sbp]
thank you
21:51:31 [AaronSw]
What are we doing with xWebL might be more appropriate?
21:51:48 [sbp]
yes, that's an even better question
21:53:57 [sbp]
s'what're we doin'?
21:54:35 [AaronSw]
Well, do you still have problems with my version?
21:55:02 [sbp]
Yes. My version is still quite different, and I like it
21:55:22 [AaronSw]
Well let's fix my version.
21:55:30 [AaronSw]
Since yours is beyond hope. ;-)
21:56:04 [sbp]
The writing's worse than yours, but the content is better
21:56:20 [AaronSw]
Why?
21:57:02 [sbp]
I like my content model
21:57:44 [AaronSw]
What do you like about it?
21:58:02 [AaronSw]
* AaronSw has a feeling that sbp will have to stop playing Go for us to have this discussion.
21:58:14 [sbp]
Stop playing Go?
21:58:37 [AaronSw]
Are you playing Go now?
21:58:48 [sbp]
Nope
21:58:57 [AaronSw]
Ok, nevermind them.
21:59:31 [sbp]
For a start, I don't like <m> as you have it. I decided on <t>. See the specification for the details
21:59:54 [sbp]
I need to rejig it very slightly, some of the <annot> placements are incorrect in the schemata
22:00:21 [AaronSw]
In the other window you write:
22:00:22 [AaronSw]
<sbp> And are we using PM any more?
22:00:24 [AaronSw]
What's PM?
22:00:55 [sbp]
Private Messaging
22:01:09 [AaronSw]
And the answer is no.
22:01:32 [AaronSw]
You seem to have a <t> and an <m>
22:01:39 [sbp]
Cool
22:01:46 [sbp]
<m> goes in <t>, as I recall
22:01:57 [sbp]
And <m> is now empty
22:02:01 [AaronSw]
What is <t> for?
22:02:08 [sbp]
to group the <m> elements
22:02:25 [sbp]
The way you did it, it led to the "alternative not echo" problem that I mentioned
22:02:56 [AaronSw]
I don't understand that issue.
22:03:25 [sbp]
You also have some crazy stuff in there, although I can't find it in the spec any more. for example, you said that all elements have href attributes - am I correct? And you're not using XLink even?
22:03:46 [sbp]
I can't remember the reference to the original place where the echo thing was bought up...
22:03:52 [AaronSw]
Why is having href attributes bad?
22:04:24 [sbp]
...but the gist of it is that alt-equivs shouldn't get worse and worse as you go "into" them, they should complement each other
22:04:46 [sbp]
href attributes: well, what do they do? Are they all just simple links? And why?
22:04:52 [AaronSw]
So how does the <t> fix the problem?
22:05:12 [AaronSw]
what do they do: they link, duh? simple links: well, what else.. you can't really do a inbound link in the middle of a doc
22:05:17 [sbp]
In <t>, the ordering is irrelvaent
22:05:30 [sbp]
You could do arcs or whatever
22:05:31 [AaronSw]
Oh come on.
22:05:43 [AaronSw]
If ordering is irrelvant then it's not very useful.
22:06:01 [sbp]
How is it not very useful?
22:06:03 [AaronSw]
When do you need to know that ordering is not important?
22:06:15 [sbp]
Well it never should be
22:06:22 [AaronSw]
Why?
22:06:25 [sbp]
Actually: rarely.
22:06:30 [AaronSw]
A picture is a thousand words, no?
22:06:35 [sbp]
Because of the complement not echo thing!
22:06:42 [AaronSw]
Yeah, well that's wrong.
22:07:08 [sbp]
How on earth is it wrong? It's a well-known accessibility idiom (that I ctually didn't know until recently... oops)
22:07:19 [AaronSw]
Heh.
22:07:21 [sbp]
* sbp tries to find the reference
22:07:31 [AaronSw]
It's wrong because the author will have preferred mechanisms.
22:07:49 [AaronSw]
I want you to see my pretty picture. I'd prefer you see it in SVG, otherwise PNG, otherwise JPG.
22:07:56 [AaronSw]
If you can't do that, here's some text.
22:08:07 [AaronSw]
That's my wish as an author.
22:08:48 [sbp]
O.K., well you can still set an attribute on mine, so you have a choice, with the default as off. I could even change that. With your system, there's no way to say "the ordering of these is irrelavent", which is a huge problem
22:09:01 [sbp]
because I might not want them to cascade, and it should be discouraged
22:09:13 [AaronSw]
Why would you need to know that the ordering is irrelvant?
22:09:17 [sbp]
[insert rant about unary metadata to point out the differences here]
22:09:22 [AaronSw]
cascade?
22:09:29 [sbp]
What?
22:09:46 [sbp]
We're talking media equivalents here. Not necessariliy images
22:09:47 [AaronSw]
Why would you need to know that the ordering is irrelvant?
22:09:51 [sbp]
I think you're hooked on that
22:09:53 [AaronSw]
I understand.
22:09:55 [AaronSw]
What's a cascade?
22:10:01 [sbp]
Because one form of content might have slightly different information to the other
22:10:08 [sbp]
You can't just say that one is better than the other
22:10:13 [sbp]
they should fill in each other's gaps
22:10:33 [AaronSw]
Well, that's true
22:10:53 [AaronSw]
But imagine a web page.
22:11:03 [AaronSw]
There is a default view... the other views are secondary
22:11:13 [sbp]
Come again?
22:11:21 [AaronSw]
On a web page with, say an image.
22:11:23 [AaronSw]
An image appears.
22:11:32 [AaronSw]
You can get alternate views (an alt tag, a longdesc)
22:11:35 [AaronSw]
but the image is primary
22:11:52 [AaronSw]
They are complimentary, but still secondary.
22:12:01 [sbp]
Ugh, but the longdesc might explain more about the picture than the picture itself
22:12:21 [AaronSw]
I understand, but there is a primary view.
22:12:23 [sbp]
People using screen readers will never render the image. They might choose the alt or the longdesc
22:12:42 [AaronSw]
Yes, I didn't disagree with that.
22:12:52 [sbp]
It's O.K. for the author to express that there is a preference. But there should be a way to turn that off
22:13:00 [AaronSw]
Well, that's for the client to decide.
22:13:02 [sbp]
In fact, it should be off by default
22:13:24 [AaronSw]
Once again: Why is it important to know when the author didn't sepcified an order?
22:13:55 [sbp]
hang on a sec.
22:14:48 [sbp]
Try: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-wai-pf/2001JulSep/0035
22:15:09 [sbp]
[member-only link]
22:16:12 [AaronSw]
I don't understand it.
22:16:23 [AaronSw]
Can you just answer the question?
22:16:31 [AaronSw]
Give me a scenario where it's important to know that the author has no preference?
22:16:49 [sbp]
How can you not understand it? Read it again. All of the information is in there
22:17:16 [AaronSw]
No, just give me a scenario.
22:17:35 [AaronSw]
If you can't explain it without a bunch of gobbledygook, then I won't accept it.
22:17:52 [sbp]
Refer to the email and the thread that followed it - everything is explained therein. I'm not going to repeat it endlessly
22:18:05 [AaronSw]
So you can't give me a scenario?
22:18:45 [sbp]
Yes, I gave you the one about the longdesc
22:19:13 [AaronSw]
I don't see how that means that there is no order in what I wrote.
22:19:31 [AaronSw]
Sure the longdesc on my images provides a lot of information, but I think the image itself is more important.
22:19:38 [AaronSw]
If people are curious, they can view the longdesc.
22:20:11 [sbp]
No, because often the longdesc contains more information, or information that is quite easily asupplement rather than a replacement. A choice, not an echo
22:20:42 [AaronSw]
Ok, so then don't connect them together.
22:20:58 [AaronSw]
<grp><m>img here</m> <m>description here</m></grp>
22:21:04 [AaronSw]
as opposed to:
22:21:18 [AaronSw]
<grp><m href="img"><m>description</></></>
22:21:30 [sbp]
That's basically what I'm doing. I suppose <t> is a subset of <grp>
22:21:44 [sbp]
lol @ </> :-)
22:22:23 [AaronSw]
So then there is no issue with my spec.
22:22:26 [AaronSw]
Good, let's move on.
22:23:02 [AaronSw]
Feel free to send me a patch to make it XLink compatible without losing any information.
22:23:06 [AaronSw]
Do you have any other issues?
22:25:52 [sbp]
Yes, don't allow all this <m> crap to nest
22:26:01 [AaronSw]
Why??
22:28:27 [sbp]
Hmm... <m> appears to be primitive in my spec
22:28:56 [sbp]
And t is a <par>. That can't be right
22:29:58 [sbp]
My mistake: it's fine
22:30:21 [sbp]
I gave up the semantic subclassing, because you obviously can't carve a new syntax for a few simple types
22:30:30 [AaronSw]
What?
22:30:37 [sbp]
Although, technically, I guess it does still conform
22:31:11 [AaronSw]
Explain why you gave up on subclassing, please
22:31:30 [sbp]
I failed to see the point
22:31:54 [sbp]
Was it syntactic subclassing or semantic subclasing? You only gave a weak impression of both
22:32:00 [sbp]
So I gave up
22:32:14 [AaronSw]
mega sigh.
22:32:23 [sbp]
Although I still use substitution groups and types, so it does very closely follow what you've been doing
22:32:26 [sbp]
Call it a fluke :-)
22:32:40 [AaronSw]
subclassing was both.
22:32:45 [AaronSw]
Why do you say it was weak?
22:33:03 [AaronSw]
You take all the stuff I do and destroy it without understanding it... ugh
22:33:13 [sbp]
Same goes, BTW
22:33:19 [AaronSw]
??
22:33:55 [sbp]
I still fancy structure over ambiguity. I'm miffed that you allow such weird forms using your content model
22:34:02 [AaronSw]
Like what?
22:34:14 [sbp]
I gave some examples a while ago, can't remember them specifically
22:34:31 [AaronSw]
And I fixed them.
22:34:49 [sbp]
Some you didn't even consider the semantics of, like nested <nav> elements
22:35:01 [AaronSw]
I did to!
22:35:06 [AaronSw]
I explained it to you, even.
22:35:26 [sbp]
I distinctly remember bringing it up
22:35:31 [AaronSw]
The semantics are just the same as you'd expect.
22:35:34 [sbp]
can you even remember what we decided?
22:35:42 [AaronSw]
We didn't decide anything!
22:35:46 [AaronSw]
I explained it to you!
22:35:58 [AaronSw]
Nested navs are used when there are multiple sections in a site.
22:36:01 [AaronSw]
<nav>
22:36:05 [AaronSw]
- News
22:36:10 [AaronSw]
- Latest News
22:36:12 [AaronSw]
- Archives
22:36:18 [AaronSw]
- Food
22:36:20 [AaronSw]
- Store
22:36:24 [AaronSw]
etc.
22:36:39 [sbp]
I just said that they're <annot> elements, and was done with it
22:36:50 [sbp]
I'm guessing you don't have elements that fulfil that role
22:37:09 [AaronSw]
All elements are of that style.
22:37:54 [sbp]
a link doesn't apply to its parent element
22:38:10 [sbp]
neither does any inline phrasing, really
22:38:10 [AaronSw]
Why not?
22:38:20 [AaronSw]
it's a member of its parent element
22:38:27 [AaronSw]
I'll state it specifically if you really want.
22:38:34 [sbp]
And you're twisting the notion of <annotative>. Once again, cf. to the recent discussions on PF
22:38:42 [AaronSw]
Fine...
22:39:11 [sbp]
It doesn't specifically give inforamtion about its parent element though. At least, not in the same sense as the <annot> set of elements
22:39:19 [sbp]
It's structure rather than semantics
22:39:24 [sbp]
so are groups, lists, and parts
22:39:34 [AaronSw]
Ok, Ok, I'll fix it.
22:39:43 [AaronSw]
I think it's obvious but i'll make it explicit.
22:39:46 [AaronSw]
You happy now?
22:39:56 [sbp]
Not really, I'll bet you fudged it
22:40:24 [AaronSw]
Why?
22:40:42 [sbp]
You probably put something like all elements "refer" to their parents
22:40:48 [sbp]
Well, what did you put?
22:40:59 [sbp]
Bad of me to just guess, really
22:41:16 [AaronSw]
No, I'll just add it into the description of each element.
22:41:26 [AaronSw]
Let's move on tho -- it's an action and you can review it.
22:41:31 [AaronSw]
later...
22:41:42 [sbp]
Don't overlook it then
22:41:49 [AaronSw]
iI won't
22:41:55 [AaronSw]
ACTION aaron: make it clear that nav, hd, etc. apply to their parent.
22:42:02 [AaronSw]
I've got a list of them
22:43:03 [sbp]
brb
22:44:59 [sbp]
Crap; I have to go shortly
22:45:24 [sbp]
Perhaps if I just cut my specification right down it would be better? Took all of the junk out?
22:45:35 [sbp]
I'm convinced it makes a lot of sense
22:45:49 [AaronSw]
And I'm convinced mine does too.
22:45:56 [AaronSw]
Taking all the junk would be a good start.
22:46:42 [sbp]
Perhaps they both do. That might be the big problem: we're just going different ways about achieveing the same thing, and with roughly the same levels of success
22:47:11 [AaronSw]
OK, if you think that, then let's go with mine.
22:47:14 [AaronSw]
I'm convinced its better.
22:47:22 [sbp]
But I'm convinced mine is better
22:47:25 [sbp]
That's my point
22:47:33 [AaronSw]
You said they were roughly the same.
22:47:49 [sbp]
No, I said to an impartial outsider perhaps they would be
22:48:10 [AaronSw]
Most of your stuff is wrong. I can sit here and convince you of that on every single point, or we can fix a few things in mine.
22:48:33 [AaronSw]
Note how just about every time I've been right?
22:48:33 [sbp]
No; I think the same way about yours. Most of our discussions have proven that to me
22:48:40 [sbp]
No way!
22:48:52 [AaronSw]
Yes way!
22:49:01 [sbp]
Look at the choice not echo thing. You didn't even understand what Al had written
22:49:12 [AaronSw]
So? In the end the way I did it was right.
22:49:29 [sbp]
How can you know that if you don't even understand the debate?
22:49:40 [AaronSw]
You said it was.
22:49:52 [sbp]
No, because your content model is screwy
22:50:00 [AaronSw]
Back that up.
22:50:03 [sbp]
A subset of your model is similar to mine syntactically
22:50:19 [sbp]
Which *could* be modified to be similar semantically
22:50:27 [sbp]
Which would mean it was O.K.
22:50:42 [sbp]
But it isn't, so it's not
22:50:52 [AaronSw]
So yours could be modified to be as good as mine. Why does that make mine screwy?
22:50:55 [sbp]
I asked straight away about the nested <m>
22:51:02 [AaronSw]
yes?
22:52:44 [sbp]
Maybe we should just fork
22:52:55 [AaronSw]
I don't think that'd be a good idea.
22:53:01 [sbp]
I mean, permanently. It won't be the best think for the project, I agree
22:53:16 [sbp]
But then we can tell each other to fork off, in public, which will be cool
22:53:16 [AaronSw]
So why would it be good?
22:53:27 [AaronSw]
You just did. ;-)
22:53:30 [sbp]
:-)
22:54:04 [sbp]
Seriously though, I dunno what to do with it. I've always been a bit iffy about the future of the project
22:54:14 [AaronSw]
I want to announce it.
22:54:20 [AaronSw]
Maybe we should have a telecon to work these things out.
22:54:25 [AaronSw]
So we can scream at eachother.
22:54:30 [sbp]
:-)
22:54:44 [sbp]
In a way, I wouldn't care if you announced it. But I woulsn't use it, and I'd still rant about the idioms in my own
22:54:57 [AaronSw]
Why wouldn't you use it?
22:55:03 [sbp]
I couldn't use it
22:55:08 [AaronSw]
Why?
22:55:16 [sbp]
I don't have the XSLT for it
22:55:27 [sbp]
It's hard enough making it for my own :-)
22:55:41 [AaronSw]
I'd write a Python parser for it.
22:55:53 [sbp]
What would it do?
22:56:10 [sbp]
Well, I can't run Python on my Websites anyway, so it'd be useless
22:56:26 [AaronSw]
You can't make XSLT run either so there.
22:56:35 [sbp]
I can do the GET thing :-)
22:56:44 [AaronSw]
You could do the same with the Python script.
22:57:02 [sbp]
Except that there isn't a public Python server
22:57:06 [sbp]
unless you ran it
22:57:09 [AaronSw]
Which I would.
22:57:16 [sbp]
But I might still be able to run XSLT locally in the future
22:57:23 [sbp]
and more people have that than Python
22:57:32 [sbp]
all IIS clients (should) have it
22:57:39 [sbp]
Dunno why mine doesn't. Damn thing
22:57:42 [AaronSw]
And all Linux clients have Python.
22:57:51 [AaronSw]
And there are more Linux servers than IIS, so there.
22:58:04 [sbp]
Prove it
22:58:23 [sbp]
Anyway, that's irrelevent. The point is that I'm more at home with XSLT
22:58:29 [sbp]
And many people are, IMHO
22:58:31 [AaronSw]
Fine so fix your XSLT, it should be pretty easy.
22:58:37 [AaronSw]
Prove it: see netcraft or whaever.
22:58:52 [sbp]
(Don't care really: I'll accept that you're right)
22:59:06 [AaronSw]
http://www.netcraft.com/survey/ Apache has 62% IIS only 20%
22:59:15 [sbp]
XSLT: well, I dunno. Because I'm not sure what you mean in many places by your content model
22:59:22 [sbp]
(Still don't care)
22:59:25 [AaronSw]
Well then help out and we'll clarify it.
22:59:45 [sbp]
Ah, but not all Apache servers have mod_python
22:59:56 [AaronSw]
They don't need it - they can just do CGIs.
23:00:04 [sbp]
Python CGIs don't work
23:00:09 [AaronSw]
Yes they do.
23:00:17 [AaronSw]
I've used them.
23:00:21 [sbp]
Hmm... I'll have to try it out on my Apache then
23:00:25 [AaronSw]
(And I thought you didn't care. ;-))
23:00:37 [sbp]
But if you haven't got Python installed, it doesn't matter what you do
23:00:50 [sbp]
Well I care, but just not in the context of the debate we're having
23:00:52 [AaronSw]
But most *nixes come wiht Python.
23:01:03 [sbp]
*nixes?
23:01:10 [sbp]
Oh, you typed the 8
23:01:12 [sbp]
:-)
23:01:14 [AaronSw]
Unix, Linux, etc.
23:01:31 [sbp]
Linux is an "ux"
23:01:34 [sbp]
Anyway!
23:01:48 [AaronSw]
Right.
23:01:53 [AaronSw]
I see several options:
23:02:00 [AaronSw]
1) You come peacefully and work on my spec.
23:02:09 [AaronSw]
2) I calll you up and scream at you until you work on my spec.
23:02:21 [AaronSw]
3) I send you nasty emails until you work on my spec.
23:02:21 [AaronSw]
;-)
23:02:30 [sbp]
Hmm...
23:02:41 [sbp]
Well 1) is right out of the window
23:02:56 [sbp]
Might be fun if you called me up: you could waste your phone bill that way
23:03:08 [sbp]
And we'd end up chatting about important stuff instead
23:03:38 [sbp]
But you know what the other options are
23:03:56 [AaronSw]
What?
23:04:14 [sbp]
The problem is, when you say "work on my spec", you mean "implement my spec"
23:04:20 [AaronSw]
No I don't.
23:04:30 [AaronSw]
And it's not really my spec.
23:04:36 [AaronSw]
We'll make it into a collaborative spec.
23:04:43 [sbp]
I know. We both contributed a lot to each others
23:04:52 [sbp]
But i mean, going by server ownership
23:05:21 [sbp]
But I've already published the results of what I think your specification should be like. It's on my server
23:05:31 [AaronSw]
And vice versa.
23:05:38 [sbp]
Yes
23:05:48 [AaronSw]
So one of us has to budge.
23:05:52 [sbp]
Yes
23:05:58 [sbp]
Well, go on then!
23:06:06 [AaronSw]
But I care about this more than you seem to.
23:06:14 [AaronSw]
You don't even know where you want to go with it.
23:06:28 [sbp]
I don't think so. No matter how much I care, I know what I want
23:07:06 [sbp]
And one of the things is that I want to be able to use this specification widely instead of crappy old HTML
23:07:12 [AaronSw]
I agree.
23:07:35 [sbp]
Which is why we're both sticking to our own versions so much. There is a lot at stake here, it is important
23:07:55 [sbp]
Let's face it: neither of us are going to back down
23:08:00 [AaronSw]
It just hurts me so much to see you taking my ideas and screwing with them without understanding them.
23:08:32 [sbp]
* sbp ignores that blazen emotive effort
23:08:40 [sbp]
Hurts you so much: bollocks
23:08:45 [sbp]
:-)
23:08:52 [AaronSw]
It's true!
23:09:04 [sbp]
Nah, don't believe a word of it!
23:09:26 [AaronSw]
It just wears me out... makes me sick.
23:09:32 [sbp]
If I really thought you *cared* then maybe I would back down. Uh, maybe I shouldn't say that: you'll just continue giving me the rubbish
23:09:42 [sbp]
Yeah, but that's how I feeel about some of your remarks
23:09:53 [sbp]
I seem to argue 'till I'm ill, but you never understand
23:10:00 [AaronSw]
Of course I *care*. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't.
23:10:07 [sbp]
s/feeel/feeeeel
23:10:10 [sbp]
:-)
23:10:16 [AaronSw]
I never understand?
23:10:33 [AaronSw]
You never explain anything... and when I explain stuff to you, you just move on to the next anything.
23:10:49 [sbp]
Guilty as charged. I explain a little though
23:10:55 [sbp]
Enough, for you, I think
23:11:11 [sbp]
The problem is, I don't know if you don't understand, or are just being stubborn
23:11:15 [sbp]
That's a real problem
23:11:25 [sbp]
Most of the time, I just think you're being stubborn, and give in
23:11:39 [AaronSw]
Hmm.
23:11:48 [AaronSw]
I'm not being stubborn, I'm being right!
23:12:02 [sbp]
I think you do understand, 'cause you're on the ball. And yet you never back down, so I conclude you *are* being stubborn
23:12:32 [sbp]
"I'm being right": I read that conclusively as "I'm being stubborn" :-)
23:12:37 [AaronSw]
I take the evidence you give me and I make an informed decision. Is there soemthing wrong with that?
23:13:03 [sbp]
I don't think that the information you give back is what you really think half of the time
23:13:09 [AaronSw]
Like when?
23:13:28 [AaronSw]
Why would I tell you something otherwise?
23:13:33 [sbp]
Like the "choice not echo" thing. If I can understand what Al wrote, I'm damn sure you can
23:13:52 [AaronSw]
No, I'm being quite honest - I could barely make a word.
23:14:11 [AaronSw]
I suppose if I read the whole thread it would make sense, but I don't think I should bother if you can't be bothered to explain it.
23:14:26 [sbp]
I suppose it took me a while at first, but I've always considered you as being... well... quicker at those sort of things
23:14:39 [AaronSw]
Yeah, see that's the problem.
23:14:47 [AaronSw]
I cache stuff, so I seem fast.
23:15:03 [AaronSw]
But I'm not really.
23:15:59 [sbp]
Hmm...
23:16:13 [sbp]
Well in that case, I suggest you print Al's emails out and stick them on your walls
23:16:18 [AaronSw]
Why bother?
23:16:24 [AaronSw]
I don't want to deal with someone who writes like that.
23:16:26 [sbp]
That's what I thought of doing to them :-)
23:16:44 [sbp]
But he writes like that because he's trying to say so damn much
23:16:52 [sbp]
It just comes out like that!
23:17:01 [AaronSw]
I'm not so sure.. it generally seems like a symptom of other things.
23:17:24 [sbp]
Like what?
23:17:45 [AaronSw]
I'm not sure...
23:18:07 [sbp]
Sometimes he switches terminology during a letter. Overly eloquent, and that can be annoying. But apart from that, his letters are often scarily useful
23:18:42 [AaronSw]
But that's not the issue.
23:18:52 [sbp]
It came from "the issue"
23:19:10 [sbp]
Actually, I can't remember the issue any more
23:19:10 [AaronSw]
So it's a tangent, and let's get off of it.
23:19:20 [sbp]
What's the issue?
23:19:31 [AaronSw]
The issue is what do we do with xWebL.
23:19:39 [AaronSw]
The suggestion is that we work on my spec.
23:19:46 [AaronSw]
You thought I'm being manipulative.
23:20:03 [sbp]
Not manipulative. Stubborn. There's a *world* of difference
23:20:57 [sbp]
I would never say such a thing, even in jest
23:21:22 [AaronSw]
If you accuse me of being perseverant, then I'm guilty
23:21:33 [AaronSw]
But I don't think I'm being unreasonably perseverent.
23:21:35 [sbp]
Yes. Definitely: perseverant
23:21:47 [sbp]
Not unresonably, but on a higher level than most
23:21:48 [AaronSw]
I give in when you are right.
23:21:58 [sbp]
So I'm never right?
23:22:03 [sbp]
:-)
23:22:06 [AaronSw]
No, you've been right!
23:22:12 [AaronSw]
I've changed lots of things because of you.
23:22:12 [sbp]
When?
23:22:17 [sbp]
Give me a list
23:22:47 [AaronSw]
Look at the email list.
23:22:54 [AaronSw]
Every change I've made to the spec.
23:23:02 [sbp]
Ugh, that's a bluff. Gimme a list!
23:23:23 [AaronSw]
- A better content model for multimedia
23:23:23 [AaronSw]
- A new system for <nav> lists
23:23:23 [AaronSw]
- A few small changes to fix up some bugs
23:23:45 [AaronSw]
23:23:48 [AaronSw]
- <par> made a top level element ; PCDAATA taken out of grp
23:23:48 [AaronSw]
- definition notation defined
23:23:48 [AaronSw]
- namespaces defined
23:23:48 [AaronSw]
- removed @@s (ruby, i18n, etc.)
23:23:48 [AaronSw]
- added an annotation and extension mechanism
23:23:49 [AaronSw]
- removed still to dos (tables, forms, etc.)
23:24:13 [sbp]
Hmm...
23:27:24 [AaronSw]
hello?
23:27:29 [sbp]
hello
23:29:19 [sbp]
So what are we doing?
23:29:51 [AaronSw]
What do you want to do?
23:32:10 [sbp]
I want to release my version of the specification :-)
23:32:18 [sbp]
I've already started to use it quite a bit
23:32:23 [AaronSw]
How so?
23:34:19 [AaronSw]
I have to go soon.
23:34:25 [sbp]
On the xWebL specification site
23:34:27 [AaronSw]
Why don't we both sleep on ways to bring the specs together.
23:34:33 [AaronSw]
site: well sure, I could do that too
23:35:01 [AaronSw]
Do you think the issue resolution process is effective?
23:35:26 [sbp]
Yeah. Perhaps we can just continue to resolve issues as we have been doing (sword fights)
23:35:44 [AaronSw]
Well, let's both think about it and we can talk about it again later.
23:35:52 [AaronSw]
See you around! ;-)
23:35:55 [sbp]
Yep, I've gotta go now anyway
23:35:58 [sbp]
c'ya!
23:36:04 [sbp]
sbp has quit
23:36:05 [AaronSw]
bye
23:50:48 [sbp]
sbp has joined #swhack
23:51:29 [sbp]
Here's an idea: I could create a series of "demands". Stuff that has to be in your speciifcations for me to accept that we should use it instead of mine, or vice versa
23:51:36 [sbp]
Non-negotiable, of course :-)
23:51:57 [sbp]
s/speciifcations/specification
23:52:40 [sbp]
Hmm... I should go through your spec. again really
23:53:40 [sbp]
Not much seems to have changed, which I suppose is good
23:56:41 [sbp]
sbp has quit