IRC log of swhack on 2001-07-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:40:38 [AaronSw]
Hmm, that's an interesting idea.
00:41:00 [AaronSw]
Feel free to start making some demands and send them to the list.
01:21:55 [sbp]
sbp has joined #swhack
01:22:10 [sbp]
New version: http://infomesh.net/2001/xWebL/spec/
01:23:12 [sbp]
Lot of cut down stuff
01:23:40 [sbp]
I started on a list of requirements, but found out that it basically ended up as my draft! So I went and updated that instead
01:23:49 [sbp]
sbp has quit
04:25:15 [AaronSw]
AaronSw has quit
04:25:58 [AaronSw]
AaronSw has joined #swhack
13:07:04 [sbp]
sbp has joined #swhack
13:08:03 [sbp]
sbp has quit
13:58:42 [sbp]
sbp has joined #swhack
14:00:59 [sbp]
I've taken the XML Schema out
14:01:11 [sbp]
Usual URI: http://infomesh.net/2001/xWebL/spec/
14:01:25 [sbp]
sbp has quit
14:09:12 [sbp]
sbp has joined #swhack
14:41:52 [AaronSw]
Hello
14:42:16 [sbp]
Hi there!
14:42:26 [sbp]
Did you see the new concise xWebL specification?
14:43:20 [AaronSw]
Just about to...
14:44:06 [AaronSw]
Hmm, down to 17 screenfuls... an improvement I suppose
14:44:29 [AaronSw]
Now move out all the non-core tags. ;-)
14:45:32 [sbp]
non-core? Well, they can go in an appendix. But they're useful
14:46:30 [AaronSw]
Well they should really go into a vocab spec or something.
14:46:54 [sbp]
Good idea
15:15:30 [AaronSw]
Most of these things come from my spec dissection...
15:15:57 [AaronSw]
http://sw.blogspace.com/archives/xweb-dev/20010708053052.VZGL24228.femail18.sdc1.sfba.home.com@localhost
15:17:01 [sbp]
Yep, I remember
15:18:05 [AaronSw]
So clean up your content model.
15:21:35 [AaronSw]
> [has i18n attrs]
15:21:39 [AaronSw]
What's that mean?
15:22:17 [AaronSw]
Wait a sec... I thought you were going to make demands on my spec...
15:24:23 [sbp]
Yes, I was. But I decided that if I made those demands and you changed them, it would just end up as my spec., so I thought I'd just clean mine up
15:24:51 [sbp]
[has i18n attrs] is a hack because I don't have a clue how to do attribute groups in your notation or attach them to elements
15:24:51 [AaronSw]
Well, I'm not so sure. Let's play it out.
15:25:32 [AaronSw]
You define the attributes, but whatever...
15:25:44 [AaronSw]
Let's work on my spec, because it's shorter.
15:26:26 [sbp]
Shorter != Better
15:26:33 [sbp]
and it's only a little shorter now
15:26:46 [AaronSw]
Yeah, yours is only 3 times as long instead of 8
15:27:25 [AaronSw]
I never said shorter was better, but it does provide focus.
15:30:44 [AaronSw]
So what do you say?
15:30:54 [sbp]
I look at it as leaving out important information
15:31:17 [AaronSw]
Well then you tell me everything that is so important and I'll add it in.
15:31:28 [AaronSw]
That way only the really important stuff gets through.
15:32:25 [sbp]
I think that's a bad way to do it: we have to look at it from not recording what we know, but what other people want to know
15:32:40 [sbp]
s/we know/we want
15:32:53 [AaronSw]
Huh?
15:33:19 [sbp]
I couldn't go to your specification and use the language, I think I'd have too many questions. Similar even with my old long specification
15:33:28 [sbp]
People *always* have questions, no matter what you do
15:33:40 [AaronSw]
Right, which is why we should release it ass soon as possible.
15:33:50 [sbp]
I don't refute that
15:35:08 [AaronSw]
So instead of making up their questions, we can really see what they are.
15:36:30 [AaronSw]
So I don't see how that helps the argument one way or another.
15:36:43 [AaronSw]
People will probably have more questions about a longer spec.
15:37:37 [sbp]
Logically, longer spec. = more material = more questions answered
15:37:49 [AaronSw]
Err no.
15:37:59 [AaronSw]
More material which people have questions about.
15:38:45 [sbp]
Ugh
15:39:23 [AaronSw]
So instead of making up other folks questions... let's move this aside.
15:40:51 [sbp]
Well, I still think my version documents the language better
15:40:57 [sbp]
and it has a better content model
15:41:05 [sbp]
I don't see how you can refute either of those facts
15:42:19 [AaronSw]
Easily, my friend.
15:42:57 [AaronSw]
How am I documenting the language poorly?
15:43:06 [AaronSw]
And my content model is clearly superior.
15:43:16 [sbp]
Prove it
15:43:48 [AaronSw]
Prove yours is superior.
15:43:50 [AaronSw]
I didn
15:43:55 [AaronSw]
I didn't make the claim.
15:43:58 [sbp]
I asked first
15:44:11 [sbp]
* sbp pulls Aaron's hair :-)
15:44:27 [AaronSw]
Explain how I could demonstrate that a language was superior.
15:45:12 [sbp]
Dunno if you can. People will still argue that XHTML 1.0 is a good language. People can argue anything for as long as they want
15:45:27 [AaronSw]
Exactly.
15:45:32 [AaronSw]
So raise *specific* issues.
15:45:54 [sbp]
Oh man. How many weeks have we been doing that for?
15:45:58 [sbp]
Choice not echo
15:46:14 [AaronSw]
We solved that yesterday.
15:46:34 [sbp]
Did we? I still don't see how it's resolved in your draft: which needs serious updating
15:46:43 [AaronSw]
Why?
15:46:43 [sbp]
O.K., issues:-
15:46:54 [AaronSw]
I showed you it was possible to do both echoing and choosing in my spec.
15:47:10 [sbp]
1) Get rid of <stor>.
15:47:10 [sbp]
ie. change:-
15:47:11 [sbp]
doc ( meta? , sec* , stor? )
15:47:11 [sbp]
into:-
15:47:11 [sbp]
doc ( meta, sec* )
15:47:11 [sbp]
sbp has quit
15:47:30 [sbp]
sbp has joined #swhack
15:47:33 [AaronSw]
Excess Flood.
15:47:50 [AaronSw]
You get five lines.
15:47:59 [sbp]
He he he
15:48:23 [sbp]
1) Get rid of <stor>.
15:48:23 [sbp]
ie. change:-
15:48:23 [sbp]
doc ( meta? , sec* , stor? )
15:48:23 [sbp]
into:-
15:48:23 [sbp]
doc ( meta, sec* )
15:48:23 [AaronSw]
I'd be all to happy to get rid of stor.
15:48:23 [sbp]
or:-
15:48:23 [sbp]
doc ( meta?, sec* )
15:48:23 [sbp]
[first one preferred]
15:48:24 [sbp]
2) Delete: @class ( QNAMES )
15:48:27 [sbp]
3) Define the content model for <meta> (and has to meet some approval)
15:48:28 [sbp]
4) Get rid of <a>. Really, it's just <par> (note they have the same
15:48:32 [sbp]
content model, and (should) appear in the same places!)
15:48:32 [sbp]
5) Take on dl ( term, defn+ ). par => term, defn. This fits in fine
15:48:34 [sbp]
with what you currently have, just refines it a bit.
15:48:36 [sbp]
6) Allow lists inline. I don't care too much how you do it, as long as
15:48:38 [sbp]
it's not a hack.
15:48:40 [sbp]
7) @title ( PCDATA )
15:48:45 [sbp]
This *must* be an element to allow for <ruby>. Please make a set of
15:48:45 [sbp]
annotative elements, per 2.7 in XML GL, and allow them in all
15:48:54 [sbp]
elements. I suggest: <annot>, <title>, <hd>, <abt>, <summary>, <desc>.
15:48:54 [sbp]
<nav> is really extended from <annot> *and* <lst>... not sure what to
15:48:54 [sbp]
do about that. It would work in XML Schema, but I'm not sure about
15:48:57 [sbp]
your model.
15:48:57 [sbp]
8) @inline ( 'replace' | 'before' | 'after' | 'no' | DEFAULT:
15:48:57 [sbp]
'default' )
15:49:00 [sbp]
Ugh! Get rid of it. (I would say at least use XLink, but I think that
15:49:00 [sbp]
CSS can do this).
15:49:06 [sbp]
9) Get rid if annotations (no way I can implement them).
15:49:07 [sbp]
10) <m> (media objects) should not be derived from <par>, but instead
15:49:08 [sbp]
be primitive, and nest inside the <t> element, which is a derivation
15:49:11 [sbp]
of <par> (er... although according to your typing rules, it would be
15:49:27 [sbp]
an extension, which you don't allow. XML Schema does!). <m> is an
15:49:27 [sbp]
empty element. <t> must *require* at least one annotative element, in
15:49:27 [sbp]
any position.
15:49:27 [sbp]
11) href et al. cannot be on all elements. [er... and if they were,
15:49:27 [sbp]
what's the point of "<l>" in your specification?]
15:49:27 [sbp]
Well get rid of it then: how long ago did we have that discussion?
15:49:27 [AaronSw]
Do you have a URI for this rant?
15:49:37 [sbp]
Yeah, whatever the URI of these chatlogs are
15:49:58 [sbp]
:-)
15:50:02 [AaronSw]
Ok, then...
15:50:07 [AaronSw]
* AaronSw gets rid of stor
15:52:59 [AaronSw]
OK, done
15:53:34 [sbp]
onto 2) - no classes, please
15:53:42 [AaronSw]
done.
15:53:43 [sbp]
3) ... er, ah, what's the content model for <meta>???
15:53:43 [sbp]
How am I supposed to implement it if I don't even know what it is!
15:54:18 [AaronSw]
Well, it's a fully extensible section.
15:54:18 [AaronSw]
It can include any element, but no inline text.
15:54:25 [AaronSw]
Like:
15:55:29 [AaronSw]
<meta><foo />bar</meta>
15:55:29 [AaronSw]
isn't valid
15:55:29 [AaronSw]
<meta><foo>bar</foo></meta>
15:55:29 [AaronSw]
is.
15:57:40 [sbp]
Yuckity yuckity yuck yuck. Well at least I can still use the annot elements...
15:58:41 [sbp]
oh that's right, you don't have any
15:58:41 [sbp]
onto 4)
15:59:45 [AaronSw]
What's wrong with defining meta like that?
15:59:45 [sbp]
It allows anything? We may as well just say that xWebL = XMl for all that
15:59:45 [sbp]
anyway, I'm finised with that
15:59:45 [sbp]
<a> => <par>
16:00:15 [AaronSw]
But then you'll have things like:
16:00:24 [AaronSw]
<par>foo<par>blah</par></par>
16:00:24 [sbp]
Yes?
16:00:24 [AaronSw]
How are you supposed to interpret that?
16:00:24 [sbp]
<span>blargh<span>blargh</span></span>
16:00:24 [sbp]
or even:-
16:00:24 [sbp]
<p><span>blargh<span>blargh</span></span></p>
16:00:24 [sbp]
span should have been flow
16:02:26 [AaronSw]
Well, you're the structure guy...
16:02:26 [AaronSw]
But, I mean, it seems so weird...
16:02:39 [AaronSw]
(It bothers me how you won't let me do structural things that make sense, but insist I do ones that don't...;-))
16:03:13 [sbp]
That's what happens when you use XHTML for too long... you go nuts
16:03:13 [AaronSw]
Ok, done.
16:03:13 [sbp]
cheers
16:03:13 [AaronSw]
Should I get rid of <a>?
16:03:13 [sbp]
yes
16:03:13 [sbp]
substitute par
16:03:18 [sbp]
5) dl ( term, defn+ ). par => term, defn. easy one
16:03:18 [AaronSw]
hold on...
16:03:18 [AaronSw]
WHat does:
16:03:18 [AaronSw]
<hd>foo<hd>foo<hd></></></> mean?
16:03:41 [sbp]
illegal. annot => hd
16:04:05 [AaronSw]
Huh?!
16:04:55 [AaronSw]
* AaronSw undoes the change he just made...
16:04:55 [sbp]
hd is an annotative element
16:04:55 [AaronSw]
So?
16:04:55 [sbp]
par !=> hd
16:04:57 [sbp]
annot is a whole new substitution group
16:05:52 [AaronSw]
And why do we need it?
16:05:52 [sbp]
you can't annotate annotations. you can't describe a description, or title a title, or summarize a summary
16:05:52 [AaronSw]
You can't?
16:05:54 [AaronSw]
I do all the time.
16:05:54 [sbp]
Well, I suppose technically you still can
16:05:54 [sbp]
<hd><par><desc>ainepvainev</></></>
16:05:54 [sbp]
and whatever
16:05:54 [sbp]
refer to my content model... I'll paste it
16:05:54 [AaronSw]
Your content model is insane.
16:06:05 [sbp]
sec (sec|lst|grp|annot|par)*
16:06:05 [sbp]
grp (annot|par)*
16:06:05 [sbp]
annot (%inl;)
16:06:05 [sbp]
par (%inl;)
16:06:05 [sbp]
%inl; (#PCDATA|lst - %lists.simple|par)*
16:06:05 [AaronSw]
;-)
16:06:05 [sbp]
it's simple, it's easy, it works
16:06:09 [AaronSw]
Why is <lst> a top level element?
16:08:01 [sbp]
er, why not?
16:08:01 [AaronSw]
Because it's clearly a subclass of <grp>.
16:08:01 [sbp]
Perhaps so, semantically. But not syntactically
16:08:04 [AaronSw]
Oh you do that stupid inline list thing...
16:08:04 [sbp]
Yeah
16:08:04 [AaronSw]
So what's an <annot>, syntactically.
16:08:04 [AaronSw]
?
16:08:04 [sbp]
See the definition above
16:08:04 [AaronSw]
Right, it's a <par>
16:08:04 [AaronSw]
Which is how I had it.
16:08:04 [sbp]
It's not a par! It's totally different. It's an annotative element. Damnit, I don't know why I'm bothering anymore
16:08:11 [AaronSw]
How is it different...? they have the same sytnax.
16:08:11 [sbp]
Come on Aaron, a title or a description has distinct semantics. Read XML GL
16:08:24 [sbp]
Semantically, they're different
16:08:24 [AaronSw]
Aha!
16:08:24 [AaronSw]
I have you trapped.
16:08:25 [AaronSw]
You said before that semantics shouldn't screw with the syntax, as evidenced by lst!
16:08:25 [AaronSw]
You contradict yourself.
16:08:29 [AaronSw]
Which will it be, Mr. Palmer?
16:08:40 [AaronSw]
Death by lst, or death by annot?
16:08:40 [sbp]
Pardon me? That's a reverse case. Here we're splittng
16:08:40 [AaronSw]
Huh?
16:08:52 [sbp]
I don't see the problem. restate
16:09:02 [AaronSw]
<lst> has the semantics of a <grp>, but it has special sytax. You decided the syntax takes prescedence over the semantics.
16:09:18 [sbp]
No:-
16:09:19 [sbp]
grp =sem=> lst; !=syn=> lst. par =!sem=> annot; =syn=> annot.
16:09:29 [sbp]
s/=!/!=
16:10:09 [AaronSw]
<annot> has the syntax of a <par> but different semantics, you decided that semantics take prescedence over syntax.
16:10:20 [sbp]
Do, consult the little thing above
16:10:43 [AaronSw]
So?
16:10:47 [sbp]
list is semantically derived from grp, but that has no reflection on syntax. par is *not* semantically extended to annot, end of story
16:11:06 [AaronSw]
I never said it was, but why do you give it special sytax?
16:11:16 [sbp]
Why do I give what special syntax?
16:11:25 [AaronSw]
<annot>
16:11:48 [sbp]
What do you mean why? Because it's a different type of element from all the others, semantically
16:12:23 [sbp]
* sbp wonders where the record got stuck
16:12:27 [AaronSw]
So? You just said that semantics shouldn't screw with syntax.
16:12:56 [sbp]
Yeah, so?
16:13:03 [sbp]
s/shouldn't/shouldn't necessarily
16:13:32 [AaronSw]
<sigh>
16:13:37 [AaronSw]
</sigh>
16:13:40 [sbp]
:-)
16:13:58 [sbp]
Can we move onto 5)? As far as I'm concerned, this is non-negotiable, and closed
16:14:07 [AaronSw]
Fine.
16:14:19 [sbp]
5) is quite a simple one
16:14:27 [sbp]
Just a suggestion for a content model for dl
16:14:38 [sbp]
fits in fine with everything you have in the specification at the moment
16:14:53 [sbp]
dl ( term, defn+ ). par => term, defn.
16:15:11 [sbp]
quite neat, I think
16:15:20 [AaronSw]
Sorry, don't follow.
16:15:26 [AaronSw]
What does that syntax mean?
16:16:04 [sbp]
<dl><term>this is my term</term><defn>definition 1 of my term</defn><defn>defn 2 of my term</defn></dl>
16:16:17 [sbp]
Plus it converts nicely to a <dl> in HTML
16:16:53 [sbp]
Phew, it's getting hot in my room
16:17:13 [sbp]
* sbp opens a window
16:17:20 [AaronSw]
Hmm...
16:17:36 [AaronSw]
See, I don't want to have to create a new top-level element.. I don't think we need to.
16:18:01 [sbp]
Where's the new top level element? lst => dl. par => term, defn.
16:18:20 [AaronSw]
Ok, I can do that.
16:18:41 [sbp]
and dl (term,defn+)+ is totally legal using your model
16:18:53 [AaronSw]
Yeah, but I can't require it.
16:19:22 [sbp]
Why not?
16:19:53 [AaronSw]
Because that would be changing the syntax of an element, making it a new element.
16:21:07 [sbp]
O.K., so let me get this straight. you're creating a new language, but you won't create new elements that totally conform to your wacky new content model that only allows restrictions?
16:21:16 [sbp]
why ever not?
16:21:38 [AaronSw]
Well...
16:22:12 [AaronSw]
If we do it, then we have to provide a hook inthe language for others to.
16:22:23 [sbp]
Bugger, I have to go. I'm already about three times over my 'net quota for this week
16:22:44 [AaronSw]
I'll go thru the rest.
16:22:45 [AaronSw]
C'ya
16:22:48 [sbp]
cheers
16:22:51 [sbp]
c'ya!
16:25:51 [sbp]
sbp has quit
17:07:37 [sbp]
sbp has joined #swhack
17:17:29 [AaronSw]
* AaronSw uploads xWeb-Aaron-4
17:30:30 [sbp]
Cannot find server: http://logicerror.com/xWeb-Aaron
17:30:45 [AaronSw]
I know... give me a second, the world is falling apart.
17:31:05 [sbp]
Hold it back together with your bubble-gum!
17:32:42 [AaronSw]
* AaronSw gives a deep sigh of relief.
17:32:56 [AaronSw]
I must have run out of disk space or something.
17:33:54 [sbp]
Eek
17:34:58 [AaronSw]
Yeah, I know.
17:35:05 [AaronSw]
It was my 300 MB log file.
17:37:52 [sbp]
annot should be asbstract; all you need for annotative elements are <abt>, <nav> (er... that's lst and annot), hd, desc, and summary
17:38:13 [AaronSw]
Huh?
17:38:21 [AaronSw]
But <annot> is useful for other folks.
17:38:51 [sbp]
What does it do?
17:39:00 [AaronSw]
It annotates the section,
17:39:35 [sbp]
Fair enough
17:39:44 [AaronSw]
What's the difference between <desc> and <abt> and <summary>?
17:40:35 [sbp]
desc is a description (this is a paragraph about sunflowers), abt is what it's about (a flower review of book x), and a summary is a summary (sunflowers are cool)
17:42:12 [AaronSw]
I still don't see the difference between <desc> and <abt>, but feel free to write an extension mechanism and add them in.
17:42:26 [AaronSw]
err s/extension mechanism/extension/
17:46:19 [sbp]
Write an extension mechanism? They should all be in the vocabulary section
17:46:41 [AaronSw]
Vocabulary section?
17:48:01 [sbp]
That you mentioned earlier
17:48:38 [AaronSw]
Ok, fine.
17:49:22 [sbp]
i.e. I don't want to gave to go defining whacking great lists of elements that I want to use whenever I create a new document. We should define them somewhere for easy use
17:49:56 [AaronSw]
Ok, fine. That can be your job.
17:50:37 [sbp]
MY job is writing my specification, and seeing that it gets through to completion (which is practically is, pending tiny errors)
17:51:20 [AaronSw]
Oh, not this again.
17:51:27 [sbp]
Basically, the situation is that I've pointed out a number of erros in your spec., but you can only point out feckingly small pedantic ones in mine. No contest really, and I'd rather not waste time on your version, i.e. changing it to ho wmine is, when we already have mine
17:51:46 [AaronSw]
Pfft, that's a bunch of piffle and you know it.
17:51:57 [sbp]
Of course it isn't
17:52:18 [AaronSw]
Your spec is braindead.
17:52:22 [AaronSw]
;-)
17:52:25 [AaronSw]
Politely.
17:52:44 [sbp]
Coming from someone who has put href attributes on all of his elements, that's not much of an insult
17:52:56 [AaronSw]
Is there a problem with doing that?
17:53:08 [sbp]
Are you even using XLink?
17:53:20 [AaronSw]
What does that have to do with anything?
17:53:22 [sbp]
Not that it matters... an entire document of simple links? That's just stupid
17:53:28 [sbp]
XLink is advised by XML GL
17:53:30 [AaronSw]
Why?
17:53:36 [AaronSw]
Err, why is it stupid?
17:53:41 [AaronSw]
XML GL isn't even official yet.
17:53:44 [sbp]
Because proprietary... oh, hang on
17:53:46 [AaronSw]
Don't play those games with me.
17:53:50 [sbp]
XLink is official
17:54:01 [sbp]
Did you see Eve Maler's comments?
17:54:09 [AaronSw]
About what?
17:54:12 [sbp]
Games, what games? What are you talking about?
17:54:22 [sbp]
XLink is a W3C recommendation; that's not even an issue
17:54:42 [AaronSw]
OK, so I'll change the namespaces to XLink, that' seasy.
17:55:19 [sbp]
Why do you need to link every single element? What's the point?
17:55:31 [AaronSw]
You don't need to, but you should have the option.
17:55:31 [sbp]
What does it mean? How do I convert it back to XHTML?
17:55:41 [AaronSw]
The same way you convert anything else.
17:55:45 [sbp]
Exactly: you *don't* need to
17:55:59 [AaronSw]
Ok, well you *don't* need xWebL, i don't see your point.
17:56:05 [AaronSw]
You don't need anything, for goodness sake!
17:56:17 [sbp]
Ugh, philosophy...
17:56:50 [sbp]
Anyway, I have to go
17:56:52 [sbp]
c'ya
17:56:53 [sbp]
sbp has quit
19:07:36 [sbp]
sbp has joined #swhack
19:10:38 [sbp]
Hello?
19:10:43 [AaronSw]
Hello
19:10:47 [sbp]
Hello!
19:10:58 [sbp]
Ugh, someone's at the door...
19:11:08 [AaronSw]
Say hello. ;-)
19:11:30 [sbp]
She's says "hello Aaron" (it was my Aunt)
19:11:42 [AaronSw]
Hello.
19:11:56 [sbp]
She's in the kitchen chatting with my mother now :-)
19:12:08 [sbp]
s/She's/She (two lines above)
19:12:52 [sbp]
Anyhoo, just getting signed up with a new ISP... I'll be able to come online more if it works
19:12:59 [AaronSw]
Really? Cool!
19:16:07 [sbp]
If it works!
19:18:53 [sbp]
O.K., I'd better go and set this up...
19:18:57 [sbp]
sbp has quit
19:47:20 [sbp]
sbp has joined #swhack
19:47:31 [AaronSw]
Hello
19:47:38 [sbp]
Hi
19:49:12 [sbp]
Thanks for the xWebL comments: I should go and resolve some of them
19:50:35 [AaronSw]
No prob
19:55:46 [sbp]
* sbp looks up XML Base for the link roles
19:56:04 [sbp]
Aha! Jonathan Marsh
19:58:50 [sbp]
Aw crap, that's not going to work
19:59:20 [sbp]
Shame you can't use xml:base for single attributes
19:59:45 [AaronSw]
You can just define it in the spec, though.
20:00:00 [sbp]
Yes, but it would have been nice to have used XML Base
20:00:09 [sbp]
If it were possible
20:00:24 [sbp]
Which I guess it would be, if we used extended links, but that is, of course, nuts
20:05:03 [sbp]
BTW, you told me not to use xlink:title, to instead use elements
20:05:08 [sbp]
You are, of course, correct
20:05:27 [sbp]
But I found out a while ago that Unicode has codepoints that act like the Ruby elements
20:05:38 [sbp]
Interesting, if true
20:05:39 [AaronSw]
Codepoints?
20:05:48 [AaronSw]
Like characters?
20:05:49 [sbp]
Yeah, U+001
20:05:51 [sbp]
Yes
20:05:58 [AaronSw]
Odd...
20:08:45 [sbp]
My mistake, I was thinking on BDO:-
20:08:51 [sbp]
&lrm; U+200E LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK
20:08:52 [sbp]
&rlm; U+200F RIGHT-TO-LEFT MARK
20:08:52 [sbp]
&lre; U+202A LEFT-TO-RIGHT EMBEDDING
20:08:52 [sbp]
&rle; U+202B RIGHT-TO-LEFT EMBEDDING
20:08:52 [sbp]
&pdf; U+202C POP DIRECTIONAL FORMATTING
20:08:53 [sbp]
&lro; U+202D LEFT-TO-RIGHT OVERRIDE
20:08:54 [sbp]
&rlo; U+202E RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE
20:09:10 [sbp]
We should, of course, support these in xWebL
20:09:20 [sbp]
(if possible)
20:15:17 [sbp]
Heh! There's even a paragraph separator
20:15:27 [sbp]
* sbp suddenly wonders about the need for <p>
20:15:43 [sbp]
&x2029;
20:19:47 [sbp]
I wonder if &x202A; et al. are in HTMl 4.01?
20:47:17 [sbp]
sbp has quit
20:51:48 [sbp]
sbp has joined #swhack
21:44:51 [AaronSw]
"""Today we're taking on a whole new class of software problems, because of the Internet, because of its role as the most revolutionary communications device of all time. And it's fantastic that MIT, through Tim Berners-Lee, through the W3C and through many activities here, is taking a very important leadership role. """ - Bill Gates, http://www.lcs.mit.edu/anniv/speakers/041399-1.adp
21:46:11 [sbp]
sbp has quit
21:50:00 [sbp]
sbp has joined #swhack
21:54:56 [AaronSw]
Pat Hayes: "Brian assures me, for example, that unicorns are resources, but I never expect to get sent one in response to a request."
21:55:07 [sbp]
Heh
21:55:21 [sbp]
They're RDF resources then, according to Graham's Terminologicus
21:55:45 [AaronSw]
They're Web Resources to, since Unicorns don't have hash marks.
21:55:54 [AaronSw]
err s/to/too/
21:56:13 [sbp]
Heh
21:56:18 [sbp]
Love the CWM testing stuff!
22:10:08 [sbp]
sbp has quit
22:37:21 [AaronSw]
AaronSw has quit
22:40:46 [AaronSw]
AaronSw has joined #swhack
22:41:05 [AaronSw]
Hmm, I guess WebDAV support isn't quite ready for prime time -- got my first Kernel Panic today on OS X.
23:03:36 [sbp]
sbp has joined #swhack
23:07:10 [AaronSw]
Hello.
23:07:20 [AaronSw]
Replay: I guess WebDAV support isn't quite ready for prime time -- got my first Kernel Panic today on OS X.
23:09:31 [sbp]
Kernal Panic?
23:10:45 [AaronSw]
The UNIX equvalent of the BSOD.
23:12:09 [sbp]
Ah, of course
23:12:15 [sbp]
BSOD?
23:12:53 [AaronSw]
Blue Screen Of Death
23:13:18 [AaronSw]
Except a Kernel Panic is less painful.
23:16:15 [sbp]
Reminds me of about:mozilla in IE
23:16:26 [sbp]
Oh you have IE: try it
23:20:39 [AaronSw]
It doesn't do anything.
23:21:44 [sbp]
res://mshtml.dll/about.moz
23:21:53 [sbp]
The blue screen, Mozilla style
23:22:13 [AaronSw]
* AaronSw goes downstairs to try it on his Windows box...
23:23:52 [AaronSw]
I don't get it.
23:24:00 [AaronSw]
It's just a big blue screen.
23:24:06 [sbp]
:-)
23:25:06 [sbp]
Strange that when you type in about:mozilla on MSIE, it comes up with a blue screen, eh?
23:25:17 [AaronSw]
Yeah, it is a bit odd.
23:56:29 [AaronSw]
You can get a Visor for 199 or so
23:56:47 [AaronSw]
err $199 that is
23:57:06 [AaronSw]
give or take $100
23:57:44 [sbp]
Do you have any references? Not that I'm lazy, just that I got so many results, and they were all useless
23:57:56 [sbp]
Or search strings...
23:58:24 [AaronSw]
There's one for $139 on UBid