Log file opened at: 2004-05-11 11:32:58

[11:40:09:] <yod> agenda at http://esw.w3.org/topic/QaDev

[11:41:53:] <yod> * MarkUp Validator
[11:42:47:] * yod quite happy that the new style caused, if not interest, at least made people talk
[11:42:57:] <niq> very pretty, but not everyone thinks so ... presumably invokes bad fonts on some systems ...
[11:43:24:] * bjoern_ glad he's not the only one who hates the choice of fonts...
[11:43:26:] <yod> fonts seem to be a problem indeed
[11:43:41:] <xover> The CSS should all refer to generic classes such as sans-serif.
[11:43:59:] * niq suspects bjoern_ is getting totally different fonts to what I see
[11:44:05:] <bjoern_> or rather not refer to anything at all
[11:44:10:] <bjoern_> niq, yes, likely
[11:44:21:] <yod> someone suggested that, no font declaration at all
[11:44:36:] <yod> only relative text sizes
[11:44:47:] <xover> The CSS _today_, doe snot, as far as I know, make reference to anything excepr generic classes such as sans-serif.
[11:44:49:] * niq thought the banana was a joke on :8001 ....
[11:45:13:] <yod> xover: the CSS has specific font names
[11:45:14:] * Dorward thinks the new fonts are lovely... but has spent some time tweaking his /etc/fonts/local.conf - it seems that default fonts on lots of systems are nasty so perhaps selecting explicit font families in the CSS might be a wise idea.
[11:45:47:] <bjoern_> e.g. for h1
[11:45:49:] <bjoern_> "Bitstream Vera Sans", Tahoma, Verdana, "Myriad Web", Syntax, sans-serif;
[11:45:51:] * yod notes that on my mac + safari fonts very nice, ugly with the same system and gecko browsers
[11:46:07:] <yod> so I can understand it varies muchly
[11:46:26:] <xover> Hmm. I stand corrected. I thought we'd changed that.
[11:46:51:] <Dorward> Ah - Tahoma isn't all that popular, and Verdana is generally considered nasty - it has a large x-height. So its good for use where the font size is very very small, but not really for normal body text.
[11:47:05:] <xover> Bitream Vera is in there deliberately, but the rest are a holdover from the stuff we stole from the Core Styles.
[11:48:24:] <niq> is vera the small-caps one?
[11:48:38:] <Dorward> Sometime ago there was an unofficial "Redesign the W3C homepage" competition. Perhaps something similar for the Validator might produce good results?
[11:48:57:] <niq> hmmm, might indeed
[11:48:59:] <bjoern_> I've suggested that so many times now...
[11:49:03:] <Dorward> niq: Vera is a set of free TTF fonts that are on a lot of *nix systems these days. It doesn't have small-caps for normal lower case letters.
[11:49:25:] <yod> Dorward: competition is an issue. re-design is already a thin line away from upsetting some people. :/
[11:49:39:] * yod encourages people to submit and work on new design
[11:49:50:] <yod> but we can't reasonably do a "competition"
[11:49:56:] <xover> niq: The small-caps in navbar is an inherited font-familiy; I'd need to check to see which one.
[11:50:18:] <Dorward> yod: Do you mean "submit new designs" or "submit tweaks to current new design"?
[11:50:41:] <yod> Dorward: both, though the latter are more likely to be adopted easily
[11:51:15:] <niq> what about that page someone posted a couple of days ago?  Did it look good to those of you who get bad fonts?
[11:51:24:] <xover> I feel anyone wishing to have a say in the Validator's design should approach the issue the usual way; by submitting small patches and becoming part of the development team.
[11:51:51:] <xover> Submitting new designs does not lend itself to ensuring continued development and maintenance.
[11:52:13:] <bjoern_> niq, I didn't like it that much...
[11:52:23:] <niq> hmm, fairy nuff
[11:52:34:] <xover> Did /anyone/ actually like that?
[11:52:49:] <yod> I liked the way the errors were presented
[11:53:13:] <scop> yod++
[11:53:15:] <yod> and karlcow liked it overall, or so he told me
[11:53:51:] <bjoern_> http://www.alexkeeny.com/validator/ btw
[11:54:29:] <yod> thx bjoern, I was finding it in my browser's history :)
[11:54:36:] <xover> Uhm. You mean that he added a background color to the source line?
[11:54:50:] <Dorward> hmm, the comments are the predominance of the header were spot on. Its too much less-important-then-error-messages data
[11:56:00:] <yod> other feedback seem to suggest removing  Server: info (even in verbose mode... maybe in debug?) and changing the Jump: section
[11:56:15:] <yod> I also got a message saying tablin was not maintained anymore
[11:56:23:] <xover> The Jump To links are the bastard child of the vertical navbar.
[11:56:28:] <niq> hmmm, /me tries firefox, konq and opera and finds it very different in each ....
[11:56:38:] <bjoern_> ,text is broken due to lack of the ^
[11:56:58:] <bjoern_> some people complained about show source, though I am not sure what the issue is
[11:57:19:] <yod> show source removed -> links to the line number are borken
[11:57:23:] <xover> As I think bjoern_ and I discussed on here yesterday, ,text and ,tablin will probably have to become implemented directly in Validator.
[11:57:23:] <yod> Ville fixed that
[11:57:37:] <yod> xover: as alternate outputs?
[11:57:42:] <xover> Yes.
[11:57:47:] <bjoern_> in the german web authoring newsgroup some people complained about horizontal navbars in some browsers
[11:57:58:] <yod> this_idea++
[11:58:07:] <xover> bjoern_: EXPN?
[11:58:22:] <bjoern_> on navbars?
[11:59:16:] <xover> yes
[11:59:17:] <bjoern_> they suggested it has something to do with the
[11:59:29:] <bjoern_> ... /* FIXME - find the exact value - */
[11:59:38:] <bjoern_> line in one of the style sheets...
[11:59:55:] <xover> Oh, you mean _scrollbars_ perhaps?
[12:00:11:] <yod> min-width I suppose
[12:00:28:] <bjoern_> oh, yes... I knew navbar was something different...
[12:00:40:] <xover> No, it's likely the jumpbar that's offset so it's always a few pixels off the right edge of the viewing area,.
[12:01:03:] <xover> Hence making the browser activate a horizontal scrollbar.
[12:01:08:] <yod> got it
[12:01:50:] * yod suggests not spending too much (more) time on style details
[12:01:59:] <yod> instead let's agree on a few principles
[12:02:19:] <xover> Oh, and for the record -- refering to http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/design_critiques/w3c_redesigns.php with comments -- we really did intend 27 layers of metaphor in the choice of bacground images for header/footer.
[12:02:40:] <yod> xover : especially the banana - obviously
[12:02:45:] <xover> And, yes, the banana is really an underhanded jab at MSIE:win and Bill Gates.
[12:03:11:] <niq> hmm?
[12:03:20:] <xover> Anyways... Principles?
[12:03:26:] <yod> yess...
[12:03:30:] * niq doesn't get that reference
[12:03:44:] <xover> niq: See the comments at the URL mentioned.
[12:04:30:] <yod> that 1- we will develop alt outputs (once inline HTML taken out of code) and 2- style patches are welcome, re-designs fine but unlikely to be taken in
[12:04:44:] <yod> niq : recommended read, really...
[12:05:21:] <xover> Hmmm. Redesigns will be taken as inspiration, and as examples underscoring written (or implied) suggestions for improvement.
[12:05:32:] * bjoern_ actually considers all "re-designs" "style patches"...
[12:06:05:] <yod> bjoern_: that's a bit far stretched, no?
[12:06:48:] <yod> re design imply a very different user experience
[12:07:29:] * yod would not want to have to quantify what's a patch and what's a redesign, granted, but these feel like different concepts
[12:07:52:] <bjoern_> a "style patch" as in here is an illustration of several improvements to the layout
[12:08:52:] <xover> Granted. But that's not something that lends itself to directed evolution and continued maintenance.
[12:10:17:] <bjoern_> We should move on and discuss these then
[12:10:29:] <yod> ok
[12:10:53:] * yod has seen mergin work in progress
[12:11:00:] <yod> what's the progress on that?
[12:11:23:] <yod> and expected timeline for future evolutions
[12:11:34:] <xover> 0.6.5 has been merged onto HEAD, and the resultant fallout is in the progress of beeing fixed.
[12:11:47:] <yod> need help on that?
[12:12:06:] <niq> so HEAD is now basically-clean?
[12:12:16:] <xover> The copy on qa-dev is borked due to hard paths from my devel system, but I expect that to clear up in a reasonable amount of time.
[12:12:54:] <xover> HEAD is very buggy, but not completely broken. It does actually work on my devel system, but probably not anywhere else.
[12:13:06:] <niq> hehe
[12:14:14:] <xover> Once it gets a little more, uhm, "portable", I'd encourage everyone to at least test the hell out of it. ...
[12:14:31:] <xover> ... So we're sure we at least know about all the areas where it's broken.
[12:14:39:] <yod> while this is done, any opinion on how to manage the small fixes done post 0.6.5?
[12:14:56:] <xover> And then there is quite a bit of catchup work to do, design wise, to bring it on par with 0.6.5.
[12:15:27:] * scop notes yod stole my words :)
[12:15:35:] <yod> scop :)
[12:15:38:] <bjoern_> what's different in HEAD other than using templates?
[12:15:45:] <xover> Most of that (the HEAD stuff) can be done after we branch it for a 0.7 release.
[12:16:20:] <xover> HEAD has the Templates, a completely Config::General based config system, and some improvements following from that.
[12:16:43:] <xover> It also has nuked a bunch of incredibly old DTDs, making the sgml-lib a little easier to maintain.
[12:17:13:] <xover> As I mentioned to bjoern_, my main priority for 0.7 is to get rid of all inline HTML.
[12:17:52:] <niq> and replace with ....
[12:17:55:] <xover> So, anyone else want to try gettiong a word in edge-wise on 0.7? :-)
[12:17:57:] * yod agrees with plan for 0.7, still wonders about details
[12:18:00:] <bjoern_> so we basically focus now on fixing HEAD and sync the templates with the current release?
[12:18:10:] <xover> bjoern_: IMO, yes.
[12:18:27:] <bjoern_> fine with me
[12:18:33:] <xover> niq: That would be Templates (which aren't 100% there yet) and similar facilities.
[12:18:37:] <xover> yod: Which details?
[12:18:48:] <bjoern_> and we should indeed make a release soon to fix some of the bugs reported since
[12:18:55:] <yod> whether we release a 0.6.6
[12:19:03:] <niq> yeah, but templates have to be fed ...
[12:19:48:] <niq> what I mean is, inline html isn't *automatically* bad ....
[12:20:14:] <Dorward> Inline HTML can be quite bad when you want to produce non-HTML output as well as HTML output.
[12:20:15:] <bjoern_> until you try to maintain it...
[12:20:23:] <yod> niq: but are an obstacle to multiple/localized output
[12:20:39:] <yod> (nice chorus)
[12:21:04:] <xover> niq: The remaining inline HTML is just such cases when inline HTML are the easiest to implement and Templates a poor fit.
[12:21:08:] <niq> indeedie.  feed it through an outputfilter; possibly xslt
[12:21:10:] * Dorward is working with a system that has inline HTML _everywhere_ its nasty :)
[12:21:19:] <bjoern_> niq++
[12:21:25:] <scop> xslt++
[12:21:34:] <xover> The reasons the rest of the gang enumerated is why we need to get rid of the rest of it too.
[12:21:52:] * xover sees XSLT and promptly stops listening...
[12:22:01:] <yod> xover: why?
[12:22:06:] <niq> Dorward: you inherited this system?
[12:22:24:] <Dorward> niq: Yes
[12:22:38:] <xover> Because, and let me be _absolutely_ clear on this, XSLT Sucks. Horribly, badly, and absolutely. In every case. Period.
[12:23:17:] <niq> just for xover .... consider an xmlns processor?
[12:23:18:] <xover> Oh, and BTW, a Template system *is* and output filter.
[12:25:06:] <niq> xslt *is* a template system
[12:25:25:] <xover> Yes. And?
[12:26:20:] <bjoern_> xover, even if XSLT sucks, if you don't have to maintain them, what's the problem?
[12:26:39:] <xover> Hey, you guys want to implement XSLT for Validator, go right ahead. But I'm not going to do it, and I'm not going to maintain it.
[12:27:04:] <xover> I'm absolutely convinced it's the wrong way to go about it, and I'm highly sceptical that you'll ever persuade me otherwise.
[12:27:17:] <bjoern_> Sounds like a deal
[12:27:30:] <niq> indeedie
[12:28:00:] <xover> Allright then. Sounds like that issue is settled.
[12:28:10:] <yod> apparently
[12:28:38:] * niq wonders about round tuits ...
[12:28:52:] <bjoern_> (but I should note that this is more something for post-m12n)
[12:29:10:] * xover pointedly refrains from comment...
[12:29:38:] <yod> niq: round tuits?
[12:30:19:] <niq> for templating stuff ...
[12:34:56:] <yod> If I understood the whole discussion we're proceeding with current templating code anyway, and may use XML base output + XSLT in the future
[12:35:03:] <yod> got that right?
[12:35:13:] <Dorward> It certainly begins to sound that way
[12:35:29:] <niq> yep
[12:35:32:] <bjoern_> I would say so, yes.
[12:35:56:] <yod> well, we're already going with XHTML output
[12:36:13:] <niq> but that XML could also be (X)HTML
[12:36:21:] <yod> niq: exactly
[12:36:47:] * yod also has to see with Yves about SOAP 1.2 interface
[12:36:54:] <yod> haven't got to that yet
[12:36:56:] <Dorward> So - scrap direct XHTML output, fix up custom XML output, then add XSLT to change that XML to XHTML server side for the default output.
[12:37:12:] <Dorward> At least I think that is what has been said.
[12:38:10:] * yod 'd rather everyone agreed on XSLT or not, but in the absence of that agreement, plan looks good enough
[12:38:20:] <yod> for now at least
[12:38:21:] * niq wonders where xover is lurking at this point
[12:38:29:] <xover> Lurking?
[12:38:43:] <yod> pointedly refraining from commenting
[12:38:43:] <niq> if you were sulking re xslt
[12:38:49:] <xover> :-)
[12:39:16:] <xover> No, I've stated my position on this issue.
[12:39:39:] <Dorward> Oh well, this is as good a reason to force me into learning XSLT as any - at least it will give me another bullet point on my CV.
[12:39:53:] * niq will post summary of how I've done similar tasks before as a discussion note
[12:40:15:] <xover> Post code, it's more efficient.
[12:40:24:] * bjoern_ has some documentation on this on http://ieqabar.sourceforge.net/
[12:40:40:] * bjoern_ ... and my code is already public ;-)
[12:41:20:] <yod> ok
[12:41:35:] <yod> my last unanswered question is whether/when a 0.6.6
[12:41:43:] <yod> would like to hear opinions on that
[12:41:55:] <niq> bjoern_: so is what I had in mind
[12:42:13:] <bjoern_> are there outstanding known issues for 0.6.6?
[12:42:21:] <Dorward> Given that there have been a number of "Argh! What have you done?" on the mailing list - I think 0.6.6 would be a good idea.
[12:42:32:] <niq> Dorward++
[12:42:48:] <scop> agreed.
[12:42:49:] <Dorward> Possible TODO for 0.6.6: Source code formatting? Links to lines in source code?
[12:42:50:] <niq> a light maintenance thingey
[12:42:56:] <bjoern_> We've already started to tell people "fixed in CVS"...
[12:43:00:] <yod> bjoern: a few bug fixes in CVS already... source code format being on of them yes
[12:43:03:] <niq> bah
[12:43:25:] <niq> that's an annoying line when something becomes an FAQ
[12:43:44:] <scop> outstanding: warnings reported twice, http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=710 ...
[12:44:12:] <Dorward> I also think that Verbose Output should be on by default given that a number of the new messages to the list are "Why don't you do X" when X is already done in Verbose mode.
[12:44:40:] <scop> ... quite a bit of trash to error_log from apparently broken OpenSP char number to markup code ...
[12:45:05:] <yod> well... I've been told that verbose output should really not be ON by default
[12:45:19:] <bjoern_> not yet at least
[12:45:22:] <yod> and in any case if we do that, have to fix the ubiquitous "help wanted" message
[12:45:38:] <yod> tone it down at least
[12:45:50:] <niq> yep
[12:46:11:] <niq> relegate that to the "about" page?
[12:46:12:] <Dorward> How about a prominent: "Explanations for error messages" link?
[12:46:39:] <niq> Dorward++ # but we've had this argument before
[12:46:52:] <bjoern_> <a>Show less confusing results</a>...
[12:47:11:] <Dorward> niq: I saw it mentioned on the list, I didn't notice any follow up. I'll go and check the archive.
[12:47:19:] <niq> ... and of course people ignore such prominent links
[12:47:35:] <Dorward> niq: Indeed.... hmm
[12:47:39:] * Dorward goes to test something
[12:47:40:] <yod> Dorward: no followup AFAIK
[12:47:52:] <yod> (my bad)
[12:47:56:] <Dorward> yod: Ah
[12:48:19:] <bjoern_> I think we should not mess with defaults too much, I'd rather say no for default=verbose for 0.6.6.
[12:48:34:] <bjoern_> We can look at that later.
[12:49:07:] * yod notes we indeed have custom config per user on our TODO
[12:49:22:] <yod> checklink does that, right?
[12:49:28:] <bjoern_> another post-M12N thing...
[12:49:37:] <yod> likely
[12:49:49:] <Dorward> Every page has a Feedback link at the bottom to /feedback.html. How about altering the text of that page to suggest revalidating in verbose mode if that hasn't been done already?
[12:50:28:] <bjoern_> "hasn't been done" is difficult to determine...
[12:50:45:] <Dorward> I mean to say that, not to test for it programatically.
[12:51:22:] <Dorward> First make sure you have validatored with Verbose output enabled, then check our Help and FAQ ...
[12:51:26:] <Dorward> validated*
[12:51:38:] <bjoern_> fine with me...
[12:52:03:] <yod> seems fine
[12:52:28:] <yod> timeline?
[12:52:29:] <scop> about practices, want "0.6.6 fixes" merged to HEAD on the fly where applicable, or at release points?
[12:52:58:] <bjoern_> the more they are in sync the better
[12:53:19:] <yod> for small fixes I'd sync
[12:53:21:] <yod> xover?
[12:54:10:] <xover> Spot merges of single commits creats conflicts on release-point merges.
[12:55:07:] <xover> But I'm ambivalent on the relative pain of this versus that of having the branches out of sync.
[12:55:58:] <scop> I think release-point merge would be a good choice at this point, perhaps re-evaluate after 0.6.6 (if need be)
[12:56:58:] <xover> Agreed. The changes between 0.6.5 and 0.6.6 should well contained enough to easily merge en masse.
[12:57:10:] <yod> alright
[12:57:54:] <yod> anything else on markup val?
[12:58:09:] * yod would like to also discuss next release cycle for checklink
[12:58:58:] <Dorward> There were a few points I was going to raise along the lines of "Does anyone object if I have a go at X, and would Y be a good way to do it" - but from what I gather most of that has already been done in HEAD :) So I'll download HEAD and play with that before being redundent.
[12:59:43:] <bjoern_> Posting a mail in advance would be a good idea for such things, too
[13:00:06:] <yod> Dorward: if you want to start submitting patches heavily, we should get you an account on qa-dev and a write account on the CVS repository, though
[13:00:19:] <yod> at some not-too-remote point at least
[13:00:49:] <Dorward> Well - lets see if I can make some contributions of sufficient level first.
[13:00:56:] <yod> sounds good
[13:01:09:] <Dorward> I'll poke around HEAD and the TODO list over the next week or so.
[13:01:15:] <scop> 0.6.6 timeline: next week?
[13:01:37:] <bjoern_> "You may fire when ready"
[13:01:46:] <xover> Dorward: Be adviced, the TODO is, uhm, not completely to be trusted at this point. It's random thoughts more than a plan, as such.
[13:02:06:] <Dorward> xover: Good random thoughts for the most part :) How about Bugzilla
[13:02:08:] <Dorward> ?
[13:02:33:] <bjoern_> The most important thing to do is M12N, the less code the validator actually is, the easier to improve it.
[13:02:34:] <xover> Dorward: They somewhat overlap, and Bugzilla is more like a concrete plan.
[13:02:41:] <xover> bjoern_++
[13:02:47:] <yod> scop: I'll be back next week, so that would be possible
[13:02:55:] <Dorward> What is M12N BTW? I haven't seen reference to that before today.
[13:03:06:] <yod> modularization
[13:03:09:] <bjoern_> Modularization, split the code into modules and such
[13:03:11:] * niq is getting to like bugzilla since getting more closely into apache-dev
[13:03:16:] <Dorward> Righty
[13:03:19:] <xover> scop: Do you have a handle on all the current open issues?
[13:03:54:] <scop> xover: kinda, sorta, not all in 'zilla yet.  will try to feed it tonight.
[13:04:35:] <xover> scop: Cool. I'll try to chip in where I can, but I may not be able to do too much on that.
[13:04:37:] <bjoern_> Do we have any concrete action items for MarkUp Validator?
[13:04:40:] <yod> scop: we're talking *short beta* right?
[13:04:53:] <xover> Do we need a beta even?
[13:05:14:] <yod> that's my question in other words, yes
[13:05:27:] <scop> no beta needed IMO.  fixes that need a beta should not go into 0_6_0-branch any more.
[13:05:30:] <yod> probably not
[13:05:35:] <xover> scop++
[13:05:43:] <yod> agreed
[13:06:10:] <scop> regarding Bugzilla, would it be possible to have it sent notifications to a list somewhere instead of only the "initial owner" as is now?
[13:06:22:] <yod> scop, can you lead the bug roundup for 0.6.6 - deadline next week?
[13:06:41:] <yod> scop : yes, we can set a list as "QA contact"
[13:06:42:] <xover> (and have it upgraded to latest; and get CVSWeb updated...) :-)
[13:06:59:] <scop> yod, yes, fine with me
[13:07:23:] <yod> xover: bugzilla upgrade is on my (systems) todo list
[13:07:39:] <scop> talk to me when thinking about CVSweb upgrade, FreeBSD-CVSweb is at 3.0.1 and pretty decent IMO :)
[13:07:54:] <scop> (valid markup, among other things)
[13:07:57:] <xover> scop++
[13:07:58:] <yod> scop: we'll talk soon-ish then
[13:08:09:] <yod> cool
[13:08:13:] <yod> (very)
[13:08:36:] <bjoern_> (IOW, pre-2006)
[13:08:40:] <bjoern_> ;-)
[13:08:48:] <yod> tsk ;)
[13:09:04:] <scop> AP(scop): 0.6.6 bug roundup/status/plan -> qa-dev



[13:09:39:] <yod> ==================
[13:09:44:] <yod> Link Checker
[13:09:56:] <yod> official beta? 
[13:10:20:] <scop> checklink status: not much happened since last meeting
[13:10:33:] <yod> unless I'm really really out of sync, we haven't officially tested the robotUA code, right?
[13:10:44:] <yod> scop: I've seen a couple bug fixes though
[13:11:04:] <scop> right.  I'm still playing with the "initial req should not be affected by /robots.txt" idea.
[13:11:23:] <scop> initial impl didn't work out, will revisit this week
[13:11:29:] <niq> aaargh, not this again
[13:11:41:] <yod> we lost niq
[13:12:14:] <scop> apart from that, found bugs in the cookie handling code yesterday, that should be fixed soon(tm)
[13:12:19:] * Dorward has to head on to the road now, thanks guys. I'll see if I can download HEAD when I get home.
[13:12:34:] <scop> Dorward, CU
[13:12:39:] <yod> Dorward: thanks! bye
[13:12:41:] *** Dorward has quit IRC (Remote closed the connection)
[13:13:05:] <yod> scop: what's your expected timeline, and do you need help?
[13:14:04:] <scop> a couple of days should suffice for coding (not much to do), help much appreciated on testing
[13:14:38:] <scop> latest&greatest at http://qa-dev.w3.org/wlc/checklink
[13:14:52:] <yod> ok
[13:15:01:] <xover> This is a cron'ed CSV update, right?
[13:15:09:] <xover> Or CVS even.
[13:15:32:] <scop> xover, yes, same way as wmvs
[13:15:40:] <xover> Great!
[13:16:12:] * yod likes this auto-CVS'd test system immensely
[13:16:17:] <yod> for the record
[13:18:02:] <xover> BTW, lets make sure we link to new versions of Link Checker from the News section of v.w3.org's front page.
[13:18:02:] * yod suggests we proceed with test/beta/release in the next 2 weeks, coordinate on the list
[13:18:16:] <yod> good idea
[13:19:10:] <yod> might be a bit weird to record release notes on v.w.o/whatsnew.html though.
[13:19:20:] <scop> yod++
[13:19:43:] <scop> yeah, launch beta next week
[13:20:12:] <scop> will ping qa-dev when I think the code is ready for that
[13:20:58:] <yod> ok
[13:21:05:] * yod suggests adjourning
[13:21:18:] <yod> unless anyone has another topic to discuss now
[13:21:26:] <xover> CSS Validator? Existant Action Items?
[13:21:34:] <yod> maybe we won't be talking about css-val... Yves not here today
[13:21:53:] <bjoern_> no progress anyway
[13:22:23:] <bjoern_> what about checklink layout? it does not integrate nicely with markup validator at the moment...
[13:22:24:] * yod suggests people send mail to qa-dev and update wiki when any progress is done on AIs
[13:22:54:] <scop> YES!  /me was hoping that someone brave mentions checklink and layout in the same sentence :)
[13:23:12:] <yod> oo
[13:23:23:] <yod> right. bananas!
[13:23:40:] <bjoern_> we should at least provide the navbar 
[13:23:49:] <bjoern_> otherwise people get lost on the page
[13:23:54:] <yod> scop: are you OK with me looking into that?
[13:24:07:] <bjoern_> we cannot under any circumstance have the legal footer for checklink
[13:24:12:] <yod> bjoern_: the navbar will be different too
[13:24:17:] <scop> yod: yes, help most definitely wanted there.  do you think it should be done for 3.9.3?
[13:24:41:] <yod> scop: I can try to do that tomorrow after my flight
[13:24:50:] <xover> "Banana Flavoured 3.9.3"++ :-)
[13:24:53:] <yod> no guarantee though, but I'll give it a look
[13:25:06:] <scop> cool, TIA!
ADJOURNED