W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2011

[Bug 14029] normative reference to specification whose author/editor is undisclosed

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:41:21 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1R0aMT-00066z-2k@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14029

Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |TrackerRequest
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |

--- Comment #5 from Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> 2011-09-05 14:41:18 UTC ---
Reopening to submit TrackerRequest. 

Regarding the working of the W3C Patent Policy, my reading is:

The IPR status of normatively referenced specifications, specifically
DOMPARSING, *is* in scope since DOMPARSING is mandated in the implementation
and since the PP states (8.1):

'"Essential Claims" shall mean all claims in any patent or patent application
in any jurisdiction in the world that would necessarily be infringed by
implementation of the Recommendation.'

Further, the PP states (2):

'Subject to the conditions of this policy, W3C will not approve a
Recommendation if it is aware that Essential Claims exist which are not
available on Royalty-Free terms.'

As a representative of a W3C Member, I need to formulate recommendations about
the possible presence and use of essential claims in HTML5, including those
enabling technologies incorporated by reference, particularly when they are
mandatory. If I don't know the source of some technology, such as is the case
with DOMPARSING, then I am impeded in researching and formulating any
recommendation. In such a case, I would likely recommend a NO vote due to
dependency on IPR submitted by an unknown, intentionally hidden source. For
example, that source could be a competitor of the member I represent, and could
be hiding essential IPR by obscuring the source of that technology.

IMO, in the interest of transparency, the W3C should not permit participation
by or reference to external works of an unidentified entity. I can only assume
that this entity is hiding something that relates to the IPR status of their
work.

If my reading is incorrect, then I would prefer to be told so formally by the
WG subject to resolution of a WG issue.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 14:41:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:18 UTC