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

RE: Option 3

From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:53:49 -0400
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ian@hixie.ch" <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "member-psig@w3.org" <member-psig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C64F09DF6833C44782B27844765560BC12E061C359@MSFEXCH01.srunet.sruad.edu>
Yes, Sam, now that I reread your statement of consensus [1], I stand corrected. One of the things that changed in the last 2+ years was my memory of what happened. Sorry for the flub.  Henri Sivonen’s use cases [2] overtly allow forking, and it appears that folks’ consensus was indeed content with that!

I’m still a bit confused about what are Options 1 and 2. And is there anything like the use case #4 in [3] that the current license language would not allow?  As Larry points out, Option 3 does not disallow uses such as are contained in [1] but which are not specifically covered by the license, but am I correct to conclude that  some of the apparent disagreement here stems from not extending such permissions overtly?

Regards
David

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0388.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0093.html

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0324.html



From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:16 PM
To: julian.reschke@gmx.de; ian@hixie.ch
Cc: Dailey, David P.; public-html@w3.org; member-psig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Option 3

It is quite possible that things have changed in the last 2+ years, but I will state that at one time there was a consensus to forward on these use cases and that Ian's statements are accurate.

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless


-----Original message-----
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, PSIG <member-psig@w3.org>
Sent: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 16:23:54 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Option 3
On 22.03.2011 17:07, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Dailey, David P. wrote:
>>
>> When these issues were discussed in 2009, I was of the opinion [1], as I
>> gather Larry Rosen has said that the consensus of the Working Group was
>> that forking of the spec was not desirable.
>
> This is incorrect. It is possibly the majority opinion of the AC
> representatives of company members of the W3C that forking should not be
> allowed, but it is not the consensus opinion of the HTML working group. In
> fact, two of the use cases the working group presented to the W3C are
> explicitly about forking. A solution that disallows forking wouldn't be
> one that addresses the requests of the group.

...for the record: I don't believe there *is* a consensus opinion of the
HTML WG.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 17:54:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC