- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:35:59 +0100
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, Addison Phillips <addison@lab126.com>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:15 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > Are you saying that when W3C didn't allow forking at all, you were okay with > the I18N WG publishing a parallel version of your encoding spec, but now > that the W3C (in some cases) allows forking, you are no longer okay? Now that the W3C considers forking a "SHOULD NOT" I question the need for forking the Encoding Standard. > In my understanding, as long as W3C didn't allow forking, it's (implicit but > quite obvious) position was that forking was something that must not happen. > One simple way to express that is "prohibitively high costs, not allowed". > > Now the W3C has changed that position slightly, with the actual license > change and an explanation in the FAQ, reading essentially "high costs, not > recommended." > > In summary, your position to me reads like "When W3C was totally against > forking, I was okay with it, but now that W3C may tolerate it in some cases, > I'm not longer okay with it." > > It just doesn't make sense to me. But maybe I'm missing something, and you > can explain. I think it being explicit now is what made me change my mind. > P.S.: Please note that although the W3C hasn't allowed forking in the past, > there is at least one case where it allowed parallel publication: The > Japanese translation of the XML Rec was published as the Japanese Industrial > Standard JIS X 4159:2005. It did so too for the HTML Standard, but Jeff does not allow it for any of the documents I wrote. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 13:36:28 UTC