Re: Encoding Standard

On 10/14/2013 9:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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.

I believe that the previous Document License was even more explicit that 
it did not permit forking.  Now that a License permits forking, we are 
merely putting that permission within some context.

>
>
>> 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.
>
>

Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 15:47:23 UTC