Re: [w3ctag/packaging-on-the-web] Please "un-gut" this specification (#35)

> The right solution here would have been for the TAG to have given this repository to the WICG, then there would have been a clear migration strategy/story (it helps avoid these kinds of situations).

FWIW, I'd not be opposed to this even now. The TAG's Packaging on the Web spec will need to be re-licensed, however, as it's under the "old" document license--which prohibits "forking" or external progress made on a spec. If it were relicensed, then the WICG or another CG or WG could iterate on the work and more easily do a comparative analysis of the pros and cons between Google's approach, this approach, and various other Web-focused packaging specs.

I've found https://www.w3.org/2014/12/relicense.html but would need support of the TAG and/or a WG (Publishing, probably) to help move this to a place it could be iterated on further.

There is still valuable content in this specification that differs (now rather significantly) from it's "successor" and so, consequently, there's room (and need) for its reconsideration.

Regardless, gutting is still an offensive habit and marking things is obsolete is sufficient--when there is not an actual iterative process in place (such as continuing work at the WICG or elsewhere).

@swickr @plehegar if possible, it would still be helpful to have this specification (and others) ungutted, as well as re-licensed to encourage more participation and exploration of the options available on the Open Web Platform.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/packaging-on-the-web/issues/35#issuecomment-373361636