W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2002

Re: [RSS-DEV] Poll/vote proposal: YahooGroups / RSS 1.0 namespace PURL -> w3.org

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:09:50 -0500 (EST)
To: Rael Dornfest <rael@oreilly.com>
cc: <rss-dev@yahoogroups.com>, <em@w3.org>, <www-archive@w3.org>, <libby.miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0201111128260.7011-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Rael Dornfest wrote:

> >From what I gather from Danbri's post, this is just an informal hosting
> arrangement with no further strings.  That said, I'd very much like to make
> sure our site maintains its independence, bylaws, authors, etc.

yup. no strings!

> Assuming (and we'll get to this after the first vote is concluded) we want
> to run a Weblog for RSS-DEV, I think it'd be great if the W3C could host
> that as well.

I've not dug much into our policy for this sort of thing, but there are a
lot of documents on w3.org that aren't W3C recommendation-track specs, and
that aren't managed by W3C Working Groups. Simplest example being
lists.w3.org which hosts all kinds of mailing lists (including the WebDAV
WG, for example, an IETF effort).  The copyright statement on the RSS 1.0
spec[1] suggests that there should be no problem hosting copies of the
document on other sites, such as w3.org.

If we were considering a submission-request for publishing this stuff as a
W3C Note, we'd probably have a lot more hoops to jump through; getting
signoffs from the spec authors etc. For now, I believe I can just put this
up alongside other RDF Interest Group discussion docs. And I can take it
down again should we decide to do so. Documents that get published at
http://www.w3.org/TR/* are different; they don't get moved/changed/etc
after publication.

The main thing we'd need to be clear of is to avoid citing the doc in a
way that suggested any sort of W3C REC-track endorsement.
Of course a bunch of us on the semantic web team think RSS 1.0 is the best
thing since sliced bread, but that's kind of different :)
Each document would need to be something that explained it's status etc.
clearly, so that people stumbling over them via search engines, hyperlinks etc
wouldn't mistake them for W3C specifications. Shouldn't be too hard.

My main concern is getting the machine-readable schema back in the Web so
that we get HTTP GET at it without accepting a YahooGroups cookie. Hosting
other docs for the RSS WG, collaboration tools etc. (blogs/wiki?), would
be a bigger project. The latter seems worth investigating, but something
that we can do after we've fixed the cookie problem.

cheers,

Dan


[1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/files/specification.html
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 13:10:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:15 GMT