W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2012

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:01:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+ceB5Yxut6uP60G5qHN2CxLcAqkEKpwaoYvzVwHYnJhOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
> >
> > ok, but i can't help but hearing an US vs THEM theme here; i certainly
> > don't have the perception that the WHATWG is operating as a W3C entity
> > or within W3C process
> There's definitely an "us" vs "them" here. There's the people doing the
> work, and the people copying the work. Whether it's a WG copying a CG or
> the W3C copying the WHATWG or even one editor in a WG copying the work of
> another editor in the same WG, if it's done without the involvment of the
> person doing the work, it's both introducing massive confusion to the
> market (with multiple conflicting drafts that all claim to define the same
> thing, resulting in lower interop because implementors don't know which to
> follow), and it's just plain wrong (plagiarism). That anyone would do this
> on a professional basis, or defend it once it happens, let alone that an
> entire institution would support this, I find absolutly shocking.

>From my view, it is a matter of misunderstanding of an ostensibly
cooperative process that, if there are issues about attribution, should be
worked out between the stakeholders on an amicable basis, and not by making
claims of plagiarism.
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 21:02:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:14 UTC