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 22:44:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+e6OmjnjT6a1mAFOzJayP1yHhbFGFnQO+GHGafLOqVW9Q@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 8:49 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > Are you and ms2ger and other authors operating in the WHATWG space
> > willing to reciprocate?
> I am (and do), Ms2ger is apparently not. RESPECT HIS WISHES. That's all
> I'm asking. This is elementary politeness and professionalism.

It certainly has not been clear to me that ms2ger is effectively saying
that he does not wish his work reused in W3C REC track specs. Perhaps
he/she should come right out and say so.

However, in the interest of cooperation, I would think you would choose to
counsel ms2ger to find a way to cooperate that allows his work to be used
or reused in an acceptable manner.

> Here's another option:
> - The W3C does its own work and leaves Ms2ger to do whatever work he
> wants to do.

Sure. I certainly don't care what ms2ger does or doesn't do.

> The W3C has absolutely no authority over what Ms2ger does. Or indeed
> anyone else.

Of course. I didn't suggest otherwise.

> But in my opinion, the name issue is gibberish. Who wrote the spec has
> absolutely no bearing on its quality, and if your employer can't recognise
> that then that's your problem, not the spec's.

The quality of a spec has little to do with its implementation or
implementability. This is a process and IPR concern unrelated to quality.
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 05:44:51 UTC

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