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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 December 2012 05:44:52 GMT