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

Re: DOM Parsing and Serialization: which W3C WG? [Was: Re: ISSUE-198: innerHTML-patent-policy - Chairs Solicit Proposals]

From: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:16:28 +0100
Message-ID: <4F51FD8C.3070901@gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: www-archive@w3.org
Hi Art,

On 03/02/2012 08:35 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 2/28/12 2:40 PM, ext Tony Ross wrote:
>>> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 3:16 PM
>>>
>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>>
>>>> During WebApps' 31-Oct-2010 TPAC meeting, the group agreed [1] DOM
>>>> Parsing and Serialization [2] was in scope and Chaals added it as an
>>>> explicit
>>>> deliverable in the Draft charter that will soon be submitted to the
>>>> AC for
>>>> approval.
>>>>
>>>> During that meeting Ms2ger expressed some interest in editing it in W3C
>>>> space. Ms2ger - would you please clarify your intent with this spec
>>>> vis-à-vis
>>>> the W3C?
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, Doug agreed to "ask the SVG WG for editors". Doug -
>>>> what is
>>>> the status of this action?
>>>>
>>>> Anyhow, I don't have a strong opinion of which WG should take the lead
>>>> here and if someone does, please speak up.
>>> Great, if the draft becomes a Web Apps deliverable, that should greatly
>>> simplify this situation. I don't personally think it needs to be an
>>> HTML WG
>>> draft, and I suspect the Change Proposal author would accept a Web Apps
>>> draft as well, even though the Change Proposal specifies HTML WG.
>> I'd prefer to publish this in the HTML WG since that's where these
>> APIs originated, but I'm open to discussion.
>>
>> If needed, Microsoft can provide an editor.
>
> Ms2ger - what is your intent with this spec vis-à-vis the W3C and what
> is your preference re WG?

Sorry for the delay; technical work took up more of my time than I'd 
expected.

As for my *intention*; I doubt there will be benefits for the spec if it 
is published at the W3C, so I plan to continue working on it where it is.

However, if someone is interested in having a copy of the spec in W3C 
space, I'd be happy to take a patch to set up DOM P&S like DOM4 (see [1] 
and the publish, dontpublish, w3conly and now3c classes in [2], in 
particular), and to keep the W3C repository up-to-date.

I suspect I've expressed my opinion about the HTMLWG before, but for the 
record: I believe it is a dysfunctional WG, and that it would be a waste 
of time for me to join it.

Finally, I have to say I find it fascinating that Microsoft, whose 
employees invented innerHTML (and outerHTML, &c.), suddenly needs patent 
protection from, apparently, the browser vendors that copied IE's features.

I hope this clarifies my position
Ms2ger

[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/file/c7740a0acb14/Makefile
[2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/file/c7740a0acb14/Overview.src.html
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2012 11:16:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:48 GMT