W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Recap and action items

From: Mary Brady <mbrady@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:18:32 -0400
Message-ID: <001201c0ee9b$f330d820$0100a8c0@happy>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:12 AM
Subject: RE: Recap and action items


> > A general question, though: How do we deal with the fact that the DOM
> TS
> > will be published under the W3C document license? Which IPR statement
> is
> it
> > people will be presented with when they use the SF platform?
> >
> >
>
> [mb] It seems to me that since this is an official W3C activity, that at
> least the
> submittal of tests should be via a w3c.org address.  Is there any way
> that
> W3C could run a copy of SharePoint as well?
>
> [ca] The SourceForge Project page will only say that the license is
"Other".  On the test submittal mockup, I used a placeholder for a statement
of the test process IPR.  That text could be anything
> that you want it to be.  Any download (.zip, etc) should have the full
statement of IPR.  Should each test have a "Copyright (c) 2001, MIT..."
boilerplate?
>
> If you wanted to use a w3 address, you could just put a frameset on the
W3C site that enclosed the sourceforge implementation.  The SourceForge
tracker is actually more closely aligned to what we want
> to do and is open source, so it could be run on W3C hardware, but I think
the framing approach is a lot more expedient.
>
>

Sounds okay to me -- I think you're right -- we're better off leaving things
on SourceForge.  As a note, some of the XML tests
did come in with copyrights attached to them.  Most organizations are
looking to get credit for their contributions.

--Mary
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 11:13:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:58:44 GMT