- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 14:49:22 +0200
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Cc: Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, "public-editing-tf@w3.org" <public-editing-tf@w3.org>, Xiaoqian Wu <xiaoqian@w3.org>
> On 26 May 2015, at 14:09, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/22/15 1:31 PM, Johannes Wilm wrote: >> I personally don't have any license preference. But it would be preferable if it could all be under the same license so the terms are clear. Also, it should be whatever is the standard for the w3c. > > I presume work on the four documents Ben started (inputEvents.html and the 3 contentEditable*.html specs) will be continued so I just changed those documents to use the ED template and that automagically gives them the `standard` w3c copyright. This is the right URL to be looking at these, right: https://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/input-events.html https://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/contentEditable.html https://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/contentEditableTrue.html https://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/contentEditableTyping.html If so, refspec seems to be failing to load for some reason, as I'm getting completely unstyled documents. > I did not change execCommand.html, primarily because it appears this group might not progress that document "as is". However, if the group does agree to work on it, then yes, we seek advice on how to handle that document's copyright. As far as I can tell: https://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/historic-editing-apis.html and https://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/execCommand.html are the same, except for the presence of one extra section (Selections) in the first one, and they are copies of: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/raw-file/tip/editing.html * They should link to https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/raw-file/tip/editing.html as the previous version * Does it really make sense to have both? We should just keep one, and if we want to drop some part, we just drop it. Anyone curious about what it historically was can look in the VCS, or follow the "Previous Version" links. * Why are they both under a different license than the original one (and different from eachoter)? - "Editing" (the original) is the W3C Community Contributor License Agreement as well as CC0 1.0 - "historic-editing-apis" is under the W3C Document License - "execCommand" is CC BY 3.0 As you said, once we start working on these, we probably need to think through the license, but the current state seems wrong. Am I missing something? - Florian
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 12:49:48 UTC