W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > August 2011

[Bug 13423] Remove the Editing APIs section. It's extremely incomplete and contradicts my editing spec on a lot of points, so it will confuse implementers.

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:56:29 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Qt3Gv-0004w0-US@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423

--- Comment #17 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2011-08-15 19:56:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)

> 
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > My own personal preference (not speaking as Chair) would be to have Aryeh's
> > text submitted to the W3C in some form (either to the HTML WG or the Web Apps
> > WG). I believe if that occurred, there would be no controversy about removing
> > the buggy/incomplete editing spec text from the HTML5 spec.
> 
> As I've said several times, my spec is in the public domain (CC0) and anyone
> who wants to submit it to the W3C is free to do so.  I won't stop them.
> 
> This is an excellent opportunity for those who believe that the W3C is a good
> place to develop specs to show their willingness to improve the web.  All it
> would take is a modest amount of effort to submit the spec for W3C publication,
> and of course in their view, this would be beneficial because the W3C is a good
> place to publish specs.  I wait with interest for one of the many people who
> have expressed concern about the editing spec not being at the W3C to spend the
> necessary time themselves to fix the problem, rather than expecting others to
> do it.

(With my vendor rep hat on: )

Apple would be hesitant to fork the spec with a separate editor. At the same
time, we would really like to have W3C Patent Policy protection for the
contents of this spec. We would much prefer if Google, which has funded the
drafting of the spec so far, would actively participate in bringing it to the
W3C rather than merely standing aside while someone else forks. Is it Google's
policy that anyone who wants IPR protection for this spec, a necessary
prerequisite is to fork it?

If it's simply a matter of you personally not wanting to deal with the
mechanics of preparing Working Drafts and such, then we can probably find a
co-editor to help with that. But if you are unwilling, for example, to process
comments in W3C bugzilla or abide by any WG decisions about the spec, then it
seems like the likely outcome would be a fork, which we would prefer not to do.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 19:56:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:16 UTC