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 20:29:30 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Qt3ms-0007Nn-Dt@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423

--- Comment #18 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2011-08-15 20:29:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (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.

I've been informed indirectly that there are no additional limitations on my
joining the W3C. That's good to know.

I'll make an offer: if Aryeh needs the help, I'll offer to help co-edit. I'd
offer to take on all editing, but I'm just not familiar with the whole process
and would prefer to take a junior position for this first effort, so someone
can show me how it all works. 

I would be more than willing to answer the Bugzilla bugs. And I would promise
to abide by the WG decisions, even if I don't agree. I can also take on the
mechanics of getting this incorporated into the W3C, if I could get help from
someone like Michael.

-- 
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 20:29:36 UTC

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