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: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:11:30 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QuSbS-0005ef-UQ@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423

Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |schepers@w3.org

--- Comment #32 from Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> 2011-08-19 17:11:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> 
> Aryeh wants to put the document into the new W3C incubator purely because of
> copyright issues, if I understand him correctly. 

Please stop imputing motives.  It's not germane.


> If I understand the W3C
> incubator FAQ, the same copyright policy applies to the incubator effort as
> does the WG efforts. 

It's not an "Incubator Group", it's a Community Group.  And no, the patent
policy is different.


> The real key is, is Google going to be a problem from now on? 

A problem?  What's the problem with Google *paying someone money* to do good
work, which they make available to the community (including W3C)?


> If the W3C is
> going to have problems with Google and copyright issues, then the community
> that will implement the specs (and not just browser companies) will most
> definitely have problems with copyright issues--or more appropriately, patent
> issues. 

Aryeh has made it clear that his spec is under an open license, and that W3C
(or anyone else) can use it.  How could W3C have a problem with that?

As far as patents, the Community Groups have their own patent commitment
policy, and work from the CGs can more effectively move into the Recommendation
track to gather even more patent commitments from more members, who can more
accurately judge what their commitments would be because the scope of the work
is already well-defined.

So, neither one of these statements is correct... in fact, I would say just the
opposite.


> I'm assuming the new incubator project was intended to open up working areas
> and encourage participation from people like me, who are not members of the
> W3C. I don't believe it was intended because a member company such as Google
> may want to play fast and loose with patents at some point.

The new Community Group activity was structured for both purposes: to make it
easier for the wider community to participate more fully, and to make a
lighter-weight manner for our members to participate and build momentum for a
topic or technology.  We consulted with our members when forging the patent
policy. 

Why would W3C, a member organization, make a project that our members can't
participate in? How would that be fair or inclusive?


Personally, I'm very glad to see a more modular approach to incrementally
improving HTML, rather than the single-editor monolithic approach we have now,
and I'm grateful to Aryeh for all the work he's done on this, and for starting
a Community Group around it.  It looks like good technical work, and that's the
chief basis on which this effort should be judged.

-- 
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 Friday, 19 August 2011 17:11:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:17 UTC