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 17:32:05 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QuSvN-0007KE-It@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423

--- Comment #33 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2011-08-19 17:32:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> (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.

And I said, "if I understand him correctly". 

Please do not lecture me. We've had this discussion before. 

> 
> 
> > 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)?
> 
>

It is a problem if Google is not going to abide by its agreement with the W3C. 

I am not the only person in this thread who has expressed some concern on this.

"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?"

This isn't impugning Aryeh's effort, or Google. However, the recent moves do
bring up questions, and do generate legitimate concerns. We have a right to
express these concerns.

My primary concern was about the material being outside of the W3C in its
entirety, or having to be forked somehow, which didn't make a lot of sense. 

My concern now is that this material was originally in a LC document on a Rec
track, and is now being taken to this community or whatever group--which to me,
causes a lot of unnecessary confusion.

As has been noted elsewhere, the Editing API was actually part of the HTML WG
Charter. Now it seemingly exists as part of a Community group. I don't think
the Community Groups were intended as a bypass of traditional W3C working
groups.


> > 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?
>

Because copyright has nothing to do with patents, and patent rights are the big
concern. 


> 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.
> 
>

All this tells me is that my concern is more justified, rather than less.

> > 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. 
>

No momentum should be needed for material that actually was in a LC document
already in the Rec track. This is not "new" stuff. 

> 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.


And I've never said anything about Aryeh's work, only where the work resides. 

However, I believe this will eventually be addressed by the W3C leadership.

-- 
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 17:32:10 UTC

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