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

[Bug 14029] normative reference to specification whose author/editor is undisclosed

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:07:14 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1R10zK-0001tK-Us@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14029

--- Comment #22 from Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> 2011-09-06 19:07:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> (In reply to comment #20)
> > In contrast, my interpretation of the notion of operating under a pseudonym is
> > that it appears to presume that parties are operating in bad faith.
> 
> I think this comment is offensive. Ms2ger is volunteering to write useful specs
> for the benefit of the Web. That better faith through action than most working
> group participants manage to show.

My comment is not meant to be offensive, it is merely a reflection of my
interpretation of pseudonymous participation in this context.

I have seen no reason offered about why there should be any departure in the
reasonable expectation that works are identified by real persons. As far as I
know, this is not a real person. Let Ms2ger use his identity in his published
works, at least in the context of publishing W3C works or works intended to be
normatively referenced by W3C works. Or find a proxy willing to identify
themself and use their name as the primary author/editor.

Note that I have not objected to [DOMRANGE] since an identified person is
listed as the first editor (even though Ms2ger is listed as a second editor).

My primary objection to [DOMPARSING] is that Ms2ger is listed as the only
author/editor, which I find unacceptable.

-- 
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 Tuesday, 6 September 2011 19:07:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:03 UTC