- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:25:27 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967 --- Comment #22 from Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de> --- (In reply to Sam Ruby from comment #21) > Based on this comment, it is clear that your definition of "Open" differs > from the W3C management's definition of this term. So far I have not seen this "W3C management's definition" in writing. There are still people who erroneously think that the term "open" used by the W3C implies that W3C "open" standards can be implemented as Open Source. It would help to have such a definition in a form which avoids such misunderstandings. I was not aware that Tim Berners-Lee had *already decided* that his final acceptance of EME will *not* depend on whether it can be implemented as Open Source. Thanks for that important clarification. I trust that you do not misrepresent his position. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 16:25:30 UTC