Re: Formally Object to Referencing WhatWG within the W3C HTML5 specification

>
> These references provides points of confusion, as well as opening the door
> for problems exactly like that, which has happened this week: the editor
> disagrees with a decision, and makes a modification to "his" version of the
> HTML5 spec that generates FUD regarding HTML5.


Pardon my ignorance, but what issue was that?
--
T.J. Crowder
Independent Software Consultant
tj / crowder software / com
www.crowdersoftware.com



On 9 June 2010 14:45, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
>> Hi Shelly,
>>
>>  I'm not sure that the legal status of the groups can't be so easily
>>> dismissed. Not in this particular instance, when we're no longer sure
>>> who does have a right to lay claim to copyright of HTML5.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My point is solely that the legal status of a group is not necessary in
>> this case to ground the proposed action nor, afaict, is it sufficient. It
>> runs the risk of providing an overbroad rule that then gets only applied in
>> a single case.
>>
> Point taken.
>
>
>> It's not necessary because the relevant legal issues do not turn on the
>> legal status of the WHATWG (e.g., ownership of the spec text; the WHATWG is
>> not a candidate owner). It's not sufficient because I presume that even if
>> the WHATWG changed its legal status (which it could easily do by
>> incorporating in, say, the US or affiliating with a host organization), that
>> people would object to the denigrating text (however accurate).
>>
>> AFAIK, signing the membership agreement does not assign copyright to the
>> W3C for work done on W3C specs, but only licenses it:
>>    http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#holds
>>
>> So I believe your assertion to copyright ownership is incorrect.
>>
>>  Could very well be, as I said: I'm not a lawyer. But it is an important
> issue that has been left unanswered.
>
>
>  It seems that your argument about whether certain classes of links to the
>> WHATWG specs and space are inappropriate or confusing are quite independent
>> of the precise organizational nature of the WHATWG. I.e., they are arguments
>> about substance, the particular behavior of this particular group, not form
>> (i.e., that they are not incorporated). I'm unclear whether you think that
>> the W3C should adopt as a matter of policy "no parallel specs with any
>> external organization". That *is* formal, but as we've really only had one
>> case (though WS-I profiling is an interestingly related case) and there's
>> ample issues to discuss there, I'd personally prefer to stick with the core
>> substantive issues. I would object to introducing new formal constraints
>> along the suggested lines because I can think of many situations both
>> historical and prospective where I don't want them in place.
>>
>>  Your point is good.
>
> If I've read correctly elsewhere, the licensing issues associated with
> HTML5 are being discussed, so I'll drop that as an argument.
>
> My main concern is removing all references to the WhatWG from the HTML5
> specification, other than a link in the acknowledgment section. This
> includes references to the WhatWG version of the document, to the WhatWG
> email list, to the WhatWG copyright statement, to the WhatWG Subversion
> directory, and to the editor's own personal little stash of HTML5 "issues".
>
> These references provides points of confusion, as well as opening the door
> for problems exactly like that, which has happened this week: the editor
> disagrees with a decision, and makes a modification to "his" version of the
> HTML5 spec that generates FUD regarding HTML5.
>
> At a minimum, if these references are moved, and the editor chooses to
> degenerate the W3C effort in the future, he can do so, and all he's doing is
> undermining his own credibility, and the credibility of the so-called
> "member" organizations (Mozilla, Opera, and Apple) for the WhatWG.
>
>  Cheers,
>> Bijan.
>>
>>  Regards
>
> Shelley
>
>
>