- From: T.J. Crowder <tj@crowdersoftware.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 15:57:45 +0100
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-html-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTilBwX5d3ysidP9gyoeQyzXstQ-BkvIffLoTzE6B@mail.gmail.com>
> > I referenced a link in my first email, but a better one arose later in the > day. You can view what's happening, beginning with the following email: > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0215.html> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0215.html Well, that supports what I wrote in my original reply and then removed (but kept) because I wanted to see what Ms. Powers was talking about first. What I wrote was: FWIW, completely agree that there must be one specification for HTML5. > Unless the W3C is prepared to step back and let the WhatWG take ownership, > that spec must be "owned" by the W3C. Pages like this one [ > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/] are very > confusing. I've seen it cited in online discussions as "the HTML5 standard" > (and why shouldn't someone think it was? It says "draft standard" on it). > The work of the WhatWG is extremely important, it has driven and continues > to drive this process forward where HTML had been under- and mis-specified > for years. That work needs to be credited and honored, but as HTML5 is > becoming the new baseline, there needs to be a single definitive source of > normative information about it, with other sources of draft *proposals*(not standards, not specifications) very, very clearly labelled as such. Having a competing "specification" is a sure route to fracture and failure. I hope no one wants that. Those of us relying on these standards certainly don't. -- T.J. Crowder Independent Software Consultant tj / crowder software / com www.crowdersoftware.com On 9 June 2010 15:24, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote: > T.J. Crowder wrote: > >> >> 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? >> > > I referenced a link in my first email, but a better one arose later in the > day. You can view what's happening, beginning with the following email: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0215.html > > A second email triggered further discussion, beginning at: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0215.html > > Shelley > >> -- >> T.J. Crowder >> Independent Software Consultant >> tj / crowder software / com >> www.crowdersoftware.com <http://www.crowdersoftware.com> >> >> >> >> >> On 9 June 2010 14:45, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net <mailto: >> 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 >> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 14:58:34 UTC