Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications

Hi, David-

L. David Baron wrote (on 6/25/10 6:46 PM):
> On Friday 2010-06-25 10:20 +0100, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>
>>  The nature of the collaboration is that feedback comes from both the
>>  W3C and WHATWG lists.  I don't think anyone objects to the text of
>>  the spec originating in the WHATWG version, per se... that's not the
>>  issue.
>
> It's good to hear that that's not an objection; I'd gotten a
> different impression in AC meetings.

To be fair, there may be people who object to that, but I certainly 
don't, and I haven't spoken to anyone for whom that is a critical 
problem (that is, they may not like it, but they can live with it).

W3C has all sorts of collaborative work... off the top of my head, PNG 
was done with ISO, and WebCGM was done with OASIS, and we do all sorts 
of work with IETF.  I think that's a good thing... where we are working 
for the same goals, we should combine our expertise and assets.  So, I 
think it's good that WHATWG shakes things up a bit, and W3C should work 
with them... but I also think they need to work with us.


> In any case, I suppose it's time to give up arguing about the
> license issue for now, since those of us advocating for an MIT-like
> license have lost.

I am not yet convinced of that.  I think this issue will come up again, 
and I think there are merits to an MIT-style license for specs.  But I 
agree that it may take time.

To be perfectly frank, I think that if WHATWG were more predictable and 
seemed "safer" (that is, it had an obvious chain of accountability), 
people with reservations about a more open license might have less cause 
for concern.  But that's just my opinion.


Anyway, thanks for your respectful and reasonable reply.  I appreciate 
it.  Sorry if I came off a bit defensive.

Regards-
-Doug

Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 23:34:39 UTC