- From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:18:57 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- CC: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 4/25/12 3:45 PM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >IIUC it provides for a legally clean contribution path of WHATWG >specifications into the W3C. Then by becoming a CG, that implies that there will no longer be two separate HTML specifications. The W3C HTML WG would be 100% responsible for the official standard and no references to any other "complete" document calling itself HTML would exist - is that correct? Instead, the WHATCG would simply develop and publish new material that does not copy any existing material from the HTML spec - as other CG's do today. If so - that sounds like it would indeed address Steve's concerns and would indeed "reunifying development of the open Web platform under the stewardship of the W3C.". If not, then I don't understand what the CG would be doing?? Leonard ----------------------- >Since that means that the wider community >- i.e. those that cannot become a member of the W3C - can continue >providing input into the specification, I think there's a clear >advantage to having that CG. > >It would be nice if the WHATWG mailing list could just be the WHATCG >mailing list, including all the legalese around it, but I assume >that's not so easy to do and may take some time. > >Regards, >Silvia. > >On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Steve Faulkner ><faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Ted, >> Initially, like you, I welcomed the formation of the Web >> Hypertext Application Technology Community Group, but it has quickly >>beome >> clear that the comunity group is only a shell[1], a click through page >> intended only as a mechanism by which the WHATWG can publish specs with >>a >> patent policy. >> >> Your statement: "reunifying development of the open Web platform under >>the >> stewardship of the W3C." >> appears false as it does nothing to bridge the gap between the HTML >> standards development communities at the W3C and WHATWG. >> >> This is unfortunate. >> >> I still agree with your statement: >> >> >> "Only by working together can we truly lead the Web to its full >>potential." >> >> but the Hypertext Application Technology Community Group appears to be >> nothing more than a ploy to get microsoft on board at the WHATWG via the >> provision of a patent policy. >> >> [1] >> >>http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2012-April/035528.htm >>l >> http://blog.whatwg.org/patent-policy >> >> regards >> Stevef >> >> >> On 23 April 2012 22:48, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> The HTML WG Chairs said that, "as W3C proceeds with its work on >>> follow-ons to HTML5, W3C and the WHATWG plan to continue their >>> partnership in developing the right features for the future web."[1] >>> >>> With the open membership, straightforward process, and clear IPR policy >>> provided by Community Groups, we believe this partnership will work >>>best >>> if the WHATWG becomes a W3C Community Group as proposed by Ian Hickson >>> today.[2] Thus, we welcome and support the formation of the Web >>> Hypertext Application Technology Community Group, reunifying >>>development >>> of the open Web platform under the stewardship of the W3C. >>> >>> We hope those who have felt, for whatever reason, unable to participate >>> in the WHATWG will embrace this new Community Group. Only by working >>> together can we truly lead the Web to its full potential. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Edward O'Connor >>> eoconnor@apple.com >>> >>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0204.html >>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0209.html >>> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 10:19:40 UTC