W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: DOM Parsing and Serialization: which W3C WG? [Was: Re: ISSUE-198: innerHTML-patent-policy - Chairs Solicit Proposals]

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:16:19 -0800
Cc: Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, "Ms2ger @ Mozilla" <ms2ger@gmail.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <2151D66E-5849-4EC5-B50C-AB5A2D669B18@apple.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>

On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> On 2/25/12 1:42 PM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Tony Ross wrote:
>>> Apologies for missing the date here (been quite busy), though my interest in this topic hasn't changed.
>>> As I suggested when raising the issue, I'd like to see HTML5 reference a DOM Parsing and Serialization specification in the W3C. This would restore the application of the W3C patent policy to innerHTML and related APIs. I've posted a basic change proposal to this effect: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Reference_a_W3C_version_of_DOM_Parsing_and_Serialization 
>> One thing to note: publishing a new HTML WG draft can be done even without a Change Proposal. However, Change Proposal or not, it requires a willing editor. If someone is willing to edit this draft in W3C space, we'll make sure they get CVS access and an opportunity to bring it forward for FPWD. On the other hand, if there is no willing editor, then a Change Proposal requiring creation of a new W3C draft is not likely to succeed, because we cannot force someone to be a W3C editor. It may thus help your case to first arrange for the draft to be published by the HTML WG via finding a volunteer editor who sets up an Editor's Draft. At that point I'd expect a change of references to be totally uncontroversial.
> During WebApps' 31-Oct-2010 TPAC meeting, the group agreed [1] DOM Parsing and Serialization [2] was in scope and Chaals added it as an explicit deliverable in the Draft charter that will soon be submitted to the AC for approval.
> During that meeting Ms2ger expressed some interest in editing it in W3C space. Ms2ger - would you please clarify your intent with this spec vis--vis the W3C?
> Additionally, Doug agreed to "ask the SVG WG for editors". Doug - what is the status of this action?
> Anyhow, I don't have a strong opinion of which WG should take the lead here and if someone does, please speak up.

Great, if the draft becomes a Web Apps deliverable, that should greatly simplify this situation. I don't personally think it needs to be an HTML WG draft, and I suspect the Change Proposal author would accept a Web Apps draft as well, even though the Change Proposal specifies HTML WG.

Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 23:17:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:48 UTC