- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:54:07 +0200
- To: "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, David Baron <dbaron@mozilla.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
On 26/09/2014 02:04 , David (Standards) Singer wrote: > On Sep 25, 2014, at 13:47 , Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:> >> On 25/09/2014 19:10 , Ian Hickson wrote: >>> I had been asked by the spec's editor to change the spec to make >>> it more attractive to the W3C. I tried to minimize the changes by >>> only making it a style sheet change. In retrospect, even this was >>> indeed a mistake, since the document is supposed to be fixed in >>> time and already has had several companies' lawyers sign off on >>> it. So I've changed it back, and will leave it unchanged for all >>> time. Live and learn. >> >> Shame, I have to say I quite enjoyed the notion of a Living >> Snapshot ;) > > I really don’t think that a title change makes any material > difference to an IPR commitment, does it? Can someone say to the > contrary explicitly why? IANAL but I agree that it probably doesn't make a material difference. That said, people would have more trust and confidence in a snapshot that really doesn't change. And trust and confidence are things we need to build up. That's why I said this was "unfortunate", not for any legal reason. > If we could make the document with an FSA on it, stable, and with a > suitable title, I think this is a decent direction. Amen. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 26 September 2014 13:54:18 UTC