Re: Encoding Standard

Hello Anne,

Please don't interpret my lack of communication so far as lack of 
interest. I have rather been waiting to hear what you would reply to others.

I have to admit that I, too, am not clear about your concerns here. I 
have also asked myself the same questions as Martin sets out below.

In addition, I'm not clear why, since you are a proponent of openness 
and forking, you are now wishing to restrict publication of the Encoding 
spec via the W3C, especially when that offers such a wide community for 
review and promotion of the spec.

I'd be grateful if you could sum up your thoughts clearly for us, if 
nothing else so that the Working Group understands how to discuss this, 
and so that we can clearly communicate with others wrt to the Encoding 
spec as a chartered deliverable of the WG.

Thanks,
RI



On 03/10/2013 08:42, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> [www-international@w3.org removed; Philippe Le Hegaret, Rigo Wenning,
> and Jeff Jaffe added because they might have some more background info
> on this.]
>
>
> Hello Anne,
>
> This is a purely personal contribution.
>
>
> On 2013/10/03 16:25, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>> On 2013/10/02 6:18, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>>> On 10/1/2013 1:27 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>> Given http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-faq#shouldifork I'm no longer
>>>> okay with this group publishing a copy of the Encoding Standard. That
>>>> would be hypocritical.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Can you elaborate?
>
> Yes, please.
>
>
> Looking at http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-faq#shouldifork, I personally
> came up with the following possible interpretations of your statement,
> but none of these really made much sense to me, so I think I must be
> missing something.
>
> Possible interpretations I came up with:
>
> - You think that publishing a copy is forking. As far as I understand,
> by all intents and purposes, there is no plan of forking, but the plan
> is to keep things in sync. Making copies e.g. for packaging,... is
> widely done in the open source community, and isn't called forking. The
> term forking is only used when there is on-purpose technical divergence.
>
> - You think that forking is a good idea, the more, the merrier, and
> therefore disagree with the paragraph in question. I have to admit that
> I personally can't disagree with the statement "Forking a specification
> imposes high costs, and is therefore not recommended.". That's a
> statement that applies to any kind of open source or similar project,
> and even more to interoperability standards. That doesn't exclude
> forking when it is really necessary, but that should happen very rarely.
>
> - You like that forking is now allowed in the HTML WG, and so you'd
> prefer that the encoding spec (http://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/) be
> published by the HTML WG, not by the I18N WG. In that case, why not just
> say so? (The alternative would be to apply the same licensing experiment
> to the I18N WG, but that probably would take quite some time.)
>
> - The spec in question says it's licensed under CC0 1.0 Universal
> (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) and Open Web
> Foundation Agreement Version 1.0
> (http://www.openwebfoundation.org/legal/the-owf-1-0-agreements/owfa-1-0). I
> haven't analysed these licenses, and not being a lawyer, I wouldn't be
> suited to do so. However, my understanding is that these are very
> permissive licenses, most probably to the extent that a message like
> yours above would not have any legal force. Of course, the WG may be
> inclined to follow your preferences, but I'd expect a somewhat different
> wording of the request in that case.
>
>
> As I said above, I'm probably missing something, so clarification is
> really appreciated.
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>

Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 10:37:43 UTC