- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:44:12 +0200
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, Addison Phillips <addison@lab126.com>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Replying to Richard's email as it copies everyone included thus far. I have read the other emails. On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote: > 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. I agree with http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-faq#shouldifork that forking a standard has a high cost. I consider publishing a copy of the text of the Encoding Standard http://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/ on TR/ to be a fork as it is no longer under control of the originating group. The obvious parallel here is the HTML WG which publishes HTML5 which is quite clearly derived from the HTML Standard, but not the same. Given that the W3C now acknowledges forking as a high cost, it should stop doing it. That is my opinion. Given that the Encoding Standard is licensed under CC0 it can be forked. The reason we want that is to keep the standards body maintaining the standard honest. If you want to learn more about this I recommend reading this blog post: http://dbaron.org/log/20130522-w3c-licensing -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 13:44:45 UTC