- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:32:27 +0100
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, "Martin J." <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>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: > This depends on the kind of fork. As always, there as pros and cons and > the goal here is to avoid fragmentation. For encoding, I understand that > the I18n working group has no interest in modifying the document and > fragment the Web. Their main motivation is to have and maintain a > snapshot of the encoding specification, for the sake of providing stable > references. As such, the cost of forking is low. I agree that the risk > isn't null but I believe it is a lot lower that the fragmentation cost > around HTML for example. The main reason being that there are various > differences between the WHATWG HTML and the W3C HTML, while I don't > think it is the case for Encoding. I don't think there's much in the form of a guarantee here. > You read "not recommended" as "must not do it". We never said that. If > we wanted to say that, we would have kept the W3C document license > instead. "not recommended" needs to be read as "SHOULD NOT (see RFC > 2119)", ie there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances > when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful. W3C has > always granted permission to copy its specifications. The dual license > still allows you to do so. This use is actually not harmful to > interoperability and the cost is minimal. If you believe that this is > not well represented or understood in the HTML FAQ, I'm happy to clarify > it. None of this is an argument for why you believe you can override the SHOULD NOT. > I don't think it's fair for an individual to work within a working group > on a specification, independently of where it originated or contributed > from, and then ask the Group to withdraw his or her contributions > afterwards. The document license was there at the beginning of the > charter, didn't change recently in the i18n wg, and the Group was > getting ready to publish it as a FPWD. It would be highly problematic if > organizations or individuals can withdraw simply contributions at any > time. I do realize that your position might cause some headaches in > terms of maintaining the snapshots over time however. I'm not sure what you're saying here. As far as groups of the W3C I'm involved with goes, I'm only a participant of the W3C TAG. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 13:32:55 UTC