W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Invited expert and CG Contributor agreements

From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:04:46 +0300
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <149661418994286@webcorp01g.yandex-team.ru>
[snipped stuff for focus]

19.12.2014, 01:06, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>:
> On 2014-12-18 13:33, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>> š19.12.2014, 00:24, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>:

>>> šIt wouldn't be surprising that some feature is useful broadly in
>>> šmultiple contexts.
>> šYes.
>>> šššSomeone contributing that to W3C should not mean
>>> šthey can't also contribute their own work elsewhere for whatever purpose
>>> šthey choose.
>> šMaybe, maybe not. Let's see where the consensus is.
>>> šššThat paragraph should be removed - soon. ššI wouldn't
>>> šconsider agreeing to that as an IE either.
>> šIn my case it would depend on what I thought of and how much I trusted W3C. But there are obviously disadvantages if we're trying to get people to participate.
> I was thinking about use in other contexts entirely - so not related to
> trusting W3C or not. šLike, there's some algorithm the IE writes up that
> is useful in a W3C spec, but also useful in say a Python or Java API
> where they are also working (so, not taking anything anyone else
> contributed, just their own contribution, and using it elsewhere).

It would be a tough argument that doing something like that risks breaking interoperablity with W3C recommendations (although it could certainly be made) and probably even tougher to argue that it casts doubt on the status of the W3C spec.

I don't think it's a big issue in practice.


Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 13:05:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:25 UTC