Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:19 PM, David Singer <> wrote:
> I know you’re not that immature, so perhaps you could re-phrase?

I've basically been told by W3C management and several WG chairs that
there's nothing I can do and they will continue republishing text I
wrote and licensed under CC0.

Since then I have not really followed what was happening at the
AC-level or WG level really. I heard from Dan he was going to fork URL
at some point and I told him I didn't like it. He did it anyway.

I spoke up in this thread to clarify a few points and make it clear
where I stand. At this point I don't actually expect anything to
change. Jeff has made that pretty clear to me.

> Finally, am I missing something, or is there a charter comment from Mozilla on <>? In fact, I don’t see any mention of VTT here from anyone, or indeed any opposition.  Do I have the wrong charter?

I was thinking about but
I forgot that David (the one at Mozilla ;-)) opted to leave this one
with the idea to pursue other matters.

> And on HTML licensing, my recollection is that actually Mozilla got what they originally asked for, and then later changed their minds, but this history is a lot more tangled and honestly I don’t want to spend a lot of time spelunking for evidence.

I don't think we ever asked for CC-BY, and we did not ask for it only
for extension specifications. However, I did make a mistake of not
doing due diligence when Robin asked me a question: I
wish they would have sooner verified that it was actually okay and not
days before the announcement, oh well.


Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 18:13:02 UTC