Re: Call for Editor: URL spec

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> 
> Could be slightly more formal?
> You are speaking of "hypocrisy" but this seems like a matter of politeness, right?

I am just saying that the W3C claims to have certain values, but only 
applies those values to other people, not to itself. Specifically, the W3C 
says forking specifications is bad (and even goes out of its way to 
disallow it for its own), but then turns around and does it to other 
people's specifications.

hypocrysy (noun): The practice of claiming to have moral standards or 
beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.


I'm also claiming that when doing so, the W3C does not generally give 
credit where credit is due. For example, this document is basically 
written by Ms2ger:

   http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html

Here's the version maintained by Ms2ger, for comparison (the only 
differences I could find were editorial style issues, not even text -- 
basically just that the doc has been converted from the anolis style to 
the respec style):

   http://domparsing.spec.whatwg.org/

The most Ms2ger gets is a brief mention in the acknowledgements almost at 
the very end of the document. The WebApps working group gets a whole 
sentence above the fold: "This document was published by the Web 
Applications Working Group". The W3C has their logo right at the top and 
calls the draft a "W3C Editor's Draft".

plagiarism (noun): The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and 
passing them off as one's own.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 08:47:15 UTC