Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> >> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
> >> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
> >> WD template) as the basis
> >> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>.
> >>
> >> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
> >> WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the
> >> WD.
> >>
> >> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
> >> to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
> >>
> >> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
> >> will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
> >
> > I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec
> on
> > whatwg.org.
>
> I agree.  The W3C should not be in the business of plagiarizing the
> work of others.
>

Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing?


>
> plagiarism. n. The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and
> passing them off as one's own.



>
> The Status of this Document section should state clearly that this
> document is not an original work of authorship of the W3C.


The SotD section need only refer to the working group that produced the
document. Authorship is not noted or tracked in W3C documents.

If Anne's work was submitted to and prepared in the context of the WebApps
WG, then it is a product of the WG, and there is no obligation to refer to
other, prior or variant versions.

Referring to an earlier, draft version published outside of the W3C process
does not serve any purpose nor is it required by the W3C Process.

If there is a question on the status of the Copyright declaration of the
material or its origin, then that should be taken up by the W3C Pubs team.

G.