- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:03:46 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote: >>> >>> Now look at this URL: >>> >>> http://www.hixie.ch/specs/xbl/XBL2.html >>> >>> It does NOT have a Member-only designation. >> >> It uses the member only stylesheet, it's a member only document, if >> that's really the defence for ignoring W3 process, it's a pretty poor >> one. > > The stylesheet is not proof that the document is Member-only. All that > means is that someone may have used a stripped down Member-only document > as a template for another document. Also, even if you assume this one > stylesheet reference is proof it is Member-only content, you have no > proof that Ian knew it was Member-only, as you'd have to be looking > carefully at the source to determine this. This is _way_ off-topic but for what it's worth: The XBL spec on my site was on my site for about two years before the W3C picked up the XBL work. I had been updating the spec, with David Hyatt and others, with the intention of working on it through the CSS working group. It bore the W3C member-only header during this time, although that was meaningless as the spec was not W3C work and I just needed a stylesheet so it would look readable. Last March, the CSS and SVG working groups decided to use my (then public, non-W3C) spec as the basis for W3C work on XBL. I continued editing that spec as part of this work. I added a stylesheet that said it was an unofficial W3C working draft. Several people, using some sort of twisted logic that I am still unable to understand, complained to the W3C that this work was W3C work and therefore should only be available to people who had spent the $50000 membership fee (or had, like myself, managed to get themselves invited into the W3C), and that having it available on my site somehow was a bad thing (maybe it was too convenient, or might somehow encourage public feedback). These complaints were forwarded, without attribution, to me. I asked W3C people if they wanted me to pull the content or password-protect it in some way, they said they did not mind that I did not. Since I use the copy on my site to do the editing, I find it convenient to have it there, so I left it. I don't know whether that work is technically member-only or not. The spec on my site is a direct descendent of the version that David Hyatt and I submitted to the W3C back when we were both AOL employees, and has been public for years. In _any_ case, my apparent inability to keep things secret is unlikely to translate into an inability to keep things open, so I really don't see how this issue is in any way a _problem_ for WHATWG... -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 09:03:46 UTC