- From: Ben Laurie <ben@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:28:25 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
- Cc: ben@algroup.co.uk, w3c-dist-auth@www10.w3.org, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, moore+iesg@cs.utk.edu
Jim Whitehead wrote: > > At 11:01 AM 1/6/97, Ben Laurie wrote: > >Jim Whitehead wrote: > >> Some issues that arose: > >> - I conveyed the group's desire to receive sponsorship from both the W3C > >> and the IETF. Keith and Harald wanted to know exactly what this meant -- > >> which procedures would be followed, who would control documents, etc. I > >> stated that the IETF procedures and guidelines would be the ones followed. > >> The benefit from W3C sponsorship would be to receive greater review and > >> exposure in the Web community. Documents would be initially prepared > >> according to IETF guidelines, then mirrored to the W3C. There was some > >> concern that being a W3C working group would mean that working group > >> documents could be kept hidden, which is contrary to the spirit and rules > >> of the IETF. I reaffirmed our position that the WEBDAV working group is > >> open, producing open intermediate and final documents, and that this would > >> not change under W3C sponsorship. > > > >I'm somewhat surprised by this idea. Firstly, is it really the group's desire > >to be sponsored by W3C? I've seen no opinions expressed either way. > > The opinion of the group, as expressed at the Palo Alto meeting, was that > we should pursue joint sponsorship by the IETF and the W3C. This was > written in the minutes from the Palo Alto meeting (Day 2, 2nd paragraph). Hmmm. I can't find these minutes, but my records are far from perfect. Was this meeting a W3C meeting, by any chance? I notice that the recent meeting seems only to have been asked about IETF sponsorship. > > >Are you suggesting that W3C members do > >not take IETF standards to be definitive? > > No. > > If you received this impression, then it is due to a deficiency in my > communication to the mailing list. > > How did you receive this impression? I don't know. I suppose its because W3C doesn't tell me what its up to, which makes me sceptical about its dedication to open standards, combined with my surprise that joint sponsorship was contemplated. > > >I'd also suggest that since W3C operates in a way which is contrary to the > >IETF's practices, that it is not necessarily in the IETF's best interests to > >endorse W3C in this way. > > I view sponsorship of the DAV activity as endorsement of the goal of > developing a standard way to perform remote authoring and versioning of Web > content, rather than any statement about the IETF endorsing the W3C, or > vice-versa. That may be the way you view it, and very possibly the way I view it, too. But is it the way the world views it? Furthermore, I am not convinced that W3C adds any value to the IETF process. Cheers, Ben. -- Ben Laurie Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435 Email: ben@algroup.co.uk Freelance Consultant and Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472 Technical Director URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL A.L. Digital Ltd, Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org) London, England. Apache-SSL author
Received on Monday, 6 January 1997 16:37:45 UTC