W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2012

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

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:27:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dK66-uyecU5X=FWV+S0bKSky_A0yWoXOb-pD5kLE4O9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote:

> -public-webapps, +www-archive
> Hi Glenn,
> You wrote:
> > My position w.r.t WHATWG documents is that they should never be
> > referenced by a W3C document unless there is no other option. Why do I
> > say this? […T]he W3C should not reference a document for which the IPR
> > status is not sufficiently well defined[…]
> Is it your position that the IPR process of W3C Community Groups is not
> sufficiently well defined? Remember that the WHATWG is a Community
> Group here at the W3C:
>                   http://www.w3.org/community/whatwg/
It does not appear to me that the whatwg process is conducted as a W3C CG.
Part of my opinion on this is based on various statements of Ian and ms2ger
that appear to set the W3C and the WHATWG in opposition to one another. As
such, I do not have the perception that the work in WHATWG is being done as
part of W3C process.

But, as for IPR, I note that the IPR process of CGs is not the same as IPR
process for WGs, and that incorporating technical work of a CG into the
technical work of a WG does not appear to have a well defined process
(please correct me if I'm wrong).
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 00:28:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:38 UTC