- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 20:35:49 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- cc: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: > > For further clarification: > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > For example, see [1], especially Ian's statement (my emphasis): > > "I find the W3C's behaviour here to be increasingly "out of control", as > someone I spoke to recently put it. It's discourteous and uncivil. If > the W3C wants to write their own specs then that's fine, but stop > forking work done by other people who have no interest in working with > the W3C at this time. This is just plagiarism." > > > If Ian has no interest in working with the W3C I wasn't talking about my work. The W3C isn't plagiarising my work at the moment; in the WebApps group I provide a version of the spec directly and in the HTML group the editing team and I have an Understanding. There's tensions and I can't say any of us are really happy, but it's done with my involvement, at least. (My complaint about not crediting people does apply to me, e.g. in the references to the W3C HTML spec rather than the WHATWG one, though I don't really care much about getting credit; here also it's other people's credit that I am concerned about.) > then I don't know how the WHATWG is operating as a W3C CG. CGs can essentially operate completely independent of the W3C proper, so there's no contradiction there. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 20:36:17 UTC