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

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> 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.


ok, but i can't help but hearing an US vs THEM theme here; i certainly
don't have the perception that the WHATWG is operating as a W3C entity or
within W3C process