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

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
> >
> > I believe, and I expect that the vast majority of the W3C membership
> > believes, that there should be a single canonical version of the HTML
> > related specifications, and that the W3C both owns and is responsible
> > for publishing them.
>
> I'm not objecting to the W3C doing work. The W3C does tons of work, and
> that's great. All I'm objecting to is *copying people's work* and
> republishing it without the cooperation of those people.


It takes two sides to cooperate. I have seen no evidence that the W3C
WebApps editors do not want to cooperate. All I've seen is good faith
efforts to move specifications forward. Are you and ms2ger and other
authors operating in the WHATWG space willing to reciprocate?

On a separate but possibly related issue, neither I nor the W3C members I
represent would be willing to accept a normative reference to a document
that has only one pseudonymous author or where the primary author/editor is
an unidentified, such as http://domparsing.spec.whatwg.org. In this case,
the only options I see are:

   - ms2ger identifies themselves
   - ms2ger turns over primary author/editing to another identified person,
   but keeps the primary work in the WHATWG CG provided there is an adequate
   process for having a W3C REC that operates on one IPR policy refer to a
   document produced by a CG under a different IPR policy;
   - the w3c takes over the work of author/editing while giving attribution
   to the WHATWG CG as the source; it could also informatively make mention of
   ms2ger as the original author even without identification