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

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
> 
> It takes two sides to cooperate.

Right. And if only one side wants to cooperate, then the only appropriate 
reaction is to respect their wishes and not copy it.


> I have seen no evidence that the W3C WebApps editors do not want to 
> cooperate.

Do you see evidence that the editors of the specs they're copying don't 
want them copied, though?


> All I've seen is good faith efforts to move specifications forward.

It isn't moving anything forward. It's just copying. There is absolutely 
nothing productive about just copying people's work.

Please stop this disingenous nonsense of calling it "moving the 
specification forward" when it is absolutely nothing of the sort.


> Are you and ms2ger and other authors operating in the WHATWG space 
> willing to reciprocate?

I am (and do), Ms2ger is apparently not. RESPECT HIS WISHES. That's all 
I'm asking. This is elementary politeness and professionalism.


> 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/.

Then *do your own work to write an alternative spec*, don't copy his 
work. Copying his work doesn't stop that the text was written by a 
pseudonymous author. Changing the editor line to give the names of the 
people who copied the line doesn't change who wrote it, it's just a lie.


> 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

Here's another option:

- The W3C does its own work and leaves Ms2ger to do whatever work he 
wants to do.

The W3C has absolutely no authority over what Ms2ger does. Or indeed 
anyone else.

But in my opinion, the name issue is gibberish. Who wrote the spec has 
absolutely no bearing on its quality, and if your employer can't recognise 
that then that's your problem, not the spec's.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 03:49:51 UTC