W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2014

Re: PSA: Sam Ruby is co-Editor of URL spec

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:57:46 -0500
Message-ID: <54738DBA.6080303@w3.org>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "lehors@us.ibm.com >> Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM" <lehors@us.ibm.com>, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
[adding Mike]

On 11/24/2014 12:59 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:30 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>   I also don't see how Sam's proposal is
>> different.
> I believe the main difference with Sam's proposal compared to past
> attempts is the sponsorship dimension, specifically the "No editing"
> part.
> The W3C Membership agreement is talking about joint work developed
> between the W3C hosts and the Member. But, in the case of no editing, I
> wouldn't think that it applies.

Yes, this is part of why I said earlier that Sam's proposal has several 
elements that seem to mean (AFAICT) that this is a workable solution.

But it is complex, and there are similar situations that seem to 
conflict with existing agreements.  So I respect Anne's desire to get 
complete clarify before we get started.  As Anne said, getting a clear 
statement from W3C that there are no issues with Sam's approach is 
reasonable and necessary.

Sam originally floated a proposal in his blog - but also suggested that 
he was open to proposal modifications.  On one of the threads, Mike 
floated a joint repo idea.  While this is attractive from the 
perspective of partnering; it is possible that it might stimulate some 
of the derivative spec issues which could potentially cause an issue (I 
say potentially because I don't know enough about the proposal yet to 

At some point, the thread should coalesce down to a specific proposal 
that we all agree is the best approach (personally I thought Sam's was 
pretty close to the pin already).  Once we have agreed on that - Anne is 
right - we should get a clear W3C formal statement that it works.  
AFAICT Sam's original proposal works and if we can agree to that - I'll 
be happy to take it to formal legal review.

> Philippe
Received on Monday, 24 November 2014 19:57:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:35:06 UTC