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: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:01:56 -0500
Message-ID: <547542A4.2010208@w3.org>
To: 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>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>

On 11/24/2014 10:30 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 7:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> I don't recall that we were discussing hypotheticals in that meeting.
>>> That's surprising to say the least. We've discussed that exact
>>> scenario several more times afterwards.
>> Your previous comment and my response related to "that meeting".
> That is why I used the word "more".
>
>
>> I agree that we've discussed numerous proposals and as you know W3C has been
>> trying hard to find one that works for all involved.  I don't recall Sam's
>> specific proposal which I believe has elements which make it more workable.
> I know of no such thing. In fact, last time this was discussed W3C
> didn't even get back to me.

I apologize if there was a misunderstanding.  Here are my understandings.

When I say we discussed numerous proposals I include:

  * Discussions you, Philippe, and I had on the Sunday of the Shenzhen
    TPAC meeting
  * Discussions that Philippe told me he was having with you and Mike
    Champion later that meeting.
  * Discussions that Robin told me he was having with you and Domenic a
    couple of months ago relative to URL.

When you say "the last time this was discussed W3C didn't even get back 
to me", I was not in the middle of the conversation so I can't say, but 
I apologize on behalf of my colleagues.  I assume this was the URL 
discussion from a couple of months ago.

As I understand it, there had been some progress but at a point in time 
we heard there was an insistence in having a subtitle on the document 
"For government officials and patent lawyers only". My impression was 
that this was a hard element of disagreement because it was required by 
WHATWG but unacceptable to us.

I find it odd that this was never communicated back to you, but as I 
said, I apologize for it.

Personally, it is not my style to leave people hanging so I encourage 
you to reach out to me if this happens to you again.

>   I also don't see how Sam's proposal is
> different.
>

I don't know the previous proposal in detail, but at least one element 
of difference is that it does not have the subtitle on it. I also think 
that the method of having the commits done outside the WG first is a 
novel approach; but perhaps that was in the previous proposal which I 
did not see.
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 03:02:14 UTC

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