W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Document License prohibits profiles?

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:22:56 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

[...switching from QAWG to QAIG list...]

At 06:37 PM 11/4/2004 +0100, Karl Dubost wrote:

>Le 04 nov. 2004, à 16:46, david_marston@us.ibm.com a écrit :
>>LH>I think a profile is certainly a derivative work of its base standard
>>LH> -- it defines a subset of the base standard.  Is it a derivative in
>>LH>the sense of the Document License?  I don't know.
>>IANAL and I don't know definitively either, but I lean toward the profile
>>*not* being a derivative work. It is not standing in place of the base
>What happens if a profile is redefining a profile which has already been 
>defined contradicting the first profile?

That's a secondary issue, IMO.  Or rather there are two possibilities:

1.) bad:  the new profile identifies itself, in the document as well as in 
content (e.g., the SVG 'baseProfile' attribute) identically as the old 
profile.  Or confusingly similar.  Example of bad:  original profile is 
identified as SVGTiny, and new profile calls itself SVGTiny2.

2.) okay:  the new profile clearly identifies itself and distinguishes 
itself from the original profile.  ("Identify" means not only the name, but 
also scope, goals, intended audience, and relationship to similar work.)

W3C should definitely prohibit #1 -- it creates confusion and (in the case 
that the base profile is published by W3C) usurps the W3C brand.

#2 is actually being done in practice, by a family of technical profiles 
that are closely related, but which have a few slightly differing 
requirements.  It helps ensure maximum convergence and similarity of the 
profiles, within the constraints of slightly different requirements.

Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:03:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:23 UTC