- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:14:39 +0200
- To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+d2swd9_tiDnoS7uz3Wxfspu2Bb+dzc_y0SA9i7=dbhNA@mail.gmail.com>
WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs. Their IPR status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus process. On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Domenic Denicola < domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > This is a formal objection to the publication of this specification. > > My arguments against publishing this specification include that copying > the spec from the WHATWG is an unnecessarily combative way of working with > another standards body, especially with regard to the URL Standard wherein > we/they have been trying hard to address the issues of IP coverage and > stable references on the W3C's terms. I would rather see this talked > through and agreement come to regarding how the W3C can work to reference > WHATWG specs in the same way that they reference Ecma or IETF specs. > > On the technical side, I argue that previous efforts to copy WHATWG specs, > even well-intentioned ones like the DOM, have led to out-of-date snapshots > permeating the internet, and causing developer and implementer confusion. > (See links in [1]; see also the contrast between one implementer's policies > at [2] and another's at [3].) We can't even fall back to "never look at TR > because it is always out of date; use ED instead!" because in the case of > e.g. DOM "4", the ED is five months out of date. > > I acknowledge that Dan is going to great lengths to make sure that this > copying is done "right", insofar as it can be. E.g., he is copying not > plagiarizing; he is stating that he wants feedback to flow through the > upstream version instead of diverging; and he says that he will add more > clear signposting to the document to help direct implementers and > developers to the upstream version. However, I think this plan is merely a > band-aid on a larger problem, akin to feeding the W3C's spec-copying > addiction with a nicotine patch instead of a full-on cancer stick. An > improvement, but I'd really prefer we break the addiction entirely. > > There are a number of remedies that would address this formal objection. > The most preferable would be for the W3C to work amicably with the WHATWG > to figure out a way to treat them and their specs as legitimate, instead of > constantly copying them. This could include e.g. issuing a call to the AC > reps in the webapps working group to commit to patent protection via the > WHATWG's patent mechanism [4]. In the category of "these proposals MAY be > vague or incomplete" [5], I would like the W3C to consider seriously how to > react to the world wherein standards best serve the web by being living, > and find some way to get out of the outmoded and bug-encouraging mode of > thinking that stands behind "stable references." > > An alternate way of addressing the formal objection would be outline a > very clear process for avoiding the dangers that have cropped up in > previous WHATWG copies. This would include, among other things: an > automated system for ensuring that the latest version of the upstream spec > is always copied to TR; a blacklisting of outdated snapshots from search > engines via robots.txt; some way of dealing with the fact that webapps > patent commitments will be made to an outdated snapshot, but that snapshot > should not be given any prominence for implementers or authors visiting the > W3C website; and a public acknowledgement that implementers should not look > at any outdated snapshots such as CR (so, the normal "call for > implementations" would have to be modified, so we don't get ridiculous > situations like HTML 5.0 is currently undergoing where you call for > implementations of a spec that is multiple years behind what > implementations actually need to implement for interoperability). > > [1]: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/TR_strikes_again > [2]: https://github.com/mozilla/servo/wiki/Relevant-spec-links > [3]: http://status.modern.ie/ > [4]: http://blog.whatwg.org/make-patent-commitments > [5]: http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#FormalObjection > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 18:40 > To: public-webapps; www-tag@w3.org > Subject: PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec > > [ Sorry for the cross-posting but this is about a joint WD publication > between WebApps and TAG. ] > > This is heads-up (aka PublicServiceAnnoucement) about the intent to > publish a new WD of the URL spec (on or around Sept 16) using this ED as > the basis: > > <http://w3ctag.github.io/url/> > > As previously agree, and codified in WebApps' current [Charter], the WD > will be published jointly by WebApps and the TAG. > > I realize some people do not support W3C publishing the URL spec, so as > reminder - as defined in WebApps' off-topic discussion policy > ([OffTopic]) - if anyone has any _process-type_ comments, concerns, etc. > about this publication - please send that feedback to the public-w3process > list [w3process]. Please do _not_ send such feedback to public-webapps nor > www-tag. > > -Thanks, AB > > [Charter] <http://www.w3.org/2014/06/webapps-charter.html#liaisons> > [OffTopic] > <https://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WorkMode#Off-Topic_Discussion_Policy > > > [w3process] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/> > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2014 22:15:27 UTC