T.J. Crowder wrote:
I referenced a link in my first email, but a better one arose
later in the day. You can view what's happening, beginning with
the following email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0215.html
Well, that supports what I wrote in my original reply and then removed
(but kept) because I wanted to see what Ms. Powers was talking about
first.
Yes, that was my bad. I conflated two issues--the legalities of the
organizations and the confusion surrounding the WhatWG references in the
W3C spec (not to mention the issues surrounding the HTML5 copyright).
My reasoning behind referencing the legalities was more to reassure
people that if the W3C responded by removing the WhatWG references, the
WhatWG can't "take" the HTML5 specification back. Ian Hickson may choose
to no longer participate, but what we have in the W3C remains, regardless.
I handled the reassurance poorly, though, in my initial email.
What I wrote was:
FWIW, completely agree that there must be one specification for
HTML5. Unless the W3C is prepared to step back and let the WhatWG
take ownership, that spec must be "owned" by the W3C. Pages like
this one
[http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/] are
very confusing. I've seen it cited in online discussions as "the
HTML5 standard" (and why shouldn't someone think it was? It says
"draft standard" on it).
The work of the WhatWG is extremely important, it has driven and
continues to drive this process forward where HTML had been under-
and mis-specified for years. That work needs to be credited and
honored, but as HTML5 is becoming the new baseline, there needs to
be a single definitive source of normative information about it,
with other sources of draft /proposals/ (not standards, not
specifications) very, very clearly labelled as such.
That's a feasible suggestion.
Having a competing "specification" is a sure route to fracture and
failure. I hope no one wants that. Those of us relying on these
standards certainly don't.
I am in complete agreement. I think it is time to ask Apple, Mozilla,
and Opera if they're in agreement, too.
--
T.J. Crowder
Shelley
Independent Software Consultant
tj / crowder software / com
www.crowdersoftware.com <http://www.crowdersoftware.com>
On 9 June 2010 15:24, Shelley Powers <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
T.J. Crowder wrote:
These references provides points of confusion, as well as
opening
the door for problems exactly like that, which has happened
this
week: the editor disagrees with a decision, and makes a
modification to "his" version of the HTML5 spec that
generates FUD
regarding HTML5.
Pardon my ignorance, but what issue was that?
I referenced a link in my first email, but a better one arose
later in the day. You can view what's happening, beginning with
the following email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0215.html
A second email triggered further discussion, beginning at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0215.html
Shelley
--
T.J. Crowder
Independent Software Consultant
tj / crowder software / com
www.crowdersoftware.com <http://www.crowdersoftware.com>
<http://www.crowdersoftware.com>
On 9 June 2010 14:45, Shelley Powers <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
Bijan Parsia wrote:
Hi Shelly,
I'm not sure that the legal status of the groups
can't be
so easily
dismissed. Not in this particular instance, when
we're no
longer sure
who does have a right to lay claim to copyright of
HTML5.
My point is solely that the legal status of a group is not
necessary in this case to ground the proposed action nor,
afaict, is it sufficient. It runs the risk of providing an
overbroad rule that then gets only applied in a single
case.
Point taken.
It's not necessary because the relevant legal issues do not
turn on the legal status of the WHATWG (e.g., ownership
of the
spec text; the WHATWG is not a candidate owner). It's not
sufficient because I presume that even if the WHATWG
changed
its legal status (which it could easily do by incorporating
in, say, the US or affiliating with a host
organization), that
people would object to the denigrating text (however
accurate).
AFAIK, signing the membership agreement does not assign
copyright to the W3C for work done on W3C specs, but only
licenses it:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#holds
So I believe your assertion to copyright ownership is
incorrect.
Could very well be, as I said: I'm not a lawyer. But it is an
important issue that has been left unanswered.
It seems that your argument about whether certain
classes of
links to the WHATWG specs and space are inappropriate or
confusing are quite independent of the precise
organizational
nature of the WHATWG. I.e., they are arguments about
substance, the particular behavior of this particular
group,
not form (i.e., that they are not incorporated). I'm
unclear
whether you think that the W3C should adopt as a matter of
policy "no parallel specs with any external organization".
That *is* formal, but as we've really only had one case
(though WS-I profiling is an interestingly related
case) and
there's ample issues to discuss there, I'd personally
prefer
to stick with the core substantive issues. I would
object to
introducing new formal constraints along the suggested
lines
because I can think of many situations both historical and
prospective where I don't want them in place.
Your point is good.
If I've read correctly elsewhere, the licensing issues
associated
with HTML5 are being discussed, so I'll drop that as an
argument.
My main concern is removing all references to the WhatWG
from the
HTML5 specification, other than a link in the acknowledgment
section. This includes references to the WhatWG version of the
document, to the WhatWG email list, to the WhatWG copyright
statement, to the WhatWG Subversion directory, and to the
editor's
own personal little stash of HTML5 "issues".
These references provides points of confusion, as well as
opening
the door for problems exactly like that, which has happened
this
week: the editor disagrees with a decision, and makes a
modification to "his" version of the HTML5 spec that
generates FUD
regarding HTML5.
At a minimum, if these references are moved, and the editor
chooses to degenerate the W3C effort in the future, he can
do so,
and all he's doing is undermining his own credibility, and the
credibility of the so-called "member" organizations (Mozilla,
Opera, and Apple) for the WhatWG.
Cheers,
Bijan.
Regards
Shelley
