On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:52:20 +0100, Domenic Denicola <dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

As for *where* the work is done, I will be working within the context of the WHATWG to produce this specification. My understanding is that usually the W3C picks some point in time to fork WHATWG specifications into W3C ones, changes some minor details (such as removing authorship information and changing the genders used in examples), then advancing it through the usual ED/WD/LCWD/CR/PR/REC track in order to get patent disclosure.

Err, no.

Although this has happened, it is not the usual pattern and is not the way this or other Working Groups try to work.

I'm very interested in ensuring patent disclosure for the streams specification, so I hope someone takes on this work, but I do not think it would be a good use of my time to do so, as from what I understand there are people at the W3C who have this process down to an art.

You seem to have misunderstood the point of the Working Group. Although Art is pretty efficient at publishing documents where the editor doesn't do the work required, he is under no obligation to do so and it is not a goal of the Working Group to spend his time on that.

The idea is that the Working Group discusses the issues it has, reaches consensus (typically this happens because technical people come to an agreement by discussing things, although e.g. on "bikeshed" issues it can be more painful and need to be done by some formal process), and produces a specification. It is not an assumption that people in this Working Group are also following WHATWG, and there are likely to be important contributors who are not doing so.

Where specs have been taken to WHATWG (e.g. XHR) the development is essentially independent, converging to the extent that the two communities come to the same conclusions.

You're welcome to work where and (within requirements that may be made by each community) how you want. But the effective way to provide your specification with the patent commitments made by W3C members is to do the work within the W3C process. W3C members make no commitment to specs that do not go through that process, and you should not assume that a spec developed elsewhere will automatically be considered - the quid pro quo of the patent commitments made by W3C members is a deliberate choice to take up any given work item.



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
      cha...@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Reply via email to