On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:52:20 +0100, Domenic Denicola
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
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