Re: Call for Editor: URL spec
On 11/06/2012 08:02 AM, Adam Barth wrote: Does the WebApps Working Group plan do either of these things? A) Put in technical effort to improve the specification Unlikely. B) License the fork in such a way as to let me merge improvements into my copy Definitely not. HTH Ms2ger
Re: Call for Editor: URL spec
Ian, Could be slightly more formal? You are speaking of hypocrisy but this seems like a matter of politeness, right? Or are you actually claiming that there's a license breach? That there are different mechanisms at WHATWG and W3C is not really new. Paul Le 6 nov. 2012 à 02:42, Ian Hickson a écrit : In the meantime, W3C is copying Anne's work in several specs, to It seems like W3C groups copying WHATWG's work has been ongoing for several years (so I think this is old news, especially since, AFAIU, it is permissiable, perhaps even encouraged? via the WHATWG copyright) ;-). In the past (and for some specs still today), it was done by the editor (e.g. me), as dual-publication. What's new news now is that the W3C does this without the editor's participation, and more importantly, while simultaneously decrying the evils of forking specifications, and with virtually no credit to the person doing the actual work. It's this hypocrisy that is new and notable.
Re: Call for Editor: URL spec
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Paul Libbrecht wrote: Could be slightly more formal? You are speaking of hypocrisy but this seems like a matter of politeness, right? I am just saying that the W3C claims to have certain values, but only applies those values to other people, not to itself. Specifically, the W3C says forking specifications is bad (and even goes out of its way to disallow it for its own), but then turns around and does it to other people's specifications. hypocrysy (noun): The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense. I'm also claiming that when doing so, the W3C does not generally give credit where credit is due. For example, this document is basically written by Ms2ger: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html Here's the version maintained by Ms2ger, for comparison (the only differences I could find were editorial style issues, not even text -- basically just that the doc has been converted from the anolis style to the respec style): http://domparsing.spec.whatwg.org/ The most Ms2ger gets is a brief mention in the acknowledgements almost at the very end of the document. The WebApps working group gets a whole sentence above the fold: This document was published by the Web Applications Working Group. The W3C has their logo right at the top and calls the draft a W3C Editor's Draft. plagiarism (noun): The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Call for Editor: URL spec
On 6 November 2012 09:46, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Paul Libbrecht wrote: Could be slightly more formal? You are speaking of hypocrisy but this seems like a matter of politeness, right? I am just saying that the W3C claims to have certain values, but only applies those values to other people, not to itself. Specifically, the W3C says forking specifications is bad (and even goes out of its way to disallow it for its own), but then turns around and does it to other people's specifications. hypocrysy (noun): The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense. I'm also claiming that when doing so, the W3C does not generally give credit where credit is due. For example, this document is basically written by Ms2ger: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/innerhtml/raw-file/tip/index.html Here's the version maintained by Ms2ger, for comparison (the only differences I could find were editorial style issues, not even text -- basically just that the doc has been converted from the anolis style to the respec style): http://domparsing.spec.whatwg.org/ The most Ms2ger gets is a brief mention in the acknowledgements almost at the very end of the document. The WebApps working group gets a whole sentence above the fold: This document was published by the Web Applications Working Group. The W3C has their logo right at the top and calls the draft a W3C Editor's Draft. plagiarism (noun): The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. ^^ (citation needed) :) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Giving Credit Where Credit is Due [Was: Re: Call for Editor: URL spec]
On 11/6/12 3:46 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: the W3C does not generally give credit where credit is due. This issue has been bothering me for a while, so thanks for raising it. I agree proper attribution is a problem that needs to be addressed in the WG's versions of these specs (URL, DOM4, etc.). My sincere apologies to those Editors that are not getting appropriate credit for their contributions. -Thanks, AB
W3C document license [Was: Re: Call for Editor: URL spec]
On 11/6/12 3:23 AM, ext Ms2ger wrote: On 11/06/2012 08:02 AM, Adam Barth wrote: Does the WebApps Working Group plan do either of these things? A) Put in technical effort to improve the specification Unlikely. My expectation is that public-webapps will continue to be one venue for comments about the spec. If a credible Editor does not commit to moving the spec along the REC track, then I believe one option is for the WG to publish the spec. That is, don't specifically identify an Editor. Regardless, as I stated previously, proper attribution is needed. B) License the fork in such a way as to let me merge improvements into my copy Definitely not. I am not aware of any changes nor impending changes to the W3C's Document license policy WebApps follows. -AB
Re: W3C document license [Was: Re: Call for Editor: URL spec]
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:57:38 +0100, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: On 11/06/2012 08:02 AM, Adam Barth wrote: Does the WebApps Working Group plan do either of these things? B) License the fork in such a way as to let me merge improvements into my copy I am not aware of any changes nor impending changes to the W3C's Document license policy WebApps follows. Actually there are efforts being made to change the document license. But they are not in the scope of this group. If you're a W3C member then you should already know how the organisation changes itself. If not, you're still welcome to e.g. the W3C Process Community Group, where among other people the CEO, and the current editor of the Process Document, actually listen to what people say and engage in discussion. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Re: Call for Editor: URL spec
On 2012-11-05 12:46, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi All, We need an Editor(s) to move WebApps' URL spec towards Recommendation. If you are interested in this Editor position, please contact me offlist. -Thanks, AB [URL] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/ Is this about the URI above or about http://url.spec.whatwg.org/? Best regards, Julian
Re: Call for Editor: URL spec
On 11/5/12 7:29 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-11-05 12:46, Arthur Barstow wrote: Hi All, We need an Editor(s) to move WebApps' URL spec towards Recommendation. If you are interested in this Editor position, please contact me offlist. -Thanks, AB [URL] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/ Is this about the URI above or about http://url.spec.whatwg.org/? Yes, my expectation is WebApps will use the work Anne is doing. -AB
Re: Call for Editor: URL spec
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: On 11/5/12 7:29 AM, ext Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-11-05 12:46, Arthur Barstow wrote: We need an Editor(s) to move WebApps' URL spec towards Recommendation. If you are interested in this Editor position, please contact me offlist. -Thanks, AB [URL] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/ Is this about the URI above or about http://url.spec.whatwg.org/? Yes, my expectation is WebApps will use the work Anne is doing. Is there some reason Anne isn't going to edit the spec? Adam
Re: Call for Editor: URL spec
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote: Is there some reason Anne isn't going to edit the spec? Anne isn't doing the work in WebApps, because he no longer works for a member company, and the Invited Expert agreement is more restrictive in ways that are important to him (it doesn't allow you to co-publish your work under a freer license), and the W3C wasn't willing to offer an exception. So, he's left the W3C until he can join under a more favorable contract, and in the meantime is doing all of his work in the WHATWG, which does allow him to publish with a free license. In the meantime, W3C is copying Anne's work in several specs, to maintain the silly illusion that they're the ones working on these topics. (We're supposed to ignore the hypocrisy in forking someone else's spec, when the whole reason he left is because they wouldn't let him fork his own spec.) ~TJ
Re: Call for Editor: URL spec
On 11/5/12 5:47 PM, ext Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: In the meantime, W3C is copying Anne's work in several specs, to It seems like W3C groups copying WHATWG's work has been ongoing for several years (so I think this is old news, especially since, AFAIU, it is permissiable, perhaps even encouraged? via the WHATWG copyright) ;-). I certainly appreciate Anne's contributions to open Web standards and hope he continues his great contributions. -Thanks, AB
Re: Call for Editor: URL spec
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 11/5/12 5:47 PM, ext Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: In the meantime, W3C is copying Anne's work in several specs, to It seems like W3C groups copying WHATWG's work has been ongoing for several years (so I think this is old news, especially since, AFAIU, it is permissiable, perhaps even encouraged? via the WHATWG copyright) ;-). In the past (and for some specs still today), it was done by the editor (e.g. me), as dual-publication. What's new news now is that the W3C does this without the editor's participation, and more importantly, while simultaneously decrying the evils of forking specifications, and with virtually no credit to the person doing the actual work. It's this hypocrisy that is new and notable. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Call for Editor: URL spec
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: On 11/5/12 5:47 PM, ext Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: In the meantime, W3C is copying Anne's work in several specs, to It seems like W3C groups copying WHATWG's work has been ongoing for several years (so I think this is old news, especially since, AFAIU, it is permissiable, perhaps even encouraged? via the WHATWG copyright) ;-). For my part, I don't mind Anne forking my URL spec given that he plans to put in the effort to improve the document. I appreciate that he's licensed his fork in such a way as to let me merge his improvements into my copy of the spec if I choose. Does the WebApps Working Group plan do either of these things? A) Put in technical effort to improve the specification B) License the fork in such a way as to let me merge improvements into my copy I realize that I did not choose a license for my work that imposes these requirements as a matter of law. Adam
