Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Adam Barth
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: >> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> >> My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off >>

Re: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

2012-11-23 Thread Ian Hickson
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > What I don't really understand, though, is why any of this is needed > > at all. What value is the W3C adding by creating these forks? > > The problem as I see it is that the WHATWG documents a

Re: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

2012-11-23 Thread Glenn Adams
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > What I don't really understand, though, is why any of this is needed at > all. What value is the W3C adding by creating these forks? > The problem as I see it is that the WHATWG documents are "living documents" and never final per se. If the

Re: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

2012-11-23 Thread Ian Hickson
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > Here's what I did for the URL spec re the boilerplate to help address > the "attribution issue" re Anne and WHATWG: > > [...] That's pretty good, though the Status of this Document boilerplate

Re: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

2012-11-23 Thread Glenn Adams
Is Anne the *sole* author? Did the WG or others not contribute any text or suggested text to the spec? It seems like a bit of a slippery slope to attempt to designate a sole author for any W3C product. You might want to check with the pubs team on this matter. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Art

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Glenn Adams
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off > >> Anne's work as our own. > > > > As I have pointed out ab

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Glenn Adams
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or > individual > > contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author in > the > > context of par

CfC: publish WD of Screen Orientation; deadline November 30

2012-11-23 Thread Arthur Barstow
Mounir prepared a new WD for The Screen Orientation API and this is a Call for Consensus to publish that WD<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/screen-orientation/raw-file/tip/published/20121123.html>. Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not neces

[admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

2012-11-23 Thread Arthur Barstow
[ Sorry for the delayed response, I was choking on some turkey ... ] Here's what I did for the URL spec re the boilerplate to help address the "attribution issue" re Anne and WHATWG: [[ This Version: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/raw-file/

RE: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Travis Leithead
> From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com] > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or > > individual contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work > > as author in the contex

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
(12/11/24 1:28), Adam Barth wrote: >> Now, that being said and seeing as we cannot put Anne as an editor of the >> W3C version of the spec (because, technically, he's not). How do you guys >> suggest we go about acknowledging the WHATWG source? Where in the spec? How? >> With what kind of wording?

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Adam Barth
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off >> Anne's work as our own. > > As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or individual > contributio

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or individual > contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author in the > context of participating in the W3C process, ... It seems you are missing the fact th

Re: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
> I would think that listing Anne as Editor or Former Editor and > listing Anne in an Acknowledgments paragraph should be entirely > consistent with all existing W3C practice. But it's not consistent with that existing W3C practice to get all the text for a spec from a document edited outside the

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Julian Aubourg
Hi all, In an ideal world, Anne would be the editor of the W3C version of the spec and that would be the end of it. Such is not the case. Anne is not the editor of the W3C version: he doesn't edit and/or publish anything related to the W3C XHR spec. Current editors do and while it's mostly brain-d

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Glenn Adams
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off > Anne's work as our own. > As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or individual contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author

Re: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Adam Barth
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen wrote: >>> Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing? >> >> I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is >> taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its >> own. > >

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Tobie Langel
On 11/23/12 5:36 PM, "Adam Barth" wrote: >However, we should be honest about the origin of the text and not try >to pass off Anne's work as our own. Or better yet, provide a canvas where Anne is able to do his work as part of the WebApps WG. --tobie

Re: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
>> Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing? > > I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is > taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its > own. Speaking as one of the W3C-editors of the spec: first I agree that crediting

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Adam Barth
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger wrote: >> > On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> >> TheXHR Editors would like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a >> >> Call for

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > If Anne's work was submitted to and prepared in the context of the WebApps > WG, then it is a product of the WG, and there is no obligation to refer to > other, prior or variant versions. To be clear, in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/shortlog "Mer

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Glenn Adams
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger wrote: > > On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > >> TheXHR Editors would like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a > >> Call for Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

2012-11-23 Thread Glenn Adams
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to > > this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. > > Putting my name as former editor while all the text is either written > by me or copied from me seems disingenu