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

On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 01:50:35 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote: ... This is just plagiarism. Ian, this accusation against colleagues of yours working in good faith is offensive, and it is untrue. It is therefore inappropriate for this mailing list. I will repeat, since you may have missed it, wh

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

On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: > > This is a formal warning. I do not support the chairs in this. I stand by Ms2ger. He has not acted inappropriately and his complaints are valid. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch

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

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:07:40 +0100, Ms2ger wrote: On 12/03/2012 01:44 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what process *should* be is off topic here. I find i

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

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012, Ms2ger wrote: > > I object to this publication because of this change: > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 I agree. That change is offensive. It gives credit to dozens of people who have done basically nothing productive at all, for work that a few of us have spe

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

On 12/03/2012 01:44 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what process *should* be is off topic here. I find it unfortunate that you try to cut off discussions rel

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

Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what process *should* be is off topic here. On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 12:07:20 +0100, Jungkee Song wrote: On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson S

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

On 12/02/2012 01:38 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 12/1/12 3:34 PM, ext Ms2ger wrote: I object to this publication because of this change: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 For a couple of years now, if a spec proposed for publication in TR includes a normative reference that hahas pub

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

On 12/1/12 3:34 PM, ext Ms2ger wrote: I object to this publication because of this change: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 For a couple of years now, if a spec proposed for publication in TR includes a normative reference that hahas published as a TR, PLH has insisted the referenc

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

On 12/02/2012 12:07 PM, Jungkee Song wrote: On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson wrote: Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here. I don't think it's a technical issue to discuss. There should be corresponding publication rules. Art, Charles, Doug, Can you he

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

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson wrote: > > Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here. I don't think it's a technical issue to discuss. There should be corresponding publication rules. Art, Charles, Doug, Can you help clarifying which links we have to use? In

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

I need to clarify one point: I don't mind W3C docs making informative references to WHATWG docs. For example, I wouldn't mind a W3C doc making a normative reference to a snapshot of a WHATWG doc that has been republished in the W3C while making an informative reference to its "living" counterpart i

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

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM, James Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: >>> > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger wrote: >>> >> I obje

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

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: >> > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger wrote: >> >> I object to this publication because of this change: >> >> >> >> http://d

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

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger wrote: > >> I object to this publication because of this change: > >> > >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 > >> > >> pushed with a mis

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

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger wrote: >> I object to this publication because of this change: >> >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 >> >> pushed with a misleading commit message. > > since you don't say what is misleading, an

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

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger wrote: > On 11/27/2012 02:16 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > >> On 11/27/12 12:21 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: >> >>> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:05 AM I think the next step is for the XHR

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

On 11/27/2012 02:16 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: On 11/27/12 12:21 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:05 AM I think the next step is for the XHR Editors to create a TR version using the WD template so that everyone can

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

On 11/27/12 12:21 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:05 AM I think the next step is for the XHR Editors to create a TR version using the WD template so that everyone can see exactly what is being proposed for publica

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

> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:05 AM > > I think the next step is for the XHR Editors to create a TR version > using the WD template so that everyone can see exactly what is being > proposed for publication as a TR. Please create that vers

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

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Ms2ger wrote: > On 11/26/2012 02:44 PM, Jungkee Song wrote: >>> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:46 PM >>> >>> On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: I suggest we put the following wordings for Ann

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

On 11/26/12 8:44 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:46 PM On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be credited. If we make consensus, let me

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

On 11/26/2012 02:44 PM, Jungkee Song wrote: From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:46 PM On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be credited. If we make consensus, let me u

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

> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com] > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:46 PM > > On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: > > I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be > credited. If we make consensus, let me use this content for publishing the

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

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > I don't know what "official" would mean here. I just meant the intent that > is behind my (and Anne's, I believe) advocacy of open licensing for > specifications. Yup. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/

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

On 11/26/12 1:38 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be credited. If we make consensus, let me use this content for publishing the WD. Please put your proposed text in a version of the spec we can review and send us the URL of that

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

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:38:35 +0400, Jungkee Song wrote: I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be credited. If we make consensus, let me use this content for publishing the WD. The proposed wording seems accurate enough to meet my "I can live with it" tes

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

y, November 24, 2012 2:44 AM > To: WebApps WG > Subject: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29 > > (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,

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

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote: > >> > >> The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public > >> domain for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them > >> u

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

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote: >> >> The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public domain >> for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them under close >> to no condition, not even credit. > > I can s

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

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote: > > The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public domain > for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them under close > to no condition, not even credit. I can speak pretty authoritatively to the intent, if that's what you

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

Le 25/11/2012 20:07, Kyle Huey a écrit : Have you read Adam Barth's contributions to this discussion? Sure, and I personally mostly agree with these points. He has summarized the point well, I think. There is a difference between what the license legally obligates one to do I talked very brie

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

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:34:03 +0400, David Bruant wrote: Le 22/11/2012 18:16, Ms2ger a écrit : 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 the WD template

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

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:34 AM, David Bruant wrote: > Le 22/11/2012 18:16, Ms2ger a écrit : > > 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 the >

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

Le 22/11/2012 18:16, Ms2ger a écrit : 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 the WD template) as the basis

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

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: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

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

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

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

> 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

(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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

>> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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 the >> WD template) as the basis >>

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

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 the WD template) as the basis . Agreement to this proposal:

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

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:04:54 +0100, Tobie Langel wrote: On 11/22/12 2:01 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 ... Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to

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

> 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 disingenuous. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/

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

On 11/22/12 2:01 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 the >WD template) as the basis >. > >Agreement to this propo