On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:07:40 +0100, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com 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
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/
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 01:50:35 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch 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
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 jungk...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM,
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
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 spent
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson jam...@google.com 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
On 12/02/2012 12:07 PM, Jungkee Song wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson jam...@google.com 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,
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
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
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
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
I object to this
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On
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 in
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
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
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch 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/
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
WD.
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
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
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com 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
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 version
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
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:34 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com 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
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:34:03 +0400, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
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
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
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
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch 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
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch 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
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
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:38:35 +0400, Jungkee Song
jungkee.s...@samsung.com 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
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl 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
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com 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
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
TheXHR Editors would like to publish a
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
On 11/23/12 5:36 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com 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
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
hallv...@opera.com 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
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com 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
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
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
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com 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
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com 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
(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?
I
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com]
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com 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
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nlwrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com 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
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off
Anne's work
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
My concern
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/
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:04:54 +0100, Tobie Langel to...@fb.com wrote:
On 11/22/12 2:01 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com 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
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
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html.
Agreement to this proposal:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com 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
54 matches
Mail list logo
