Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 here. I find it unfortunate that you try to cut off discussions relevant to technical issues with our specifications by calling them process discussions. And we the chairs find it unfortunate that you continue to bombard the working group with discussions of and objections based on process, simply because there are technical considerations to what the process of this organisation should be. This is a formal warning. The discussion is off topic, so please desist. From my understanding reasons for the practice include the following: - W3C aims to provide stable specifications that can be used as references which won't change. This is a general underpinning of its policy for specifications published as TR documents. Making a normative reference to an unstable document obviously defeats this purpose. The argument that TR documents are in some way more stable than other documents is simply fallacious. This has been discussed at length here and in other venues; By stable, we mean are formally published as a stable reference. The technical issues this brings up, as I said in this thread, are known. I won't go into it again. Thank you. In this working group, please apply the same approach to other discussions of W3C process. Furthermore, I should point out that referencing the TR draft of WebIDL would (if anybody tried to implement the TR spec and its TR references; nobody does, of course) lead to a specification that is not implementable. The WebIDL used in XHR is not valid according to the 19 April 2012 CR of WebIDL. [...] [chaals' example of currently unwritten requirements] I find this comparison, in particular, to be unhelpful and rather rude. I'm sorry. If you'd like to discuss this further, in an appropriate forum, I will endeavour to find a comparison more to your taste. Otherwise, please accept my apologies. Nobody is suggesting using expletives in specifications. The only parallel I can imagine with the current situation is that some people seem offended by the existence of the WHATWG, and for some reason want to make sure no W3C publication ever mentions it. This is a misrepresentation of the facts, unless you have special knowledge of some person's individual motivation. In particular, both the chairs and many others have repeatedly expressed that credit should be given where credit is due, and in particular that appropriate references to WHAT-WG documents on the same topic are the sort of thing that should be in the spec, because that kind of reference is expected of socially competent adults. This is a currently accepted consensus of the group, and I do not recall having seen any dissent. It is also an extension of the discussion, and an inappropriate ascription of motives to others. The question here is whether WHAT-WG documents are suitable as *normative references for W3C specifications*. I had hoped we had been able to come to a somewhat more mature relationship between this WG and the WHATWG after the recent discussions about attribution, but changes like this make me lose confidence in the goals of the W3C Team and the chairs of this WG on this matter. That is unfortunate. I maintain my technical objections to the publication. The chairs maintain that your objection is not technical. In any event, we draw your attention to the sentence [[[ Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the Working Group MAY request publication of a Working Draft even if it is unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements. ]]] - http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#first-wd in section 7.4.1 of the process document. We note your objection, and resolve to publish the Working Draft. for the chairs Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
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/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 missed it, what I said [1] in an earlier side-branch of this thread discussing how credit should be given to Anne for his work on this specification. The general principle is that we expect to give credit for contribution (but recognise that this is always an approximation). This is orthogonal to W3C's referencing policy for specifications. The process, and W3C's publication rules, are off-topic for this working group. If you want to discuss issues, please do so in the relevant forum. You are able to write to the Advisory Board, request Google's Advisory Committee representative to raise the issue. Anybody can participate directly in the W3Process Community Group[3]. [[[ In particular I note consensus that we don't want to misrepresent contribution to the work. I considered it obvious - it is how civil adults work and it is an accepted part of W3C process and practice. On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 00:34:02 +0400, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: Is Anne the *sole* author? As I understand it, Anne wrote the words of various specifications. In other words, the person whose artistic expression is reflected in the document. Although various bits of boilerplate are just pattern repetition. he also did a significant proportion of the testing, thinking, and developing the content at a conceptual level. But no, I believe other people did parts of this work, unless Anne simply ignored anything other people had already done, or we accept that by repeating other people's work he has produced original work, which runs against what I believe is a common definition. In particular, other people contributed information to Anne as members of the Webapps working group - with an understanding that the resulting documents would be published by that working group. To try and whitewash that out of history seems to be somewhere down the slippery slope of plagiarism. Nobody has suggested that the contributions of those beyond the working group should be ignored or misrepresented, the arguments have been about the precise editorial details of how that is done - what is generally called wordsmithing or bikeshedding (depending on whether it is us or them doing it). ]]] [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0574.html [2] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/ I note that I have now raised the issue of pubrules with Philippe le Hegaret, and expect that the document will be clarified. Since W3C works by consensus of its stakeholders, this is unlikely to happen instantly, but I will continue to follow the issue. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
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 jungk...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson jam...@google.com 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. Right. Although there are technical aspects to the discussion, it is a process issue. There should be corresponding publication rules. We could hassle W3C into updating pubrules so it is clear. I have take the action item. Art, Charles, Doug, Can you help clarifying which links we have to use? By longstanding practice W3C specifications point where possible to references where W3C provides change control, its own guarantee of permanence, and its patent policy. General practice is to point to stable documents in normative references (e.g. the latest /TR version of something), allowing informative references to more or less anything you think is interesting. Until people started playing politics to the point of trying to usurp change control through parallel references it seems nobody was terribly worried about this. The requirement isn't documented in pubrules last I looked, but by process W3C could change that with 10 minutes of work. I am not even sure that the rationale is clearly documented in any one place at the moment. Like the rest of W3C it has developed over a couple of decades. From my understanding reasons for the practice include the following: - W3C aims to provide stable specifications that can be used as references which won't change. This is a general underpinning of its policy for specifications published as TR documents. Making a normative reference to an unstable document obviously defeats this purpose. - Since 2005 W3C patent commitments are given by W3C participants to the work of W3C working groups. Unstable documents that from time to time have, or had, more or less equivalent content, are not a replacement for those who care about W3C's IPR policy - which includes people far beyond the scope of W3C's own membership. Although WHAT-WG is a Community Group, its living standard model has explicitly disavowed making a final specification. This seriously limits patent commitment even from its own members. - A couple of years ago, W3C was granted PAS submission status, after applying for this at the urging of many of its members and of non-member consumers of its specifications. This relies on lots of things, but one of them is a certain clarity of process. ISO accepted W3C's process. I don't know if they would be prepared to accept that of the WHAT-WG. I don't even know anyone who cares enough to find out. In the meantime, I suspect this is another reason not to make normative references to the WHAT-WG's work and in particular to unstable documents. In the proposed version, I've changed the links to the following specs: - [CORS], [DOM], [DOMPS], [HTML] from the WHATWG version to the latest W3C TR doc. - [FILEAPI], [PROGRESSEVENTS], [WEBIDL] from the latest W3C ED to the latest W3C TR doc. I think that was reasonable. If any of those documents don't carry a link to their W3C editors' drafts, it might be useful to also provide them as an *informative* reference. That commit replaced a link to http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/, last updated roughly a week ago, with a link to http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/ which is dated January 17th and is missing an entire section (section 6). This change does not affect any links in the result doc, and in fact this proposed publication will reduce the gap. The proposed WD is aligned with the WHATWG version except: - Progress Events is not merged but staying as a separate spec. Seems reasonable. As I said in one-on-one conversation at TPAC (and maybe repeated for minutes - I forget), I would prefer not to merge these. If this is controversial we can raise an issue on it. - Streams API is deferred to next version. You mean next version of XHR, or next draft of this spec? Either way, I don't see that this should stop publication. - The last three commits (Nov 22) in WHATWG has not been incorporated yet. We're publishing a Working Draft. And we are happy to produce a stabilised version and work on a new one. We want better specs, but making perfection the enemy of getting a spec good enough to use is not a goal. It also replaced a link to http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/# with http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/# which is similarly out of date by the better part of a year and lacking handling for some HTTP status codes. Every single reference updated in this commit changed the document to point to an out-of-date and less valuable resource. It seems that you, like the author of the commit message, mistakenly
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 relevant to technical issues with our specifications by calling them process discussions. From my understanding reasons for the practice include the following: - W3C aims to provide stable specifications that can be used as references which won't change. This is a general underpinning of its policy for specifications published as TR documents. Making a normative reference to an unstable document obviously defeats this purpose. The argument that TR documents are in some way more stable than other documents is simply fallacious. This has been discussed at length here and in other venues; I won't go into it again. Furthermore, I should point out that referencing the TR draft of WebIDL would (if anybody tried to implement the TR spec and its TR references; nobody does, of course) lead to a specification that is not implementable. The WebIDL used in XHR is not valid according to the 19 April 2012 CR of WebIDL. - A couple of years ago, W3C was granted PAS submission status, after applying for this at the urging of many of its members and of non-member consumers of its specifications. This relies on lots of things, but one of them is a certain clarity of process. ISO accepted W3C's process. I don't know if they would be prepared to accept that of the WHAT-WG. I don't even know anyone who cares enough to find out. In the meantime, I suspect this is another reason not to make normative references to the WHAT-WG's work and in particular to unstable documents. I do not see how this is relevant; I though the process was clear, and that it did not censor references to particular organizations. That's not in the W3C pub rules or a good idea. It isn't written there, although it has been applied for as long as I can remember (which stretches back to before pubrules was a document). I would love to hear examples of where such a rule was applied before the W3C started co-publishing WHATWG specifications; in particular, cases where the W3C publication was significantly out-of-date in comparison to the alternative. To the extent W3C thinks this should apply, they should indeed write it in there, since it has recently become contentious. As long as the rule doesn't exist, one can hardly expect editors to comply with it. If we expect editors to simply do as we did before, we'd be stuck with DOM2-style specifications; I think we all agree that would not be good for interoperability. Pubrules doesn't, as far as I know, prohibit f-bombs in specs. W3C working group members, including editors, are expected to be socially competent adults, which is a catch-all for what would otherwise be an endless set of statements like people who know not to use the 'f word' in a spec even without a written rule. (If I recall correctly this is in section 3.1 of the process document. It certainly isn't worth looking up). I find this comparison, in particular, to be unhelpful and rather rude. Nobody is suggesting using expletives in specifications. The only parallel I can imagine with the current situation is that some people seem offended by the existence of the WHATWG, and for some reason want to make sure no W3C publication ever mentions it. I had hoped we had been able to come to a somewhat more mature relationship between this WG and the WHATWG after the recent discussions about attribution, but changes like this make me lose confidence in the goals of the W3C Team and the chairs of this WG on this matter. I maintain my technical objections to the publication. HTH Ms2ger
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 spent years doing. I find the W3C's behaviour here to be increasingly out of control, as someone I spoke to recently put it. It's discourteous and uncivil. If the W3C wants to write their own specs then that's fine, but stop forking work done by other people who have no interest in working with the W3C at this time. This is just plagiarism. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 have to use? In the proposed version, I've changed the links to the following specs: - [CORS], [DOM], [DOMPS], [HTML] from the WHATWG version to the latest W3C TR doc. - [FILEAPI], [PROGRESSEVENTS], [WEBIDL] from the latest W3C ED to the latest W3C TR doc. That commit replaced a link to http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/, last updated roughly a week ago, with a link to http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/ which is dated January 17th and is missing an entire section (section 6). This change does not affect any links in the result doc, and in fact this proposed publication will reduce the gap. The proposed WD is aligned with the WHATWG version except: - Progress Events is not merged but staying as a separate spec. - Streams API is deferred to next version. - The last three commits (Nov 22) in WHATWG has not been incorporated yet. Jungkee It also replaced a link to http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/# with http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/# which is similarly out of date by the better part of a year and lacking handling for some HTTP status codes. Every single reference updated in this commit changed the document to point to an out-of-date and less valuable resource. It seems that you, like the author of the commit message, mistakenly think it's a goal to replace all links to point to W3C resources even when they are strictly worse. That's not in the W3C pub rules or a good idea. - James
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 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 have to use? In the proposed version, I've changed the links to the following specs: - [CORS], [DOM], [DOMPS], [HTML] from the WHATWG version to the latest W3C TR doc. - [FILEAPI], [PROGRESSEVENTS], [WEBIDL] from the latest W3C ED to the latest W3C TR doc. Please revert all those changes. Thank you Ms2ger
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 reference needs to be a W3C document (TR or ED). (I'm pretty sure a small number of references to non W3C documents slipped through but I consider those mistakes.) I asked Jungkee to make the reference changes to the TR versions so thanks Jungkee for the patch. It would be OK with me if the references were changed to W3C EDs. Would that take care of your objection? -AB
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 published as a TR, PLH has insisted the reference needs to be a W3C document (TR or ED). (I'm pretty sure a small number of references to non W3C documents slipped through but I consider those mistakes.) I asked Jungkee to make the reference changes to the TR versions so thanks Jungkee for the patch. It would be OK with me if the references were changed to W3C EDs. Would that take care of your objection? No. I'd love to hear from plh why he would not leave decisions like these to the WG. Ms2ger
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 see exactly what is being proposed for publication as a TR. Please create that version as soon as you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version. (Please use 6 December 2012 as the publication date.) We prepared a proposed TR version at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/TR/Overview.html Thanks Jungkee. All - http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/TR/Overview.html is the document proposed for publication as a TR and thus is the basis for this CfC. I object to this publication because of this change: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 pushed with a misleading commit message. Thanks Ms2ger
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 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 as soon as you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version. (Please use 6 December 2012 as the publication date.) We prepared a proposed TR version at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-**file/tip/TR/Overview.htmlhttp://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/TR/Overview.html Thanks Jungkee. All - http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/**raw-file/tip/TR/Overview.htmlhttp://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/TR/Overview.html is the document proposed for publication as a TR and thus is the basis for this CfC. I object to this publication because of this change: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/**2341e31323a4http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/rev/2341e31323a4 pushed with a misleading commit message. since you don't say what is misleading, and since commit messages are irrelevant for W3C process, this objection is immaterial
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 what is misleading, and since commit messages are irrelevant for W3C process, this objection is immaterial Ms2ger objected to the change, not the commit message, so your objection to the objection is misplaced. However, the commit message isn't long, so it's not difficult to puzzle out what ey might be referring to. In this case, it's the implication that changing a bunch of normative references from WHATWG specs to W3C copies of the specs is somehow necessary according to pubrules. ~TJ
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 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, and since commit messages are irrelevant for W3C process, this objection is immaterial Ms2ger objected to the change, not the commit message, so your objection to the objection is misplaced. However, the commit message isn't long, so it's not difficult to puzzle out what ey might be referring to. In this case, it's the implication that changing a bunch of normative references from WHATWG specs to W3C copies of the specs is somehow necessary according to pubrules. Then whomever ms2ger is should say so. In any case, there is no reason to reference a WHATWG document if there is a W3C counterpart. Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here. That commit replaced a link to http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/, last updated roughly a week ago, with a link to http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/ which is dated January 17th and is missing an entire section (section 6). It also replaced a link to http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/# with http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/# which is similarly out of date by the better part of a year and lacking handling for some HTTP status codes. Every single reference updated in this commit changed the document to point to an out-of-date and less valuable resource. It seems that you, like the author of the commit message, mistakenly think it's a goal to replace all links to point to W3C resources even when they are strictly worse. That's not in the W3C pub rules or a good idea. - James
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 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 what is misleading, and since commit messages are irrelevant for W3C process, this objection is immaterial Ms2ger objected to the change, not the commit message, so your objection to the objection is misplaced. However, the commit message isn't long, so it's not difficult to puzzle out what ey might be referring to. In this case, it's the implication that changing a bunch of normative references from WHATWG specs to W3C copies of the specs is somehow necessary according to pubrules. Then whomever ms2ger is should say so. In any case, there is no reason to reference a WHATWG document if there is a W3C counterpart. Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here. That commit replaced a link to http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/, last updated roughly a week ago, with a link to http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/which is dated January 17th and is missing an entire section (section 6). It also replaced a link to http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/# with http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/# which is similarly out of date by the better part of a year and lacking handling for some HTTP status codes. Every single reference updated in this commit changed the document to point to an out-of-date and less valuable resource. It seems that you, like the author of the commit message, mistakenly think it's a goal to replace all links to point to W3C resources even when they are strictly worse. That's not in the W3C pub rules or a good idea. I didn't suggest this was demanded by pubrules, and indeed, I pointed out in a prior message that the pub rules do not dictate what documents or referenced. My position w.r.t WHATWG documents is that they should never be referenced by a W3C document unless there is no other option. Why do I say this? Because WHATWG documents are never final, at least according their principals. The W3C should not reference a document that is by definition never going to reach a final state, at least that is my opinion. Further, the W3C should not reference a document for which the IPR status is not sufficiently well defined, again this is my opinion. You or others may disagree. In the cases in point, someone needs to determine if the referenced documents will continue to move forward in the W3C, and if so, then they need to be updated according to the W3C Process rules. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0501.html
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 in the WHATWG. On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: 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 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 what is misleading, and since commit messages are irrelevant for W3C process, this objection is immaterial Ms2ger objected to the change, not the commit message, so your objection to the objection is misplaced. However, the commit message isn't long, so it's not difficult to puzzle out what ey might be referring to. In this case, it's the implication that changing a bunch of normative references from WHATWG specs to W3C copies of the specs is somehow necessary according to pubrules. Then whomever ms2ger is should say so. In any case, there is no reason to reference a WHATWG document if there is a W3C counterpart. Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here. That commit replaced a link to http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/, last updated roughly a week ago, with a link to http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/which is dated January 17th and is missing an entire section (section 6). It also replaced a link to http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/# with http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/# which is similarly out of date by the better part of a year and lacking handling for some HTTP status codes. Every single reference updated in this commit changed the document to point to an out-of-date and less valuable resource. It seems that you, like the author of the commit message, mistakenly think it's a goal to replace all links to point to W3C resources even when they are strictly worse. That's not in the W3C pub rules or a good idea. I didn't suggest this was demanded by pubrules, and indeed, I pointed out in a prior message that the pub rules do not dictate what documents or referenced. My position w.r.t WHATWG documents is that they should never be referenced by a W3C document unless there is no other option. Why do I say this? Because WHATWG documents are never final, at least according their principals. The W3C should not reference a document that is by definition never going to reach a final state, at least that is my opinion. Further, the W3C should not reference a document for which the IPR status is not sufficiently well defined, again this is my opinion. You or others may disagree. In the cases in point, someone needs to determine if the referenced documents will continue to move forward in the W3C, and if so, then they need to be updated according to the W3C Process rules. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0501.html
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 publication as a TR. Please create that version as soon as you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version. (Please use 6 December 2012 as the publication date.) We prepared a proposed TR version at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/TR/Overview.html Thanks Jungkee. All - http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/TR/Overview.html is the document proposed for publication as a TR and thus is the basis for this CfC. -Thanks, AB
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 version. -Thanks, AB
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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/
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 WD. Please put your proposed text in a version of the spec we can review and send us the URL of that version. Please find the version at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html Jungkee
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 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 version. Please find the version at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html Thanks, this looks a lot better. However, I'd also like to see a link to the source in the dl in the header. Thanks Ms2ger
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 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 version. Please find the version at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html Thanks Jungkee. 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 as soon as you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version. (Please use 6 December 2012 as the publication date.) -Thanks, AB
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 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 version. Please find the version at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html Thanks, this looks a lot better. Yes. Thanks for addressing my concern. Adam However, I'd also like to see a link to the source in the dl in the header. Thanks Ms2ger
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 version as soon as you can so that this CfC can be based on that version (rather than the ED) and reply with the URL of the TR version. (Please use 6 December 2012 as the publication date.) We prepared a proposed TR version at: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/TR/Overview.html Thank you. Jungkee -Thanks, AB
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 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html. Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on whatwg.org. I'm unfamiliar with the W3C process, so sorry if my question is stupid, but why would it be necessary? (I assume you're talking about http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/) Quoting http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/ Editor: Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl CC0 To the extent possible under law, the editor has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. In addition, as of 22 November 2012, the editor has made this specification available under the Open Web Foundation Agreement Version 1.0, which is available at http://www.openwebfoundation.org/legal/the-owf-1-0-agreements/owfa-1-0. Quoting http://www.openwebfoundation.org/legal/the-owf-1-0-agreements/owfa-1-0 (emphasis is mine) 2.1. Copyright Grant. I grant to you a perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright), worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, copyright license, *without any obligation for accounting to me*, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement the Specification to the full extent of my copyright interest in the Specification. This wording makes pretty clear that pointing to the whatwg spec isn't required or necessary or anything. It would be pretty hypocritical to put some work under CC0/public domain/OWFAV1.0 and expect or even demand to be credited. Some licences (CC-BY as an example) require crediting the original author. I assume a purposeful choice has been made by Anne and the WHATWG to put the work under a licence that doesn't have such a requirement. Choosing a licence applied to some work shows an intention of how one expects the work to be reused. The intention here is pretty clear and says I don't care of being credited. Choosing a licence is a serious choice with serious implications. If the WHATWG expects credit, maybe it should consider re-licence its work (which would be easy given the current licence ;-) ) to a licence expressing more clearly this intent instead of expecting others to guess the intent and throwing accusations of plagiarism. David
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 using the WD template) as the basis http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/**raw-file/tip/Overview.htmlhttp://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html . Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on whatwg.org. I'm unfamiliar with the W3C process, so sorry if my question is stupid, but why would it be necessary? (I assume you're talking about http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/) Quoting http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/ Editor: Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl CC0 To the extent possible under law, the editor has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. In addition, as of 22 November 2012, the editor has made this specification available under the Open Web Foundation Agreement Version 1.0, which is available at http://www.openwebfoundation.**org/legal/the-owf-1-0-**agreements/owfa-1-0http://www.openwebfoundation.org/legal/the-owf-1-0-agreements/owfa-1-0. Quoting http://www.openwebfoundation.**org/legal/the-owf-1-0-** agreements/owfa-1-0http://www.openwebfoundation.org/legal/the-owf-1-0-agreements/owfa-1-0(emphasis is mine) 2.1. Copyright Grant. I grant to you a perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright), worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, copyright license, *without any obligation for accounting to me*, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement the Specification to the full extent of my copyright interest in the Specification. This wording makes pretty clear that pointing to the whatwg spec isn't required or necessary or anything. It would be pretty hypocritical to put some work under CC0/public domain/OWFAV1.0 and expect or even demand to be credited. Some licences (CC-BY as an example) require crediting the original author. I assume a purposeful choice has been made by Anne and the WHATWG to put the work under a licence that doesn't have such a requirement. Choosing a licence applied to some work shows an intention of how one expects the work to be reused. The intention here is pretty clear and says I don't care of being credited. Choosing a licence is a serious choice with serious implications. If the WHATWG expects credit, maybe it should consider re-licence its work (which would be easy given the current licence ;-) ) to a licence expressing more clearly this intent instead of expecting others to guess the intent and throwing accusations of plagiarism. David Have you read Adam Barth's contributions to this discussion? He has summarized the point well, I think. There is a difference between what the license legally obligates one to do and what professionals working in good faith towards similar goals do. - Kyle
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 using the WD template) as the basis http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html. Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on whatwg.org. I'm unfamiliar with the W3C process, so sorry if my question is stupid, but why would it be necessary? It isn't, for the reasons you point out. But it is good manners to make some reasonable acknowledgement of contribution, and therefore considered a requirement in practice. (I'm unconvinced that this group's time should be spent on the finer nuances of exactly what that text should be and where it should go, but that an acknowledgement is required I consider settled question). cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
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 briefly in terms of legally and spent more time talking about author intent on purpose. As I said, licences have a legal part to them, but also (and mostly?) convey an intent. Actually, Anne made extremely clear what he meant in a recent post [1]: Most of the WHATWG documents are published in the public domain (CC0 for countries that do not recognize the public domain). I think this is important because these are documents that define part of the architecture of the web. Nobody and no organization should be entitled to them. 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. and what professionals working in good faith towards similar goals do. Now, after discussing the author intention, we can discuss what professionals working in good faith do, but we're starting to get in a blurry field where people from different cultures will have very different definitions of what professional, work and good faith mean. Adam Barth has his definition (which I agree with, by the way). It appears from the latest messages on this thread that the W3C agrees with his definition so everything is fine. In case the W3C didn't agree (which it was initially accused of), maybe adding the WHATWG definition of what professionals working in good faith do to its licence (as a show of intention, the legal part would just be a side effect) could clear up cross-cultural ambiguities and remove a good share of conflicts. Once again, publishing work under public domain and expecting others to respect mystical things like what professionals working in good faith do is hypocritical. If you expect someone else to behave is some way, the first step is expressing your expectations (the licence being one clear way to do so), not expecting others to guess! Especially not on the web where people from so many different cultures meet! Clearly communicating intent and expectations is something I'd expect from professionals working in good faith. I'm glad it happened in this thread, I'm sad it took conflicts and tensions. David Ps : The importance of the intention behind a licence (besides the purely legal aspect) can be seen elsewhere as the example of the AGPL Licence and the Neo4J interpretation shows: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6500925/agpl-license-question-re-neo4j [1] http://annevankesteren.nl/2012/11/copyright
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 are interested in. The relevant philosophy in the WHATWG context is multi-pronged: 1: Specs should be reusable in software, documentation, tutorials, and the like, without any barrier, whether free software or proprietary software, whether in books printed for money or FAQs that are themselves free to copy, whether in online courses with $10,000 entry fees or demos on street corners that are organised by marketing departments. 2: A spec author can go bad without realising it, so it should be possible to fork a specification if that happens, without the author having any control over this. 3: Forking specifications, publishing multiple copies of specifications, and publishing easy-to-find-with-a-search-engine snapshots of specifications, are all things that hurt interoperability by making implementors reference different requirements. The only time that forking a specification is justified is #2 above. We use open licenses on our specifications because of #1 and #2. We can't legally prevent #3 while allowing #1 and #2, so we rely on common sense and good faith to achieve #3. HTH, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 can speak pretty authoritatively to the intent, if that's what you are interested in. The relevant philosophy in the WHATWG context is multi-pronged: 1: Specs should be reusable in software, documentation, tutorials, and the like, without any barrier, whether free software or proprietary software, whether in books printed for money or FAQs that are themselves free to copy, whether in online courses with $10,000 entry fees or demos on street corners that are organised by marketing departments. 2: A spec author can go bad without realising it, so it should be possible to fork a specification if that happens, without the author having any control over this. 3: Forking specifications, publishing multiple copies of specifications, and publishing easy-to-find-with-a-search-engine snapshots of specifications, are all things that hurt interoperability by making implementors reference different requirements. The only time that forking a specification is justified is #2 above. We use open licenses on our specifications because of #1 and #2. We can't legally prevent #3 while allowing #1 and #2, so we rely on common sense and good faith to achieve #3. I'm not sure in what capacity you are writing this. However I'll note that not everyone at least at Mozilla agree with #3. I forget exactly what policies govern WHATWG, but I don't know if the above can be considered an official WHATWG policy. / Jonas
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 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 can speak pretty authoritatively to the intent, if that's what you are interested in. The relevant philosophy in the WHATWG context is multi-pronged: 1: Specs should be reusable in software, documentation, tutorials, and the like, without any barrier, whether free software or proprietary software, whether in books printed for money or FAQs that are themselves free to copy, whether in online courses with $10,000 entry fees or demos on street corners that are organised by marketing departments. 2: A spec author can go bad without realising it, so it should be possible to fork a specification if that happens, without the author having any control over this. 3: Forking specifications, publishing multiple copies of specifications, and publishing easy-to-find-with-a-search-engine snapshots of specifications, are all things that hurt interoperability by making implementors reference different requirements. The only time that forking a specification is justified is #2 above. We use open licenses on our specifications because of #1 and #2. We can't legally prevent #3 while allowing #1 and #2, so we rely on common sense and good faith to achieve #3. I'm not sure in what capacity you are writing this. [...] I forget exactly what policies govern WHATWG, but I don't know if the above can be considered an official WHATWG policy. 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. However I'll note that not everyone at least at Mozilla agree with #3. #3 is actually the most empirically testable one, at least the first sentence of it. Given the number of e-mails I get from implementors asking me questions with links to outdated snapshots of specs they found via search engines, where their question was already answered by the editor's draft of that spec, I don't really see how it can be controversial. :-) What do you think justifies having multiple copies of a spec? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
RE: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
Hi, 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. As the co-Editors of W3C XHR spec wrote in the threads, we have our role and contribution in moving this spec toward the W3C REC. Up to the moment, we mostly had to take care of the gaps between W3C version and WHATWG version to make them convergent. We will try to make more productive discussions along the way from this point on. [Status of this Document] This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/. If you wish to make comments regarding this document in a manner that is tracked by the W3C, please submit them via using our public bug database ( https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=WebAppsWG), or please send comments to public-webapps@w3.org (archived) with [XHR] at the start of the subject line. The bulk of the text of this specification is also available in the WHATWG *XMLHttpRequest Living Standard (link to the whatwg spec)*, under a license that permits reuse of the specification text. *The W3C Web Applications Working Group is the W3C working group responsible for this specification's progress along the W3C Recommendation track.* This specification is the 22 November 2012 Editor's Draft. Publication as an Editor's Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress. *Work on this specification is also done at the WHATWG. The W3C Web Applications working group actively pursues convergence of XMLHttpRequest specification with the WHATWG.* This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy. This document supersedes XMLHttpRequest 1. [Acknowledgments] +Special thanks to Anne van Kesteren who has provided nearly all the contents until he stepped down as a W3C editor and is now in succession providing discussions and contents as the editor of the XMLHttpRequest Living Standard in WHATWG which this version of the specification pursues convergence. Jungkee -Original Message- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu [mailto:kangh...@oupeng.com] Sent: Saturday, 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, 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 would recommend acknowledging the WHATWG upfront in the Status of this Document. The document currently reads: ---8--- This document is produced by the Web Applications (WebApps) Working Group. The WebApps Working Group is part of the Rich Web Clients Activity in the W3C Interaction Domain. ---8--- Just in case folks don't know. HTML5 also has a paragraph like this in the Status of this Document: # The bulk of the text of this specification is also available in the # WHATWG HTML Living Standard, under a license that permits reuse of # the specification text. Another possibility is to say something like | Anne van Kesteran authored most of the text in the spec. in the Acknowledgment section. I'd note that in CSS specs an Acknowledgment section is not always just a list of names and so suppose this is doable. I'm not pushing for this though, as I find this quite obvious. Perhaps Anne would be willing to suggest some text that he would find appropriate? +1, or perhaps Anne would like to object to this CfC no matter what? Cheers, Kenny -- Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 can live with it test. As the co-Editors of W3C XHR spec wrote in the threads, we have our role and contribution in moving this spec toward the W3C REC. Up to the moment, we mostly had to take care of the gaps between W3C version and WHATWG version to make them convergent. We will try to make more productive discussions along the way from this point on. Indeed. Thank you chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 disingenuous. note that the label editor does not imply authorship; authors of W3C specs do not necessarily correspond to editors; in other cases in the W3C where editors change over the document's lifetime, all of the editors are often listed without marking which are current and which are not current; perhaps that would serve here, i.e., just include Anne in the list of editors
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 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: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on whatwg.org. I agree. The W3C should not be in the business of plagiarizing the work of others. Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing? plagiarism. n. The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. The Status of this Document section should state clearly that this document is not an original work of authorship of the W3C. The SotD section need only refer to the working group that produced the document. Authorship is not noted or tracked in W3C documents. 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. Referring to an earlier, draft version published outside of the W3C process does not serve any purpose nor is it required by the W3C Process. If there is a question on the status of the Copyright declaration of the material or its origin, then that should be taken up by the W3C Pubs team. G.
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/shortlog Merge Anne's change is referring to edits I made to http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/ and have then been copied over. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 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: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on whatwg.org. I agree. The W3C should not be in the business of plagiarizing the work of others. 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. That is plagiarism, and we should not do it. plagiarism. n. The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. The Status of this Document section should state clearly that this document is not an original work of authorship of the W3C. The SotD section need only refer to the working group that produced the document. Authorship is not noted or tracked in W3C documents. 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. Referring to an earlier, draft version published outside of the W3C process does not serve any purpose nor is it required by the W3C Process. Legally, we are under no obligation to acknowledge Anne's work. However, we should be honest about the origin of the text and not try to pass off Anne's work as our own. More pointedly: plagiarism is not illegal but that doesn't mean we should do it. If there is a question on the status of the Copyright declaration of the material or its origin, then that should be taken up by the W3C Pubs team. My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off Anne's work as our own. Adam
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 needs to be sorted out, and that Anne should be credited in a way that better reflects his contributions. I appreciate that Ms2ger points this out during the RfC. Secondly, I think it's a bit harsh to say that we take his work without his permission - legally I believe the WHATWG deliberately publishes under a licence that allows this, and on a moral and practical basis as W3C-editors intend to collaborate with Anne in the best possible way under a situation that's not really by our design, we involve him in discussions, appreciate his input, I've also sent pull requests on GitHub to keep the specs in sync and intend to continue to do so. I hope that claiming that we act without Anne's permission depicts a working environment that's less constructive than what we're both aiming for and achieving. -- Hallvord R. M. Steen Core tester, Opera Software
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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
Re: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 own. Speaking as one of the W3C-editors of the spec: first I agree that crediting needs to be sorted out, and that Anne should be credited in a way that better reflects his contributions. I appreciate that Ms2ger points this out during the RfC. Secondly, I think it's a bit harsh to say that we take his work without his permission - legally I believe the WHATWG deliberately publishes under a licence that allows this, and on a moral and practical basis as W3C-editors intend to collaborate with Anne in the best possible way under a situation that's not really by our design, we involve him in discussions, appreciate his input, I've also sent pull requests on GitHub to keep the specs in sync and intend to continue to do so. I hope that claiming that we act without Anne's permission depicts a working environment that's less constructive than what we're both aiming for and achieving. I'm happy that you and Anne have a productive working relationship. My comment is based on this message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0538.html Perhaps I should have moved the phrase without his permission to the end of the sentence. Adam
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 work as author in the context of participating in the W3C process, then there is no obligation to acknowledge that, though there is a long standing practice of including an Acknowledgments section or paragraph that enumerates contributors. 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. Are you asking for more than this? And if so, then what is the basis for that?
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-dead copy/paste, some decisions (especially regarding spec merging) are to be made W3C-side. Current editors also act as first-level reviewers and actually give Anne feedback. To be honest, I hate this situation. As far as I'm concerned, Anne *is* the author of the XHR spec but, AFAIK, there is no standardized way to acknowledge this in W3C documents nor does the WHATWG Licensing makes it mandatory. As a side note, as an open source developper, I can understand why. If the specs are on public repos and accept pull requests (or diffs, or whatever), then the very notion of authorship becomes a bit blurry. Anyway, I'm one of the co-editor of the W3C XHR spec and I don't claim to be the author of anything in the spec. I'm more interested in pushing the spec forward than achieving glory. I accepted the co-editor position to help because help was needed. So while I empathize with the whole W3C plagiarizes WHATWG outrage, could this conversation be held where it belongs? That is far upper the food chain than this WG. 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? -- Julian Aubourg On 23 November 2012 17:36, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote: 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 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: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on whatwg.org. I agree. The W3C should not be in the business of plagiarizing the work of others. 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. That is plagiarism, and we should not do it. plagiarism. n. The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. The Status of this Document section should state clearly that this document is not an original work of authorship of the W3C. The SotD section need only refer to the working group that produced the document. Authorship is not noted or tracked in W3C documents. 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. Referring to an earlier, draft version published outside of the W3C process does not serve any purpose nor is it required by the W3C Process. Legally, we are under no obligation to acknowledge Anne's work. However, we should be honest about the origin of the text and not try to pass off Anne's work as our own. More pointedly: plagiarism is not illegal but that doesn't mean we should do it. If there is a question on the status of the Copyright declaration of the material or its origin, then that should be taken up by the W3C Pubs team. My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off Anne's work as our own. Adam
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 WG. Hence, it's a fair suggestion that we have a new look at how authors and editors are credited. (Of course the current W3C-editors also intend to contribute whatever we can to the spec, test suite and process, and I think this discussion risks manufacturing a conflict that doesn't really exist.) -- Hallvord R. M. Steen Core tester, Opera Software
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 missing the fact that I am neither a Member nor an Invited Expert of this WG since August this year. The W3C does have the legal right to publish my work, since I publish it under CC0, but the way the W3C goes about it is not appreciated. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 or individual contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author in the context of participating in the W3C process, This premise is false. We're discussing the work that he is currently performing outside the W3C process. Specifically, the changes noted as Merge Anne's change in the past 11 days: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/shortlog then there is no obligation to acknowledge that, though there is a long standing practice of including an Acknowledgments section or paragraph that enumerates contributors. 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. Are you asking for more than this? Yes. I'm asking for the Status of this Document section more honestly convene the origin of the text in the document by stating that this document is based in part (or in whole) on http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/. And if so, then what is the basis for that? As I wrote before, not doing the above is taking Anne's work and passing it off as our own. That's plagiarism, and we shouldn't do it. If this working group isn't comfortable stating the truth about this origin of this document, then we shouldn't publish the document at all. On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Julian Aubourg j...@ubourg.net wrote: 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-dead copy/paste, some decisions (especially regarding spec merging) are to be made W3C-side. Current editors also act as first-level reviewers and actually give Anne feedback. To be honest, I hate this situation. As far as I'm concerned, Anne *is* the author of the XHR spec but, AFAIK, there is no standardized way to acknowledge this in W3C documents nor does the WHATWG Licensing makes it mandatory. As a side note, as an open source developper, I can understand why. If the specs are on public repos and accept pull requests (or diffs, or whatever), then the very notion of authorship becomes a bit blurry. Anyway, I'm one of the co-editor of the W3C XHR spec and I don't claim to be the author of anything in the spec. I'm more interested in pushing the spec forward than achieving glory. I accepted the co-editor position to help because help was needed. So while I empathize with the whole W3C plagiarizes WHATWG outrage, could this conversation be held where it belongs? That is far upper the food chain than this WG. I'm happy to take this discussion to wherever is appropriate. However, I object to publishing this document until this issue is resolved. 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 would recommend acknowledging the WHATWG upfront in the Status of this Document. The document currently reads: ---8--- This document is produced by the Web Applications (WebApps) Working Group. The WebApps Working Group is part of the Rich Web Clients Activity in the W3C Interaction Domain. ---8--- I would recommend modifying this paragraph to state that this document is being produced by the WebApps Working Group based on the WHATWG version and to include a link or citation to the WHATWG version of the specification. Perhaps Anne would be willing to suggest some text that he would find appropriate? Adam
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? I would recommend acknowledging the WHATWG upfront in the Status of this Document. The document currently reads: ---8--- This document is produced by the Web Applications (WebApps) Working Group. The WebApps Working Group is part of the Rich Web Clients Activity in the W3C Interaction Domain. ---8--- Just in case folks don't know. HTML5 also has a paragraph like this in the Status of this Document: # The bulk of the text of this specification is also available in the # WHATWG HTML Living Standard, under a license that permits reuse of # the specification text. Another possibility is to say something like | Anne van Kesteran authored most of the text in the spec. in the Acknowledgment section. I'd note that in CSS specs an Acknowledgment section is not always just a list of names and so suppose this is doable. I'm not pushing for this though, as I find this quite obvious. Perhaps Anne would be willing to suggest some text that he would find appropriate? +1, or perhaps Anne would like to object to this CfC no matter what? Cheers, Kenny -- Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
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 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 missing the fact that I am neither a Member nor an Invited Expert of this WG since August this year. The W3C does have the legal right to publish my work, since I publish it under CC0, but the way the W3C goes about it is not appreciated. Perhaps we should add the concept of a concurrent work section (and concurrent work editor)? The main difference I see between the usage of previous editors in the W3C's past and the current situation, is that in the past, when an editor was replaced it was because the previous editor was no longer working on the spec. In the current situation, we now have editors leaving the W3C, but wishing to continue to edit their spec elsewhere. The W3C then replaces editors, but then we have parallel documents and parallel editors.
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 in the context of participating in the W3C process, ... It seems you are missing the fact that I am neither a Member nor an Invited Expert of this WG since August this year. The W3C does have the legal right to publish my work, since I publish it under CC0, but the way the W3C goes about it is not appreciated. I see nothing inconsistent or disingenuous with regard to W3C process here. There seems to be a suggestion here that the process is broken, and I just don't see that. If you as a contributor wish to have more prominent mention in the W3C version, then it would be appropriate for you to discuss this with the current editors. Since it sounds like this is a cooperative process, I would expect you and the editors to find a satisfactory solution. However, I think this solution need not include making a normative reference to the ongoing WHATWG work in this area. It certainly wouldn't hurt to include an informative reference, with sufficient qualification as to why that reference is used. G.
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 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 in the context of participating in the W3C process, This premise is false. We're discussing the work that he is currently performing outside the W3C process. Specifically, the changes noted as Merge Anne's change in the past 11 days: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/shortlog How is this different from the process being used in the HTML WG w.r.t. bringing WHATWG ongoing work by Ian back into the W3C draft. It seems like whatever solution is used here to satisfy Anne's concerns should be coordinated with Ian and the HTML5 editor team so that we don't end up with two methods for acknowledgment.
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 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 in the context of participating in the W3C process, This premise is false. We're discussing the work that he is currently performing outside the W3C process. Specifically, the changes noted as Merge Anne's change in the past 11 days: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/shortlog How is this different from the process being used in the HTML WG w.r.t. bringing WHATWG ongoing work by Ian back into the W3C draft. I am not a member of the HTML Working Group. Were I to be, I might well object to the process being used there as well. It seems like whatever solution is used here to satisfy Anne's concerns should be coordinated with Ian and the HTML5 editor team so that we don't end up with two methods for acknowledgment. That might be worth doing, but it does not remove my objection to this working group publishing this document. Adam
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 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 and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. +1 Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
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 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html. Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on whatwg.org. Ms2ger
Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29
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 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html. Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD. If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest. Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal. I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on whatwg.org. I agree. The W3C should not be in the business of plagiarizing the work of others. plagiarism. n. The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. The Status of this Document section should state clearly that this document is not an original work of authorship of the W3C. Instead, the document should clearly state that it is based in part (or in whole) on the WHATWG version. I don't have a problem with the W3C attaching its copyright and license to the document. I do have a problem with plagiarism. Adam
