Hi Bijan
I don't think the legal status of a group should be a bright line for
whether the W3C formally or informally collaborates with it (putting
aside the legal status of the W3C). After all, the W3C generally has
as part of its goal as wide review and participation as possible. If
people self-organize into larger groupings, that can be a strong
positive. Lots of things have emerged outside more formal channels.
I've been involved in external movements (namely, OWLED) which tried
to retain some effect after a working group started and if one isn't
careful, it's easy for the WG to drain energy from the external group.
W3C interest groups have had varying success in building and
maintaining community (and I've tried to work that angle) but it
doesn't always work (communities are surprisingly delicate in some
dimensions).
Similarly, I don't find "official" status of a group very compelling,
as referenced in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0209.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0213.html
To put it another way, if the WHATWG incorporated, which it could
easily do, I don't think anyone objecting to the link or the text or
the fact of two specs or the normativity of a spec would be remotely
satisfied. The problems would all remain.
It doesn't matter now what the WhatWG does. Once the members of that
organization agreed to abide by the membership agreement they entered
into with the W3C, they have effectively assigned the effort to the W3C
(via the three legal entities behind the W3C).
They can't "take it back".
But, they can generate FUD, and confusion, by continuing this charade of
a separate specification and group supporting the HTML5 effort.
If the members truly cared about the specification, and the web
community, they would see that this continuing "shadow" effort does more
harm than good, and would discontinue the WhatWG effort. Whether they do
or don't, though, is not a concern of the W3C, or the larger web
community. What is a concern, though, at least to me, and I hope to
others, is that the W3C is seeming to condone the actions of the WhatWG
by continuing to allow embedded references to the WhatWG email lists and
specifications _within_ the HTML5 specification.
This just can't continue.
Similarly, I'm pretty unclear on the IETF's legal status. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Force
"""Because the IETF does not have members (nor is it an organisation
per se), the Internet Society provides the financial and legal
framework for the activities of the IETF and its sister bodies (IAB,
IRTF,...). Recently the IETF has set up an IETF Trust that manages the
copyrighted materials produced by the IETF. IETF activities are funded
by meeting fees, meeting sponsors and by the Internet Society via its
organizational membership and the proceeds of the Public Interest
Registry.""" Other spelunking seems to confirm this.) But, I don't
think anyone would claim that the IETF, at almost any point of its
history, wasn't an appropriate body to reference and collaborate with.
I believe the entire purpose of the IETF Trust was specifically to
address legal issues, such as copyright ownership.
With the number of patent lawsuits, and accusations of intellectual
property theft that abound in our industry, it's essential that any
group whose purpose is to create specifications or standards by which
several entities agree to be bound, ensure that those same entities do
no open themselves up to a lawsuit by doing so.
It's certainly within the W3C's/HTMLWG's right, and perhaps self-
interest, to insist on informally or normatively referenced material
have certain properties (such as not denigrating the W3C). But,
presumably, that's independent of the perceived status of the body
publishing the referenced material. (Though, the W3C does sensibly
prefer to reference material that have reasonably stable URIs. That
doesn't seem to be a huge problem here, though the WHATWG might want
to make some at least informal arrangements in case Ian gets hit by a
bus driven by someone he's pissed off ;)).
Or driven by a beer truck.
Your point about who owns the documents, however, is a good one and
I've posed some specific questions about in a separate message. I
don't understand the current set of copyrights (the licenses are more
clear; but whether the licensors have the right to so license is less
clear).
Not just copyright, though.
The W3C has a moral and ethical duty to the larger web community to,
once and for all, establish what is _the_ HTML5. Who is _the_ group
managing it. What is _the_ procedure for people to follow to ensure
their interests are met.
The W3C has put off this difficult, but necessary, task long enough.
Cheers,
Bijan.
Regards
Shelley
