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

[Charles McCathie Nevile]

On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 01:50:35 +0100, Ian Hickson  wrote:


... This is just plagiarism.


Ian, this accusation against colleagues of yours working in good faith is  
offensive, and it is untrue. It is therefore inappropriate for this  
mailing list.


I will repeat, since you may have missed it, 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  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

[Ian Hickson]

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

[Charles McCathie Nevile]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:07:40 +0100, Ms2ger  wrote:


On 12/03/2012 01:44 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:

Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical
specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what
process *should* be is off topic here.


I find 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

[Ian Hickson]

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

[Ms2ger]

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

[Charles McCathie Nevile]

Just a reminder: this group is a forum for discussion of technical  
specifications, and follows the existing W3C process. Discussion of what  
process *should* be is off topic here.


On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 12:07:20 +0100, Jungkee Song   
wrote:



On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson 


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  
think it's a goal to replace 

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

[Ms2ger]

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

[Arthur Barstow]

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

[Ms2ger]

On 12/02/2012 12:07 PM, Jungkee Song wrote:

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson  wrote:


Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here.


I don't think it's a technical issue to discuss. There should be
corresponding publication rules.

Art, Charles, Doug,
Can you 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

[Jungkee Song]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Robinson  wrote:
>
> Sure there is if the W3C version is stale, as is the case here.

I don't think it's a technical issue to discuss. There should be
corresponding publication rules.

Art, Charles, Doug,
Can you help clarifying which links we have to use?

In 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

[Glenn Adams]

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  wrote:

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

[Glenn Adams]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM, James Robinson  wrote:

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

[James Robinson]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Glenn Adams  wrote:

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

[Glenn Adams]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.  wrote:

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

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

[Tab Atkins Jr.]

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

[Glenn Adams]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Ms2ger  wrote:

> On 11/27/2012 02:16 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/12 12:21 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
>>
>>> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@nokia.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:05 AM

 I think the next step is for the XHR 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 - 
>> >
>> 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.
>

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

[Ms2ger]

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 -  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

[Arthur Barstow]

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 -  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

[Jungkee Song]

> 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

[Adam Barth]

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

[Arthur Barstow]

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

[Ms2ger]

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

[Jungkee Song]

> 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

[Anne van Kesteren]

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

Yup.


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/

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

[Arthur Barstow]

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

[Charles McCathie Nevile]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:38:35 +0400, Jungkee Song  
 wrote:


I suggest we put the following wordings for Anne's work and WHATWG to be  
credited. If we make consensus, let me use this content for publishing  
the WD.


The proposed wording seems accurate enough to meet my "I can live with it"  
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

[Jungkee Song]

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

[Ian Hickson]

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

[Jonas Sicking]

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

[Ian Hickson]

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

[David Bruant]

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

[Charles McCathie Nevile]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:34:03 +0400, David Bruant   
wrote:



Le 22/11/2012 18:16, Ms2ger a écrit :

On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
WD template) as the basis
.

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

[Kyle Huey]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:34 AM, David Bruant  wrote:

> Le 22/11/2012 18:16, Ms2ger a écrit :
>
>  On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>>> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
>>> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
>>> WD template) as the basis
>>> 
>>> >.
>>>
>>> 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 
>
> 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
>
>
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

[David Bruant]

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
.

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 

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

[Adam Barth]

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

[Glenn Adams]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Adam Barth  wrote:

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

[Glenn Adams]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

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

[Travis Leithead]

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

[Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu]

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

[Adam Barth]

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

> 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  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

[Anne van Kesteren]

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

It seems you are missing the fact 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: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

[Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen]

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

[Julian Aubourg]

Hi all,

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

> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Glenn Adams  wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth  wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger  wrote:
> >> > On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> >> >> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
> >> >> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using
> the
> >> >> WD template) as the basis
> >> >> .
> >> >>
> >> >> 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: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

[Glenn Adams]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth  wrote:

> My concern is not about copyright.  My concern is about passing off
> Anne's work as our own.
>

As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or
individual contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as
author 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: Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

[Adam Barth]

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

[Tobie Langel]

On 11/23/12 5:36 PM, "Adam Barth"  wrote:

>However, we should be honest about the origin of the text and not try
>to pass off Anne's work as our own.

Or better yet, provide a canvas where Anne is able to do his work as part
of the WebApps WG.

--tobie

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

[Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen]

>> Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing?
> 
> I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is
> taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its

> own. 


Speaking as one of the W3C-editors of the spec: first I agree that crediting 
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

[Adam Barth]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Glenn Adams  wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth  wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger  wrote:
>> > On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> >> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
>> >> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
>> >> WD template) as the basis
>> >> .
>> >>
>> >> 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: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Glenn Adams  wrote:
> If Anne's work was submitted to and prepared in the context of the WebApps
> WG, then it is a product of the WG, and there is no obligation to refer to
> other, prior or variant versions.

To be clear, in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/shortlog "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

[Glenn Adams]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger  wrote:
> > On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> >> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
> >> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
> >> WD template) as the basis
> >> .
> >>
> >> 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

[Glenn Adams]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren  wrote:

> > If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to
> > this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
>
> Putting my name as former editor while all the text is either written
> by me or copied from me seems 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

[Adam Barth]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger  wrote:
> On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
>> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
>> WD template) as the basis
>> .
>>
>> 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

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

[Ms2ger]

On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
WD template) as the basis
.

Agreement to this proposal: 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

[Charles McCathie Nevile]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:04:54 +0100, Tobie Langel  wrote:


On 11/22/12 2:01 PM, "Arthur Barstow"  wrote:


TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
Call for  Consensus to do so ...
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to 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

[Anne van Kesteren]

> 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

[Tobie Langel]

On 11/22/12 2:01 PM, "Arthur Barstow"  wrote:

>TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
>Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
>WD template) as the basis
>.
>
>Agreement to this 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.

+1

--tobie