On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply to
this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
Putting my name as former editor while all the text is either written
by me or copied from me seems
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
TheXHR Editors would like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
Call for Consensus to do so using the
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
If Anne's work was submitted to and prepared in the context of the WebApps
WG, then it is a product of the WG, and there is no obligation to refer to
other, prior or variant versions.
To be clear, in
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger ms2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
TheXHR Editors would like to publish a
Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing?
I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is
taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its
own.
Speaking as one of the W3C-editors of the spec: first I agree that crediting
On 11/23/12 5:36 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
However, we should be honest about the origin of the text and not try
to pass off Anne's work as our own.
Or better yet, provide a canvas where Anne is able to do his work as part
of the WebApps WG.
--tobie
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
hallv...@opera.com wrote:
Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing?
I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is
taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off
Anne's work as our own.
As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or
individual contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his
Hi all,
In an ideal world, Anne would be the editor of the W3C version of the spec
and that would be the end of it. Such is not the case. Anne is not the
editor of the W3C version: he doesn't edit and/or publish anything related
to the W3C XHR spec. Current editors do and while it's mostly
I would think that listing Anne as Editor or Former Editor and
listing Anne in an Acknowledgments paragraph should be entirely
consistent with all existing W3C practice.
But it's not consistent with that existing W3C practice to get all the text for
a spec from a document edited outside the
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or individual
contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author in the
context of participating in the W3C process, ...
It seems you are
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off
Anne's work as our own.
As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship
(12/11/24 1:28), Adam Barth wrote:
Now, that being said and seeing as we cannot put Anne as an editor of the
W3C version of the spec (because, technically, he's not). How do you guys
suggest we go about acknowledging the WHATWG source? Where in the spec? How?
With what kind of wording?
I
From: annevankeste...@gmail.com [mailto:annevankeste...@gmail.com]
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or
individual contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work
as author in
[ Sorry for the delayed response, I was choking on some turkey ... ]
Here's what I did for the URL spec re the boilerplate to help address
the attribution issue re Anne and WHATWG:
[[
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
This Version:
Mounir prepared a new WD for The Screen Orientation API and this is a
Call for Consensus to publish that
WDhttp://dvcs.w3.org/hg/screen-orientation/raw-file/tip/published/20121123.html.
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nlwrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or
individual
contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
My concern is not about copyright. My concern is about passing off
Anne's work
Is Anne the *sole* author? Did the WG or others not contribute any text or
suggested text to the spec? It seems like a bit of a slippery slope to
attempt to designate a sole author for any W3C product. You might want to
check with the pubs team on this matter.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM,
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Here's what I did for the URL spec re the boilerplate to help address
the attribution issue re Anne and WHATWG:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/raw-file/tip/Overview.html [...]
That's pretty good, though the Status of this Document boilerplate other
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
What I don't really understand, though, is why any of this is needed at
all. What value is the W3C adding by creating these forks?
The problem as I see it is that the WHATWG documents are living documents
and never final per
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
What I don't really understand, though, is why any of this is needed
at all. What value is the W3C adding by creating these forks?
The problem as I see it is that the WHATWG
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
My concern
23 matches
Mail list logo
