On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: > > Are you and ms2ger and other authors operating in the WHATWG space > > willing to reciprocate? > > I am (and do), Ms2ger is apparently not. RESPECT HIS WISHES. That's all > I'm asking. This is elementary politeness and professionalism. >
It certainly has not been clear to me that ms2ger is effectively saying that he does not wish his work reused in W3C REC track specs. Perhaps he/she should come right out and say so. However, in the interest of cooperation, I would think you would choose to counsel ms2ger to find a way to cooperate that allows his work to be used or reused in an acceptable manner. > > Here's another option: > > - The W3C does its own work and leaves Ms2ger to do whatever work he > wants to do. > Sure. I certainly don't care what ms2ger does or doesn't do. > > The W3C has absolutely no authority over what Ms2ger does. Or indeed > anyone else. > Of course. I didn't suggest otherwise. > But in my opinion, the name issue is gibberish. Who wrote the spec has > absolutely no bearing on its quality, and if your employer can't recognise > that then that's your problem, not the spec's. > The quality of a spec has little to do with its implementation or implementability. This is a process and IPR concern unrelated to quality.
