CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
37 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

Arthur Barstow
TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
WD template) as the basis
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>.

Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.

If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.

Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.

-Thanks, AB



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Tobie Langel-2
On 11/22/12 2:01 PM, "Arthur Barstow" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
>Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
>WD template) as the basis
><http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>.
>
>Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
>WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the
>WD.
>
>If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
>to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
>
>Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
>will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.

+1

--tobie


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Anne van Kesteren-4
In reply to this post by Arthur Barstow
> 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/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Chaals McCathie Nevile
In reply to this post by Tobie Langel-2
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:04:54 +0100, Tobie Langel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/22/12 2:01 PM, "Arthur Barstow" <[hidden email]> 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
       [hidden email]         Find more at http://yandex.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ms2ger
In reply to this post by Arthur Barstow
On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
> WD template) as the basis
> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>.
>
> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
> WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the WD.
>
> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
> to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
>
> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
> will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.

I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec
on whatwg.org.

Ms2ger


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Adam Barth-5
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
>> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
>> WD template) as the basis
>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>.
>>
>> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
>> WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the
>> WD.
>>
>> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
>> to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
>>
>> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
>> will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
>
> I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on
> whatwg.org.

I agree.  The W3C should not be in the business of plagiarizing the
work of others.

plagiarism. n. The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and
passing them off as one's own.

The Status of this Document section should state clearly that this
document is not an original work of authorship of the W3C.  Instead,
the document should clearly state that it is based in part (or in
whole) on the WHATWG version.  I don't have a problem with the W3C
attaching its copyright and license to the document.  I do have a
problem with plagiarism.

Adam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Glenn Adams-2
In reply to this post by Anne van Kesteren-4

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[hidden email]> 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 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Glenn Adams-2
In reply to this post by Adam Barth-5

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
>> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
>> WD template) as the basis
>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>.
>>
>> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
>> WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the
>> WD.
>>
>> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
>> to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
>>
>> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
>> will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
>
> I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec on
> whatwg.org.

I agree.  The W3C should not be in the business of plagiarizing the
work of others.

Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing?
 

plagiarism. n. The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and
passing them off as one's own.
 

The Status of this Document section should state clearly that this
document is not an original work of authorship of the W3C.

The SotD section need only refer to the working group that produced the document. Authorship is not noted or tracked in W3C documents.

If Anne's work was submitted to and prepared in the context of the WebApps WG, then it is a product of the WG, and there is no obligation to refer to other, prior or variant versions.

Referring to an earlier, draft version published outside of the W3C process does not serve any purpose nor is it required by the W3C Process.

If there is a question on the status of the Copyright declaration of the material or its origin, then that should be taken up by the W3C Pubs team.

G.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Anne van Kesteren-4
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Glenn Adams <[hidden email]> 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/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Adam Barth-5
In reply to this post by Glenn Adams-2
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Glenn Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> >> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
>> >> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
>> >> WD template) as the basis
>> >> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>.
>> >>
>> >> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
>> >> WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the
>> >> WD.
>> >>
>> >> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
>> >> to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
>> >>
>> >> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
>> >> will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
>> >
>> > I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec
>> > on
>> > whatwg.org.
>>
>> I agree.  The W3C should not be in the business of plagiarizing the
>> work of others.
>
> Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing?

I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is
taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its
own.  That is plagiarism, and we should not do it.

>> plagiarism. n. The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and
>> passing them off as one's own.
>>
>> The Status of this Document section should state clearly that this
>> document is not an original work of authorship of the W3C.
>
> The SotD section need only refer to the working group that produced the
> document. Authorship is not noted or tracked in W3C documents.
>
> If Anne's work was submitted to and prepared in the context of the WebApps
> WG, then it is a product of the WG, and there is no obligation to refer to
> other, prior or variant versions.
>
> Referring to an earlier, draft version published outside of the W3C process
> does not serve any purpose nor is it required by the W3C Process.

Legally, we are under no obligation to acknowledge Anne's work.
However, we should be honest about the origin of the text and not try
to pass off Anne's work as our own.

More pointedly: plagiarism is not illegal but that doesn't mean we should do it.

> If there is a question on the status of the Copyright declaration of the
> material or its origin, then that should be taken up by the W3C Pubs team.

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

Adam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen-3
>> 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






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Tobie Langel-2
In reply to this post by Adam Barth-5
On 11/23/12 5:36 PM, "Adam Barth" <[hidden email]> 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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Adam Barth-5
In reply to this post by Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen-3
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
<[hidden email]> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Glenn Adams-2
In reply to this post by Adam Barth-5

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth <[hidden email]> 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?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Julian Aubourg
In reply to this post by Adam Barth-5
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Glenn Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Adam Barth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Ms2ger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> >> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
>> >> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
>> >> WD template) as the basis
>> >> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>.
>> >>
>> >> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
>> >> WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the
>> >> WD.
>> >>
>> >> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
>> >> to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
>> >>
>> >> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
>> >> will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
>> >
>> > I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical spec
>> > on
>> > whatwg.org.
>>
>> I agree.  The W3C should not be in the business of plagiarizing the
>> work of others.
>
> Are you claiming that the W3C is in the business of plagiarizing?

I'm saying that the W3C (and this working group in particular) is
taking Anne's work, without his permission, and passing it off as its
own.  That is plagiarism, and we should not do it.

>> plagiarism. n. The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and
>> passing them off as one's own.
>>
>> The Status of this Document section should state clearly that this
>> document is not an original work of authorship of the W3C.
>
> The SotD section need only refer to the working group that produced the
> document. Authorship is not noted or tracked in W3C documents.
>
> If Anne's work was submitted to and prepared in the context of the WebApps
> WG, then it is a product of the WG, and there is no obligation to refer to
> other, prior or variant versions.
>
> Referring to an earlier, draft version published outside of the W3C process
> does not serve any purpose nor is it required by the W3C Process.

Legally, we are under no obligation to acknowledge Anne's work.
However, we should be honest about the origin of the text and not try
to pass off Anne's work as our own.

More pointedly: plagiarism is not illegal but that doesn't mean we should do it.

> If there is a question on the status of the Copyright declaration of the
> material or its origin, then that should be taken up by the W3C Pubs team.

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

Adam


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen-3
In reply to this post by Glenn Adams-2

> 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






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Anne van Kesteren-4
In reply to this post by Glenn Adams-2
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams <[hidden email]> 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/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Adam Barth-5
In reply to this post by Glenn Adams-2
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Glenn Adams <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Adam Barth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> My concern is not about copyright.  My concern is about passing off
>> Anne's work as our own.
>
> As I have pointed out above, W3C specs do not track authorship or individual
> contributions to the WG process. If Anne performed his work as author in the
> context of participating in the W3C process,

This premise is false.  We're discussing the work that he is currently
performing outside the W3C process.  Specifically, the changes noted
as "Merge Anne's change" in the past 11 days:

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/shortlog

> then there is no obligation to
> acknowledge that, though there is a long standing practice of including an
> Acknowledgments section or paragraph that enumerates contributors. I would
> think that listing Anne as Editor or Former Editor and listing Anne in an
> Acknowledgments paragraph should be entirely consistent with all existing
> W3C practice.
>
> Are you asking for more than this?

Yes.  I'm asking for the Status of this Document section more honestly
convene the origin of the text in the document by stating that this
document is based in part (or in whole) on
<http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/>.

> And if so, then what is the basis for that?

As I wrote before, not doing the above is taking Anne's work and
passing it off as our own.  That's plagiarism, and we shouldn't do it.

If this working group isn't comfortable stating the truth about this
origin of this document, then we shouldn't publish the document at
all.

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Julian Aubourg <[hidden email]> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu-4
(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/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Travis Leithead-2
In reply to this post by Anne van Kesteren-4
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Glenn Adams <[hidden email]> 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.
12