[admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

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

[admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

Arthur Barstow
[ 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:
    http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Latest WHATWG Version:
    http://url.spec.whatwg.org/
Previous Versions:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/ED-url-20120524/
Author:
    Anne van Kesteren <[hidden email]>
Editor:
    Web Applications Working Group <[hidden email]>
Former editors:
    Adam Barth <[hidden email]>
    Erik Arvidsson <[hidden email]>
    Michael[tm] Smith <[hidden email]>
]]

In the case of XHR, the new Editors would be listed as Editors and if
they made contributions to the spec, they would also be added to the
Author list too.

If something like that would not be acceptable for the XHR ED, what
specific change(s) do you request?

-Thanks, AB



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

Glenn Adams-2
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, Arthur Barstow <[hidden email]> wrote:
[ 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:
   http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Latest WHATWG Version:
   http://url.spec.whatwg.org/
Previous Versions:
   http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/ED-url-20120524/
Author:
   Anne van Kesteren <[hidden email]>
Editor:
   Web Applications Working Group <[hidden email]>
Former editors:
   Adam Barth <[hidden email]>
   Erik Arvidsson <[hidden email]>
   Michael[tm] Smith <[hidden email]>
]]

In the case of XHR, the new Editors would be listed as Editors and if they made contributions to the spec, they would also be added to the Author list too.

If something like that would not be acceptable for the XHR ED, what specific change(s) do you request?

-Thanks, AB




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

Ian Hickson
In reply to this post by Arthur Barstow
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
than the green note seems kinda contradictory. For example:

   "This is the 8 November 2012 draft of the URL standard."

...should probably say something more like:

   "This is a copy of the WHATWG URL standard as of 8 November 2012."

Similarly, it says:

   "This document is maintained by the Web Applications (WebApps) Working
   Group."

...which should probably say something more like:

   "This document is maintained by the WHATWG and copied by the Web
   Applications (WebApps) Working Group."

...or some such. The next paragraph starts in a similarly misleading way:

   "This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February
   2004 W3C Patent Policy."

A more accurate statement would be:

   "This document was produced by the WHATWG and then republished by a
   group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy."

Also, the document asks for feedback on the public-webapps list, but that
fragments feedback on the spec; the WHATWG copy instead suggests feedback
go to the WHATWG list.

The change to the heading, moving Anne from "Author" to "Editor", makes
some of the text in the spec, e.g. the note saying "As the editor learns
more about the subject matter the goals might increase in scope somewhat",
somewhat confusing.


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?

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

Glenn Adams-2

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Ian Hickson <[hidden email]> 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 se.

If the WHATWG documents were published (by WHATWG) as fixed snapshots during their lifecycle, then perhaps it wouldn't be necessary for the W3C to create snapshots.

For business and legal purposes, it is often a requirement to have such snapshots that are known to never change.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

Ian Hickson
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Ian Hickson <[hidden email]> 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 se.

A WD isn't final either.


> If the WHATWG documents were published (by WHATWG) as fixed snapshots
> during their lifecycle, then perhaps it wouldn't be necessary for the
> W3C to create snapshots.
>
> For business and legal purposes, it is often a requirement to have such
> snapshots that are known to never change.

Every time a change is made, there is a snapshot made as well. For
example, here's the XHR snapshot from October 11th:

   https://raw.github.com/whatwg/xhr/f4652f2a07b5614236b5be53f9769082bfb86070/Overview.html

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

Chaals McCathie Nevile
In reply to this post by Glenn Adams-2
Warning. This discussion seems by and large non-technical bike-shedding for political purposes, which I have tried to stay away from. But some important points are drowning in rhetorical over the several threads that have dealt with this "issue".

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 <[hidden email]> 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).

I don't think "author" is a particularly accurate description, but I don't think that what people who contribute are called by the specification is a particularly important issue, so long as it is roughly accurate. So far I am happy enough with how the different people who have done the work of preparing different documents choose to represent the different contributions made.

If it's good enough for the "I can live with it" test in a world where we don't want to minutely examine every person's work, but would rather focus on actually making progress I am happy to live with the varying details, in order to keep working in such a world. 

I suggest that is a more productive way for the Working Group to continue, and more respectful of people who have done significant hard work in the expectation that it would benefit the stakeholders in the web, rather than any individual or group's perceived place in history.

cheers

Chaals

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, Arthur Barstow <[hidden email]> wrote:
[ 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:
   http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Latest WHATWG Version:
   http://url.spec.whatwg.org/
Previous Versions:
   http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/ED-url-20120524/
Author:
   Anne van Kesteren <[hidden email]>
Editor:
   Web Applications Working Group <[hidden email]>
Former editors:
   Adam Barth <[hidden email]>
   Erik Arvidsson <[hidden email]>
   Michael[tm] Smith <[hidden email]>
]]

In the case of XHR, the new Editors would be listed as Editors and if they made contributions to the spec, they would also be added to the Author list too.

If something like that would not be acceptable for the XHR ED, what specific change(s) do you request?

-Thanks, AB







--
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: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

Anne van Kesteren-4
In reply to this post by Ian Hickson
I agree with Ian's other observations/comments.

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Ian Hickson <[hidden email]> 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?

In the end (dunno when that will be), patent commitments from the
Members of the WebApps WG. That seems worthwhile to me. It is
unfortunate I could not reach an agreement with the W3C where I could
publish my work under CC0 and still achieve that.


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu-4
(12/11/26 21:25), Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I agree with Ian's other observations/comments.

I suppose that doesn't include

(12/11/24 5:22), Ian Hickson wrote:
> Also, the document asks for feedback on the public-webapps list, but
> that fragments feedback on the spec; the WHATWG copy instead suggests
> feedback go to the WHATWG list.

? Currently, http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/ has

  # Participate:
  #   Send feedback to [hidden email] (archives) or file a bug
  #   (open bugs) File a bug about the selected text
  #   IRC: #whatwg on Freenode

. And the WHATWG list is in the list of archives of historical discussions.


Cheers,
Kenny
--
Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing
Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

Anne van Kesteren-4
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> (12/11/24 5:22), Ian Hickson wrote:
>> Also, the document asks for feedback on the public-webapps list, but
>> that fragments feedback on the spec; the WHATWG copy instead suggests
>> feedback go to the WHATWG list.
>
> ? Currently, http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/ has

Ian was talking about the URL Standard.


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [admin] XHR ED Boilerplate

Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu-4
In reply to this post by Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu-4
(12/11/26 22:11), Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:

> (12/11/26 21:25), Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> I agree with Ian's other observations/comments.
>
> I suppose that doesn't include
>
> (12/11/24 5:22), Ian Hickson wrote:
>> Also, the document asks for feedback on the public-webapps list, but
>> that fragments feedback on the spec; the WHATWG copy instead suggests
>> feedback go to the WHATWG list.
>
> ? Currently, http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/ has

Nevermind. That was referring to http://url.spec.whatwg.org/. I guess
doing this differently is indeed a bit confusing.


Cheers,
Kenny
--
Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing
Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/