[whatwg] some issues
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Jul 6 09:03:46 PDT 2004
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote:
>>> Now look at this URL:
>>> It does NOT have a Member-only designation.
>> It uses the member only stylesheet, it's a member only document, if
>> that's really the defence for ignoring W3 process, it's a pretty poor
> The stylesheet is not proof that the document is Member-only. All that
> means is that someone may have used a stripped down Member-only document
> as a template for another document. Also, even if you assume this one
> stylesheet reference is proof it is Member-only content, you have no
> proof that Ian knew it was Member-only, as you'd have to be looking
> carefully at the source to determine this.
This is _way_ off-topic but for what it's worth:
The XBL spec on my site was on my site for about two years before the W3C
picked up the XBL work. I had been updating the spec, with David Hyatt
and others, with the intention of working on it through the CSS working
group. It bore the W3C member-only header during this time, although
that was meaningless as the spec was not W3C work and I just needed a
stylesheet so it would look readable.
Last March, the CSS and SVG working groups decided to use my (then public,
non-W3C) spec as the basis for W3C work on XBL. I continued editing that
spec as part of this work. I added a stylesheet that said it was an
unofficial W3C working draft. Several people, using some sort of twisted
logic that I am still unable to understand, complained to the W3C that
this work was W3C work and therefore should only be available to people
who had spent the $50000 membership fee (or had, like myself, managed to
get themselves invited into the W3C), and that having it available on my
site somehow was a bad thing (maybe it was too convenient, or might
somehow encourage public feedback).
These complaints were forwarded, without attribution, to me. I asked W3C
people if they wanted me to pull the content or password-protect it in
some way, they said they did not mind that I did not. Since I use the copy
on my site to do the editing, I find it convenient to have it there, so I
I don't know whether that work is technically member-only or not. The spec
on my site is a direct descendent of the version that David Hyatt and I
submitted to the W3C back when we were both AOL employees, and has been
public for years.
In _any_ case, my apparent inability to keep things secret is unlikely to
translate into an inability to keep things open, so I really don't see how
this issue is in any way a _problem_ for WHATWG...
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg