EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Did Not Understand Request
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: Please stop wasting my time with frivolous non-issues. There is no W3C IPR concern here since it's not a W3C spec, and the patent policy doesn't work as you imply even if it was.

This is not a frivolous or invalid issue. HTML5 *is* a W3C spec, and it normatively mandates support for DOMPARSING in Section 2.2.1:

"In addition, user agents must implement the features defined in the DOM Range, DOM Parsing and Serialization, HTML Editing APIs, and UndoManager and DOM Transaction specifications that apply to their conformance class. [DOMRANGE] [DOMPARSING] [EDITING] [UNDO]"

Therefore, the W3C Patent Policy *does* apply to DOMPARSING by inclusion. If HTML5 did not normatively mandate support for DOMPARSING, then I agree this would not be an issue. However, it does, and it is.

If you don't care to treat this as an issue, then please consider this a request to elevate to HTML working group issue.

EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: The W3C patent policy doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.

(In reply to comment #2)
> This is not a frivolous or invalid issue. HTML5 *is* a W3C spec, and it
> normatively mandates support for DOMPARSING in Section 2.2.1:
> 
> "In addition, user agents must implement the features defined in the DOM Range,
> DOM Parsing and Serialization, HTML Editing APIs, and UndoManager and DOM
> Transaction specifications that apply to their conformance class. [DOMRANGE]
> [DOMPARSING] [EDITING] [UNDO]"
> 
> Therefore, the W3C Patent Policy *does* apply to DOMPARSING by inclusion. If
> HTML5 did not normatively mandate support for DOMPARSING, then I agree this
> would not be an issue. However, it does, and it is.
> 
> If you don't care to treat this as an issue, then please consider this a
> request to elevate to HTML working group issue.

Glenn, you can do this by adding the "TrackerRequest" keyword.

Reopening to submit TrackerRequest. 

Regarding the working of the W3C Patent Policy, my reading is:

The IPR status of normatively referenced specifications, specifically DOMPARSING, *is* in scope since DOMPARSING is mandated in the implementation and since the PP states (8.1):

'"Essential Claims" shall mean all claims in any patent or patent application in any jurisdiction in the world that would necessarily be infringed by implementation of the Recommendation.'

Further, the PP states (2):

'Subject to the conditions of this policy, W3C will not approve a Recommendation if it is aware that Essential Claims exist which are not available on Royalty-Free terms.'

As a representative of a W3C Member, I need to formulate recommendations about the possible presence and use of essential claims in HTML5, including those enabling technologies incorporated by reference, particularly when they are mandatory. If I don't know the source of some technology, such as is the case with DOMPARSING, then I am impeded in researching and formulating any recommendation. In such a case, I would likely recommend a NO vote due to dependency on IPR submitted by an unknown, intentionally hidden source. For example, that source could be a competitor of the member I represent, and could be hiding essential IPR by obscuring the source of that technology.

IMO, in the interest of transparency, the W3C should not permit participation by or reference to external works of an unidentified entity. I can only assume that this entity is hiding something that relates to the IPR status of their work.

If my reading is incorrect, then I would prefer to be told so formally by the WG subject to resolution of a WG issue.

Removing keyword, user is clueless about the process and should go read the manual.

(In reply to comment #6)
> Removing keyword, user is clueless about the process and should go read the
> manual.

That's not for you to decide.

(In reply to comment #6)
> Removing keyword, user is clueless about the process and should go read the
> manual.

That's not an appropriate way to express that:

(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Removing keyword, user is clueless about the process and should go read the
> > manual.
> 
> That's not for you to decide.

...it's incorrect per Decision Process to have the TrackerRequest keyword on a bug that is in the REOPENED state.

(In reply to comment #8)
> ...it's incorrect per Decision Process to have the TrackerRequest keyword on a
> bug that is in the REOPENED state.

Indeed.

The intent was clear, so I leave the TrackerRequest keyword in and close the bug (with the state WONTFIX it was previously in).

The author is not undisclosed, he's pseudonymous.  Ms2ger participates in the W3C as well under that pseudonym, and is a member of both the HTMLWG and WebApps WG (possibly among others).  He edits DOM Core under the pseudonym too:

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html

I'm not aware of any legal principle or W3C policy that's inconsistent with pseudonymous participation.  For instance, signing a document with a pseudonym is as legally binding as using a more conventional name.  Presumably the W3C staff are aware that Ms2ger is participating pseudonymously as an editor and don't believe it conflicts with the patent policy or anything else.

(In reply to comment #10)
> The author is not undisclosed, he's pseudonymous.  Ms2ger participates in the
> W3C as well under that pseudonym, and is a member of both the HTMLWG and
> WebApps WG (possibly among others).  He edits DOM Core under the pseudonym too:
> 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
> 
> I'm not aware of any legal principle or W3C policy that's inconsistent with
> pseudonymous participation.  For instance, signing a document with a pseudonym
> is as legally binding as using a more conventional name.  Presumably the W3C
> staff are aware that Ms2ger is participating pseudonymously as an editor and
> don't believe it conflicts with the patent policy or anything else.

Since I don't know this person or his identity, it amounts to non-disclosure, and obfuscation from my perspective.

If the W3C doesn't have an explicitly determined policy, then perhaps resolving this issue will elicit such a policy. My preference would be to not admit pseudonymous participation. It flies in the face of open, and transparent working principles.

Oh, come on.  How is that any different from my participation under the name "Boris Zbarsky", or the participation of "Ian 'Hixie' Hickson"?

Or yours for that matter?  I have no idea whether "Glenn Adams" is your real name, nor any way to verify whether it is.  Nor do I care whether it is.

So the real question is why the "identity" (whatever the heck that is; the concept is a pretty fuzzy one) of Ms2ger matters to you.   Would it really be any different from your point of view if the editor were listed as John Smith, or any other name that Ms2ger might happen to go by?

You may want to read some of the recent discussion about names on Google+ and Facebook, as well as http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ items 1 and 40 before answering the above question, just to avoid specious arguments about people having an identity or names identifying people.

(In reply to comment #12)
> Oh, come on.  How is that any different from my participation under the name
> "Boris Zbarsky", or the participation of "Ian 'Hixie' Hickson"?
> 
> Or yours for that matter?  I have no idea whether "Glenn Adams" is your real
> name, nor any way to verify whether it is.  Nor do I care whether it is.
> 
> So the real question is why the "identity" (whatever the heck that is; the
> concept is a pretty fuzzy one) of Ms2ger matters to you.   Would it really be
> any different from your point of view if the editor were listed as John Smith,
> or any other name that Ms2ger might happen to go by?
> 
> You may want to read some of the recent discussion about names on Google+ and
> Facebook, as well as
> http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/
> items 1 and 40 before answering the above question, just to avoid specious
> arguments about people having an identity or names identifying people.

Well, Boris, I have no need to hide my identity. One of my hobbies happens to be Amateur Radio, for which every participant employs a call sign issued by a government operating under ITU principles. My call sign happens to be N0GNR, which I am required to use to identify myself every time I transmit on the air. A requirement of the FCC, in issuing my license, is that I have a verifiable, US postal address, and that three other examiners witness various pieces of identity when taking the license examinations. Once licensed, the FCC records my license in the in the Federal Universal Licensing System, where you or anyone in the public that knows my name or call sign can find a copy of my license, including a public citation of my physical address.

You say you don't care about my identity, but here is a public citation of my identity recognized by the US government: http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3261019.

I could also give you my (US Army Airborne) Armed Forces Service Number if you wish to verify my military records. But, as you say, you don't care...

Where I came from, we have rather colorful names for folk that hide behind walls,  including walls of pseudonyms. But this is polite company, and we don't want this to become argumentum ad hominem tu quoque.

73s,
Glenn (N0GNR)

Glenn, I have no way to verify that the person commenting on this bug has anything to do with that callsign, or with the address associated with that callsign.

More importantly, it doesn't matter.  Your identity as an amateur radio operator, as well as your postal address, are completely irrelevant to your activity in the W3C.

You may not care that you have to make your mailing address public as a condition of participation in certain fields of endeavor or in certain discussions, but other people most certainly do care.  And for people living in many countries (of which the US is thankfully not one), the ability to participate pseudonymously may be quite important indeed.

As for ad-hominem arguments... this whole bug report starts with an ad-hominem argument, as far as I can tell.  From what I see, your issue is with the mere existence of a pseudonym, and your last comment just reinforces that.  I don't see how that existence makes patent claim issues any more complicated than they already are, as you claim it does in comment 0, and you don't seem interested in explaining what the real issues the pseudonym is causing are.  If there are any, and not just random prejudice against pseudonyms on your part.

(In reply to comment #14)
> Glenn, I have no way to verify that the person commenting on this bug has
> anything to do with that callsign, or with the address associated with that
> callsign.
> 
> More importantly, it doesn't matter.  Your identity as an amateur radio
> operator, as well as your postal address, are completely irrelevant to your
> activity in the W3C.
> 
> You may not care that you have to make your mailing address public as a
> condition of participation in certain fields of endeavor or in certain
> discussions, but other people most certainly do care.  And for people living in
> many countries (of which the US is thankfully not one), the ability to
> participate pseudonymously may be quite important indeed.
> 
> As for ad-hominem arguments... this whole bug report starts with an ad-hominem
> argument, as far as I can tell.  From what I see, your issue is with the mere
> existence of a pseudonym, and your last comment just reinforces that.  I don't
> see how that existence makes patent claim issues any more complicated than they
> already are, as you claim it does in comment 0, and you don't seem interested
> in explaining what the real issues the pseudonym is causing are.  If there are
> any, and not just random prejudice against pseudonyms on your part.

the substance of my comments 0, 2, and 4 stands;

I do not care to debate the issue as such; I will accept the conclusion of the WG; however, i wish to insist on a formal process and response, and I hope this process will lead to an explicit policy in the W3C regarding treatment of this and similar cases; I also hope that participation in W3C by pseudonym or reference to works published under a pseudonym will be proscribed;

I too would also like to see this resolved by an official policy statement from (at least) the HTMLWG chairs, if not the W3C themselves.

Why?  Because I find it offensive that the W3C would allow a normative reference (and requirements!) in a standard to a document that has been authored by a pseudonymous author (and is freely available) _BUT_ will not accept normative references to documents developed by internationally recognized standards bodies, that just happen to be behind "pay walls".

(In reply to comment #16)
> I too would also like to see this resolved by an official policy statement from
> (at least) the HTMLWG chairs, if not the W3C themselves.
> 
> Why?  Because I find it offensive that the W3C would allow a normative
> reference (and requirements!) in a standard to a document that has been
> authored by a pseudonymous author (and is freely available) _BUT_ will not
> accept normative references to documents developed by internationally
> recognized standards bodies, that just happen to be behind "pay walls".

Me, I don't understand why the author can't use his or her real name. But as long as it's only the editor function, and some standards body in in charge, it's not a big problem. But this is not the case here, right?

(I also note that http://www.w3.org/Help/Account/Request/Member requires given name and family name to be supplied, so it would be helpful if the W3C could clarify whether that requirement changed -- see webapps member list)

> the substance of my comments 0, 2, and 4 stands;

What's the substance?

There is an unsubstantiated allegation that there is a problem with the patent policy here.  There is no explanation of _what_ the problem is.  If this were escalated to the working group as a whole, I would require such an explanation, as a working group member, to be able to usefully decide the merits of the case.

From the EDITOR'S RESPONSE "please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug,
and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker
issue yourself, if you are able to do so"

Does anybody want to propose title and text for the tracker issue?  Or to
create the tracker issue themselves?

(In reply to comment #18)
> > the substance of my comments 0, 2, and 4 stands;
> 
> What's the substance?
> 
> There is an unsubstantiated allegation that there is a problem with the patent
> policy here.  There is no explanation of _what_ the problem is.  If this were
> escalated to the working group as a whole, I would require such an explanation,
> as a working group member, to be able to usefully decide the merits of the
> case.

I stated very clearly in comment 5 the substance of my problem with respect to PP.

However, I will go further than that, and describe another, perhaps more fundamental issue at stake here, which is the presumption of good faith participation. Namely, I presume, and I believe most other participants in this process generally presume that the parties participating in the development of these technology standards are dealing with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith.

For most reasonable parties, operating in good faith entails disclosing and knowing the identity of other participating parties. This doesn't necessarily mean verifying the truth of identity disclosures, but it means accepting statements of identity and other aspects at face value, at least as a default position.

In contrast, my interpretation of the notion of operating under a pseudonym is that it appears to presume that parties are operating in bad faith. Possible alternative reasons are that disclosure of identity would have a negative economic or professional impact.

I don't see an argument here that this person is avoiding identification due to economic or professional risks, so all I'm left with is that this person presumes a position of bad faith participation as an operating principle.

I find such a position to be objectionable and counter-productive to the development of open, transparent standards and technologies. I also find such a position to be contradictory to the history of work and process that holds in the W3C.

So, in contrast to your suggestion to the contrary, I have no ad hominem argument to make against this person, whom I don't know. I merely object in principle to pseudonymous participation because it sends the wrong message, because it is contrary to this history of the W3C, because it appears to presume an operating principle of bad faith participation, and because it unnecessarily complicates the IPR review process.

If you don't find any of these argument substantive, then that is your prerogative; however, I do find them all substantive.

In Good Faith,
Glenn

(In reply to comment #20)
> In contrast, my interpretation of the notion of operating under a pseudonym is
> that it appears to presume that parties are operating in bad faith.

I think this comment is offensive. Ms2ger is volunteering to write useful specs for the benefit of the Web. That better faith through action than most working group participants manage to show.

(In reply to comment #21)
> (In reply to comment #20)
> > In contrast, my interpretation of the notion of operating under a pseudonym is
> > that it appears to presume that parties are operating in bad faith.
> 
> I think this comment is offensive. Ms2ger is volunteering to write useful specs
> for the benefit of the Web. That better faith through action than most working
> group participants manage to show.

My comment is not meant to be offensive, it is merely a reflection of my interpretation of pseudonymous participation in this context.

I have seen no reason offered about why there should be any departure in the reasonable expectation that works are identified by real persons. As far as I know, this is not a real person. Let Ms2ger use his identity in his published works, at least in the context of publishing W3C works or works intended to be normatively referenced by W3C works. Or find a proxy willing to identify themself and use their name as the primary author/editor.

Note that I have not objected to [DOMRANGE] since an identified person is listed as the first editor (even though Ms2ger is listed as a second editor).

My primary objection to [DOMPARSING] is that Ms2ger is listed as the only author/editor, which I find unacceptable.

> I stated very clearly in comment 5 the substance of my problem

Ah, I see.  Since knowing Ms2ger's real name, if any, would not help with the substance of your problem, it sounds like your real issue is with the lack of a patent policy covering DOMPARSING and not with the editor's identity....

> For most reasonable parties, operating in good faith entails disclosing and
> knowing the identity

If your definition of "identity" includes anything other than what Ms2ger has provided so far, I believe your requirement here is unreasonable.  Certainly I would consider it unreasonable for me to require such disclosure from people I think are operating in good faith wrt me.

You know this is the same identity as is involved in some W3C working groups; you know this is the same identity as is involved in the Mozilla project as a contributor; you know this is the same identity as posts on various W3C mailing lists.

What other aspects of this identity are you actually interested in here?  "Real Name" (assuming it exists)?  Employer (assuming it exists)?  Social security number (assuming it exists)?  Government-issued ID of some sort?  Names of all ancestors unto the third generation?

The above questions are very serious, by the way.  I just don't understand what exactly you're asking for.

> Possible alternative reasons are that disclosure of identity would have a
> negative economic or professional impact.

Or personal safety impact, yes.  Or just basic privacy impact.  Why are you more willing to assume bad faith than to assume those things, exactly?

Given that the W3C _does_ have a longstanding policy against anonymous participation, and given that as far as I know this policy has been explicitly bent in this particular case after some fairly lengthy discussion, my assumption would in fact be that there are reasonably serious factors weighing against any more disclosure of personal information than has already happened.

> the reasonable expectation that works are identified by real persons.

This is absolutely not a reasonable expectation.

A few brief counterexamples would include any document listing an organization but not any individuals as its author (plenty of those), quite a number of novels, the "Elements of Mathematics" by Bourbaki.

The expectation is that works are identified by whoever wrote them.  No more, no less.

(In reply to comment #19)
> From the EDITOR'S RESPONSE "please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug,
> and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker
> issue yourself, if you are able to do so"
> 
> Does anybody want to propose title and text for the tracker issue?  Or to
> create the tracker issue themselves?

I don't believe I have privileges to create the tracker issue myself, but I would propose as follows:

Title: Normative Reference to Work Attributed Solely to Pseudonymous Author

Text:

The [DOMPARSING] reference in HTML5 appears to be a mandatory part of an HTML5 implementation, cf. 2.2.2:

"In addition, user agents must implement the features defined in the DOM Range, DOM Parsing and Serialization, HTML Editing APIs, and UndoManager and DOM Transaction specifications that apply to their conformance class. [DOMRANGE] [DOMPARSING] [EDITING] [UNDO]"

The document referenced by [DOMPARSING] is attributed solely to a pseudonymous entity.

The reporter (of this issue) contends that a mandatory, normative inclusion of a work attributed to a pseudonymous entity:

(1) unnecessarily complicates research on the existence of related IPR as pertains to application of the W3C Patent Policy;

(2) is contrary to past and existing practices regarding attribution of works in the W3C or the inclusion of referenced works in W3C specifications;

(3) is contrary to an open and transparent development process of W3C supported technologies and recommendations;

Proposed Resolution:

(1) formulate a formal policy on use of pseudonymous attributions on (1) directly published W3C works, and (2) the appropriateness or inappropriateness of normative reference to such works by W3C works;

(2) regarding the work in question, request the author to either provide a non-pseudonymous attribution or to employ a second, attributable, identified person as the primary author/editor (listed first among attributions);

(In reply to comment #22)
> ...
> My primary objection to [DOMPARSING] is that Ms2ger is listed as the only
> author/editor, which I find unacceptable.
> ...

My concern is not authorship but venue. If this was a W3C spec, it wouldn't matter a lot.

See <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/175>.

(In reply to comment #23)
> > I stated very clearly in comment 5 the substance of my problem
> 
> Ah, I see.  Since knowing Ms2ger's real name, if any, would not help with the
> substance of your problem, it sounds like your real issue is with the lack of a
> patent policy covering DOMPARSING and not with the editor's identity....

Since I don't know Ms2ger's real name, I don't know that it would not help with the substance of performing an IPR search. You are asking me to accept your personal assurance that this is the case, but you are denying my the opportunity to perform my own due diligence on IPR as a result of the lack of an identity.

For example, performing a patent search on an inventor named 'ms2ger' (or merely using that as a keyword) will produce no results (I just tried it).

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=ms2ger&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

However, if I had a real name, the results may be different.

I consider that a real, substantial problem related to exercising the spirit of the W3C PP, and since I represent a real member of the W3C with a real concern regarding IPR, namely, Samsung, it is part of my duty to perform such due diligence and make recommendations accordingly.

G.

Glenn, I agree that the IPR concerns here are important; I'm not enough of an expert on the details of the W3C patent policy to comment on them in general.  But what I don't understand is why they would disappear or be alleviated if the spec had a co-editor...  I would really appreciate a clarification on that.

(In reply to comment #29)
> Glenn, I agree that the IPR concerns here are important; I'm not enough of an
> expert on the details of the W3C patent policy to comment on them in general. 
> But what I don't understand is why they would disappear or be alleviated if the
> spec had a co-editor...  I would really appreciate a clarification on that.

because I can exercise habeas corpus on the identified co-editor, but not the pseudonymous entity, or barring something that drastic, i can ask that identified co-editor a question

i don't care to communicate with a pseudonymous person, since i presume they are hiding something, and will not respond in good faith

See also <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12059>.

> because I can exercise habeas corpus on the identified co-editor

Uh...  You must be meaning that term in a meaning that is unfamiliar to me.

> or barring something that drastic, i can ask that identified co-editor a
> question

Which they won't be able to answer because they don't know who Ms2ger is?  Or which Ms2ger can answer just as well, and which you can ask him just as easily?  What sort of question could a co-editor answer that Ms2ger cannot?

> since i presume they are hiding something

They are: aspects of their identity.  So do we all.

> and will not respond in good faith

That's a completely warrantless assumption.  Whether someone is acting is good faith is best judged from that person's actions, not from random assumptions based on their affiliations or lack thereof....  But I sense we're not going to agree on the "good faith" issue here, so can we stick to the substantive IPR issue?

(In reply to comment #32)
> > because I can exercise habeas corpus on the identified co-editor
> 
> Uh...  You must be meaning that term in a meaning that is unfamiliar to me.
> 
> > or barring something that drastic, i can ask that identified co-editor a
> > question
> 
> Which they won't be able to answer because they don't know who Ms2ger is?  Or
> which Ms2ger can answer just as well, and which you can ask him just as easily?
>  What sort of question could a co-editor answer that Ms2ger cannot?
> 
> > since i presume they are hiding something
> 
> They are: aspects of their identity.  So do we all.
> 
> > and will not respond in good faith
> 
> That's a completely warrantless assumption.  Whether someone is acting is good
> faith is best judged from that person's actions, not from random assumptions
> based on their affiliations or lack thereof....  But I sense we're not going to
> agree on the "good faith" issue here, so can we stick to the substantive IPR
> issue?

in case someone thinks I'm only interested in complaining, but not in volunteering to do something, I'd be happy to serve as co-editor, putting my imprimatur on the DOMPARSING work, provided that ms2ger privately revealed his/her identity to me

that would satisfy my criteria for an identified co-editor; of course, i would not mind if Anne, Aryeh, Henri or any other identified person serve in that role either

Glenn, that's very kind of you to offer, but doesn't answer my questions.