Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (4336)

• Why I became a HTML5 co-editor

  15 août 2012, par silvia

  A few weeks ago, I had the honor to be appointed as part of the editorial team of the W3C HTML5 specification.

  Since Ian Hickson had recently decided to focus solely on editing the WHATWG HTML living standard specification, the W3C started looking for other editors to take the existing HTML5 specification to REC level. REC level is what other standards organizations call a “ratified standard”.

  But what does REC level really mean for HTML ?

  In my probably somewhat subjective view, recommendation level means that a snapshot is taken of the continuously evolving HTML spec, which has a comprehensive feature set, that is implemented in a cross-browser interoperable way, has a complete test set for the features, and has received wide review. The latter implies that other groups in the W3C have had a chance to look at the specification and make sure it satisfies their basic requirements, which include e.g. applicability to all users (accessibility, internationalization), platforms, and devices (mobile, TV).

  Basically it means that we stop for a “moment”, take a deep breath, polish the feature set that we’ve been working on this far, and make sure we all agree on it, before we get back to changing the world with cool new stuff. In a software project we would call it a release branch with feature freeze.

  Now, as productive as that may sound for software – it’s not actually that exciting for a specification. Firstly, the most exciting things happen when writing new features. Secondly, development of browsers doesn’t just magically stop to get the release (REC) happening. And lastly, if we’ve done our specification work well, there should be only little work to do. Basically, it’s the unthankful work of tidying up that we’re looking at here.

  So, why am I doing it ? I am not doing this for money – I’m currently part-time contracting to Google’s accessibility team working on video accessibility and this editor work is not covered by my contract. It wasn’t possible to reconcile polishing work on a specification with the goals of my contract, which include pushing new accessibility features forward. Therefore, when invited, I decided to offer my spare time to the W3C.

  I’m giving this time under the condition that I’d only be looking at accessibility and video related sections. This is where my interest and expertise lie, and where I’m passionate to get things right. I want to make sure that we create accessibility features that will be implemented and that we polish existing video features. I want to make sure we don’t digress from implementations which continue to get updated and may follow the WHATWG spec or HTML.next or other needs.

  I am not yet completely sure what the editorship will entail. Will we look at tests, too ? Will we get involved in HTML.next ? This far we’ve been preparing for our work by setting up adequate version control repositories, building a spec creation process, discussing how to bridge to the WHATWG commits, and analysing the long list of bugs to see how to cope with them. There’s plenty of actual text editing work ahead and the team is shaping up well ! I look forward to the new experiences.

• Why I became a HTML5 co-editor

  1er janvier 2014, par silvia

  A few weeks ago, I had the honor to be appointed as part of the editorial team of the W3C HTML5 specification.

  Since Ian Hickson had recently decided to focus solely on editing the WHATWG HTML living standard specification, the W3C started looking for other editors to take the existing HTML5 specification to REC level. REC level is what other standards organizations call a “ratified standard”.

  But what does REC level really mean for HTML ?

  In my probably somewhat subjective view, recommendation level means that a snapshot is taken of the continuously evolving HTML spec, which has a comprehensive feature set, that is implemented in a cross-browser interoperable way, has a complete test set for the features, and has received wide review. The latter implies that other groups in the W3C have had a chance to look at the specification and make sure it satisfies their basic requirements, which include e.g. applicability to all users (accessibility, internationalization), platforms, and devices (mobile, TV).

  Basically it means that we stop for a “moment”, take a deep breath, polish the feature set that we’ve been working on this far, and make sure we all agree on it, before we get back to changing the world with cool new stuff. In a software project we would call it a release branch with feature freeze.

  Now, as productive as that may sound for software – it’s not actually that exciting for a specification. Firstly, the most exciting things happen when writing new features. Secondly, development of browsers doesn’t just magically stop to get the release (REC) happening. And lastly, if we’ve done our specification work well, there should be only little work to do. Basically, it’s the unthankful work of tidying up that we’re looking at here.

  So, why am I doing it ? I am not doing this for money – I’m currently part-time contracting to Google’s accessibility team working on video accessibility and this editor work is not covered by my contract. It wasn’t possible to reconcile polishing work on a specification with the goals of my contract, which include pushing new accessibility features forward. Therefore, when invited, I decided to offer my spare time to the W3C.

  I’m giving this time under the condition that I’d only be looking at accessibility and video related sections. This is where my interest and expertise lie, and where I’m passionate to get things right. I want to make sure that we create accessibility features that will be implemented and that we polish existing video features. I want to make sure we don’t digress from implementations which continue to get updated and may follow the WHATWG spec or HTML.next or other needs.

  I am not yet completely sure what the editorship will entail. Will we look at tests, too ? Will we get involved in HTML.next ? This far we’ve been preparing for our work by setting up adequate version control repositories, building a spec creation process, discussing how to bridge to the WHATWG commits, and analysing the long list of bugs to see how to cope with them. There’s plenty of actual text editing work ahead and the team is shaping up well ! I look forward to the new experiences.

• Troll spirit

  15 juin 2013, par Mans — Law and liberty

  Last week’s announcements from the White House of steps being taken to begin fighting back against patent trolls, along with legislation passed in Vermont for the same purpose, are worthy of praise. Whether they prove effective or not, they are a sign of the problem finally having been recognised by the highest authorities. That said, only one aspect of the issue is addressed, that of non-practising entities or trolls. Little effort is being made to stymie troll-like behaviour from otherwise legitimate actors. While a stake is driven through the heart of the troll, its spirit remains free to roam the corporate world, and like a demon of darkness it possesses companies, compelling them to engage in the very practices we seek to eradicate.

  The demon

  The most damaging, when wielded by a troll, are those patents with vague or overly broad claims. These can easily be asserted against large numbers of alleged infringers, many of which likely choose to settle out of court rather than risk an expensive litigation process with uncertain outcome. Such negotiations are frequently subject to non-disclosure agreements prohibiting publication of details in any deals, or even the existence thereof. As a result, an accused has no way of assessing a fair price for a licence (assuming the patent is in fact valid), and the patent holder can thus extract from each would-be infringer precisely as much as they are willing or able to pay to avoid a lawsuit.

  At the root of this problem is the ease with which applications for the patents in question are granted. Given the volume of patent applications, it is hardly reasonable to demand a hugely more extensive examination process than currently takes place (although some improvements here are no doubt possible) ; after all, a speedy decision is in the best interest of all parties. The solution must evidently be found elsewhere.

  The exorcism

  An obvious cure to the problem is the abolishment of the patent system. As this is clearly not feasible today, more practical, albeit less effective, remedies must be sought. A few ideas follow.

  Make patent validity all or nothing

  Change the rules such that any claim being found invalid cancels the patent its entirety. With the full patent at stake in this manner, companies would be discouraged from gambling on frivolous claims and encouraged to conduct a more thorough background investigation before filing.

  Maintain a registry of licences

  Require that all patent licence agreements be filed in an open, easily searchable registry. This would hopefully increase fairness in licensing deals.

  Mandate reimbursement of licence fees for invalidated patents

  If a patent is challenged and found invalid, require that the owner reimburse any licence fees previously collected for the patent in question. Apart from being morally right, this could act as a deterrent to over-charging. The amount requested for a licence would likely be balanced against the risk of being made to pay it all back later, resulting in lower licence fees for low-confidence patents.

  These suggestions, alone or together, will not completely eradicate the problems of patent abuse. They are but small steps towards a more thorough overhaul of a system increasingly ill-suited to the nature and pace of modern technological development.