W3C Specs reformatted

[Ilkka Huotari]

Hi,

Here are some W3C specs reformatted (HTML 4.01, CSS):
http://www.visiomode.com/docs/

CHMs and web versions.

 

[Karl Groves]

Hi,

Here are some W3C specs reformatted (HTML 4.01, CSS):
http://www.visiomode.com/docs/

CHMs and web versions.

Why is there blue, underlined text on your site that IS NOT a link?

 

[Ilkka Huotari]

Why is there blue, underlined text on your site that IS NOT a link?

Something from conversion, fixed.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Here are some W3C specs reformatted (HTML 4.01, CSS):

Did you really get W3C's permission? If you did, it would be appropriate
to make a note of this, to avoid misunderstandings.

Publishing W3C specs as reformatted is generally _not_ permitted. See the
explicit statement at
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#format

 

[Ilkka Huotari]

I followed these instructions here, which were linked from the HTML 4.01
mainpage:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents-19990405

However, this copyright statement is a bit confusing:
- It grants the "use" and "distribution" of the material.
- It doesn't allow modifications or derivatives. Are my versions
derivatives? I haven't changed the content, what one might think a
derivative means?

Ok, I will ask W3C for the permission and take these offline now.

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

I followed these instructions here, which were linked from the HTML 4.01
mainpage:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents-19990405

However, this copyright statement is a bit confusing:
- It grants the "use" and "distribution" of the material.
- It doesn't allow modifications or derivatives. Are my versions
derivatives? I haven't changed the content, what one might think a
derivative means?

Well, in the document Jukka linked to, they claim that publishing the
specs in a different format is a derivative work, so by that definition
your works ARE derivatives. This kind of restriction does seem a bit
extreme to me, but I'm sure they had this checked by a copyright lawyer.

This whole thing is a double-edged sword, of course. The W3C WANT their
specs published and used as widely as possible, so it's in their best
interest to have people like you take the initiative and put the specs
in a potentially useful format. On the other hand, they also need to
keep control of what happens to the specs and how they are
redistributed. So they have to place those restrictions.

Personally, I think your idea is great. Just ask them for permission -
and let's hope it doesn't take months for them to reply!


Matthias

 

[Ilkka Huotari]

This whole thing is a double-edged sword, of course. The W3C WANT their

specs published and used as widely as possible, so it's in their best
interest to have people like you take the initiative and put the specs
in a potentially useful format. On the other hand, they also need to
keep control of what happens to the specs and how they are
redistributed. So they have to place those restrictions.
Agree.

Personally, I think your idea is great. Just ask them for permission -
and let's hope it doesn't take months for them to reply!

Thanks. We'll see how it goes.

Ilkka

 

[B r ia n]

Well, in the document Jukka linked to, they claim that publishing the
specs in a different format is a derivative work, so by that definition
your works ARE derivatives. This kind of restriction does seem a bit
extreme to me, but I'm sure they had this checked by a copyright lawyer.

That particular FAQ asks if they can publish in a *different* format
(e.q. PDF) so I assume that they only want you to ask for permission
when changing to PDF/DOC/PDB/Etc..

just the way I see it though, doesn't mean it's right =)