Why did the W3C, which is part of MIT, a supposedly respected academic institution, take my name off the RSS 2.0 spec? They should explain this, fix it, and probably apologize.

https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/rss2.html

RSS 2.0 specification

@davew The W3C is no longer part of MIT. See https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/9823
W3C re-launched as a public-interest non-profit organization | W3C News

@andreas_kuckartz

yes i heard that. i still think you have to respect creative commons attribution licenses. that was one of the first such licensed documents.

if you work at the w3c please ask them to just point to the spec. that's what would be weblike and respectful.

https://cyber.harvard.edu/rss/rss.html

scroll to the bottom to see authorship credits and the cc license.

RSS 2.0 Specification (RSS 2.0 at Harvard Law)

@davew I do not work at the W3C.

Maybe @koalie can help.

BTW: A relaunch of the website is scheduled for tomorrow:
https://status.w3.org/incidents/t7dg7v8kjh20

Release of new W3C website

W3C's Status Page - Release of new W3C website.

@andreas_kuckartz thanks for drawing my attention to this.
Hi @davew it looks like the license is respected and that the documents this particular document draws from do not credit individuals either. I'm happy to help fix any error but I'm not finding where the error(s) is/are.
@davew I think the issue is that the version hosted on the W3C site draws from versions hosted on https://www.rssboard.org/ which are different from https://cyber.harvard.edu/rss/rss.html
RSS Advisory Board

RSS Advisory Board announcements, the current specification and Really Simple Syndication news.

@koalie

I am a former member of W3C, I was also a fellow at Berkman when that doc was published. That is my writing you're hosting on the W3C site, it's obvious, and my name and copyright have been removed. I'm handling this according to the process outlined by the CC (link below). I don't want to get drawn into your relationship with the group you mentioned. ;-)

Please just fix this and let me get back to my work on making the web work better. Thanks.

https://creativecommons.org/misuse-of-works/

What to Do if Your CC-Licensed Work is Misused - Creative Commons

The CC licenses are designed to make sharing simple and place minimal requirements on reusers who want to be able to use creative works. However, sometimes reusers still misuse CC-licensed works, either intentionally or by mistake, and as a licensor, there are several things you can do about it.  Before you take action: Before you…

Creative Commons
@davew I'm happy to help fix this, I'm not trying to be difficult :) Having just tuned to this, my train of thoughts was that if the author(s) of our page chose to compile from pages from this group (with which we have no relationship otherwise) instead of original pages, there must have been a good reason. Anyway, I'll have a look ASAP.

@koalie

I've outlined the choices here.

https://github.com/w3c/feedvalidator/issues/106#issuecomment-1600820709

Please can we fix this *now* and get back to making the web work better. This is so humiliating.

Copyright concerns on from RSS 2.0 Specification page · Issue #106 · w3c/feedvalidator

Bringing this to W3C's attention, though I'm not the copyright holder. It concerns this page: https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/rss2.html This was initially brought up by Dave Winer, original auth...

GitHub
@davew @koalie Ridiculous you have to be fighting to be correctly attributed for a spec you authored

@scsalon @koalie

thank you. none of this should have happened.

@davew I will have a look as soon as I can; I'm in the middle of other time-sensitive tasks this week and next.