Re: Getting browser vendors involved prior to basing work on their products/ideas

Hi Bryan --

I absolutely agree with you with regard to the IP provenance of inputs into
the group.  Ideally these organizations should join the group.  However, if
APIs are coming from non-(group)-members or even from non-w3c-members there
is a precedent for submitters to make a separate royalty-free commitment
regarding their submissions.

Dan

On 20/04/2011 16:10, "Bryan Sullivan" <blsaws@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the call today during the discussion of the Web Introducer draft
> (http://web-send.org/introducer/), I made the following points that it might
> be useful to have email list discussion on.
> 
> In the rechartering we are trying to create an environment attractive to
> participation of the browser vendors, both in API scope/design and in
> security/privacy approaches. We are making a good faith effort to address
> their concerns. Hopefully actions are taking place in the W3C background to
> promote participation of the browser vendors, as a result.
> 
> However basing DAP APIs on APIs of non-members is problematic. This goes for
> Web Introducer and Sensors as well. 
> 
> At this point there is an available API draft for sensors
> (http://bondi.omtp.org/1.5/PWD-2/sensor.htm) which is RF (as part of the BONDI
> project). 
> 
> I would like to consider the Google APIs as baselines but we need Google's
> involvement in the group to move forward on that, IMO.
> 
> For sensors, hopefully in the meantime we can find some neutral approach to
> begin drafting an API.
> 
> Bryan | AT&T
> 
>