W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > April 2011

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

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:01:58 -0400
Message-ID: <4DAF0376.6040007@nokia.com>
To: ext Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>, "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
CC: W3C DAP <public-device-apis@w3.org>
In case you are talking about "submission" in the sense of a "W3C Member 
Submission", please note the Process Document says the following:

[[
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/submission.html#SubmissionScope

11.1.1 Scope of Member Submissions

When a technology overlaps in scope with the work of a chartered Working 
Group, Members SHOULD participate in the Working Group and contribute 
the technology to the group's process rather than seek publication 
through the Member Submission process.
]]

This is, IMHO, consistent with the spirit of the W3C Patent Policy which 
effectively says if a Member wants their input included in a 
Recommendation track document, that Member should join the relevant WG 
(and hence agree to the Patent Policy for all the specs created by the WG).

-AB

On Apr/20/2011 11:37 AM, ext Bryan Sullivan wrote:
> OK, that would be useful, as it would remove roadblocks to us working 
> faster on these APIs.
>
> Is that something Google could do for Web Introducer and Sensors at 
> least (e.g. if hypothetically the DAP Sensor API was inspired by the 
> Android Sensor API)?
>
> How would their willingness to do that be determined? Would they 
> "submit" the specs to W3C for use by groups of which they are not a 
> member, or to specific groups?
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group 
> <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com 
> <mailto:Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>> wrote:
>
>     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
>     <mailto: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
>     >
>     >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 16:02:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:20 GMT