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: Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:08:50 -0500
Message-ID: <5BC614EAB4C2384099E0B386F0E4BFB58267EF@XCH04ADS.rim.net>
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "ext Bryan Sullivan" <blsaws@gmail.com>, "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
Cc: "W3C DAP" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
+1 to Art and Bryan. I have expressed similar concerns during the call
that any goals listed in the charter that are based on current
implementations should be subject to those implementers to be members of
the DAP WG.

Regards,
Suresh


-----Original Message-----
From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:02 AM
To: ext Bryan Sullivan; Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group
Cc: W3C DAP
Subject: Re: Getting browser vendors involved prior to basing work on
their products/ideas

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#SubmissionSco
pe

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
>     >
>     >
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 16:10:07 GMT

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