W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > June 2008

Re: Draft Charter

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:13:35 +0000 (UTC)
To: Ryan Sarver <rsarver@skyhookwireless.com>
Cc: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, public-geolocation@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0806212202430.13974@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Ryan Sarver wrote:
> Can you expand on why Google feels so strongly that it should be a part of the
> Web Apps working group?

It's an API, part of the platform for Web Applications, so the Web Apps 
group is appropriate; creating a new group is significant unnecessary 
overhead. The API will have to be made consistent with the rest of the Web 
Apps specs, in particular WebIDL, and so being part of the same group will 
significantly lower the process barriers. The net cost to the W3C is lower 
if there are fewer groups involved, so we feel it would be a better use of 
our membership fee. The Web Apps group already has a high profile given 
its history through the Web API and Web App Formats groups, and therefore 
will be able to get significantly more feedback from the public than a 
dedicated Geolocation group.

> IP alone is enough of a stumbling block

The IP issues are exactly the same regardless of which group covers this 
work. Either there are patents covering this work in which case we have to 
get them licensed RF or work around them, or there are no patents, and it 
doesn't matter. If there are patents, it is significantly easier to work 
with the relevant companies if they are involved, which is more likely to 
happen if we participate in a group with a wider scope such as the Web 
Apps group.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 21 June 2008 22:14:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:49 UTC