W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Request for clarification on HTML 5 publication status (ISSUE-19)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:40:30 -0600
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1196347230.7560.309.camel@pav>


On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 09:46 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > 
> > Before we get to the business of addressing objections to publishing, we 
> > have to establish a critical mass of support for publishing.
> 
> It would seem we have that -- 43 people have indicated explicitly that 
> they agree that we should publish a draft, in a vote with 53 ballots cast. 
> That's over 80% explicitly positive.

I don't think those 43 people represent a critical mass of the
relevant constituency; namely: the W3C member organizations that take
on patent licensing obligations as of 1st WD.

Note:

[[
The following W3C Members ... have not answered the questionnaire:

     1. AOL LLC: Kevin Lawver <kevin.lawver@corp.aol.com>, Geoff Bishop
        <Geoffrey.Bishop@corp.aol.com>
     2. IBM Corporation: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>,
        Aaron Leventhal <aleventh@us.ibm.com>, Sam Ruby
        <rubys@us.ibm.com>
     3. France Telecom: St├ęphane Deschamps
        <stephane.deschamps@orange-ftgroup.com>
     4. Nokia Corporation: Mikko Honkala <mikko.honkala@nokia.com>
     5. Boeing Company: Scott Vesey <scott.r.vesey@boeing.com>
     6. Openwave Systems Inc.: Mark Cataldo <mark.cataldo@openwave.com>,
        Sudheer Gullapalli <sudheer.gullapalli@openwave.com>
     7. ACCESS Co., Ltd.: Marcin Hanclik
        <marcin.hanclik@access-company.com>
     8. Library of Congress: Justin Thorp <juth@loc.gov>
     9. Cisco Systems: Michael Whitley <miwhitle@cisco.com>
    10. BEA Systems, Inc.: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
    11. Oxford Brookes University: Bob Hopgood <bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk>
    12. Stanford University: Monika Trebo <mtrebo@stanford.edu>
    13. PicoForms: David Landwehr <david.landwehr@picoforms.com>,
        Kenneth Sklander <kenneth@sklander.net>
    14. University of Innsbruck: Alexander Graf <alexander.graf@deri.at>
    15. Queensland University of Technology: Michael Lawley
        <m.lawley@qut.edu.au>
    16. mTLD Top Level Domain Limited: Stephen Stewart
        <sstewart@mtld.mobi>
    17. Dreamlab Technologies AG: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer
        <sebastian@dreamlab.net>
    18. Betfair Limited: Martyn Haigh <Martyn.Haigh@betfair.com>
]]
 -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd11spec/results

Less than a dozen W3C member organizations actually participated
in the formal survey. Thank you for...

yes responses:
1. Google, Inc.
2. Opera Software
3. Mozilla Foundation
4. Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd.
5. Apple, Inc.
6. Disruptive Innovations
7. International Webmasters Association / HTML Writers Guild

no response:
1. Microsoft Corp.

>  (You yourself wrote that we had 
> "considerable support for publication" [1] in response to an earlier 
> survey with fewer votes asking for HTML5 to be published [2].)

Yes. As I say, that was a mistake, for which I apologize.

[...]
> > That's where Chris and I made the mistake. When I put the question on 2 
> > November, I assumed that members such as Nokia and IBM and Microsoft 
> > were aware of the patent policy implications of publishing current HTML 
> > 5 specs under our current charter, and Chris assumed that Microsoft's 
> > patent review included the immediate mode graphics stuff.
> 
> Certainly if a company needs more than the standard 3 months to review the 
> spec after FPWD publication, we shouldn't prevent them from leaving the 
> group and taking the time to complete this review. However, I do not 
> understand how this would be a reason for blocking FPWD publication -- 
> indeed, as far as I can tell from my reading of the patent policy, it 
> would be a reason to expedite it.

Well, we're looking at the same evidence but we come to different
conclusions. I think it's worth a small delay in publishing the draft
to avoid prompting member organizations to resign.

I intend to consult with the Hypertext CG and W3C management about
how much of a delay is advisable/acceptable. I suppose I'll use
tracker to keep me accountable...


ACTION-28 Consult with the Hypertext CG and W3C management about how
much time W3C member organizations should be allowed to study the patent
implications of an HTML 5 spec 1st WD
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/28


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 14:40:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:09 GMT