W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: SVG2 Accessibility User Agent Implementation Guide

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 08:00:27 +0000
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, SVG WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>, "SVG public list" <www-svg@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B9E2DA79-C8D8-4533-9036-299FE45AE713@adobe.com>

On Mar 31, 2014, at 11:02 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Bjoern:
> 
> Bjoern Hoehrmann writes:
>> * Michael Cooper wrote:
>>> By tying the deliverable to a single Working Group that everyone joins, 
>>> we are getting clear patent commitments from the people who join the 
>>> work. The alternative is a joint task force in which some people have 
>>> made a PF patent commitment, and others have made an SVG patent 
>>> commitment - it's more vague about what the actual commitment to the 
>>> specific work is.
>> 
>> Could you explain why the SVG WG and PFWG cannot, like other groups do,
>> publish the document jointly, or how that would be worse if the goal is
>> to maximise chances that the result can be implemented royality-free?
>> -- 
> 
> I think you misunderstand. Let me try to explain.
> 
> *	We are proposing joint publication. This means that PF and Svg
> *	would each need to agree to the publication, at each significant
> *	stage, e.g. FPWD, Last Call, CR, etc.
> 
> *	We do intend that the result can be implemented
> *	royalty free, as you suggest. However, there is a specific W3C
> *	process, required of all W3C Working Groups operating under the
> *	W3C Patent Policy, which is to expressly seek any patend disclosures,
> *	should anyone assert such. There is a FAQ that may be helpful:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq.html and especially
> http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq.html#joint
> 
> I would note that SVG and PF both operate under the W3C Patent Policy:
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/2012/charter.html#patentpolicy
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/charter201006.html#patentpolicy
> 
> So, I'm unclear what you mean when you say: "Could you explain why the
> SVG WG and PFWG cannot, like other groups do, publish the document
> jointly, or how that would be worse ..."
> 
> What other groups?

Michael indicated that it is not possible to publish the document jointly by SVG WG and PFWG. The SVG WG does jointly publish specifications with the CSS WG and we did not hear complains yet.

Michael mentioned problems with the deliverables of the SVG WG. I do not really understand the issue here. We actually explicitly say that accessibility guidelines are part of the WG’s deliverables: “	• Updated Accessibility Note”

I would be in favor for a jointly published spec.

Also, there are often reviews involved before a company joins a WG. It would be easier if we could avoid that.

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
> Janina
> 
>> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
>> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
>> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
> 			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> 		Email:	janina@rednote.net
> 
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org
> 
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
> 	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
> 
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2014 08:01:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:19 UTC