W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Let's set up a mailing list for coordination with ECMA and Web IDL discussion

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:04:11 -0700
Cc: Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-id: <27B175B9-E9AE-47E3-A1CB-C32C2668C872@apple.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>

On Sep 27, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> On Sep 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> ECMA TC39 (the group responsible for ECMAScript) has expressed a
>> strong interest in having a list for joint discussion with the W3C,
>> and particularly the Web Apps WG. And they are especially interested
>> in review of Web IDL. I suggest we set up <public-scripting@w3.org>
>> (name suggested by Mark Miller) as a list managed by the Web Apps WG
>> for both purposes - discussion of Web IDL, and other scripting- 
>> related
>> coordination issues. I think this would be better than the massive
>> cross-posting we've experienced over the past few days.
>> Does this sound like a good idea to everyone?
> The only concern I have is the potential for an input from someone  
> who has not agreed to the W3C's Patent Policy (PP) to be included in  
> one of our specs. In practice, the risk for this scenario for the  
> Web IDL spec appears to be relatively low. However, at least one of  
> the messages in one of these related threads implied there may be an  
> impedance mismatch between ECMA's patent policy and the W3C's PP.

There is that risk. However, public-webapps and www-dom are also open  
to subscription by anyone, as I understand it. In any of these cases  
anyone giving major technical input should probably be asked to agree  
to the W3C Patent Policy.

> I think we should get some input from the W3C Team here but it  
> appears the benefits of this proposed list i.e. increased  
> communication between ECMA and W3C, outweigh the IP risks so you get  
> a tentative Yes from me.
> FWIW, I think Doug's earlier proposal to name this list "public-idl"  
> was good but I am mostly indifferent as to the name and could  
> certainly live with public-scripting.
> Mike, Doug - please pursue creating the list.

I thought public-idl was also good, but the more general name might  
make it a decent place to discuss issues that are not strictly Web  
IDL, such as the need for a data type for binary data.

Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 01:04:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:19 UTC