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: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:11:25 -0700
Message-ID: <4AC00D3D.5010509@w3.org>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: ext Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi, Folks-

I've submitted the request for <public-scripting@w3.org>, and I 
anticipate that this will be created Monday (tomorrow).  Thanks to 
everyone for the discussion leading up to this... I'm very happy that 
this coordination is going on.

I will announce when the list is ready, with instructions on how folks 
can subscribe themselves.

Art, I understand your concern and will ask the Team to look at the 
issue of IP risks in this scenario, but in light of public comments in 
general, I don't anticipate that this will be a major issue... we will 
have to be careful in how we deal with significant and substantive 
feature requests, of course.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs


Arthur Barstow wrote (on 9/27/09 5:24 PM):
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -Regards, Art Barstow
>
>
>> If so, how quickly can
>> we get it done?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>>
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 01:11:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT