- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:01:58 -0400
- To: ext Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>, "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
- CC: W3C DAP <public-device-apis@w3.org>
In case you are talking about "submission" in the sense of a "W3C Member Submission", please note the Process Document says the following: [[ http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/submission.html#SubmissionScope 11.1.1 Scope of Member Submissions When a technology overlaps in scope with the work of a chartered Working Group, Members SHOULD participate in the Working Group and contribute the technology to the group's process rather than seek publication through the Member Submission process. ]] This is, IMHO, consistent with the spirit of the W3C Patent Policy which effectively says if a Member wants their input included in a Recommendation track document, that Member should join the relevant WG (and hence agree to the Patent Policy for all the specs created by the WG). -AB On Apr/20/2011 11:37 AM, ext Bryan Sullivan wrote: > OK, that would be useful, as it would remove roadblocks to us working > faster on these APIs. > > Is that something Google could do for Web Introducer and Sensors at > least (e.g. if hypothetically the DAP Sensor API was inspired by the > Android Sensor API)? > > How would their willingness to do that be determined? Would they > "submit" the specs to W3C for use by groups of which they are not a > member, or to specific groups? > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group > <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com > <mailto:Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>> wrote: > > Hi Bryan -- > > I absolutely agree with you with regard to the IP provenance of > inputs into > the group. Ideally these organizations should join the group. > However, if > APIs are coming from non-(group)-members or even from > non-w3c-members there > is a precedent for submitters to make a separate royalty-free > commitment > regarding their submissions. > > Dan > > On 20/04/2011 16:10, "Bryan Sullivan" <blsaws@gmail.com > <mailto:blsaws@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > In the call today during the discussion of the Web Introducer draft > > (http://web-send.org/introducer/), I made the following points > that it might > > be useful to have email list discussion on. > > > > In the rechartering we are trying to create an environment > attractive to > > participation of the browser vendors, both in API scope/design > and in > > security/privacy approaches. We are making a good faith effort > to address > > their concerns. Hopefully actions are taking place in the W3C > background to > > promote participation of the browser vendors, as a result. > > > > However basing DAP APIs on APIs of non-members is problematic. > This goes for > > Web Introducer and Sensors as well. > > > > At this point there is an available API draft for sensors > > (http://bondi.omtp.org/1.5/PWD-2/sensor.htm) which is RF (as > part of the BONDI > > project). > > > > I would like to consider the Google APIs as baselines but we > need Google's > > involvement in the group to move forward on that, IMO. > > > > For sensors, hopefully in the meantime we can find some neutral > approach to > > begin drafting an API. > > > > Bryan | AT&T > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 16:02:29 UTC