- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:31:27 +0100
- To: Boaz Sender <boaz@bocoup.com>
- Cc: Lars Knudsen <larsgk@gmail.com>, Grady Laksmono <glaksmono@zynga.com>, Andrew Baker <andrew_j_baker2@hotmail.com>, "gmthundercat@gmail.com" <gmthundercat@gmail.com>, "public-games@w3.org" <public-games@w3.org>, "scheib@google.com" <scheib@google.com>, Conceiro Igueregui, Alexander <alexander.conceiro@tecnalia.com>
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Conceiro Igueregui, Alexander wrote: > > * Tracking specifications and vendor implementations related to open web games. Good. > > > * Recommending new specifications to be produced and finding working group homes for them. I would add: * Suggesting refinements or fixes to existing specifications to better meet the needs of the game development community. (note, that his may be in conflict with the last statement about IP!) > > * Refining use cases to communicate specific needs of games. > Good (noting this one is different to the one above. ) > > > * Evangelizing specifications to browser vendors. > Great. > * Documenting how to best use open web standards for games > Great. > > > > * Evangelizing open web standards to game developers and game development best practices to web developers Great. > The games community group will not develop any specifications, and thus, there will not be any Essential Claims under the W3C Contributor License Agreement or Final Specification Agreement. I'm not comfortable with the above. The above will still generate ideas that may encroach on the Essential Claims under the W3C Contributor License Agreement. Maybe we need W3C to legal to review, but I'm not sure. -- Marcos Caceres
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 18:32:07 UTC