- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:13:35 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Ryan Sarver <rsarver@skyhookwireless.com>
- Cc: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, public-geolocation@w3.org
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Ryan Sarver wrote: > > Can you expand on why Google feels so strongly that it should be a part of the > Web Apps working group? It's an API, part of the platform for Web Applications, so the Web Apps group is appropriate; creating a new group is significant unnecessary overhead. The API will have to be made consistent with the rest of the Web Apps specs, in particular WebIDL, and so being part of the same group will significantly lower the process barriers. The net cost to the W3C is lower if there are fewer groups involved, so we feel it would be a better use of our membership fee. The Web Apps group already has a high profile given its history through the Web API and Web App Formats groups, and therefore will be able to get significantly more feedback from the public than a dedicated Geolocation group. > IP alone is enough of a stumbling block The IP issues are exactly the same regardless of which group covers this work. Either there are patents covering this work in which case we have to get them licensed RF or work around them, or there are no patents, and it doesn't matter. If there are patents, it is significantly easier to work with the relevant companies if they are involved, which is more likely to happen if we participate in a group with a wider scope such as the Web Apps group. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 21 June 2008 22:14:15 UTC