Re: Request for clarification on HTML 5 publication status (ISSUE-19)

On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 09:46 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > 
> > Before we get to the business of addressing objections to publishing, we 
> > have to establish a critical mass of support for publishing.
> It would seem we have that -- 43 people have indicated explicitly that 
> they agree that we should publish a draft, in a vote with 53 ballots cast. 
> That's over 80% explicitly positive.

I don't think those 43 people represent a critical mass of the
relevant constituency; namely: the W3C member organizations that take
on patent licensing obligations as of 1st WD.


The following W3C Members ... have not answered the questionnaire:

     1. AOL LLC: Kevin Lawver <>, Geoff Bishop
     2. IBM Corporation: Richard Schwerdtfeger <>,
        Aaron Leventhal <>, Sam Ruby
     3. France Telecom: St├ęphane Deschamps
     4. Nokia Corporation: Mikko Honkala <>
     5. Boeing Company: Scott Vesey <>
     6. Openwave Systems Inc.: Mark Cataldo <>,
        Sudheer Gullapalli <>
     7. ACCESS Co., Ltd.: Marcin Hanclik
     8. Library of Congress: Justin Thorp <>
     9. Cisco Systems: Michael Whitley <>
    10. BEA Systems, Inc.: David Orchard <>
    11. Oxford Brookes University: Bob Hopgood <>
    12. Stanford University: Monika Trebo <>
    13. PicoForms: David Landwehr <>,
        Kenneth Sklander <>
    14. University of Innsbruck: Alexander Graf <>
    15. Queensland University of Technology: Michael Lawley
    16. mTLD Top Level Domain Limited: Stephen Stewart
    17. Dreamlab Technologies AG: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer
    18. Betfair Limited: Martyn Haigh <>

Less than a dozen W3C member organizations actually participated
in the formal survey. Thank you for...

yes responses:
1. Google, Inc.
2. Opera Software
3. Mozilla Foundation
4. Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd.
5. Apple, Inc.
6. Disruptive Innovations
7. International Webmasters Association / HTML Writers Guild

no response:
1. Microsoft Corp.

>  (You yourself wrote that we had 
> "considerable support for publication" [1] in response to an earlier 
> survey with fewer votes asking for HTML5 to be published [2].)

Yes. As I say, that was a mistake, for which I apologize.

> > That's where Chris and I made the mistake. When I put the question on 2 
> > November, I assumed that members such as Nokia and IBM and Microsoft 
> > were aware of the patent policy implications of publishing current HTML 
> > 5 specs under our current charter, and Chris assumed that Microsoft's 
> > patent review included the immediate mode graphics stuff.
> Certainly if a company needs more than the standard 3 months to review the 
> spec after FPWD publication, we shouldn't prevent them from leaving the 
> group and taking the time to complete this review. However, I do not 
> understand how this would be a reason for blocking FPWD publication -- 
> indeed, as far as I can tell from my reading of the patent policy, it 
> would be a reason to expedite it.

Well, we're looking at the same evidence but we come to different
conclusions. I think it's worth a small delay in publishing the draft
to avoid prompting member organizations to resign.

I intend to consult with the Hypertext CG and W3C management about
how much of a delay is advisable/acceptable. I suppose I'll use
tracker to keep me accountable...

ACTION-28 Consult with the Hypertext CG and W3C management about how
much time W3C member organizations should be allowed to study the patent
implications of an HTML 5 spec 1st WD

Dan Connolly, W3C
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 14:40:40 UTC