- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 19:05:32 +0000
- To: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi Charles, > Just because the OMTP is "pay-to-play" doesn't mean their efforts are wrong. > (Isn't W3C "pay-to-play" also?) My understanding is that all of the BONDI > technologies will be RF and published as open standards, and that they are > working in good faith with the W3C and WebApps WG to make sure their > technologies fit in with what the W3C is doing. Yes, from their public docs, Bondi has dependencies on our P&C spec and Dig Sig... and hopefully they will implement our API spec too. > My perception is that BONDI > (with all of its mobile operator members) is focused on driving industry > support for W3C Widgets, which is a very good thing for the W3C. If I'm > wrong with these assumptions, I'd like to know about it. I think you are correct. However, my assumption (which could be totally wrong!) is that Bondi will "roadtest" their implementations and then feed their specs to the W3C for standardization once they are ready. > But off course, W3C needs to study the BONDI specs before giving a thumbs > up, so it would be premature to reference BONDI at this point. Yep. But like Charles said, it should be the other way around: Bondi specs should be brought to the W3C for standardization once they are ready. If the specs are done, implemented, and have an associated test-suite, then standardization through the W3C should be a breeze, right? Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 19:06:14 UTC