- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:42:49 +0100
- To: "Jon Ferraiolo" <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:48:38 +0100, 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. 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.
>
> 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.
Ah, OK. Yes, your understanding matches mine. I was just thrown by the
idea that we should commit to referencing BONDI at this stage - as you say
it is premature.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:43:39 UTC