- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:11:07 +0100
- To: Nick Allott <nick.allott@omtp.org>
- Cc: <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Nick, On Feb 5, 2009, at 18:04 , Nick Allott wrote: > To clarify: BONDI work would have been introduced to W3C activity > earlier in the process, however, we have been fighting the internal > (and cross organisational) processes surrounding IPR regimes. > > This is now fully clarified – and formal inputs will be made > imminently, with the necessary RF commitments. That is excellent news, thanks for keeping us posted. > From BONDI side – there is no expectation of rubber stamping within > W3C - and full expectation that we adhere to due process and > consensus building. Just to be clear since I may have been too terse in my comment, I wasn't implying that OMTP believed that they could rubber-stamp their specification through the W3C, I was simply pushing back on the idea that Marcos expressed that OMTP specifications should be brought here after they are finished. Since there is no rubber-stamping process, it would lead to the specs being modified, and likely all manners of bad blood would result (those who worked with the JCP to sync JSR-226 and the MicroDOM will know what I mean altogether too well). I sure look forward to OMTP-W3C collaboration over Bondi, it makes a lot of sense. > We will of course give all the collective support we can towards the > process – after all the market is moving very rapidly ahead, and > fragmentation risk increasing by the day. Indeed, all the more reason not to fragment our efforts! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 13:11:46 UTC