Re: Required support for SVG in widgets

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 -
     Feel like hiring me? Go to

Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 13:11:46 UTC