- 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