Re: Required support for SVG in widgets

2009/2/6 Robin Berjon <>:
> 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.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean finished as in standardized without
review. I meant when they had been written and road-tested within
Bondi and brought in as member inputs (as opposed to starting the work
from scratch within the working group, as was done, say, with the
Widget Updates spec). Sorry for the misunderstanding. I also did not
mean to imply any rubber-stamping by the W3C, which is, of course,
something I would never condone.

Anyway, we have gotten totally off topic:)

Kind regards,
Marcos Caceres

Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 14:07:20 UTC