- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:04:11 -0700
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sep 27, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On Sep 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> ECMA TC39 (the group responsible for ECMAScript) has expressed a >> strong interest in having a list for joint discussion with the W3C, >> and particularly the Web Apps WG. And they are especially interested >> in review of Web IDL. I suggest we set up <public-scripting@w3.org> >> (name suggested by Mark Miller) as a list managed by the Web Apps WG >> for both purposes - discussion of Web IDL, and other scripting- >> related >> coordination issues. I think this would be better than the massive >> cross-posting we've experienced over the past few days. >> >> Does this sound like a good idea to everyone? > > The only concern I have is the potential for an input from someone > who has not agreed to the W3C's Patent Policy (PP) to be included in > one of our specs. In practice, the risk for this scenario for the > Web IDL spec appears to be relatively low. However, at least one of > the messages in one of these related threads implied there may be an > impedance mismatch between ECMA's patent policy and the W3C's PP. There is that risk. However, public-webapps and www-dom are also open to subscription by anyone, as I understand it. In any of these cases anyone giving major technical input should probably be asked to agree to the W3C Patent Policy. > I think we should get some input from the W3C Team here but it > appears the benefits of this proposed list i.e. increased > communication between ECMA and W3C, outweigh the IP risks so you get > a tentative Yes from me. > > FWIW, I think Doug's earlier proposal to name this list "public-idl" > was good but I am mostly indifferent as to the name and could > certainly live with public-scripting. > > Mike, Doug - please pursue creating the list. I thought public-idl was also good, but the more general name might make it a decent place to discuss issues that are not strictly Web IDL, such as the need for a data type for binary data. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 01:04:52 UTC