- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:15:51 -0700
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: ifette@google.com, James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 9/20/2011 7:55 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > Hi Ian! > > On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:26 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: >> I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join the WG you mention is just as high > Can you please detail what overhead that involves? There are only two cases here: > > • You have IP concerns relevant to Web Intents. In that case you need IP portfolio review. That overhead is the same for joining and for rechartering an existing group (it's just politically higher in the rechartering case). > • You don't have IP concerns relevant to Web Intents. In that case you just join the group — zero overhead. > > It's a simple solution that just involves clicking through a form. If you have a political mexican standoff of vendors not joining while the others aren't, it can hardly be blamed on the process, DAP, WebApps, W3C, or whatever else. I'm sure that it can be sorted out, though. > > Intents were initially added to DAP's charter in good part because Google asked us to. It's a little annoying to be blamed for doing exactly what you were asked to do. There is certainly some overlap between DAP and WebApps. Is that the issue here, Robin? I don't have much of a solution for it: I've been looking at DAP as an incubator with a broad scope and a good history of experimentation. -Charles
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 15:16:27 UTC