W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:17:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8fF3jaQJR3xJQteDOnmmQYZ+auQ=d8StQYmMVpXonL3fQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com (mailto:
> robin@berjon.com)> wrote:
> > >  Hi Charles,
> > >
> > >  On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
> > > > There is certainly some overlap between DAP and WebApps. Is that the
> issue here, Robin?
> > >
> > > If you ask me, there isn't any issue at all :) James suggested that
> WebApps take over Intents. Since it isn't in WebApps's deliverables, this
> could require some process mongering which I think we can all agree is an
> annoying waste of time. As it happens however, DAP already has Intents in
> its charter, so getting to work right now rather than walking the
> bureaucratic path is a simple matter of doing the work there.
> >
> > There's process mongering to get relevant parties to join DAP. This is
> not free. If you can guarantee me that the other browsers will join DAP then
> let's talk (namely MSFT who just announced a similar spec for Metro, and it
> would be very important to get their input here.)
> That presupposes that Microsoft would have anything to say even in this WG.
> Obviously, I can't speak for Microsoft (and I won't), but just because
> someone is part of the WG doesn't mean that they will say anything … or
> worst, they will just exclude patents willy-nilly like Apple did with
> Widgets. That's a much crappier situation, so careful for what you wish for
> :)

While issuing a ton of patent exclusions for something like this would be
rather poor, I would frankly rather have that then a spec that doesn't get
any attention from a party that's clearly relevant only to have patents come
up /after/ the spec is published and implemented.

Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 17:18:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:23 UTC