- From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-what@farside.org.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:55:32 +0100
Jim Ley writes: >> The WHATWG principles are laid out here: >> http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/papers/opera.html > So you're now conceding that this is an Opera thing, not 7 guys who > don't recognise companies? We've still not had any patent etc. info. First off, just to note that that's clearly marked as a joint Mozilla-Opera paper. Representing it as being solely from Opera, as if that was evidence that Opera is trying to carve a 'proprietry web' is disingeneous. Secondly, it's clearly not just 'an Opera thing'. I don't work for Opera, and neither do you. I do agree that a patent disclosure policy would make sense if the members of WHATWG were representing their respective employers, but as they aren't, it wouldn't make sense to have one - unless Brendan has a collection of JavaScript patents he's trying to slip into the spec :) >> Don't forget that all this WHATWG work is intended to be submitted to a >> standards organisation; like PNG was, for instance. > Yes, but you've still not told us the roadmap, perhaps if you made all > that clearer you might get a little more support. The roadmap is pretty clearly laid out in the group's Charter. There's only one bit that isn't, and that's the intention to submit to a standards organisation. I think I remember someone saying that we can't talk about specific standards organisations, but I don't think there's anything wrong with adding a note about the intent to the charter. Ian? Regards, Malcolm
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:55:32 UTC