Hi, Chaals-

Charles McCathieNevile wrote (on 6/5/08 11:21 AM):

If there is no apparent movement in the time between now and our face to face meeting, that may be time to take it up again. In the meantime why not give the W3C Team a little credit for acting in good faith, and the time to do their work at a reasonable rate?

Thanks for the support. I am conscious of the potential delay, and I'm trying to mitigate it as much as possible.

Since the webspace at dev.w3.org/2006/webapi is just a set of addresses for convenience, and since we are discussing something that is clearly some kind of WebAPI, unless there is some process reason I don't know of or you do something blatantly stupid like trying to make a document look like it has more W3C support than it does through inappropriate use of stylesheets, missing or misleading status statements and so on, I don't see that it is impossible to put a proposal for a spec into that space. Indeed, there is no reason I can see that a geolocation group could not continue using a chunk of that space, given that there is trust between the members of the two groups not to step on each other's work.

Matt Womer set up a (temporary?) playground to submit geolocation API documents for discussion:

All of Chaals' caveats above apply to the new repo, too, of course... as do any IPR issues you can think of. And any documents can be sent to the public-geolocation email list as attachments, too, if that is more convenient.

Well, the reply gets out according to the vagaries of net access and my time, which is the same rule that always applies. You just picked the moment I finished work and went to celebrate my birthday as the time to send mail, which was perhaps an unluckily sub-optimal choice.

Happy birthday!

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI

Reply via email to