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:
http://dev.w3.org/geo/
and
http://dev.w3.org/geo/api
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!
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
