On Sep 27, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On Sep 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
ECMA TC39 (the group responsible for ECMAScript) has expressed a
strong interest in having a list for joint discussion with the W3C,
and particularly the Web Apps WG. And they are especially interested
in review of Web IDL. I suggest we set up <public-script...@w3.org>
(name suggested by Mark Miller) as a list managed by the Web Apps WG
for both purposes - discussion of Web IDL, and other scripting-
related
coordination issues. I think this would be better than the massive
cross-posting we've experienced over the past few days.
Does this sound like a good idea to everyone?
The only concern I have is the potential for an input from someone
who has not agreed to the W3C's Patent Policy (PP) to be included in
one of our specs. In practice, the risk for this scenario for the
Web IDL spec appears to be relatively low. However, at least one of
the messages in one of these related threads implied there may be an
impedance mismatch between ECMA's patent policy and the W3C's PP.
There is that risk. However, public-webapps and www-dom are also open
to subscription by anyone, as I understand it. In any of these cases
anyone giving major technical input should probably be asked to agree
to the W3C Patent Policy.
I think we should get some input from the W3C Team here but it
appears the benefits of this proposed list i.e. increased
communication between ECMA and W3C, outweigh the IP risks so you get
a tentative Yes from me.
FWIW, I think Doug's earlier proposal to name this list "public-idl"
was good but I am mostly indifferent as to the name and could
certainly live with public-scripting.
Mike, Doug - please pursue creating the list.
I thought public-idl was also good, but the more general name might
make it a decent place to discuss issues that are not strictly Web
IDL, such as the need for a data type for binary data.
Regards,
Maciej
