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 <ro...@berjon.com
> (mailto:ro...@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 :)
