On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Marcos Caceres <w...@marcosc.com> wrote:
> 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 > :) While issuing a ton of patent exclusions for something like this would be rather poor, I would frankly rather have that then a spec that doesn't get any attention from a party that's clearly relevant only to have patents come up /after/ the spec is published and implemented. >
