FYI: First Public Working Draft of Web Payments Use Cases

2015-04-29 Thread Ian Jacobs
Dear Web Apps Working Group,

On 16 April 2015, the W3C Web Payments Interest Group [1] published:

  Web Payments Use Cases 1.0
  http://www.w3.org/TR/web-payments-use-cases/

This document is a prioritized list of Web payments use cases. Guided
by these use cases, the W3C Web Payments Interest Group plans to
derive architecture and associated technology requirements to
integrate payments into the Open Web Platform.

We invite your feedback on public-webpayments-comme...@w3.org to
help us improve the document. Please note that comments sent to that
list are publicly archived [2].

The Interest Group holds its next face-to-face meeting 16-18 June
when we plan to process early feedback on this draft. Any feedback
you have by early June would be greatly appreciated. 

We will also let you know about opportunities for early feedback on
subsequent documents (architecture and requirements).

To learn more about this group's goals and the anticipated benefits
of improved payments on the Web, please see:
 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/ExecSummary

Thank you,

Ian Jacobs, W3C Web Payments Activity Lead

[1] http://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/
--
Ian Jacobs i...@w3.org  http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:   +1 718 260 9447






Re: Call for Exclusions: W3C DOM4

2014-02-04 Thread Ian Jacobs

On Feb 4, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org wrote:

 Coralie,
 
 W3C DOM4 is only done in HTML, not WebApps. Is it possible to update the
 CfE?

Hi Philippe,

At first glance, a data bug is responsible. I'll alert the Webmaster and we'll 
clean it up then cancel the CFE for Webapps.

Ian

 
 Philippe
 
 On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 18:06 +0100, Coralie Mercier wrote:
 Dear Advisory Committee representative,
 
 This is a W3C Patent Policy Call for Exclusions for the following
 Recommendation Track document:
 
 - W3C DOM4
   (http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/),
   exclusion opportunity ending on  5 April 2014 23:59 UTC
 
 
 This specification was produced by the following groups:
  - HTML Working Group
  - Web Applications Working Group
 
 If you do not wish to exclude patent claims during this exclusion
 opportunity, no further action is required. Member participants who think
 their organization may have patent claims to exclude should contact their
 Advisory Committee Representative.
 
 Participants made a Royalty-Free licensing commitment upon joining this
 Working Group. With the publication of this document, per section 4.1 of
 the Patent Policy [1], Participants have an opportunity until  5 April 2014
 23:59 UTC to exclude patent claims reading on this Last Call draft.  At
 Last Call, exclusions are limited to matter in the Last Call draft that was
 not present or apparent in this draft:
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-dom-20131107/
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-domcore-20101007/
 
 
 Excluded claims are not subject to the licensing requirements of the W3C
 Patent Policy for this document. For more information about exclusions,
 please see
   http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion
 
 To make exclusions, please use one of the following forms:
  HTML Working Group: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/40318/exclude
  Web Applications Working Group:  
 http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/42538/exclude
 
 Summary information for these groups related to the W3C Patent Policy is
 available at:
  HTML Working Group: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/40318/status
  Web Applications Working Group:  
 http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/42538/status
 
 If you have any questions or need further information, please contact,
 for the HTML Working Group:
  * Michael[tm] Smith at m...@w3.org
 for the Web Applications Working Group:
  * Yves Lafon at yla...@w3.org
 
 For more information on the W3C Patent Policy and patent claim
 exclusions, see:
   http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq
 
 Thank you,
 
 For Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director;
 Coralie Mercier, W3C Communications
 
 [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-with
 [2]  
 http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-resign
 
 
 
 
 

--
Ian Jacobs i...@w3.org  http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:   +1 718 260 9447






CORRECTION [Was: Call for Exclusions: W3C DOM4]

2014-02-04 Thread Ian Jacobs
Dear WebApps Working Group Advisory Committee Representative,

Please ignore this call for exclusions for DOM4 (which is published exclusively 
by the HTML Working Group).
We sent this due to a data error (to be fixed shortly).

Apologies for the noise,

Ian Jacobs



On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Coralie Mercier cora...@w3.org wrote:

 Dear Advisory Committee representative,
 
 This is a W3C Patent Policy Call for Exclusions for the following
 Recommendation Track document:
 
 - W3C DOM4
  (http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/),
  exclusion opportunity ending on  5 April 2014 23:59 UTC
 
 
 This specification was produced by the following groups:
 - HTML Working Group
 - Web Applications Working Group
 
 If you do not wish to exclude patent claims during this exclusion
 opportunity, no further action is required. Member participants who think
 their organization may have patent claims to exclude should contact their
 Advisory Committee Representative.
 
 Participants made a Royalty-Free licensing commitment upon joining this
 Working Group. With the publication of this document, per section 4.1 of
 the Patent Policy [1], Participants have an opportunity until  5 April 2014
 23:59 UTC to exclude patent claims reading on this Last Call draft.  At
 Last Call, exclusions are limited to matter in the Last Call draft that was
 not present or apparent in this draft:
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-dom-20131107/
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-domcore-20101007/
 
 
 Excluded claims are not subject to the licensing requirements of the W3C
 Patent Policy for this document. For more information about exclusions,
 please see
  http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion
 
 To make exclusions, please use one of the following forms:
 HTML Working Group: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/40318/exclude
 Web Applications Working Group: 
 http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/42538/exclude
 
 Summary information for these groups related to the W3C Patent Policy is
 available at:
 HTML Working Group: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/40318/status
 Web Applications Working Group: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/42538/status
 
 If you have any questions or need further information, please contact,
 for the HTML Working Group:
 * Michael[tm] Smith at m...@w3.org
 for the Web Applications Working Group:
 * Yves Lafon at yla...@w3.org
 
 For more information on the W3C Patent Policy and patent claim
 exclusions, see:
  http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq
 
 Thank you,
 
 For Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director;
 Coralie Mercier, W3C Communications
 
 [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-with
 [2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-resign
 
 -- 
 Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Communications Team  -  http://www.w3.org
 mailto:cora...@w3.org +336 4322 0001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
 
 

--
Ian Jacobs i...@w3.org  http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:   +1 718 260 9447






W3C Launches Patent Advisory Group for Push API

2013-05-29 Thread Ian Jacobs
Web Apps Working Group,

A moment ago I announced the launch of the Push API PAG to the W3C Membership. 
Below I paste the message I sent.

Ian Jacobs, Head of W3C Communications



In accordance with the W3C Patent Policy, W3C has launched a Patent  
Advisory Group (PAG) to advise the W3C on patent disclosures relating  
to a specification developed by the Web Applications Working Group:

  Push API
  http://www.w3.org/TR/push-api/

For information about these patent disclosures, see:
  http://www.w3.org/2013/03/push-pag-charter

Advisory Committee Representatives of W3C Member organizations
participating in the Web Applications Working Group should use the following
form to designate alternate(s):
 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/PAPAG/

Additional information is available on the PAG home page:
 http://www.w3.org/2013/papag/

If you have any questions about this PAG, please contact the PAG
Chair, Wendy Seltzer wselt...@w3.org or Team Contact Yves Lafon
yla...@w3.org.

For general information about PAGs, see section 7 of the W3C Patent
Policy [1].

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exception
--
Ian Jacobs i...@w3.org  http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:  +1 718 260 9447







Re: [widgets] HTML5 dependency blocking Widget Interface Proposed Recommendation

2012-04-19 Thread Ian Jacobs

On 19 Apr 2012, at 7:48 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

 Hi All,
 
 As I understand it, the W3C's publication precedence re normative references 
 for a Proposed Recommendation, is that all W3C normative references must be 
 at CR or a later maturity level.
 
 With today's publication of a CR of Web IDL [WebIDL-CR], the only W3C 
 normative reference in the Widget Interface Candidate Recommendation [TWI-CR] 
 that is not at CR or later is HTML5.
 
 Philippe, Ian - my understanding is that if the WG can show its uses of HTML5 
 are restricted to stable parts of the HTML5 spec, the Director will relax 
 this publication precedence i.e. the Widget Interface may be published as a 
 Proposed Recommendation. Is this correct?

This is my expectation:
 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2011JulSep/0092.html

Ian

 
 Marcos - would you please enumerate the CR's uses of HTML5 and state whether 
 each usage is to a stable part of HTML5?
 
 -Thanks, AB
 
 [TWI-CR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-widgets-apis-20111213/
 [WebIDL-CR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-WebIDL-20120419/
 
 
 

--
Ian Jacobs (i...@w3.org)http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:  +1 718 260 9447




Re: Adding a note to DOM2 Views

2011-08-03 Thread Ian Jacobs

On 3 Aug 2011, at 4:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

 On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:52:22 +0200, Ian Jacobs i...@w3.org wrote:
 If we really want to rescind a Recommendation, we should do that through the 
 process defined for that. If we want to update people on where to find more 
 recent information (but still the current specification is still valid for 
 some cases) then we can probably add a status update.
 
 So I misread the process. It seems to be come down to telling the W3C about 
 significant issues, which I have done. What else is there in 
 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#rec-rescind that I missed?

The Advisory Board, based on input from various groups, put in a 4-week review 
process so that people could say Yes, please do! or No, please don't for the 
following reasons...

The steps are, roughly:

 1) Someone asks the Director to rescind.
 2) The Director announces a 4-week AC + public review
 3) The Director reviews the data and there's a decision either way.

The question is: who gets to ask the Director. I think the case would be made 
most strongly by a Working Group, especially if that Working Group is the one 
that published the spec to begin with.

Which is the best WG to make this request to the Director?

Ian


--
Ian Jacobs (i...@w3.org)http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:  +1 718 260 9447




Re: Adding a note to DOM2 Views

2011-08-03 Thread Ian Jacobs

On 3 Aug 2011, at 4:28 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

 On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 23:24:44 +0200, Ian Jacobs i...@w3.org wrote:
 Which is the best WG to make this request to the Director?
 
 Since the DOM WG no longer exists that would be this WG I think.

The operational bits for this process [1] are available, but have not been 
widely used. Let me know if there are bits that need attention.

Ian

[1] 
http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.htmlxslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsldocstatus=prrescind-tr
 
 
 -- 
 Anne van Kesteren
 http://annevankesteren.nl/
 

--
Ian Jacobs (i...@w3.org)http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:  +1 718 260 9447




Re: Adding a note to DOM2 Views

2011-07-22 Thread Ian Jacobs

On 22 Jul 2011, at 2:20 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:49:07 +0100, Ian Jacobs i...@w3.org wrote:
 On 3 Nov 2009, at 6:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
 Yesterday the WebApps WG discussed the fate of the views concept and we 
 decided that it was not worth keeping the theoretical concept around 
 because in practice a lot of the APIs designed are not taking it into 
 account and implementations are not interested in implementing support for 
 it (or are in the process of removing the limited support they have). The 
 interfaces would of course still be supported but you would always get the 
 same global object and document, regardless of the media the document is 
 being used in.
 
 The idea is that the CSSOM View Module will obsolete DOM2 Views in due 
 course, but we thought it would make sense to alert potential implementors 
 that they should not be spending time on implementing the views concept of 
 DOM2 Views by adding a note to the recommendation much like the CSS WG has 
 done with CSS 2.0. We were wondering what the process for adding such a 
 note might be.
 
 Please send a request to my attention, cc webreq, with the text you would 
 like to appear in the document.
 Thanks for letting me know,
 
 In the intervening years this changed a little (my apologies for getting back 
 to you so late). I think the note could read:
 
 The ideas described in this document are abandoned as they have not seen 
 sufficient adoption. The 'document' and 'defaultView' attributes still exist 
 and are now defined by HTML5.
 
 Ian, do you think we should maybe have such a note for DOM Level 3 Core as 
 well given that implementors should really look at DOM Core instead?

If we really want to rescind a Recommendation, we should do that through the 
process defined for that. If we want to update people on where to find more 
recent information (but still the current specification is still valid for some 
cases) then we can probably add a status update.

Ian

 
 Cheers,
 
 
 -- 
 Anne van Kesteren
 http://annevankesteren.nl/
 

--
Ian Jacobs (i...@w3.org)http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:  +1 718 260 9447




Re: Where to discuss TR process issues? [Was: Re: [eventsource] Is Server-Sent Events ready for LC? ; deadline July 1

2011-07-06 Thread Ian Jacobs

On 6 Jul 2011, at 2:41 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

 Hi Hixie,
 
 On 7/6/11 1:55 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
 On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote:
 Any comments re the priority of this bug, in particular if it must be
 addressed before publishing a new LCWD?
 Can we please stop letting the LCWD/CR/PR process nonsense drive the
 prioritisation of the bug fixing process? This is getting ridiculous.
 
 I think we all realize you have issues with the W3C's TR process. I actually 
 agree with some of your view points [at least as I understand them ;-)] and I 
 think they should be discussed with a different set of people then WebApps.  
 For instance, the so-called Advisory Board [AdvBrd] manages the evolution of 
 the W3C Process Document, yet I suspect very few of them are subscribed to 
 public-webapps.
 
 So, rather than continuing to complain about this process on public-webapps, 
 I would appreciate it if you would please move TR process type discussions to 
 another Public list.
 
 IJ, PLH - what Public list is appropriate for discussions about the TR 
 process?

There is no list with a public archive. One thing to do is use process-issues 
and cc www-archive if you wish.

Ian

 
 -AB
 
 [AdvBrd] http://www.w3.org/2002/ab/
 
 
 
 

--
Ian Jacobs (i...@w3.org)http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:  +1 718 260 9447




Re: Adding a note to DOM2 Views

2009-11-03 Thread Ian Jacobs


On 3 Nov 2009, at 6:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:


Hi Ian,

Yesterday the WebApps WG discussed the fate of the views concept and  
we decided that it was not worth keeping the theoretical concept  
around because in practice a lot of the APIs designed are not taking  
it into account and implementations are not interested in  
implementing support for it (or are in the process of removing the  
limited support they have). The interfaces would of course still be  
supported but you would always get the same global object and  
document, regardless of the media the document is being used in.


The idea is that the CSSOM View Module will obsolete DOM2 Views in  
due course, but we thought it would make sense to alert potential  
implementors that they should not be spending time on implementing  
the views concept of DOM2 Views by adding a note to the  
recommendation much like the CSS WG has done with CSS 2.0. We were  
wondering what the process for adding such a note might be.



Please send a request to my attention, cc webreq, with the text you  
would like to appear in the document.

Thanks for letting me know,

 _ Ian

--
Ian Jacobs (i...@w3.org)http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:  +1 718 260 9447