[whatwg] Re: Is this introducing incompatibilities with future W3C work
malcolm-what at farside.org.uk
Thu Jun 24 07:55:32 PDT 2004
Jim Ley writes:
>> The WHATWG principles are laid out here:
> So you're now conceding that this is an Opera thing, not 7 guys who
> don't recognise companies? We've still not had any patent etc. info.
First off, just to note that that's clearly marked as a joint Mozilla-Opera
paper. Representing it as being solely from Opera, as if that was evidence
that Opera is trying to carve a 'proprietry web' is disingeneous.
Secondly, it's clearly not just 'an Opera thing'. I don't work for Opera,
and neither do you.
I do agree that a patent disclosure policy would make sense if the members
of WHATWG were representing their respective employers, but as they aren't,
it wouldn't make sense to have one - unless Brendan has a collection of
>> Don't forget that all this WHATWG work is intended to be submitted to a
>> standards organisation; like PNG was, for instance.
> Yes, but you've still not told us the roadmap, perhaps if you made all
> that clearer you might get a little more support.
The roadmap is pretty clearly laid out in the group's Charter. There's only
one bit that isn't, and that's the intention to submit to a standards
organisation. I think I remember someone saying that we can't talk about
specific standards organisations, but I don't think there's anything wrong
with adding a note about the intent to the charter. Ian?
More information about the whatwg