Re: Geolocation ideas
Hi, Folks- Charles McCathieNevile wrote (on 6/5/08 8:01 PM): On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:09:30 +0200, Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Womer set up a (temporary?) playground to submit geolocation API documents for discussion: http://dev.w3.org/geo/ and http://dev.w3.org/geo/api All of Chaals' caveats above apply to the new repo, too, of course... as do any IPR issues you can think of. And any documents can be sent to the public-geolocation email list as attachments, too, if that is more convenient. Although there is a W3C policy on what kind of attachments are acceptable. In short, please use HTML if you have to do this. (Having versioned documents is far better than attachments IMHO) True. FYI, if anyone needs a CVS account for Geolocation, please contact Matt or me. If you need one for WebApps, contact me. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Re: Geolocation ideas
Cc+ appformats, since it seems that we will be merged with them soon and they should get a chance to comment too (although there is a large overlap I don't think it is 100%). On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:33:53 -0300, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Chaals, Could you please confirm that it is acceptable for us to begin unofficially discussing geolocation API requirements on the public-webapi@w3.org mailing list and for us to start noodling on ideas in CVS in the http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/ directory? We would like to start today. I cannot stop you doing it. On the other hand, given that there is an existing mailing list and that you have been explicitly asked to use it for the topic it was set up for, it seems a bit small-minded not to do so. Is there any obvious reason for continuing the discussion here that has escaped my attention? I am concerned about the effect one can observe in HTML, where effective transparency is destroyed by the fact that there are an large set of different discussion fora one needs to track in order to discover where relevant information is, making it very difficult to determine what is being proposed, let aone decided, unless one works full-time on HTML. I don't see that as conducive to good, informed open development. I would therefore request that you keep discussion on this topic to the mailing list designed to gather it in one place. If yes, then could you maybe please also confirm that the working group will adopt geolocation APIs as a working group work item, at least until the W3C has decided whether to create a new working group for this? As far as I can tell no working group members has expressed their dissent and several have expressed their agreement since I first mentioned this last week, which puts us ahead of most of our working group decisions! :-) It would appear that someone is sitting on some kind of IPR/patent block that has been commnicated to hte team in confidence. So there is nnot much we can do to figure out who or what except look at the ongoing communication and see if something stands out enough to start making speculative guesses. Unfortunately, this is not easy to work with. Formally taking on the work item in this group within this context seems like a bad idea - the patent policy is there for a reason and we don't do ourselves a lot of favours by pretending that the world is nicer than it is. Like you, I am upset that W3C has decided to split this off somewhere else, and that in the best case we will have to wait weeks to do anything formal (and for possible worst cases we can consider the 6 months it took to propose a charter we had pretty much agreed on as a strawman, or the years that some W3C activities have gone without charters :( ). However, unless there is no sign of progress in W3C (and at the moment they are showing signs of progress, if not actual measurable reaching of the various milestones for a new group) I propose to defer the question, rather than try to take on a new formal deliverable. If there is no apparent movement in the time between now and our face to face meeting, that may be time to take it up again. In the meantime why not give the W3C Team a little credit for acting in good faith, and the time to do their work at a reasonable rate? Since the webspace at dev.w3.org/2006/webapi is just a set of addresses for convenience, and since we are discussing something that is clearly some kind of WebAPI, unless there is some process reason I don't know of or you do something blatantly stupid like trying to make a document look like it has more W3C support than it does through inappropriate use of stylesheets, missing or misleading status statements and so on, I don't see that it is impossible to put a proposal for a spec into that space. Indeed, there is no reason I can see that a geolocation group could not continue using a chunk of that space, given that there is trust between the members of the two groups not to step on each other's work. I understand that you are travelling; my apologies for making this request when you are indisposed. Well, the reply gets out according to the vagaries of net access and my time, which is the same rule that always applies. You just picked the moment I finished work and went to celebrate my birthday as the time to send mail, which was perhaps an unluckily sub-optimal choice. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Re: Geolocation ideas
Hi, Chaals- Charles McCathieNevile wrote (on 6/5/08 11:21 AM): If there is no apparent movement in the time between now and our face to face meeting, that may be time to take it up again. In the meantime why not give the W3C Team a little credit for acting in good faith, and the time to do their work at a reasonable rate? Thanks for the support. I am conscious of the potential delay, and I'm trying to mitigate it as much as possible. Since the webspace at dev.w3.org/2006/webapi is just a set of addresses for convenience, and since we are discussing something that is clearly some kind of WebAPI, unless there is some process reason I don't know of or you do something blatantly stupid like trying to make a document look like it has more W3C support than it does through inappropriate use of stylesheets, missing or misleading status statements and so on, I don't see that it is impossible to put a proposal for a spec into that space. Indeed, there is no reason I can see that a geolocation group could not continue using a chunk of that space, given that there is trust between the members of the two groups not to step on each other's work. Matt Womer set up a (temporary?) playground to submit geolocation API documents for discussion: http://dev.w3.org/geo/ and http://dev.w3.org/geo/api All of Chaals' caveats above apply to the new repo, too, of course... as do any IPR issues you can think of. And any documents can be sent to the public-geolocation email list as attachments, too, if that is more convenient. Well, the reply gets out according to the vagaries of net access and my time, which is the same rule that always applies. You just picked the moment I finished work and went to celebrate my birthday as the time to send mail, which was perhaps an unluckily sub-optimal choice. Happy birthday! Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Re: Geolocation ideas
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: Could you please confirm that it is acceptable for us to begin unofficially discussing geolocation API requirements on the public-webapi@w3.org mailing list and for us to start noodling on ideas in CVS in the http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/ directory? We would like to start today. I cannot stop you doing it. On the other hand, given that there is an existing mailing list and that you have been explicitly asked to use it for the topic it was set up for, it seems a bit small-minded not to do so. Okie dokie. We'll use the public-geolocation list. Happy birthday, btw. :-) On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Doug Schepers wrote: Matt Womer set up a (temporary?) playground to submit geolocation API documents for discussion: http://dev.w3.org/geo/ and http://dev.w3.org/geo/api Cool, we'll use that. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Geolocation ideas
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:01:28 +0200, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: Could you please confirm that it is acceptable for us to begin unofficially discussing geolocation API requirements on the public-webapi@w3.org mailing list and for us to start noodling on ideas in CVS in the http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/ directory? We would like to start today. I cannot stop you doing it. On the other hand, given that there is an existing mailing list and that you have been explicitly asked to use it for the topic it was set up for, it seems a bit small-minded not to do so. Okie dokie. We'll use the public-geolocation list. Happy birthday, btw. :-) Thanks and thanks :) cheers Chaals-the-slightly-more-connected On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Doug Schepers wrote: Matt Womer set up a (temporary?) playground to submit geolocation API documents for discussion: http://dev.w3.org/geo/ and http://dev.w3.org/geo/api Cool, we'll use that. Cheers, -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Re: Geolocation ideas
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:09:30 +0200, Doug Schepers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Womer set up a (temporary?) playground to submit geolocation API documents for discussion: http://dev.w3.org/geo/ and http://dev.w3.org/geo/api All of Chaals' caveats above apply to the new repo, too, of course... as do any IPR issues you can think of. And any documents can be sent to the public-geolocation email list as attachments, too, if that is more convenient. Although there is a W3C policy on what kind of attachments are acceptable. In short, please use HTML if you have to do this. (Having versioned documents is far better than attachments IMHO) Well, the reply gets out according to the vagaries of net access and my time, which is the same rule that always applies. You just picked the moment I finished work and went to celebrate my birthday as the time to send mail, which was perhaps an unluckily sub-optimal choice. Happy birthday! Thanks ;) cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Geolocation ideas
Hey Chaals, Could you please confirm that it is acceptable for us to begin unofficially discussing geolocation API requirements on the public-webapi@w3.org mailing list and for us to start noodling on ideas in CVS in the http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/ directory? We would like to start today. If yes, then could you maybe please also confirm that the working group will adopt geolocation APIs as a working group work item, at least until the W3C has decided whether to create a new working group for this? As far as I can tell no working group members has expressed their dissent and several have expressed their agreement since I first mentioned this last week, which puts us ahead of most of our working group decisions! :-) I understand that you are travelling; my apologies for making this request when you are indisposed. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
