Re: [hybi] Proposed Charter (rev.3) (W3C WebApps-Whatwg)

"Michael(tm) Smith" <> Fri, 30 October 2009 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53AB53A682B for <>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.744
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.744 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.255, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JGYiilElTdLe for <>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9083A6808 for <>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([] helo=yarukinai) by with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1N3w9V-0003rA-0j; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:24:45 -0400
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:24:41 +0900
From: "Michael(tm) Smith" <>
To: Salvatore Loreto <>
Message-ID: <20091030182437.GA9590@sideshowbarker>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/r6027+poontang (2009-09-22 23:29:11+09:00)
Subject: Re: [hybi] Proposed Charter (rev.3) (W3C WebApps-Whatwg)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:24:30 -0000

Salvatore Loreto <>om>, 2009-10-30 10:35 +0200:

>  let me take this chance to ask people from W3C WebApps and Whatwg wgs
>  if they agree on IETF taking on prime responsibility on the specification of 
>  the WebSocket protocol,
>  continuing of course to work together on the draft;
>  and if they agree, if it clear for them how work get done within the IETF.

It seems like we're making genuine progress in getting the
protocol spec'ed within the IETF, and I think that's where
everybody would ideally like to see it happen.


P.S. The only recent problem I can think of that we have run into
around "prime responsibility" have been for the Origin spec, and
that was because the response was that there was no WG with IETF
that wanted to take on the work, and if that continues to be the
case, we'll need to look at taking that spec through the
publication process in the WebApps WG instead.

Michael(tm) Smith