If we can envisage a separate specification, and be clear about it, and when it will deliver, and so on, then we could go straight to the WG, for sure. I would expect changes to (maybe) HTML, perhaps CSS, scripting/DOM, Device Access... you're a W3C old-hand. do you think we could get a WG charter defined and approved, and if so, want to try drafting it? On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:20 , Robin Berjon wrote:
On Dec 2, 2010, at 19:15 , David Singer wrote:
we probably want an interest group at the w3c, while we work out what needs to happen. I would hope that most of the work would be in existing WGs. There is a lower bar to setting up an IG.
If the deliverables are clear and sufficiently agreed upon, I would think that going straight to a WG would be better than waiting in an IG beforehand. I generally like the idea of doing new work in existing WGs where possible, it's less overhead (though I wouldn't make that a strong rule). Do you have a specific group in mind that you would see this fit well into?
-- Robin Berjon robineko — hired gun, higher standards http://robineko.com/
David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.