The current inclusion criteria for protocols says "MUST be standardized at a consortium the W3C liaises with". This might be a useful criterion, though I can't imagine why it is phrased that way. The thing I care about here is less about who standardized a protocol, but the characteristics of the protocol itself.
One of those characteristics is already listed: "MUST be defined in a specification which is freely and publicly available". This is good, with a small caveat (issue forthcoming). The other is IPR encumbrance.
The W3C has a requirement that implementations of its specifications be free from intellectual property encumbrance that would incur royalties: https://www.w3.org/policies/patent-policy/#sec-Requirements
This API should include the same requirement. I would prefer that include all components (browser, wallet, website) as that would be most consistent with the intent of the W3C patent policy.
That doesn't necessarily negate any requirement about who the W3C liaises with, but I think that the liaison term is probably a proxy for a more important requirement.
The current inclusion criteria for protocols says "MUST be standardized at a consortium the W3C liaises with". This might be a useful criterion, though I can't imagine why it is phrased that way. The thing I care about here is less about who standardized a protocol, but the characteristics of the protocol itself.
One of those characteristics is already listed: "MUST be defined in a specification which is freely and publicly available". This is good, with a small caveat (issue forthcoming). The other is IPR encumbrance.
The W3C has a requirement that implementations of its specifications be free from intellectual property encumbrance that would incur royalties: https://www.w3.org/policies/patent-policy/#sec-Requirements
This API should include the same requirement. I would prefer that include all components (browser, wallet, website) as that would be most consistent with the intent of the W3C patent policy.
That doesn't necessarily negate any requirement about who the W3C liaises with, but I think that the liaison term is probably a proxy for a more important requirement.