Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
In a message dated 27/04/01 05:24:58 GMT Daylight Time, pgrosso@a... writes: I believe you are quoting from the *old* IPR statement (to Paul, Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. However I believe it is inaccurate for you to state that an "entire thread" was based on a misunderstanding of Eve Maler's document posted to the list on 25th April. The first post in the thread was mine (other than Eve's original post). If you care to check my initial post on 25th April you will see that I quoted in full Sun's revised statement, making it clear that my comments and concerns related to the current version, not some previous version. Similarly, the quote that I forwarded to the list later on 25th April was based on numbered definition 2. of the current Sun statement. If your point was that one comment in follow up to my post was based on an outdated document, there I would agree with you. However, that does nothing to demonstrate improved clarity in the current Sun document, which was, if you care to check, the focus of my original comment. I hope the purpose of your interjection was to ensure accurate discussion of this important topic. To that end I invite you to explain what you believe Sun's statement actually _means_ . If, as some have implied, the Sun statement is clear then I would value hearing your interpretation. If you don't believe that the Sun statement is now clear, how then have we progressed the situation over the last 3 months or so? If you feel unable to state clearly what the Sun statement actually means for potential developers of XPointer-oriented software doesn't that confirm my concern about the continued lack of clarity? I welcome your further comments on the substance of Sun's current document and how potential developers of software based on XPointer should view its implications. Regards Andrew Watt
|
