[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)

• From: Don Park <donpark@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 02:03:37 -0700

Ann,

While I understand your point of view, I fail to understand why we have to
pay for their lack of coordination?  Taking IBM as an example, why couldn't
they inform their lawyers about ongoing W3C activities by simply forwarding
information to them.  Is IBM's IT technology not up to their task?
Furthermore, I seriously doubt that 'lack of awareness about W3C activities'
is the real reason behind their RAND initiative.

Frankly, I believe well-intended attempts to reason with RAND proponents is
what caused RAND to be taken seriously in the first place.  There are times
to be understanding and there are times to be faithful to your own belief.
Do you truely believe RAND will help us?

Best,

Don Park
Docuverse

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• References:
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: CATALOGs versus RDDL
• Next by Date: RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
• Previous by thread: Re: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
• Next by thread: RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread