[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: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• To: Don Park <donpark@d...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 15:11:03 -0400

At 02:39 AM 10/7/2001 -0700, Don Park wrote:
> > > At 02:03 AM 10/6/2001 -0700, Don Park wrote:
> >
> > > How long do you think it takes to do a thorough examination of an IP
> > > portfolio with tens of thousands of items in it, to be able to
> > declare with
> > > any kind of competence that there is no conflict that needs to
> > be declared?
>
>Words above were written by Ann Navarro, not me.  Frankly, I fail to see why
>Ann is making these pointless arguments.

My point is that many of the "proposals" here have been hopelessly naive, 
or are exact duplicates of what conditions the W3C *has* been operating 
under, which haven't prevented the problems we're currently facing.

It's very noble to say "if there's a claim holder that won't grant an RF 
license, the body won't recognize it as a standard". I just won't hold my 
breath waiting for it to happen.

Ann



Ann Navarro, WebGeek Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com/
What's on my mind? http://www.snorf.net/blog/	
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hooya waling waling wi tiyil!

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Don Park <donpark@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Don Park <donpark@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Fwd: dtd to c struct conversion
• Next by Date: what's special in XMLNS attribue .?
• 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