[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: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 17:17:00 -0700

Ann Navarro wrote:
> 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.

First of all, I am not convinced that there are 'problems' serious and
immediate enough to warrant hasty adoption of RAND.  If there are any W3C
specs with patent problems, W3C will have to be brave and look for the
'reverse' gear or learn to leverage the power in numbers as Todd mentioned.

Whether our proposals are naive or not, RAND amounts to a dinner invitation
from Marquis de Sade.  Being a naive peasant, I don't want to risk being the
entertainment instead of being entertained.

Best,

Don Park
Docuverse

• 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: what's special in XMLNS attribue .?
• Next by Date: RDDL in ZIP
• 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