• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: jim@a..., xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:44:41 -0700

Nicely put!  Also, something can't be "vendor neutral" when
it promotes the interest of one vendor (a patent-holder) over
another, or one class of vendors (closed-source) over another
(free software or open source); neither can such outcomes be
part of an "industry consensus".

Saying that this is stuff W3C should NOT promote doesn't mean
that it can't be promoted in other circles.

- Dave

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Ancona" <scarhill@y...>
To: <david@g...>; <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 5:57 AM
Subject: Re:  More patent funnies!


> ...
> 
> In addition, W3C at least claims to represent interests broader than simply the
> competitive goals of its members. Quoting from its website: "W3C, a
> vendor-neutral organization, promotes interoperability by designing and
> promoting open (non-proprietary) computer languages and protocols that avoid
> the market fragmentation of the past. This is achieved through industry
> consensus and encouraging an open forum for discussion."[1] By definition,
> patented technologies are proprietary, and having the W3C "designing and
> promoting" them risks leading to the kind of fragmentation that the W3C was
> created to avoid.
> 
> Jim
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points/
> 
> 
> 

• References:
  • Re: More patent funnies!
    • From: Jim Ancona <scarhill@y...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Database Decision Tree?[xml-dev-help@l...: Not authorized to submit to elist:xml-dev]
• Next by Date: Re: Perl XML::Parser and nested external entity references
• Previous by thread: Re: More patent funnies!
• Next by thread: RE: More patent funnies!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread