• To: 'Rich Salz' <rsalz@d...>
• Subject: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:00:39 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Yep.  I am in total agreement with that except they 
specify technologies and call those standards.  It's a 
quibble but one I have to repeat.  I'm a lot happier 
when private consortia specify technologies and then 
these technologies by adoption become de facto standards.

len

From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@d...]

Yes, some technologies might not be brought forward in RF that would be 
brought forward in RAND.  Given the success of the Web so far, I can 
live with that.  There's something to be said for an organization that 
specifies standards that can be implemented and sold by anyone.  The 
RAND folks can create their own consortia as they've done in the past; 
they don't need the W3C to promulgate their IP revenue streams.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: ConciseXML syntax --> no thank u!
• Next by Date: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Previous by thread: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Next by thread: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread