• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:11:09 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE35@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE35@h...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 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.

To close the loop:  i'm in agreement with your note above. :)
	/r$

• References:
  • RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Next by Date: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• 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