[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun

• 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 20:48:04 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: 'Elliotte Rusty Harold' <elharo@m...>, "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE3C@h...>

> You can implement it, yes; you can't change the design
> or adapt the specification.

I can write up a document that says "here's a set of diffs to the PDF spec"
and shop it around to get someone to stamp "standard" on my specification.
Of course, I'm not likely to be successful, but I can do that.  Just as I
can do the same thing with the HTTP spec.

> Java is an even more restricted case.

Because MtView saw it as a weapon to nullify Redmond.  That's why
it's got the entanglements it does.

> So maybe some fundamental Internet
> technologies are better handled as proprietary
> applications?

Sure, except replace "fundamental" with "important" and just don't
expect w3c to handle them.
        /r$

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

• Prev by Date: Re: Still not the essence of XML (was Re: S-e xpressions vs. XML)
• Next by Date: Test. Ignore.
• 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