[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: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• To: 'Ann Navarro' <ann@w...>, Benjamin Franz <snowhare@n...>,xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 13:23:38 -0700

>  From a practical stand point, this is difficult to accomplish.
> The organization's Advisory Committee representative is the 
> one responsible 
> for such disclosures at the time W3C activities are proposed. These 
> individuals often earnestly attempt to comply, but aren't 
> given the support 
> from their organizations to do so -- meaning time, and access 
> to the IP 
> counsel and/or departments that manage the IP portfolios 
> (which can have 
> thousands and thousands of properties when you're talking 
> about IBM, Xerox, 
> and other large organizations).

There's also the issue of patents acquired from non-W3C member companies
*after* a recommendation has been released. This could easily happen as the
result of a merger. 

• Prev by Date: RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
• Next by Date: RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
• 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