[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: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 11:25:01 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Park [mailto:donpark@d...]
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 10:18 AM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: RE:  Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why 
> it stinks,
> today)
> 

> I am not touching XForms or anything with W3C written on it 
> until I get some assurance from W3C that their stuff 
> are either patent-free or uses
> free-patents.


This brings up another point: what's the state of the  patent issue with
respect to XFORMS http://www.xmlhack.com/read.php?item=1035 ?  I'd agree
that XFORMS will have limited appeal if there is a patent claim hanging over
it.

The W3C can never give the assurance that a member company won't try to
claim a patent on a W3C-Recommended spec.  Even if Don became Lord High
Dictator of the W3C tomorrow, they couldn't give that assurance <grin>.  We
can argue all we want about what the W3C patent policy should be, but the
W3C doesn't make or interpret or enforce the patent laws.  Maybe it could
kick out the Shana Corporation, or maybe file a friend of the court brief
against them if they sue anyone, but that would seem to be about it.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@n...>
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Don Park <donpark@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, today)
• Next by Date: RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, today)
• Previous by thread: Re: Real time XML Parser
• Next by thread: RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread