Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0

[Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@imag.fr>]

On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:28:13AM -0500, Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> This doesn't say what "Documentation" consists of.  How about someone writes
> up some boiler plate in hideous marketing type language - generic hype that
> says almost nothing.  Every time anyone puts out a product that might be a
> "modification" of XPointer, no matter how trivial or even if it is alpha, fill
> in a few blanks in the boilerplate and send it to W3C.
> 
> They might get sick of receiving  and tracking all the junk, and the letter of
> this section would be followed with small effort.  Maybe that would give them
> the idea not to go this route again!

Please note that the wording you are criticizing comes from Sun, not W3C.
Even I wouldn't know what and where to send the informations concerning
libxml implementation of XPointer ! Talking to Eve, and if I remember
correctly, having the documentation/source freely available was sufficient.
Now if this not the case, I don't know either. 

As Eve wrote http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200101/msg00377.html:
> Note that comments on the terms should be sent to me and to Marc Foodman 
> (ipman@east.sun.com) to ensure that we see them all; you can copy 
> patent-issues@w3.org if you wish.

So I'm forwarding this comment there, feel free to send them a mail directly

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
daniel@veillard.com  | libxml Gnome XML toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/