[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
- From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@imag.fr>
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:39:14 +0100
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
> (email@example.com) to ensure that we see them all; you can copy
> firstname.lastname@example.org if you wish.
So I'm forwarding this comment there, feel free to send them a mail directly
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
email@example.com | libxml Gnome XML toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/