From: Williams, David [mailto:DAVID.WILLIAMS@ca.com]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 1:14 PM
Subject: RE: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)[thanks]I really do enjoy your opinions, Len... just wanting a clarification... thanks...I suppose pointing out that the ISO _could_ leverage the mystical "IP" rights but _chooses_ not to... is not a bad thing either.Just because they have allowed the W3C to proceed as it does today, doesn't mean that at some later point, they might not, at least not without a fight...It is always good to look to the _maybe_ battles of tomorrow and prepare for them, and in turn debate several things on the 'abstract' that never become concrete threats than the alternative... which is to be attacked suddenly and without warning or expectation...~Dave-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 2:05 PM
To: Williams, David; email@example.com
Subject: RE: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)First, balance of powers. It isn't us vs them, black or white,good or evil, etc. It is balance: ensuring that nogroup or consortia be empowered to act such thatthe interests of human culture are in peril because theycan act hastily or without sound reason. It soundsdramatic, I know, but it is really the tedious detailsof how law and technology interact by consent.Second, we can't toss words like "standards" into thesediscussions unless they have meaning. Whatdo we say to those who think SAX should be aW3C-owned and maintained product? What wouldthat help? Do those who originally developed itbut are not W3C members have rights? If so, whatare they? Lots of open-list works gets carried offinto members-only groups. Well-meaning peopleenlist the support of organizations whose policiesand worse, controls, they don't understand. Insome cases, controls they cannot or will not see.Don't take my position in a largely theoretical argumentas a like or dislike. This isn't personal and thosewho want to make it personal are simply thankedfor their input. I think it important to explore theserelationships down that twisty road because otherwisewe find ourselves accepting the opinions of the press,the pundits, and others (me included, so I accept therisks to debate this from an unpopular position).Because XML is being used to code and preserve verylarge chunks of the world'sinformation assets, care is warranted in how it isdesigned, created and changed. The Blueberry affairpushes certain issues to the surface. When forexample, should an organization be allowed to limitthe character sets if such limitations would makecultural assets (eg, the famous Buddhist texts)disappear? Do the consortia have responsibilitiesfor such things? If not, should SGML, an internationalstandard, be maintained assiduously to ensure insuch cases, the owners of that information haveanother way to maintain it and still make it available?I have lobbied for the update and improvement ofSGML. I've done it for years. I consider it thejewel for which XML is a setting. It does deservea bit or polishing now and then.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, David [mailto:DAVID.WILLIAMS@ca.com]Hey Len..<question>Don't take this the wrong way, please...What exactly, then, are you doing developing XML standards?</question><re-phrase>What is it about XML that holds your interests and keeps you from lobbying the ISO daily to "fix" and update SGML?</re-phrase><statement of opinion>A casual reader might think that you don't like OR enjoy using and/or developing XML....</statement of opinion>