[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
- From: Ann Navarro <email@example.com>
- To: Don Park <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 15:11:03 -0400
At 02:39 AM 10/7/2001 -0700, Don Park wrote:
> > > At 02:03 AM 10/6/2001 -0700, Don Park wrote:
> > > How long do you think it takes to do a thorough examination of an IP
> > > portfolio with tens of thousands of items in it, to be able to
> > declare with
> > > any kind of competence that there is no conflict that needs to
> > be declared?
>Words above were written by Ann Navarro, not me. Frankly, I fail to see why
>Ann is making these pointless arguments.
My point is that many of the "proposals" here have been hopelessly naive,
or are exact duplicates of what conditions the W3C *has* been operating
under, which haven't prevented the problems we're currently facing.
It's very noble to say "if there's a claim holder that won't grant an RF
license, the body won't recognize it as a standard". I just won't hold my
breath waiting for it to happen.
Ann Navarro, WebGeek Inc.
What's on my mind? http://www.snorf.net/blog/
Hooya waling waling wi tiyil!