Lists Home |
Date Index |
> Well, the major reason the W3C got so many responses about the RAND issues was
> because the story eventually ran on everyone's favorite technology tabloid
> which also happens to have a strong anti-software patent bias amongst its
> editors and its readers.
Maybe, but I saw that the groundswell was under way before Slashdot
jumped on. For some reason, it wasn't made clear at the time W3C
posted the original document that (a) fundamental change was proposed,
which (b) was fast-tracked so the first opportunity for comment could
well be the only one. I suspect a lot of people took the usual strategy
of waiting for a few round of public discussion before diving in ... and
only noticed very late in the game that it couldn't work this time.
When those points were made clear, the responses started to
flood in ... and that's when Slashdot jumped into the fray. Lots of
folk responded who had never seen the Slashdot post.
That said, if you feel strongly about this topic, do send in comments.
Are the drafts complete enough to write tests without needing to use
proprietary extensions? At least that much of an update facility is
IMO necessary just to enable conformance tests to bootstrap.