[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
The standardisation process is here to minimize such deviance. In MPEG
the requirements group is very strong and difficult to convince. Most of the
decisions are done on technical basis only and strong commitments is
required for the definition of profiles (practical subsetting of a
technology). I
am sure you know the process as well as me. I agree with you that in the
past
some bad experience happend, but people are considering these issues more
carefully now.
Anyway if W3C develops a binary format there will not be such issue.
We will take care of it ;)
Cheers,
Claude.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "Claude Seyrat" <claude.seyrat@expway.fr>
Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Patented XML Compression Techniques (WAS RE:
[xml-dev] Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?)
> Claude Seyrat wrote:
>
> > Be sure, that there are many
> > patents
> > that can be applied on W3C standards, ASN-1 and others. MPEG is not
worst
> > or better wrt to patents and it is clear wrt to royalties:
>
> With the W3C, you can assume that the people who wrote the standard
> didn't build in a requirement to use their own proprietary IP, and made
> an effort to produce work that is as unencumbered as possible. As Len
> points out, this is not a guaranteed promise that you won't get into
> trouble, but it is substantially better than nothing.
>
> Thus your assertion that they're all the same is wrong.
> --
> Cheers, Tim Bray
> (ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)
>
>
>
|
