• From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@i...>
• To: abrahams@a...
• Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:28:18 +0100

On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 06:03:36PM -0500, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 07:12:29PM -0500, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
> > > Seems to me that by the statement "XPointer is affected by a
> > > technology patent held by Sun Microsystems.", the XPointer
> > > spec is assuming the validity of the patent.   Couldn't W3C
> > > cover its backside without endorsing the patent by replacing
> > > "is" by "might be"?
> >
> >   Yes, that's a problem, I don't think W3C did intent to endorse
> > the patent validity, but unfortunately the text signaling the claim
> > seems to present it as accepted. I'm pretty sure this will be
> > corrected.
> 
> Does my suggested text replacement make the appropriate correction?

  This sentence will for sure be rewritten, I can't tell right now
if your suggestion will be the one used.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
veillard@r...  | libxml Gnome XML toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

• References:
  • XPointer and Sun patent
    • From: "Paul W. Abrahams" <abrahams@v...>
  • Re: XPointer and Sun patent
    • From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@i...>
  • Re: XPointer and Sun patent
    • From: "Paul W. Abrahams" <abrahams@v...>

• Prev by Date: Push Technologies
• Next by Date: Re: Excel to XML
• Previous by thread: Re: XPointer and Sun patent
• Next by thread: white hat patents?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread