• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>, "xml-dev@x..." <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:26:42 -0500

Jonathan Borden wrote:

> It is entirely another thing to impose conditions on the mere reading of the
> XPointer specification which by the way is simply silly language that anyone
> who has ever been involved in the drafting of a software contract ought know
> is silly.

Unfortunately it is not simply silly:  it is a command backed
by a threat to sue.  The structure is "If you read this,
and play by our rules, we will not sue you for your
(necessary) infringement; but if you break our rules, we
MIGHT sue you!"

-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• References:
  • RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@i...>
  • Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: How compatible are XML Schema implementations?
• Next by Date: RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Previous by thread: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Next by thread: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread