• From: Dave Winer <dave@u...>
• To: Dave Winer <dave@u...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:23:57 -0800

Actually I was able to do this myself. Sorry for the interruption. This is
going to be an incredible story. We should investigate it thoughtfully and
document it and publicize it. Keep the emotions focused on the issues. Look
at all the elements that come together. A famous pundit, the W3C, a major
platform vendor, and a browser feature that (as far as I know) no major
browser implements. Possible prior art. A disruption in the flow of new
ideas. Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Winer" <dave@u...>
To: <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 6:47 AM
Subject: Patent controversy (was Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0)


> I came into this discussion in the middle. I want to know what happened so
I
> can report it on Scripting News. This sounds like something people should
> know about. Can anyone provide a two or three sentence synopsis? Dave
>

• 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: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>
  • Patent controversy (was Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0)
    • From: Dave Winer <dave@u...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Turning off validation (was Re: Schemas and entities)
• Next by Date: Re: Turning off validation (was Re: Schemas and entities)
• Previous by thread: Patent controversy (was Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0)
• Next by thread: Re: Patent controversy (was Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread