Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:e4inb5-av1.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
>>> Well, anybody involved in standards development ought to be able to
>>> tell the difference between the words "shall" and "should". I
>>> personally fought like a mad man to change the original "shall" to a
>>> "should" since it is Denmark's position not to enforce implementation
>>> of specific formats when complying with a specific standard. No
>>> matter how you keep avoiding this essential part - the word "should"
>>> in ISO-terms means that it is a suggestion - not a requirement. There
>>> is no "strong-arming" here.
>>
>>
>> I think you perhaps misunderstand what "should" means; it means
>> "ought-to".
>
> Yes - and there is naturally a reason for the word not being "must".
Ought-to is, in fact, very strong. You (one) need(s) a very strong
reason for not abiding by the rule.
<snip>
As you've removed all the other context, including the bit about
"specific formats", this discussion point has become worthless.
>
>> I know that W3C's rules require that there is no patent involved in
>> their work. I know that ISO permit such patents. These are two
>> positions of certainty. The simplest analysis, therefore, shows that
>> W3C standards should be preferred since they guarantee the avoidance
>> of attempts by companies to shovel patents in under the carpet of the
>> standard, whereas, as you state above, ISO encourages such behaviour.
>
> Seriously, the W3C policy does not quarantee anything and you are also
> wrong wtrt W3C requirement that no patents are involved in their work.
> From http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/ you will see the
> phrasing:
Okay, I should've said that there're guaranteed to be no royalty or
licensing requirements... unlike at ISO, where you could be taken to
the cleaners for using any of their standards.
>
> "Subject to the conditions of this policy, W3C will not approve a
> Recommendation if it is aware that Essential Claims exist which are not
> available on Royalty-Free terms."
>
> So W3C does indeed allow patented work in their standards - they just
> require the patented material to be provided on Royalty-free terms. As
> far as I recall, Microsoft has at least 1 patent covering portions of
> CSS2 and the standard I hinted at with patent coverage was indeed XML
> itself.
Ie., if you use a W3C standard, you do not have to worry about patents,
because nobody will be coming after you. You can dress this up as you
like, and spin it as you like, but for all practical purposes, it
amounts to the same thing.
So, my point remains, if you wish to avoid patent problems, then use W3C
standards, because you have a guarantee, whereas is you use ISO
standards, you run a high risk, since ISO encourages the inclusion of
patents in its standards.
>
> http://noooxml.wikidot.com/forum/t-35108/iso-warned-about-possible-
> patent-ambush-on-ooxml
>
> It's propably a bogus claim ...
Probably?
> but it shows that W3C can - as everyone
> else - not quarantee against anything they do not have knowledge on.
>
Irrelevant. The W3C will not allow anything which is not available for
free.
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
