Re: [widgets] How to divorce widgets-digsig from Elliptic Curve PAG?

Jean-Claude,  

On Monday, December 19, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:

> Marcos
> 
> You are replying beside the point everywhere.
> Please read again what Leonard wrote about undated references. Leonard 
> is right.


I'm sorry, but Leonard is not correct: this is the W3C, not ISO. 

ISO is a real "standards body" (i.e., can be legally binding for governments). W3C is a business/community "consortium" (i.e., not a legal standards body and specs are not legally binding): W3C makes "recommendations", which are not (and should not be) legally binding. 
 
> In ISO specs, undated references are forbidden. There is a team of 
> people (called ITTF) whose job includes checking these things and 
> bugging spec editors to fix them.

Yes, but this is not ISO. And just because they operate in that manner, it also doesn't mean that ISO is right.   
> There is such a thing as certification. It is impossible to do if the 
> spec is not fixed, including references.

What if there is a bug in the spec? or a test is wrong and it's fixed after someone has claimed compliance? 
> What you are advocating is entirely counterproductive given the source 
> of the discussion (= a PAG): if the spec has undated references, you 
> cannot make sure it is royaltee-free.

Yes you can: the /latest/ always points to the latest REC. REC is royalty free.  
> If the scope of one reference 
> changes, there is a new risk. It is not only a problem of conformance 
> testing.

Not if the /latest/ always points to a REC (or a periodical snapshot where IPR commitments to RF have been made).
> Your vision of "fluid" standards is completely unmanageable in practice.

Yet, somehow, every browser vendor manages? Seems like an enigma. 

Kind regards, 
Marcos

Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 13:04:38 UTC