W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > October 2001

Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it)

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 23:52:41 -0400
Message-Id: <200110050352.XAA0000034875@torque.pothole.com>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
cc: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org

I would say that W3C Recommendations are as much standards as IETF
standards and that IETF standards as as much Recommendations as W3C


From:  Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
To:  Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>,
Date:  	Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:25:38 +0200
References:  <200110032004.QAA08177@noah.dma.isg.mot.com>
In-Reply-To:  <200110032004.QAA08177@noah.dma.isg.mot.com>
Message-Id:  <20011003202536Z16100-17200+355@humbolt.nl.linux.org>

>On October 3, 2001 10:04 pm, Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:
>> >I wish I could say that SVG is only a recommendation at this point, but 
>> >unfortunately, "recommendation" is the W3C word for "standard", just as
>> >RFC is the IETF's word for standard.
>> This is not true. The IETF uses the word "standard" for standard.  See
>> <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1796.txt> "Not All RFCs are
>> Standards".
>Thankyou for that clarification.  By implication, you agree with my 
>assessment of the W3C's interpretation of the word "recommendation"?
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 23:54:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:44 UTC