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: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 15:43:02 +0200
Message-ID: <3BBDB8E6.8A3C9532@w3.org>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
CC: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org

Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On October 4, 2001 02:00 pm, Chris Lilley wrote:
> > > The public review period, if there ever was one, went by quietly:
> >
> > Please get your facts in order. The public review period of the SVG 1.0
> > specification (from first public working draft on 11 February 1999 to
> > end of the Proposed Recommendation period on 16 August, 2001) was *over
> > 29 months*
> Let me get this straight.  You claim the public review period for SVG did not
> go by quietly? 

I was responding to your casual slur "if there ever was one". I wasn't
prepared to let that particular mud be thrown without picking you up on

> From the list archive:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/
> we see:
>   Total comments for August 2001: 60

If you take the trouble to read the various stages of the SVG
specifications (eight working drafts, two last calls, two releases of a
candidate recommendation, one proposed recommendation) you can see there
was abundant call for public comment and there was, in fact, also
abundant comment which was taken into account in the technical
development of the specification.

> Consider that the real introduction of the RAND policy was as part of
> the SVG specification, 

There is no "RAND policy". I suspect you are referring to the Patent
policy Framework. Either way, that is a different spec to the SVG spec.
Please be clear which specification you are actually talking about.

> and suppose the public really had been aware that W3C
> intended to bless SVG as a patent-encumbered standard. 

it isn't patent encumbered. But all the disclosures and license terms
were there in the public patent page, linked from the Proposed

>  Would we not have
> expected to see the September 30's 726 comments submitted instead some time
> before August 16?

Again, are you commenting on PPF or SVG? There are hundereds of comments
on PPF, yes. Many of them contain real content, which is valuable, and
some of them are merely bluster and noise. I'm hoping you can constrain
yourelf into the former category. 

> We saw no such thing.  Instead, we saw the close of the comment period go by
> quietly, just as I said. 

Where are the comments for the Proposed Rec for SVG sent? On what basis
do you say that it went by quietly? You have not seen all the comments,
you are blustering, and it shows.

> I submit that, far from my facts being out of
> order, you have attempted to spin the facts in a way that suits you.

Well I would say you were spinning the facts in a way that makes a
simpler story for your audience, by your consistent refusal to discuss
or acknowledge the RF parts of the PPF and by consistently using an
nvented name for it "RAND policy" and by attempting to drag in other W3C
specs as if they were patent policy and not technical specifications.

Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 09:43:15 UTC

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