Re: XPointer WD 20000108 - Suggested redrafting

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for this comment on the XPointer specification.  The Working 
Group has discussed it and produced the following resolution:

At 01:30 PM 1/18/01 -0500, wrote:
>The manner in which the 8th January 2001 XPointer WD is currently drafted
>causes me concern.
>I wish to suggest a number of drafting changes.
>The suggested changes apply to the "Status of the Document" section which
>currently reads, "XPointer is affected by a technology patent held by Sun
>Microsystems. The legal terms and conditions offered by Sun to XPointer
>implementors can be found in the archives of the public comments list.".
>To the best of my knowledge there is no reason whatsover to believe that ALL
>of XPointer is affected by Sun's claimed patent. I suggest that there be
>redrafting to indicate those aspects of the XPointer specification to which
>the Sun patent **may** apply.
>Thus the paragraph would more appropriately start, "Certain parts of XPointer
>may be affected by a technology patent held by Sun Microsystems. [specify
>here if you wish]."
>If, as I guess is the case, the linked "Terms and Conditions" document is not
>"normative" in the W3C sense then that should be stated clearly. If it is
>"normative", then that should be stated explicitly.
>This redrafting would provide reassurance that no patent concerns are known
>for most/much of XPointer. For those specific aspects to which a Sun patent
>may apply then I would suggest that the WG liaise with Sun to get a clearer
>form of words in the "Terms & Conditions" document.

This sentence is in the Status of This Document section, so it's under the 
responsibility of the W3C staff to make this change.  However, we will 
recommend this, and anticipate that the wording will be accepted.

>The document states "We have developed ...". Who is "we"? Is this document an
>informal document? Or a legally binding commitment on behalf of Sun?
>Also, it should be made clear that the person signing on behalf of Sun has
>the legal authority to do so. I suspect, but cannot be sure, that the
>(implicit) signatory of the version of "Terms & Conditions" linked to from
>the XPointer WD may not be "signed" at all.
>Does displaying an unsigned attachment to an implicitly signed email carry
>any weight at all, legally?
>Does an apparently unsigned document carry any significance at all? Is it, in
>terms of legally binding Sun in this matter, worth the paper it isn't printed
>If there is some more formal document signed by an authorised signatory of
>Sun then I suggest that the XPointer WD link to it.
>These suggested drafting changes are made with the intent of relieving
>current anxieties on this matter.

This wording is the responsibility of Sun and the Working Group has no 
authority to change it, so we did not make a decision on this 
comment.  However, it has been conveyed to Sun.

If you do not accept our resolution on any item, please let us know by 
responding to this message.  We are on a tight schedule, so please respond 
by 28 March.

         (with Linking WG co-chair hat on)
Eve Maler                                             +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Development  eve.maler @

Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2001 10:36:20 UTC