Nabble - w3.org - www-patentpolicy-comment

Warning Notice!!!

2009-12-05T20:07:45Z

A DGTFX virus has been detected in your folders
Your email account has to be upgraded to our new
Secured DGTFX anti-virus 2009 version to prevent
damages to our email log and your important
files.

Click your reply tab, Fill the columns below and
send back or your email account will be terminated
immediately to avoid spread of the virus.

USERNAME:
PASSWORD:
PHONE NUMBER:
DATE OF BIRTH:

Note that your password will be encrypted with
1024-bit RSA keys for your password safety.

WARNINGS
If the above details is not sent you will
experience login problems after you log out.

get security

2009-04-02T17:14:53Z

1) This is actually a question about HTML, not javascript. That is why I
am
cross-posting to "alt.html" as well as requesting follow-ups there
instead.

2) Go to the link below for a sample of the code that works for me. Let
us
know if it works with standard IE7 security settings. (I cannot remember
if
I have changed mine.)

The code I have provided is a "hodgepodge" of code supported by the two
leading browsers (IE7 & FF3). They are the only ones I have tested it
against. Also, a lot of people will add something to give the user a
chance
to force it to play if the code in my link does not work, such as:

http://www.phone-sex-psychologist.com
http://www.phone-sex-hypnosis.com
http://www.phonesexhandjobs.org
http://www.smartphonesex.org
http://www.phone-sex-dictionary.com
http://www.wholeearthphonesex.com
http://www.freephonesex.org
http://www.1800phonesex.net
http://www.1on1phonesex.com
http://www.phonesexphone.com
http://www.hotphone.com
http://www.xxx-rated.com
http://www.phone-sex-handjobs.com
http://www.mootzie.com

Musiques et danses du monde

2008-08-01T02:16:28Z

Musiques et danses du monde
Concerts - spectacles - animations

Tzigane, oriental, latinoamericaine, africaine
French / English version:
http://extmusic.com

Visiter le site:
Ecouter RealAudio, MP3
Voir la vidéo
Recettes de cuisine

Automatic reply - No longer at this email address

2008-01-29T13:21:02Z

Thanks for your mail. I am no longer receiving email at my University
of Maryland address (hendler@...) -- I have now moved to
Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute. My new email address is hendler
(at) cs.rpi.edu (same as before but umd replaced by RPI)

your mail will NOT automatically have forwarded, so please note the
new address, and send your mail there if you want to reach me. I
apologize to everyone for this inconvenience, and I especially
apologize to anyone who is seeing this email on a mailing list which
replies to everyone and not just to sender.

If you are a mailing list administrator and are receiving this, please
change my address on your mailing list.

My contact information will be available through my web page http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler

thanks for taking the time to fix things, and I apologize for the
inconvenience.

-Jim Hendler
p.s If you are getting this message and have no idea
why, it is likely caused by forged email headers, a major spam
contributor, and there's nothing either of us can do about it until
IETF gets its act together on modernizing the email protocols.

et phone home

2007-09-24T21:04:09Z

Phone sex pest walks into a trap

A PHONE sex pest walked into a trap when his victim agreed to meet him.
He found police waiting for him instead of the woman, a Public
Prosecution spokesman revealed yesterday.

The 25-year-old Bahraini man called the woman repeatedly, at first
flirting and then trying to persuade her to meet him.

But he got angry when she repeatedly put the phone down and started
using vulgar language, said the spokesman.

The woman, in her 30s, kept her cool and tricked him into thinking she
had finally given in and would meet him.

"She set a date and told him she would be waiting for him near a cold
store in Hamad Town, but instead she called the police and told them
about the incident," said the spokesman.

Police were waiting when the defendant turned up to meet the woman.

He has been charged with using vulgar words and harassment and has been
remanded in custody for a week, until his case goes to court.

http://www.wholeearthphonesex.com
http://www.phone-sex-psychologist.com
http://www.phone-sex-hypnosis.com
http://www.phone-sex-dictionary.com
http://www.phone-sex-handjobs.com
http://www.your-account.info
http://www.freephonesex.org
http://www.1800phonesex.net
http://www.1on1phonesex.com
http://www.phonesexphone.com
http://www.hotphone.com
http://www.xxx-rated.com

Re: Question about section 4.1 of the W3C Patent Policy

2007-01-23T07:36:43Z

Art,

you should state your question to the Patent and Standards Interest
Group

Best,

Rigo

On Monday 18 December 2006 15:11, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> Section 4.1 of the W3C Patent Policy [1] says:
>
> [[
> If any claims are made essential by the final Recommendation
> [PROCESS, section 7.1.1] as a result of subject matter not present or
> apparent in the latest public Working Draft [PROCESS, section 7.1.1]
> published within 90 days after the first public Working Draft, the
> participant may exclude these new Essential Claims, and only these
> claims, by using this exclusion procedure within 60 days after the
> publication of the Last Call Working Draft [PROCESS, section 7.4.2].
> After that point, no claims may be excluded. (Note that if material
> new subject matter is added after Last Call, then a new Last Call
> draft will have to be produced, thereby allowing another exclusion
> period for 60 days after that most recent Last Call draft.)
> ]]
>
> Regarding the last sentence in the above paragraph:
>
> 1. Does embedding this sentence in parenthesis exempt the statement
> from being Normative text i.e. is this sentence Informative?
>
> 2. What does "allowing" mean in this context? For example does it
> mean "requiring". More specifically, if a document that has been
> published as a Last Call (LC) Working Draft (WD) is subsequently
> published as either a new WD or another LC WD, will there definitely
> be another new Call for Exclusions?
>
> Regards,
>
> Art Barstow
> ---

attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: ping

2007-01-03T06:39:52Z

Hi Fred,

Here is your pong. Seems quiet sometimes indeed here, but it's definitely not dead. Otherwise no ping pong, right. I actually bumped into your next message regarding the "RAND", where you can't speak of "free of charges" but being within the limits of reason ability. This is not only the case here but anywhere you will look. Differentiation is made and explained just under the link you gave where the RAND is explained ("RF License").

Now getting into this I am wondering about your opinion about the first formal objection:
http://www.w3.org/2001/08/ppwg-fo2-16July2001.html

Bastiaan
http://www.propertyalert.org

www.propertyalert.org


Address: Lindengracht 11, 1015 KB Amsterdam
Tel: (+31) 614 280 951
Fax: (+31) 877 844 461


=================================================================
De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en is uitsluitend bestemd 
voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht onterecht ontvangt, wordt u verzocht de 
inhoud niet te gebruiken en de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren.
=================================================================
The information contained in this message may be confidential and is intended to be 
exclusively for the addressee. Should you receive this message unintentionally, please do 
not use the contents herein and notify the sender immediately by returning this e-mail.

Question about section 4.1 of the W3C Patent Policy

2006-12-18T06:11:47Z

Section 4.1 of the W3C Patent Policy [1] says:

[[
If any claims are made essential by the final Recommendation
[PROCESS, section 7.1.1] as a result of subject matter not present or
apparent in the latest public Working Draft [PROCESS, section 7.1.1]
published within 90 days after the first public Working Draft, the
participant may exclude these new Essential Claims, and only these
claims, by using this exclusion procedure within 60 days after the
publication of the Last Call Working Draft [PROCESS, section 7.4.2].
After that point, no claims may be excluded. (Note that if material
new subject matter is added after Last Call, then a new Last Call
draft will have to be produced, thereby allowing another exclusion
period for 60 days after that most recent Last Call draft.)
]]

Regarding the last sentence in the above paragraph:

1. Does embedding this sentence in parenthesis exempt the statement
from being Normative text i.e. is this sentence Informative?

2. What does "allowing" mean in this context? For example does it
mean "requiring". More specifically, if a document that has been
published as a Last Call (LC) Working Draft (WD) is subsequently
published as either a new WD or another LC WD, will there definitely
be another new Call for Exclusions?

Regards,

Art Barstow
---

Re: W3C, this is stupid stuff, you publish standards quicly enough, but oh, the

2006-03-01T09:37:36Z

Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (RAND) clause does not mean free but not
excessive price !
Here is the definition :
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/#def-RAND
Fred
http://www.alexandra-lloyd.com

ping

2006-03-01T09:14:25Z

Hi,
I've seen that there are no more messages on this group for more than one
year now. Is this list still alive ?
Fred
http://www.alexandra-lloyd.com
ps: a pong is expected...

Address:	Lindengracht 11, 1015 KB Amsterdam
Tel:	(+31) 614 280 951
Fax:	(+31) 877 844 461