On Tuesday 12 June 2007 08:19:34 Paul A. Lambert wrote:
> compatible this group is at least in philosophy. The
> participation is closed, the forum allows patented code (as long as
> the license is non-discriminatory). Even with these issues, I'd
> still be very interested in seeing what th
On Jun 11, 2007, at 10:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if this is useful. It sounds a bit more like a
marketing group.
You have to pay a fee to join.
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dean Collins wrote:
Long overdue and if it is a standard then lets all jump onboard
and work
with it f
I'm not sure if this is useful. It sounds a bit more like a marketing group.
You have to pay a fee to join.
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dean Collins wrote:
Long overdue and if it is a standard then lets all jump onboard and work
with it from inside rather than throwing rocks from the outside.
C
Tim Newsom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From what I read, the LIPS group is creating an 'open' standard. The
> impression I got from that was the other phone standards group was
> closed' whatever that means.
It just struck me that the phone book contact info is pretty close to
what one wants f
From what I read, the LIPS group is creating an 'open' standard. The
impression I got from that was the other phone standards group was
'closed' whatever that means.
If we are going to back a group, maybe FIC should join it and help in
the development process of the standard. None of the memb
Long overdue and if it is a standard then lets all jump onboard and work
with it from inside rather than throwing rocks from the outside.
Cheers,
Dean
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:community-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Paulson
> Sent
6 matches
Mail list logo
