Re: Issue 3: (STANDARD_MEASURES)

[Al Gilman <asgilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

to follow up on what Ted Hardie said:

> I am also not wedded to the idea that the second registrant of
> "pixels per something" should be the one to define how it
> relates to the first "pixels per something"--it just seems one
> way to handle the need.

Just curious.  I don't see any alternative.  Do you?  In practice
the registrar will have to exercise bias in the direction of
assuming that a new registration is related to some old
registration, and ask for compare/contrast clarification where
there seems to be overlap.  Otherwise there will be a lot of
un-articulated overlap in registered features.

Al