Taber [1992:181]: He [=Steinkellner] suggests that Kumārila might be referring to an unidentified predecessor of Dharmakīrti. But I see no reason why the relationship could not be the reverse, i.e., Kumārila is actually attacking Dharmakīrti, while the latter has before him an unknown Mīmāṃsaka who preceded Kumārila. “Further Observations on Kumārila’s Bṛhaṭṭīkā.” Journal of Oriental Research Madras, 56-62 (1992), 179-189.
Taber [2001:83]: However, Kellner presents a good case for the opposite hypothesis, i.e., that Kumārila does not have Dharmakīrti in mind in the passage in question; and although her arguments are not conclusive, they receive support from other observations I shall discuss, so that in the end the negative statement---Kumārila is not referring to Dharmakīrti--- is more plausible. At the same time, we shall see that this does not by any means settle either the matter of the relationship of Kumārila and Dharmakīrti or the problem in the sequence of Kumārila’s works.
Taber [2001:88]: One must conclude from the above that the relationship between Kumāṣrila and Dharmakīrti has yet to be determined. There is little evidence that either specifically took aim at the other, or even knew the other’s works; while there is considerable evidence to the contrary.
“Much Ado About Nothing.” (Review Article) JAOS 121-1, 72-88.
Taber [2010:294]: ... in light of evidence that Dharmakīrti sometimes seems to be referring to Kumārila’s views.