On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:49, Garrett
Fitzgerald<[email protected]> wrote:
> Ummmm.... isn't the definition of XML pretty much that all XML is
> "custom XML"? I think the only big check MS should be writing here is
> to their lawyers, unless there's something really non-obvious about
> that patent...

...which there isn't.

"Thus, in sharp contrast to the prior art the present invention is
based on the practice of separating encoding conventions from the
content of a document. The invention does not use embedded metacoding
to differentiate the content of the document, but rather, the
metacodes of the document are separated from the content and held in
distinct storage in a structure called a metacode map, whereas
document content is held in a mapped content area. Raw content is an
extreme example of mapped content wherein the latter is totally
unstructured and has no embedded metacodes in the data stream.

A metacode, which includes but is not limited to a descriptive code,
is an individual instruction which controls the interpretation of the
content of the data, i.e., it differentiates the content. A metacode
map is a multiplicity of metacodes and their addresses associated with
mapped content. An address is the place in the content at which the
metacode is to exert its effect.

Thus, these structures completely replace the concept of a document
which combines content with embedded codes. Delivering a complete
document would entail delivering both the content and a metacode map
which describes it."

How did the patent office manage to let that one slip by? *headdesk*


_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to