[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I just responded to Bob Wyman's reply. You both have more experience
and insight into this than I, and this appears to be a more
potentially damaging development than I thought.
Ciao,
Rex
At 8:05 AM +1100 1/25/04, Doug Hudgeon wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>
>....
>
>A more practical approach would be for the open
>source/open standards community to develop a community converter
>application that is bullet-proof (lawyer proof) that takes any word
>processing document and converts it into raw text and then produces a
>generic XML candidate version which Word users could then approve or
>change through the converter application to a candidate version that
>they can approve. They can then publish both the Word version for the
>community that wishes to use the MS suite and the raw text/XML
>version or an Open Office version. It would take a while to get
>comfortable with such a wasteful system, but it would at least offer
>an alternative to bending the knee to MS and it would help ensure
>that XML doesn't become a de facto MS property.
>
>------------------------
>
>The MS patent application can be read narrowly or broadly. I think even the
>narrow interpretation would preclude the community converter for word
>processing documents.
>
>Here's how the patent application looks from the perspective of a person who
>wants to build a community converter to read, parse and do something to a MS
>Word document.
>
>The broadest claim in the patent is, as always, the first:
>
>"A computer-readable medium having computer-executable components,
>comprising:
>
>a first component for reading a word-processor document stored as a single
>XML file;
>a second component that utilizes an XSD for interpreting the word-processor
>document, and
>a third component for performing an action on the word-processor document."
>
>This does not apply only to MS Word documents but to all word-processing
>documents. However, Microsoft cannot seriously believe that this claim will
>have no prior art unless the term "word processor document" is restricted in
>meaning (otherwise a web browser displaying HTML could be prior art):
>
>So what is a Word-processor document? Interestingly, the term is not defined
>explicitly but, instead, is defined as an example in the definition of
>"markup language":
>
>"[0013] The terms "markup language" or "ML" refer to a language for special
>codes within a document that specify how parts of the document are to be
>interpreted by an application. In a word-processor file, the markup language
>specifies how the text is to be formatted or laid out, whereas in an HTML
>document, the ML tends to specify the text's structural function (e.g.,
>heading, paragraph, etc.)"
>
>This specifically restricts WPML to formatting markup and apparently
>restricts the scope of the patent to the display of text rather than to the
>structural function of the text (although I'm not sure where they draw the
>line between "laid out" and an element's structural function).
>
>Here's what their sample document looks like:
>
>http://v3.espacenet.com/pdfdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP1376387&QPN=EP1376387&F=128&P
>GN=33
>
>It's all pretty clear to this point and if the patent is granted the
>community converter would be in breach. But the patent application seems to
>encompass more than the display of the word-processing documents:
>
>Despite the title, "word processing document stored in a single xml file",
>the patent contains the concept of a "hint" which seems to allow some types
>of information to be stored outside the "single XML file". The following
>paragraph describes a "hint".
>
>[0047] Other information may also be included within the document that is
>not needed by the word-processing program. According to one embodiment of
>the invention a "hints" element is included that allows external programs to
>easily be able to recognize what a particular element is, or how to recreate
>the element. For example, a specific number format may be in a list and used
>by the external program to recreate the document without knowing the
>specifics of the style.
>
>Now, despite the above example of a hint as a mechanism to specify the
>format of a number in a list, claim 24 describes a hint as:
>
>"The schema of Claim 23, further comprising a hints element, wherein the
>hints element may be used to indicate a meaning for an item."
>
>Note the use of the term "meaning".
>
>Read broadly, Microsoft's intent may be to restrict competitors from not
>only displaying word processor files identically to MS Word, but also to
>stop competitors from using the "hints" to extract meaningful data from the
>text elements. So it may be that not only would the community converter be
>in breach of the patent, but the community archival and retrieval system may
>also breach.
>
>Now, I am not a patent lawyer, but it seems to me the prior art would need
>to be a processor of a marked up document based on a schema (preferably XSD)
>containing formatting instructions surrounding a single tag element
>containing the text of the document. Optionally, this document could refer
>to additional files containing further information about the elements in the
>original document.
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request
|
