RE: [xml-dev] XML-DEV list

["Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

From: Ben Trafford [mailto:ben@prodigal.ca] 

>From what I've seen, there's arguably prior art on virtually 
>any idea you put forth, these days. I have very little fears on that 
>front -- trying to fight a patent against an open linking standard 
>would be awfully rough going for whomever tried it. Moreover, nothing 
>I'm doing is really new -- it's more of a remix of existing ideas, 
>with a bit of glue. Also, everything I've taken from comes from open
>standards.

It isn't as hard as you think.  It is expensive.

>The other part of me applauds the web 
>programmers and designers for at least -trying-, where so many others 
>are just content to bitch and moan, without actually doing anything.

The point is, there is a lot done already.  You want to amend standards.
That's a good idea if necessary.  I'm not convinced that it is because so
far I haven't seen an example that makes this necessary given the options
available.  On the other hand, there is no necessity for say, XUL; it just
makes it easier for content authors and that is reason enough.  It limits
the reach of the content and that is the tradeoff.  Someone will argue that
your extensions to CSS will limit the reach of the content that uses it.  It
will.  You'll claim, 'if they will just implement my ideas, things will be
fine'.  Maybe but expect the resistance, the alternatives, and so on.  

Well-documented citations that show how your ideas build on existing ideas
will be a much better defense and offense over 'critics are just
curmudgeons'.   On the other hand, there is a reason for XAML because it
isn't about XML, per se.  It is about adding objects to the Vista framework
and how to express that in XML or other syntaxes.   Because that is clear,
there are no 'slightly different meanings'.

>I'm with Teddy Roosevelt on this one: "It is not the critic 
>who counts...The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the 
>arena." 

The American Indians would disagree if there were enough of them to do it.
They really didn't need arms and wealth to establish their social positions.
Adding hyperlinks via CSS declarations may not be necessary to those who
have other options.  If that is 'do nothingness', have at but it is also a
fact of life.  I'm not saying don't do it; just cite so the arguments are
logical with respect to the prior art.  A friend of mine who wrote the
decision on the Eolas patent said that if software designs had been cited
correctly, it was possible we wouldn't be living with that one.

>I expect to see 42 pages with the last two being citations of work both in
>URIs and bibliographic.

>Those resources will certainly be present, Len. They were in 
>place long before you brought them up. But thanks for the reminder. I 
>have actually been doing this awhile, you know?

So have I.  If you want to use a CSS style sheet to annotate that an XML
production is a hyperlink in that document, you note the alternatives and
cite them.   It will save some rounds here.

len