RE: What a prior art product must do

Thank you Richard, I hear ya.

MSIE does have an optional method for client-side Databinding that uses an
<OBJECT/> tag, but I use the Microsoft extension with the HTML <XML/> tag -
much simpler and better functionality.

The MSDN literature often refers to the <XML/> tag as an "embedded Data
Island". Through this dynamic XML and XSLT is possible. Until more
information comes out, I'm a little concerned.

And your question about the <SCRIPT/> tag is a good one too. I often do the
following, where I call dynamic generated JavaScript (JScript) code:

<SCRIPT ID="dynamic_code" SRC="myapp.aspx?_function=specialcode"></SCRIPT>

And using JScript, dynamically make more calls for dynamic code to the
server from an HTML page through the <SCRIPT/> tag, something like:

---SCRIPT----
function make_call(new_argument){
	dynamic_code.src = 'myapp.aspx?_function=' + new_argument;
}
---/SCRIPT----

And then there is dynamic objects on a page with "new ActiveXObject()" via
JScript. I'm curious about the interpretation here too.

The list just goes on and on doesn't it?

Scott Cadillac,
XML-Extranet - http://xmlx.ca
403-281-6090 - scott@xmlx.ca
Well-formed Development
--
Extranet solutions using C# .NET, Witango, MSIE and XML


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Richard M. Smith
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 12:12 PM
> To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
> Subject: RE: What a prior art product must do
> 
> 
> 
> If we can assume that the XML and XSLT support is built into 
> a browser,
> then I don't believe there is a problem.  INAL, YMMV, etc.
> 
> Another interesting question does the use of the <script 
> src=> tag ever
> get into trouble with Eolas patent.  Part the answer to this 
> question is
> if the JavaScript interpreter is considered part of the 
> browser or if it
> is an external program.
> 
> Richard
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Scott Cadillac
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 11:45 AM
> To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
> Subject: RE: What a prior art product must do
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for correcting my assumption Richard,
> 
> I guess it shows that I haven't spent much time with Java :-)
> 
> Any thoughts on my question about embedded XML and external calls to
> other
> XML and XSL/XSLT?
> 
> Scott Cadillac,
> XML-Extranet - http://xmlx.ca
> 403-281-6090 - scott@xmlx.ca
> Well-formed Development
> --
> Extranet solutions using C# .NET, Witango, MSIE and XML
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> > Richard M. Smith
> > Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 6:01 AM
> > To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: What a prior art product must do
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > A quick guess of what Eolas might be thinking.  In claim #1, a Java
> > class file is the embedded file and the external application 
> > is the JVM.
> > 
> > 
> > The '906 patent was filed before Java applets existed, so 
> it shouldn't
> > be too surprising that they are not described in the patent text.
> > Regardless it doesn't mean that embedded applets can't infringe the
> > patent.
> > 
> > Richard
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Scott Cadillac
> > Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 3:39 AM
> > To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: What a prior art product must do
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I think you have a good point Christian,
> > 
> > The Virtual Machine and/or .NET Runtime does exist outside of the
> > Browser,
> > but I guess a more low-level technical breakdown of how the Browser
> > accesses
> > the Machine/Runtime would be helpful here.
> > 
> > Scanning quickly through some of the press stuff at
> > http://www.eolas.com/news.html I saw a few general references to the
> > phrase
> > "applet" to imply that Java apps are supposedly covered in 
> the Patent.
> > 
> > Obviously I haven't read the entire Patent Text, but a quick 
> > word search
> > doesn't return anything about "applet" or "java" or "virtual" 
> > (the Text
> > pre-dates .NET of course).
> > 
> > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HIT
> > OFF&d=PALL
> > &p=1
> > &u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,838,906.WKU.&OS=PN/
> > 5,838,906&
> > RS=P
> > N/5,838,906
> > 
> > Is Eolas stretching their own interpretation?
> > 
> > Or is the simple act of invoking an external process from 
> the Browser
> > that
> > returns anything enough for the Patent?
> > 
> > 
> > This is the part that worries me. I don't actually use 
> > embedded objects
> > as a
> > rule in my work, but I heavily rely on XML, specifically the 
> > client-side
> > XML
> > Databinding support that MSIE has.
> > 
> > Using the HTML <XML/> element in MSIE, and ActiveXObject() 
> > via Jscript,
> > I
> > routinely call external XML data and XSL files that are delivered
> > dynamically from a Server-side process.
> > 
> > Once the external data arrives back at the page that called it, user
> > and/or
> > dynamic interaction occurs.
> > 
> > Could client-side XSLT be considered Hypermedia? It is a mixing of
> > different
> > types of data for viewing in a Browser after all.
> > 
> > Any thoughts on whether this sort of stuff is at risk?
> > 
> > I sure wish we had more information....
> > 
> > Scott Cadillac,
> > XML-Extranet - http://xmlx.ca
> > 403-281-6090 - scott@xmlx.ca
> > Well-formed Development
> > --
> > Extranet solutions using C# .NET, Witango, MSIE and XML
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org 
> > > [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> > > SerpentMage (Christian Gross)
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 12:36 AM
> > > To: Jake Robb
> > > Cc: W3C Public Web Plugins List
> > > Subject: Re: What a prior art product must do
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Jake Robb wrote:
> > > 
> > > >The Java Virtual Machine and the Common Language Runtime 
> > > would count as
> > > >applications, which must be loaded in order for Java and 
> > > .NET code to run.
> > > >I think that voids your loophole.
> > > >
> > > Yes, but my point is that the runtime is loaded when the 
> browser is 
> > > running.  Hence when the "plugin" runs the runtime will 
> already be 
> > > running.  There is no additional executable to run...
> > > 
> > > Christian Gross
> > > 
> > 
>

Received on Sunday, 31 August 2003 14:39:09 UTC