Posted on 08/12/2009 8:43:04 AM PDT by ShadowAce
As for the percentage of my docs I consider "sensitive", that's immaterial. They're mine, and they won't be residing on a server outside my control. I don't care what privacy policy google or anyone else has, I'm a sys admin, I know the power root has, I know how systems can get hacked. No, I'm not going to subject myself, my documents, to the possibility that some bored admin (and no, as an admin I never did that unless corp security so directed) might feel the need to go snooping through people's files. And from a government overstepping their bounds department, they must be salivating at the fact that people are going to start putting personal files on central servers. No need to go trying to get into (by whatever means) millions of individual computer systems, just one.
BTW: With VPN capabilities, you can make your own cloud that you can access from anywhere. And it's still under your control.
Mmmm.. lets see, over the last 10 years I have spent nearly a million dollars on XML/Java application development, so maybe, just maybe I know something about this.
I participated in the eBXML project until it became lost in international bureaucratic vacation taking rather than doing anything of import. And I can assure you that nothing, nothing associated with XML or XML tags is patentable because its like patenting a combination of words on a page, no way to do this to create a novel invention. XML is an international standard that defines the XML code layer and the DTD and DLD layers that manage the definition of the XML and call resources associated with these tags. Its like discovering PHP on the web one day and deciding to develop PHP pages and then deciding to patent using it to write a web page that includes a flash movie... its stupid, thats what PHP was designed to do, what is the unique invention?
XML is simply a carrier, just the same as HTML. The difference being is that I can use it to call resources and pass them data.
XML is server side because Browsers are not written to read it, but XML could be sent to any proprietary rendering engine that is designed to accept XML tags and interpret them. Any Web Browser could serve as such a proprietary engine if the definitions were shared via a plug-in or some such.
In the case of Word, it is acting as a non-browser, non-server rendering engine with a specific set of XML tags of meaning that resolves into Markup Instructions as well as resource calls.
There is no difference between this action and my Java based programs that accept the XML we write and generate HTML that Web Browsers recognize.
Mmmm.. lets see, over the last 10 years I have spent nearly a million dollars on XML/Java application development, so maybe, just maybe I know something about this.
I participated in the eBXML project until it became lost in international bureaucratic vacation taking rather than doing anything of import. And I can assure you that nothing, nothing associated with XML or XML tags is patentable because its like patenting a combination of words on a page, no way to do this to create a novel invention. XML is an international standard that defines the XML code layer and the DTD and DLD layers that manage the definition of the XML and call resources associated with these tags. Its like discovering PHP on the web one day and deciding to develop PHP pages and then deciding to patent using it to write a web page that includes a flash movie... its stupid, thats what PHP was designed to do, what is the unique invention?
XML is simply a carrier, just the same as HTML. The difference being is that I can use it to call resources and pass them data.
XML is server side because Browsers are not written to read it, but XML could be sent to any proprietary rendering engine that is designed to accept XML tags and interpret them. Any Web Browser could serve as such a proprietary engine if the definitions were shared via a plug-in or some such.
In the case of Word, it is acting as a non-browser, non-server rendering engine with a specific set of XML tags of meaning that resolves into Markup Instructions as well as resource calls.
There is no difference between this action and my Java based programs that accept the XML we write and generate HTML that Web Browsers recognize.
No, that is wrong. By Federal law, Internet Services Providers are required to keep copies of all email. You may no longer see it on the cloud, but it is in a cloud that both the ISP and the Federal government can see if they need to.
They're mine, and they won't be residing on a server outside my control.
All of your emails are sitting in an archive out of your control. If the federal government wants to read your past emails, they do not need a search warrant. All they need is an order from court, and you will never be notified they are reading your old emails.
No, I'm not going to subject myself, my documents, to the possibility that some bored admin (and no, as an admin I never did that unless corp security so directed) might feel the need to go snooping through people's files. And from a government overstepping their bounds department, they must be salivating at the fact that people are going to start putting personal files on central servers. No need to go trying to get into (by whatever means) millions of individual computer systems, just one.
You have no argument from me. If you don't want to put your documents in cloud service, you shouldn't.
BTW: With VPN capabilities, you can make your own cloud that you can access from anywhere. And it's still under your control.
If you need tighter security measures, by all means set up your VPN. You could also encrypt your files. It all depends upon your security needs. I don't put anything in emails that I wouldn't want my mother to read. And I don't put anything in a cloud file system that I want to be top secret.
In my opinion using XML to carry date is bizarre. But then if people like to do things the hard way, I think they should. XML is much better at describing text than carrying data.
You don't invent HTML tags. You do invent XML tags. And then you have to write a parser for your tags. i4i claims they invented a new way to parse and index the tags of a markup language. I am not claiming that I agree with their claim. Nor have I said anything about the merit of their case. And yes, I do understand that you do not agree with their claim.
The patent, and I did read it, violates the patents for SGML and other technologies. It is poorly written as to be vague and can be thought of as comprising HTML an any other markup language. The patent is dated for 1992, yet, SGML existed at least past 1986.
“XML is server side because Browsers are not written to read it”
Slight correction, XML is readable by browsers. I use IE it every day to read XML files.
“HTML is a markup language. XML is not a markup language. XML is a tool that you use to create a markup language. “
eXtensible Markup Language (XML) is a markup language and a defined standard. XML is NOT a “tool”. No such thing.
Well, I disagree. I got involved with ebXML because the idea has great merit. As the discussion evolved though it became obvious that attempting to standardize the definitions of electronic transactions was conceptually interesting but practically ineffective as the details and usages of all but the core elements of a transaction are context specific.
Yet, as Apple has shown, XML structures are awesome storage and transfer elements for hierarchical data. The advent of object oriented thinking and the availability of overloaded classes to manage multiple interpretations of specific data elements has created a world where XML is a great medium for carrying data.
I do not invent HTML tags because these definitions must be shared by Common Browser Interfaces that rely on standards to make possible "at least theoretically" that Safari and Firefox and Explorer can all read the same code and interpret it on the screen in the same mannor.
XML on the other hand is used for more proprietary situations where both sides of the encoding and interpreting transaction are defined by a limited number of parties, though that limited number may be in fact millions of individuals. Ultimately the effect is the same. The difference being that 2 additional contextual definition components are needed for XML, The Document Logic Definition and the Document Tag Definitions. If these definitons are shared by both sides of the interchange than XML provides the structure to carry the information in question regardless of the form or ultimate intended use.
Most current browsers can read and display an XML file as a data structure. Any facility past this is created by either utilization of a pre-existing definition accepted or promulgated by the Browser developer, or the presence of a plug-in that provides the tools that provide the means of interpreting this data.
Since you don't agree with me, let me quote from O'Reilly's Learning XML which I read back in 2001 when I was learning XML. On page 2 it says, "Note that despite its name, XML is not itself a markup language: it's a set of rules for building markup languages." That is exactly what I said.
Let me also quote the first paragraph from Chapter 5, Document Models: A Higher Level of Control:
One of the most powerful features of XML is that it lets you create your own markup language, defining elements and attributes that best fit the information you want to encapsulate, instead of limiting you to an ill-fiting, general purpose language. But what's still missing is a way to define the language in a formal way, to restrict the vocabulary of elements and attributes to a manageable set, and to control the grammar of elements. The process of formally defining a language in XML is called document modeling. In this chapter, we'll discuss two ways to model a document: document type definitions (DTDs), which describe a document's structure with declarative rules: and XML Schema, which describes the document's structure by example using element templates.As I said before, XML is not a markup language. XML is a tool that you use to create a markup language.
Books are never wrong? Big O blew it. XML is an extensible markup language but it is a markup language. Tags do not need to be predefined to be a markup language.
Hell, most computer nerds cannot intelligently discuss computer science as they are programmers with little knowledge. They simply write a little bit of script, get something to appear on the screen, then call it quits. Get your head out of the books, get it into work and get some experience and maybe you’ll stop quoting books and have the experience to write a few.
Still doesn’t mean it is “server side”. Nice attempt at buzzword bingo, but XML is and can be read on clients of all types in all kinds of applications. It is every bit as client side as a programmer wants it to be.
Before you go about lecturing me about what I supposedly said, please take the time to read what I actually said. Gees.
This is a question of your definition of a markup language. Is it a tool that you use to create tags to describe text, or is it the set of tags you use to mark up the text? Definitions are not arguable since they are not propositions or assertions. Have a good evening.
:’D
In that case it was well-written to be vague so that a patent that basically covers nothing unique might convince a dumb jury.
Let me just say that I have heard many a user complaining about the Office 2007 suite and the Ribbon interface. Most of these users have never seen a Mac in their lives and are definitely not fan boys, but they absolutely hate it. Are they dragging their knuckles? Perhaps, but knuckle-draggers make up most of Microsoft's audience.
FWIW, I don't do much word processing and don't feel I a horse in this race. My needs are fairly basic and I adapt to whatever piece of software is put in front of me. I'm just telling you what I hear from the users around me.
I have a friend who is a total Excel jock on the PC. He has spreadsheets that are unbelievably large and complex (IMHO, a good candidate for conversion to a real database). He was not happy with 2007, not just the ribbon but the performance too.
I could not live without the autotext & autocorrect features. I’m keeping my old version of Word as long as possibe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.