Aha. Curious huh?
Well thank you for replying Alex.
Its good to converse with you once again.
When viewing the source of any page generated by Macromedia's
tools you will see much of the source prefixed with MM_ which
Macromedia uses to 'brand' their source code noting that doing
so is secondary to other processing objectives but is a form
of branding regardless.
Macromedia uses their prefix in the exact same way an XML
Namespace is intended to be used: to resolve ambiguity and
allow two or more instances of similar code to coexist in the
same document.
I really don't know if Macromedia has used the law to ensure
the use of their prefix remains unique to them and them alone.
If I were Macromedia I would sure try to do so.
I have been working on an XML Web Services initiative and have
been using the root element and specific prefixed namespaces to
brand the initiative in the same manner as Macromedia uses their
prefix. It was Macromedia from whom I intuitively derived the idea
to do so in the first place. There is apparently nothing however that
prevents others from also doing so while using the same root element
and prefixed notation as I. Thus, a malicious or envious competitor
could compromise or destroy the viability of my services unless my
works can be protected.
I happen to be much more adept at trend analysis than software
development and I can virtually guarantee that this issue will become
a matter of contention with regard to trademark, copyright, and/or
patent law as the use of XML and web services continue to evolve
as the defacto text and document processing methodology which I
believe you know and I believe you will agree are fundamental to
a Service Oriented Architecture that must by its nature function
semantically for both man and machine.
Registering a copyright in the U.S. is dirt cheap which makes
it the perfect type of protection for small potatos. A regsistration
is required to enter the courts to litigate the use of the property.
It is defending the property in court where the larger costs accrue.
As a mater of fact, most infringers stop infringing after receiving
a 'cease and desist' letter from one's lawyer as it is widely known
that penalties for copyright infringment are quite substantial if the
infringer proceeds to court and loses.
A patent on the other hand can be obtained but unlike the paltry
$30 or so for copyright registration a patent registration can easily
cost more than $5,000 making the acquisition of a patent a costly
and non-trivial process.
Despite the recognized problems we have with an archaic U.S.
government that continues to approve the assingment of 'business
process' patents for processes that are obvious as implemented
I think we could all agree that we all have a right to at least
preserve and protect our work by name.
We may all be what those of us from across the pond call
"sh!t out of luck" though. After weeks and weeks of calling around
I finally found a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property,
has a degree in electrical engineering, and claimed to have had
actually developed some time ago allowing me to consider
him credibly conversant.
The lawyer explained that U.S. copyright applies to the 'entire'
expression. That is, the entire XML file. A copyright could not
apply to just the namespaces and their respective prefixed notation.
He stated the courts would consider XML and any fragment thereof
to be a 'file structure' and used an example to explain.
It seems file structures can not be copyrighted which is why a word
processing application can be made to open and read the files of a
word processor from a competing vendor.
So, regardless of the lawyer's opinions I may be in denial as I
continue to argue that XML is analogous to musical composition
and an XML Namespace is the equivalent of a short musical
passage such as a jingle. If it is a fact that composers who write
jingles can have their work copyrighted -- which it is -- I see no
reason why the copyright office and the courts should disallow
copyright for XML Namespaces an avenue of consideration
I am compelled to continue to persue until such time as they
grant me a copyright or they lock me up for trying.
By the way, in case you are not familiar with the jargon, a 'jingle'
is a short musical passage that is played as background music
during a radio or television advertisement.
Sing along with me now...
"You get more for your money when you eat at Bunny's
so drop on in for a bite at Bunny's greasy spoon."
Did you 'hear' that melody?
--
<%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software Development
NET (e-mail address removed)
URL
http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/
Alex Homer said:
Interesting - I have to say I haven't considered this. You mean something
like MS might copyright "asp" as a namespace prefix for use with ASP.NET
controls? Can't say that I can see that coming, but I guess the past
performance of the US patent office might cause one to wonder...
As to a namespace itself (the URI bit) I always use my own domain name. But
I guess there's nothing to stop someone patenting a domain name they don't
own if it's not already copyrighted. Have you come up with a particular
example, or can you expose a little more of your thinking behind the issue?
I haven't heard any mention from publishers - we have enough problems
getting permission to shown screenshots of non-MS software!
clintonG said:
Thanks for pointing that out Alex.
Having access to "ASP.NET 1.1 Insider Solutions" is a real treat.
If you are feeling up to a bit of controversy I would ask you if you
were interested in discussing how XML namespaces may or may not
result in copyright issues associated with their use.
The highbrows building the markup languages do not want to speak
about this but since you are a working man with a job I figure you
probably have had reason to formulate an opinion or to have been
involved with publishers who have become aware of the considerations
involved.
--
<%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software Development
NET (e-mail address removed)
URL
http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/
Alex Homer said:
Nesting one "repeating control" such as a Datagrid or Repeater within
another is the way to go. There are several ways you can do it, and there's
a bunch of examples with a [view source] link at:
http://www.daveandal.net/books/6744/samples.aspx
Hi all
I'm almost braindead on this one, but how can I create a master/detail
datagrid
in this format :
CatA
subcatA1
subcatA2
subcatA3
CatB
subcatB1
etc
I've been studying this datagrid for hours now and I can't figure it out.
The main idea is to have the CatA & CatB having a full colspan, and having
those subcats as normal datagrid/datalist rows...
Lastly, I need to be able to Page the main CatA, etc.
I tried nesting, but I don't get any wiser from that.
Would filling my dataset with 2 tables from a stored proc work the best
way
for this ?
This is because the main Categories and the Subcategories are taken from
two
related tables in my database.
Thanks in advance
