Now Playing: Opinions and Speculations
Show me the first use of XML as a functional language. The USE of a scripting language (in this case XML) is according to its first intended use which was and has always been the representation of data as content. Upon that idea the representation of data as form came along later. Upon that idea... there is no flow from data as content and data as form to data as functionality and a semantic trick does not change the fact. You can google "XML-based scripting languages" all you like but the Emily examination has material supplied by the foremost XML practitioners in the art and there was NO evidence of the use of XML to represent functional code prior to Emily being filed.
Nobody cares about your statement like: "NOBODY WANTS OR NEEDS IT. I question whether it even works since nowhere has it ever been reviewed by any user or developer. It's probably just vaporware at this point."
None of that is relevant to the debate. What matters is finding a use of XML prior to 1999/2000 in which XML is used to drive a functional transformation within a processor. No. There isn't.
There is evidence of XML being used to drive the presentation of data from one data representation to another representation. That's transformation of type and covers the obviousness of representation of form. So content and form were obvious. But nobody prior to Davison filing for Emily had shown XML used as a representation of code that would execute in a processor for the purpose of driving the processor functionality. Not the processor contents or the processor configuration (current state of something like XAML even though they CALL it the eXtensible Application Markup Language - more semantic BS from giant players about to be caught in a box canyon of their own making).
Your statement here has no relevance to the debate either: "Hint: zero revenues have been generated by this great product. Duh. It's bogus,until proven otherwise. "
It wouldn't matter if not one line of Emily code was sold although we know it was used to create the distributed agent processing network for the Apollo smartcard per Jerome Svigal's specifications.
An XML Agent is the immediate demonstration of the use of XML as code and that capability has been shown numerous times in numerous places. Water does precisely that and I know how much you hate to hear that. You'll certainly spout out more irrelevant BS from your hatred but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.
If you would bother to read the examiner's objections you will find he has no problem with the use of XML as code. He has problems with the description of the agent doing the functional processing on the grounds it's a virtual machine. But I believe he's made that consideration in error because the virtual machine is not the thing that is novel and VCSY is not trying to patent a virtual machine. They're trying to patent a novel processing language method and the framework that makes it work as a novel functional processing language.
"Many of them have hooks (api's) into real programming languages..."
There you go killing your own arguments. There is no "real" programming language. API's are nothing more than processing agents which can be considered virtual machines. The language is only "real" if it provides a human the opportunity to instruct the transformational processes of a processor containing an arithmetic and logic facility connected to a memory. THAT is what makes a language "real" and the Emily claims demonstrate a REAL XML functional processing language.
You know you've never won any of these arguments. I'm surprised you're even going to try. To me it shows just how diligent you are in pursuing an agenda and that agenda has nothing to do with you not owning the stock. It has everything to do with the industry realizing they missed the boat and they don't want anyone to find out.
Posted by Portuno Diamo
at 3:12 PM EST
