• To: <michael.h.kay@n...>,<pdurusau@e...>,"'David Megginson'" <david@m...>
• Subject: Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:07:30 +0000
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <002601c2bff9$cb29c770$6601a8c0@pcukmka>
• References: <002601c2bff9$cb29c770$6601a8c0@pcukmka>

On Sunday 19 January 2003 20:31, Michael Kay wrote:

> In this country at least (the UK), you can be sued for issuing a false
> trade description if you sell a product under the name "ConciseXML" that
> is not both concise and XML. This is quite regardless of trademark
> protection.

That'd open interesting cans of worms about "what is XML", with a strong 
argument being quite easily based on it being treatable as a PSVI and all 
that abstract data model stuff, though... I can see that going in favour of 
it being "a concise form of XML", myself...

ABS

-- 
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
 - ARP

• References:
  • RE: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ConciseXML arguments
• Next by Date: Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Previous by thread: RE: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Next by thread: Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread