Didier PH Martin wrote:
> 
> Yep, this has, for sure implications to XSL with FO not as XSL as a
> transformation language which is not covered by the patent. I guess this add
> more weight to the actual thread about splitting XSL from the formatting
> object stuff.

I refuse to get my nighty in a knot about an unsupportable patent. Just
because the monkeys in the patent office will approve anything doesn't
mean that a judge will back them. Microsoft would also look pretty silly
defending such a stupid pattent -- and losing.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
but she did it backwards and in high heels."
                                               --Faith Whittlesey


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list