[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>,Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>, xml-dev@x...
• Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:43:50 -0600

Umm... Only if it tells you that before you click and in this 
case, I still don't think they can make it stick.
 
It would also have to cover any reuse of the reference if 
entry to the site does not present the warning.  A 
contract cannot be made ex post facto (my guess).  
It would be entrapment otherwise.  It is a weird turn 
but one predicted on the use of the Name to infer 
rights (eg, is a URN like a trademark).

Definitely an RDF application.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:27 PM
To: Jonathan Borden; xml-dev@x...
Subject: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0


Jonathan Borden wrote:

> It is entirely another thing to impose conditions on the mere reading of
the
> XPointer specification which by the way is simply silly language that
anyone
> who has ever been involved in the drafting of a software contract ought
know
> is silly.

Unfortunately it is not simply silly:  it is a command backed
by a threat to sue.  The structure is "If you read this,
and play by our rules, we will not sue you for your
(necessary) infringement; but if you break our rules, we
MIGHT sue you!"

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Next by Date: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Previous by thread: RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Next by thread: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread