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

RE: XHTML adoption curve

• To: 'Ronald Bourret' <rpbourret@r...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: XHTML adoption curve
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:19:52 -0500

Knowing the source means you can check if it 
is a "qualified" source.  This is part of 
contracting and may or may not be something 
used to assert the truthfulness of content. 
It can mean the qualified authority authorized 
the transaction.

It can be used as a way of qualifying a set 
of transactions, checking for security 
permissions, etc.  In general, it is useful. 
It does not assert the veracity of content. 
GIGO is true for any transaction.

I don't trust Bush out of the box either, 
but given an executive order, I'd feel better 
about following it.  That's the way the system 
works.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@r...]

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:
> Perhaps you are confusing the notion of being certain (or do I mean
> confident?) of the origin of a page with the notion of trusting the
> content.

But knowing the origin of the page is useful in deciding whether to
trust the content:

if (know_origin)
{
   if (trust_origin) // personal decision, not machine decision
      trust = true;
   else
      trust = false;
}
else
   trust = false;

> It illustrates the more general point that knowing the origin of
> content is of limited value in knowing whether the content can be
> trusted or not.

Really? I always consider the source of information when trying to
decide if I believe that information. Of course, as a general rule,
anything on the Web gets a high untrustworthiness rating simply because
it is on the Web...

• Prev by Date: Patents
• Next by Date: RE: WHat r info sets?.....
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML adoption curve
• Next by thread: RE: Entities
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread