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

Re: Postel's law, exceptions

• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
• Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:56:27 -0500
• Organization: Fiduciary Automation
• References: <002101c3dc47$fbee40f0$650aa8c0@BOBDEV> <40082C96.C8F8AC39@f...> <20040116191444.GO6240@s...>

No, we have only one kind of customer--ones who pay us to publish documents from
specific sources at particular locations. Our standard contract resembles as closely
as possible those used by financial printers. That is, we take an identified body of
content (a document) when it is available, apply a particular form of proofreading
to it, and publish it in an agreed, standard form. There are some minor issues of
indemnification, which I'm sure it is not prudent for me to discuss here, but it's
not a great concern, given our role and the parameters of our service as we
contractually define them. Given the nature of the niches we serve, one oddity is
that usually it is the consumers of securities order documents who pay our charges
for publishing documents from the emitters of those orders. This is normal practice
in the securities industry, and it does reinforce my contention that we really do
have only one class of customer. As for the sacredness of the content we handle, and
to whom it might be sacred, those questions are, as well as we can contractually
dismiss them, separate from the definition of how we handle that content which, as I
say, we attempt to model on the example of financial printers.

jcowan@r... wrote:

> So you have two kinds of clients, publishers and subscribers (where a given client
> may be both).  Do your publishers indemnify you against the legal consequences of
> misunderstandings by your subscribers?
>
> In these terms, the business model of (e.g.) Reuters Health is that it is its own
> sole publisher, with trivial exceptions, but it does impose considerable
> constraints on the subscriber's use of the content of the published documents:
> the form may be altered within limits, but the content is sacred.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: jcowan@r...

• References:
  • RE: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: jcowan@r...

• Prev by Date: RE: Judge rules in favor of Eolas
• Next by Date: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Previous by thread: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Next by thread: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread