[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
Ok... incompetent pooTosser (me) plays lawyer. It is if they are setting terms and conditions for access just a porn site disavowing responsibility when you enter. They classify one as an infringer by access even if from a site that did not warn one but provided the URL (eg, we copy it in our mail). So, if they want to assert terms and conditions, they must do it at the point of access, not on reference. Otherwise, they only have a deal with the W3C which is not being passed on. Any way we cut the access issue, it ends up being absurd if we assume that just reading the piece contracts the terms and conditions of infringement. If they can really do this, then we better rethink our casual browsing habits and put RDF files on other systems to ensure that hidden contracts are outed prior to traversal. Now that's a kick: use the semantic web to wall off the W3C. Ha! 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 3:44 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len) Cc: Jonathan Borden; xml-dev@x... Subject: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0 Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > 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). But this is not a contract. It is Sun stating that it will not sue you as an infringer if you: 1) don't sue Sun, 2) feed back doco to W3C.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|