[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit)
And that practice is almost guaranteed to increase. As soon as URIs became namespace IDs, the land rush was predictable. It will get worse. Are we choosing to be Humpty Dumpty, or are we the king's troops noticing the large number of precariously balanced eggs? The wall was put there to mark a territory and now eggs balanced on it fall on one of two sides. The context redefined is the natural outcome of convenient applications. Just as the WWW meisters find it convenient to define a locator protocol to be used as a namespace identifier, those on the other side of the wall find it convenient to use it to uniquely label proprietary content and justify that by saying that the only way the schema can be safely maintained is if the authoritative copy is found at the located noted. They choose to apply the string for BOTH roles: SYSTEM ID, and PUBLIC ID because they can it neatly enables them to lay claim both to the public definition and part of the system. Because it works, it becomes practiced. Once practiced, it becomes acceptable, then canon. Humpty Dumpty wasn't wrong. Just authoritative. The outcome of the fall is always the same. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@p...] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:56 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len) Cc: Xml-Dev (E-mail) Subject: Re: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit) > The context is the browser and web user not privy > to the abstractions of the specification. Heh ... for some of us, that context is virtually never a browser. I could suspect you of virulently agreeing with me; your examples so consistently prove what I'm saying (even presented as disproofs :) that meaning is contextual. > >I have the feeling Alice must have had when talking to > >Humpty Dumpty. Sure, go ahead and assert whatever > >you want. These issues haven't been litigated, and are > >unresolved (THAT was the original issue) except that > >Internet standards disagree with what you asserted. > > *Private consortia cannot make law*. You are falling > off the wall and the king's men can put you together > again, but perhaps they won't. By choosing to sit > on the wall, you assumed the risk. I was making the analogy that _you_ chose the role of Humpty Dumpty ... :) If there are standards in this area, they disagree with what you've said. But none of them are legal standards, and I certainly hope that if any such standards evolve, they'll respect common sense. There's one case that may become relevant ... Ford vs 2600 magazine. Ford doesn't seem to like the fact that URLs can be redirected. They want control over at least some uses of the www.ford.com URL ... much in the same way it's implied that some Microsoft URIs may be subject to control. (Significant differences in detail though...)
|
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
|