RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

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@reutershealth.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:44 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: Jonathan Borden; xml-dev@xml.org
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.