- From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 21:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Terry Allen <terry@ora.com>
- Cc: Paul Hoffman <ietf-lists@proper.com>, uri@bunyip.com
On Sun, 25 Jun 1995, Terry Allen wrote: > In any event, *I'm* questioning the > right of anybody, without permission, to overlay their speech on > documents I publish on the Web. To that I agree, but how the user agent decides to implement global annotations and SOAPs is crucial to this issue. I don't remember hearing about it in the context of being a transparent overlay that would replace text like a series of "diff"-style patches. That's editing, not annotating - the ability for me as a reader of the document to put "I don't agree" next to an exact sentence in a document is completely different from my ability to erase it and write something new. I as the commentator would want my words to be shown as distinctly different from the author's words as possible. A browser that didn't make that distinction would be useless. > this > is about whether publishers on the Web will be allowed to control > the conditions under which their information is presented. You can > be certain that if they cannot do that with present technology they > will be in the market for future technology that allows them to. In other words, a closed technology using closed addressing and transmission protocols which would prohibit attaching any useful metainformation. Yes, that's a danger. This hasn't seemed to keep companies from posting marketing materials to USENET though. :) In fact every one of our clients wants threaded discussion boards in one form or another... Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/
Received on Monday, 26 June 1995 00:09:29 UTC