W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 1998

Splice et. Containing Document

From: Les Cuff <lez@fastfwd.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 00:06:37 -0230
Message-ID: <000b01bda23d$93644a10$0df4fbcd@pothead.roadrunner.nf.net>
To: "Justin Wells" <reader@semiotek.com>
Cc: <www-dom@w3.org>
Justin is so very right.

The text object MUST not be able
to affect the surrounding neighbourhood cluster. It would
be apartheid-esque to suggest that
only text objects will be permitted at
any specific layer of the document.

The text object (all objects) must
be able to determine their own container class.  What if (for argument sake)
objects within the same object had different modification, replication and
access rights?  Is it worth forcing the text object to deal with "go away
exceptions" from hostile neighbouring content?

Can we drop the idea that "everything in  a document has
equivalent access and reproduction rights?" Is that assumed (forgive my
catch up...)

Moreover, I argue for a document
naming service, based loosely on DNS except accomodating multiple sites with
same address. (Bearing
in mind that the Canadian Name space and the American Name space are two
distinct things within a single English Language.) Personal
name space is the essence of
the 'visitation history'.

Honestly,
if I say Verse 3 in BIBLE, serve the page from my nearest bible. Let the
negotiaton for rights reuse and access occur between document servers and
have an abstract naming scheme so I can reference a bible without knowing
which flavour of bible on which Drive mapping a given user is constrained
by. Give the consumer ultimate authority.

Geesh. Let's drop CASE SenSiTIviTY from the document name space too, please.

Sorry for my absence,
Les Cuff
nf.ca
Received on Saturday, 27 June 1998 22:39:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:45 GMT