Re: Re SGML URC spec comments

You're right, and I think we had this discussion before, the outcome was that
my use of "attach" is inaccurate, it should really be "create and point" or
"make" - attach implies that authors/servers should be compelled to also
provide resources for housing and distributing SOAPs of their own content,
while what I really want to see is that the ability to give a SOAP is not
specifically allowed nor disallowed by authors/servers. In fact, completely
divorcing it could ensure that SOAPs are accurate and that "bad" SOAPs aren't
weeded out.  The question is, how does one ask for the complete set of SOAPs
for a given page?  Superdistribution of SOAPs a la NNTP? 


On Sun, 25 Jun 1995, Terry Allen wrote:
> I think Ron answered Brian's questions about VRML the way I would.
> I want to take issue again with Brian's suggestion that wrt global
> annotations, 
> >The right to
> >attach these comments should *not* be controlled by the author
> I've argued against this in the past on copyright grounds (and I
> still feel that way).  However, Justice Souter's recent decision
> in Hurley v. Irish-American GLB Group of Boston suggests that there
> is a First Amendment angle:
> "The fundamental rule of protection under the First Amendment ...
> [is] that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his
> own message."
> I maintain that the Hurley case is precisely parallel to what global
> annos without author permission would amount to:  the I-A GLB G of
> Boston wanted to comment on the parade without the permission of the
> parade organizers (who won).  For excerpts, see NYT Tuesday, June 26
> 1995.
> Regards,
> -- 
> Terry Allen  (   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
> Editor, Digital Media Group    101 Morris St.
> 			       Sebastopol, Calif., 95472
> A Davenport Group sponsor.  For information on the Davenport 
>   Group see
> 	or

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--  http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

Received on Sunday, 25 June 1995 21:05:41 UTC