Re: Referring to Tim Bray Article on XML (WAS: Not all desired changes...)

I'm not a real doofus, but I play one at a national laboratory. (
Fri, 19 Sep 1997 22:30:44 -0500

> Now, an acceptable solution would be a cascading overlap type of
> thing. Where Adam is allowed to post an AMENDMENT article which slips
> in on top of the previous article, BUT contains a timestamp showing
> when it replaced its prior, as well as a link to that prior.

This is a fairly nice idea, sort of allowing another dimension in the
hyperspace of web objects. Of course, it really does no such thing, it
just facilitates and imposes a certain kind of order on posts that
really happened another way. You could repost the entire object,
corrected, seasonally adjusted, subliminally enhanced, or what have you.

That would be ugly, wasteful and ultimately stupid, of course. It might
appeal to existentialists, though. Who you are and what you stand for
is defined by your last post. And, besides, that view can be had today.

> That preserves the conceptual integrity of the bit flow, but allows
> Adam to update incorrect information at the same place where people
> were looking for it.

The question comes up again, who owns the bits? And their presentation?
Can I come along and add my own gloss to Adam's post? Can I overlay my
own Javascript fragment on a page? Could we have flaming "layer wars"?
And should I be in control of how the objects should present themselves
to me by default (unamended, eg)?

You've probably all written treatises explaining how this should work,
so I'll knock this off now. And let waves of knowledge and beauty
emanate from the learned folk.


"Let's crap in our hands and throw it at people! Heh heh... You know,
no matter how much you evolve, that's still damn funny."
Crow (as Ape Lieutenant), MST3K