Summary 2: Protocol Discussion

[ted@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Summary 2: Protocol Discussion

The issue is this: Should "transcopyright" be put
 under "http" as a specific class of new arrangement,
 as in 

 http://xu.whatever@xxxxxxxxxx

or should it be at the top level, viz.:

 xu://whatever@xxxxxxxxxx

There have been excellent statements by all parties,
 beginning with Tim Berners-Lee.

I summarize the two positions all too simply:

ARGUMENTS FOR HTTP ON TOP:

1.
"http" was intended as a mansion with many rooms,
 expandable for all kinds of download methods,
 payment methods, and ownership rights.

2.
These different systems should be independent
 and able to evolve orthogonally.

3.
There should not be special cases.  That way
 lies madness, as advocates of each new idea
 break out of the well-ordered system that
 has been set up.


ARGUMENTS FOR XURL ON TOP:

1.  
Transcopyright is different: it is orthogonal
 toboth data type and download method; it
 embraces both ownership and permission.

2.  
A publisher offering transcopyright permission
 is implicitly asking for special treatment
 and segregation of the material by the browser,
 so it will not be accidentally lumped in
 storage with material which may be more
 freely used.

3.
Like the famous ISO distinctions (intended
 to differentiate exactly among different
 logical levels), the http method approach
 may break down here, since it does not fit
 very well into the "download" paradigm.


PROBABLE SHORT-TERM RESOLUTION*

We will try both in our prototype browser
 and our matching subservers.


IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
 CONTINUING DISCUSSION, please let me know.

Thanks.

Ted

_____________________________________________________________

Theodor Holm Nelson 
 Founder of Interactive Media | Founder of Network Publishing
e-mail ted@xxxxxxxxxx
_____________________________________________________________