Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@xxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:54:57 -0400 |
Guy Murphy wrote: > If the semantics used are not free, then using FOs gives a company a safe > wall here, a semantic firewall if you like. Do they? How? Or does using FOs not just make it a little extra work to get at the semantics? (As an aside, this is reminiscent of the never-ending question in the c.i.w.a.html newsgroup, "How do I hide my source?". And you'll find the occasional web page with something like <!-- Encrypted by Joe's HTML mangler ^&\?+%$@^*()! ... --> where you have to scroll down 20 screenfulls to see the real source... ) > In many cases, it simply will not be relevent. And the end user will not > care. All they will care about is what's infront of their eyes. What if those "eyes" belong to indexing robots or other such programs? > I mentioned it once before, but it warrants mentioning again within this > context, that publishing of XML on the Net, along with easy transformation > making data theft untraceable makes corporate data *very* vulnerable on the > Net to being syphoned off and repackaged. Unless you can provide companies > with at least the method of keeping hold safely of they semantic > organisation and management of data (the things that allow them competitive > advantage in accruing data), *their data will not go on the Net*. So use FOs for copyright protection and/or distribution management??? It won't work. If the data is visible, it's vulnerable (even if your "FO" were a GIF -- to take an extreme example --, it could be OCRed). All FOs, GIFs, FONT tags, table cells, etc. are doing is making the data a little harder to get at. And making a lot of people mad. :) If it's only parts of the source document that contain the sensitive data, just could use XSLT (as one option) to deliver transformed but semantically rich XML, with a linked style sheet -- sans the offending material. > I would say that the Net *is* balkanized at the moment, in that it isn't > getting the high quality structured data. I would like to see that changed. I completely agree. I just don't see how FOs are "high quality structured data". /Jelks XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Håkon Wium Lie | Thread | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Guy_Murphy |
Re: Clarification Regarding XSLT Tu, James Tauber | Date | Whitespace preservation, DPawson |
Month |