On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:21 PM Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 13:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> > > wrote: > > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > > > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > > > an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC > > > is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That > > > said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some > > > point? > > > > > > It did, sort of. It's not the time when it leaves the sender's TDOC (as > > suggested by CFJ 1314), it's more like the time when it enters the > > receiver's TDOC (CFJs 1905 and 866). For all of the players are staring > > confusedly at us right now, TDOC means technical domain of control, and > > originates in CFJ 866. I'm having trouble believing that it's universally > > impossible to publish a report by reference. > > Now I'm beginning to get concerned as to whether the URL itself self- > ratifies, and whether that ratifies the content visible via it at the > time. G. is right in that only the parts of the message that are > actually sent to a public forum can self-ratify. So if a URL is > purporting to be a report... > > (Of course, it doesn't matter for a Rulekeepor report as that > rightfully doesn't self-ratify anyway. But it could be a problem in > other cases.) The URL isn't purporting to be a report, it's purporting to contain a report. I think there's a substantial difference. Are you suggesting that information can't be incorporated into a message by reference? That happens all the time the legal systems of other jurisdictions. Now, I'm not arguing that this even vaguely satisfies the requirements for incorporation by reference, just that it's possible. -Aris > >
