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.) -- ais523
