Just as some added fun, note that I found an error (in the "last change" date,
so not something required to be reported) - I pushed the fix so the current
*document* behind the link is not the one it was when I published the links.
Probably a moot point but there it is.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 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
