On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> We, the techies, have to worry about transport layers and list setups and
> interoperability. I want my customers simply to be able to say
"what information do I want?"
> and "how do I want it delivered?" and hide all of
> the other magic [reminder: the medium is the message]
> from them. So it's...tighter...integration<snip>
If you're not careful you will find yourself (or maybe not) handling
information thought to be completely "context-free." This would be the
kind :)... of information where a user could not guess at any
political slant of the fact-provider. And where the user cannot trace hir
way back to a particular fact-former if wishing to follow up and ask
further.
I think (book-) library theorists worry about such as this. |||:-)
Clean, high-speed systems often go stripping off contexts. Even when they
don't have to. Britannican anyway makes a densely packed item, yet does
send "control information" along too. So it can be done. (I'd say now
that I think, the publisher professional seeks to divulge as much of the
magic which he uses as possible.) Now as long as individuals
do not get scoffed at for being FIDO-net users, your project offers
promise, I'm ready to grant, for making life better.
>From your post I was hearing for a moment a questioner not bothering to go
by _steps_ when you said "what information do I want?"
cheers
- Paul
To have doubted one's first principles is the mark of a civilized man.
: - Oliver Wendell Holmes :
:_Nine Stories_, JDSalinger=**** ..................................:
