[sc34wg3] <mergeMap/> and security

[Patrick Durusau]

Lars,

Lars Heuer wrote:
<snip>

>>It would certainly be possible to design a "safe" interchange syntax
>>that puts no burden on implementers to make some sensible choices but it
>>would not be terribly interesting or perhaps even useful.
>>    
>>
>
>IMO we but the burden to the users of TM apps not necessarily to the
>implementators. If "mergeMap" is some kind of "optional" or "take with
>care" thing parnoid implementators may choose to NOT process it by
>default, others may process it by default and the third may offer an
>option to process it. Other may offer a fixed "mergeMap" processing
>level, and some implementations may offer a configurable "mergeMap"
>processing level... etc.
>
>Doesn't these scenarios defeat the purpose of the "mergeMap" element
>in the first place?
>
>  
>
Well, hmmm....,

What do you think the "purpose of the "mergeMap" element [was] in the 
first place?"

That may be where we are missing each other or at least is a good 
starting place.

And how do you see that as fitting into a notion of an "interchange" syntax?

Note that I am assuming that by "interchange" we actually mean 
"anonymous interchange," that is no further communication with the 
source of the file is needed for me to use the file that I have been 
given. That is it contains all the information necessary for me to make 
use of it. It does not, however, predetermine the use to which it may be 
put.

With that observation, what is the purpose of the "mergeMap" element?

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Patrick at Durusau.net
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!