[LINK] What's a website (was Welcome to our new website)

[Ivan Trundle]

On 05/06/2007, at 4:47 PM, Tom Worthington wrote:

> At 10:55 AM 5/06/2007, Ivan Trundle wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/2007, at 12:08 PM, Tom Worthington wrote:
>>> ... The dictionary definition seems reasonably clear ... <http:// 
>>> www.tomw.net.au/2006/wd/structure.shtml#whatsite>.
>>
>> I disagree with whatever dictionary you are reading at the moment ...
>
> The definition I used was from the Oxford English Dictionary  
> Online, Oxford University Press, 2004, NEW EDITION: draft entry  
> June 2001  http://dictionary.oed.com/
>
>> There are many websites with no linked documents ...
>
> If there were no links it would be difficult to navigate from one  
> web page to another, or know the web pages existed.

This does not preclude a website from existing. I can name hundreds  
of websites that consist of a single page (that is visible), and no  
doubt others on Link could name sites that have no navigable links,  
too. Many are placeholders for sites that are either not yet  
functioning, or for the time when they are to be used. Many are also  
single webpage sites for individuals or small companies. In my  
previous job, I managed at least 30 sites that were a single page.  
There's no reason to exclude these sites from any definition,  
dictionary or not.

>
>> what's a document, anyway? ...
>
> I use a definition from the High Court of Australia <http:// 
> www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/ecommerce/index.shtml#law>:

Tom - you never fail to amaze me in your ability to write almost  
every e-mail with a reference to something on your website. There  
must be an award for this somewhere... But why not link to the High  
Court's definition directly, or even to Austlii instead? Surely a  
good reference is the authoritative reference, not one crafted on a  
third-party site?

> '104. The ordinary dictionary meaning of "document" is a printed or  
> written paper containing information. ... No violence is done to  
> the object or language of s 418(3) by holding that "document"  
> includes information that is stored in a computer or a fax machine  
> and which can be printed out by pressing one or more keys or  
> buttons. ...'
<snip>

> PM&C was partly right by asserting that the print edition of the  
> emissions trading report is the authoritative one <http:// 
> www.tomw.net.au/blog/2007/06/prime-ministerial-task-group-on.html>.

Again, why not cite the original??

> What they failed to realize is that they could have equally chosen  
> an electronic version as the authoritative one. All of the versions  
> of the report can be printed and so have equal legal status. By  
> choosing the only version of the report which can't be read on  
> screen, PM&C made the wrong choice. Whoever made this decision may  
> have broken the law, by stopping people who can't read printed  
> documents from having access to the authoritative version of the  
> report, for no good reason.

I doubt it. If a printed copy can be furnished (which is all we had  
in the past, you might recall), then it will satisfy the legal  
requirements. There are often good reasons for choosing a printed  
copy as the authoritative one (and if electronic copies are  
available, they are satisfying a broad church).

>
>> And relatedness is arbitrary. ...
>
> Yes: what is a web site is subjective. What makes a collection of  
> web pages a web site is not that they are all on the same server,  
> but that someone thinks that the pages have something in common.

Something in common? But the whole of the internet has 'something in  
common'! The 'commonness' is often that the pages sit in the same  
domain, but that is all. There are even sites that have different  
domains that either share the same server or common theme...

A cyclical argument, really.

iT