[Om3] Two more CDBase questions

[James Davenport]

On Tue, 13 May 2008, Christoph LANGE wrote:

> On Tuesday 13 May 2008 12:53:15 Michael Kohlhase wrote:
> > Ah, I get the difference. Is this what you are trying to say?
> >
> > If we assume that in an ideal future we have cdbase-aware copy/paste,
> > then we are likely only to have it for the in-MOBJ case, not for the
> > CDSignatures --> MOBJ case.
>
> Yes, and I think the justification was that every MOBJ should be
> self-contained, not requiring any contextual information from its
> enclosing CD, signature dictionary, whatever.
Yes, which strikes me as an excellent goal, and maybe even one that ought
to be explicit.
James