W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

RE: RSAC stupidity (was RE: Process for site development)

From: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:47:52 -0000
Message-ID: <81E4A2BC03CED111845100104B62AFB53F3FC3@stagecoach.bts.co.uk>
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
> From:	rev-bob@gotc.com [SMTP:rev-bob@gotc.com]
> This is exactly why I downloaded the relevant content (the rating level
> list and definitions) and 
> only go by the site once in a while to see if anything's changed.  Once
> you register one page 
> and get the specs, you can rate your other pages on your own.
	That's a breach of either copyright or trademark
	legislation.  I admit I haven't read the terms 
	recently and their site now has javascript: links, which
	I'm not prepared to use, but the conditions for use
	of the RSACi rating system used to be that you must
	rate the site using their web page.

	There are a couple of reasons for doing this:

	1) they know who has registered, so can track down
	   forged ratings;

	2) at least originally, there was a possibility that
	   the service would be charged for.

	In principle,they could also give a digital signature.

	Also, they ought to audit rated sites to make sure that
	they are correctly rated and registering with them
	ensures that that happens.

	(The general problem with these services is that people
	tend to rate all minimum (often incorrectly) or all
	maximum, without thinking what the appropriate rating
	really is.)

	I found neither of the rating system sites particularly
	friendly the last time I looked in anger.
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2000 07:08:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:52 UTC