W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

RE: [deepLinking-25] What to say in defense of principle that dee p linking is not an illegal act?

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:45:30 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C105DCDC0D@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
Cc: "Lucas Gonze" <lgonze@panix.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

I think it's even worse than that.  There is no locality on the web.
Assigning a URL is something that is entirely within the power of the
resource owner, and nobody forces the resource owner to assign a URI or
even maintain it after they assign it.

The analogy is like taking the pile of logs to the middle of the
junkyard which has a sign outside saying "all stuff in this junkyard is
free".



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:28 PM
> To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
> Cc: 'Lucas Gonze'; 'www-tag@w3.org'
> 
> 
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> > If a person breaks into your house and steals your jewelry,
> > is it theft when they entered through an unlocked door?
> 
> The analogy is more like someone has a pile of logs in a front yard
with
> no fence and a sign pointing at them saying "Logs here" and nobody
> hanging around.  It's probably not theft if you walk away with one.
If
> the lawn has a yard and a gate and the gate's closed and you break
> through it, it is.
> 
> > There is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Indeed. -Tim
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 16:46:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:10 GMT