W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2010

Re: URIs, deep linking, framing, adapting and related concerns

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:24:01 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikmNjpWOc9YoQzCZ0WTR4gjHVk5tTCgAeeadYw6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/faq.cgi#QID380 reports on a
case where frames were used to place ads around content picked up
elsewhere.  This seems very similar to your example #1 of image
inclusion. If so a court may very well one day find <img> links to
unlicensed material to be infringing.

Best
Jonathan

(tracker: ISSUE-25)

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Rotan Hanrahan
<rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com> wrote:
> To the TAG members,
>
> Recent discussions with other W3C members once again highlight the general
> mis-understanding of the role of the URI (or URL, to use the term more
> familiar to the wider community). The publication of a URL that identifies a
> third party resource cannot (in any sensible manner) be prevented by that
> third party because the URL is merely the address of a single resource
> within a huge public space. By virtue of placing the resource into the
> public space, the owner of the resource (or the associated intellectual
> property) has effectively agreed to reveal the address and make it “common
> knowledge”.
>
>
>
> Some owners of these resources seem to believe that they can legally prevent
> people from uttering Web addresses in public. This would be counter to the
> architecture of the Web, which depends on being able to make such
> references.
>
>
>
> This probably seems correct to anyone familiar with the Web. A statement
> from the TAG to this effect reinforcing the open nature of URLs may help
> dispel the misunderstandings about what can and cannot be done with URLs.
>
>
>
> However, there are still some concerns about how such links might be used,
> and there seems to be no obvious means of addressing these shortcomings.
>
>
>
> Example 1:
>
>
>
> It is possible to create a Web page that contains image elements that use
> deep links into a third party site. The creator of the page has not accessed
> or modified the referenced images. The images are only presented to the end
> user because the user’s Web client has retrieved the images directly, albeit
> because of the markup. Such out-of-context retrieval is naturally a concern
> to the owners of the referenced images but still seems legitimate in terms
> of the Web architecture. This is a particular problem in phishing scams
> where the referenced resources are employed as part of a deception to
> convince the end user that the page being viewed is legitimately from the
> bank, society, club or whatever. Framing entire pages is another example
> where the Web architecture seems to facilitate plagiarism.
>
>
>
> Example 2:
>
>
>
> We have observed the increasing practice of introducing a proxy between the
> client and the origin server. The proxy may manipulate the interaction with
> the end user, either to inject/remove material or otherwise adapt the
> interaction to match the environmental constraints. Accessing the Web via
> mobile devices is a particular example. (The work of W3C in offering
> guidelines for such scenarios is welcome.)  Does the fact of providing a
> resource for access via a public URL also grant the consumers of the digital
> representations of that resource the right to manipulate those
> representations? One might argue that the Web browser itself is manipulating
> the data stream in order to provide a rendering for the user, and this is
> itself a form of adaptation. If the Web architecture permits (and
> encourages) this, then it seems fair for anyone to assume that any Web
> traffic may be manipulated. However, if the origin server takes steps to
> ensure that the resources are NOT publically available by requiring the user
> to enter into a session via some form of credentials, then does the
> continued adaptation by the proxy not constitute a breach of the terms of
> access?
>
>
>
> Example 3:
>
>
>
> A site that adapts its response to the delivery context (as does my
> company’s mobile Web technology) may emit an entirely different site map to
> the end user, depending on how that user is interacting with the site.
> Pagination of long pages, for example, will lead to intermediate pages
> (sub-pages, if you like) that have URLs of their own. These URLs are
> ephemeral. Deep linking to these URLs, because of their temporary and
> context-dependent nature, would be meaningless. Is there a recommended way
> for the adapting server to respond to a client that is referencing such deep
> links from outside of the delivery context in which such URLs might make
> sense? The current options are to redirect to a base representation, return
> a HTTP error code or to return a representation of the URL (if possible)
> that is suitable for the new delivery context.
>
>
>
> Some guidance from the TAG on these concerns would be welcome.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> ---Rotan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________
>
> Dr Rotan Hanrahan
>
> Chief Innovations Architect and CTO
>
> Mobileaware Ltd
>
>
>
> 4 St Catherines Lane West
>
> The Digital Hub
>
> Dublin 8, Ireland
>
> E: rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com
>
> W: www.MobileAware.com
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>
> This e-mail message and all documents that accompany it are intended only
> for the
>
> use of the individual or entity to which addressed and may contain
> privileged or
>
> confidential information. Any unauthorised disclosure or distribution of
> this e-mail
>
> message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error,
> please
>
> notify us immediately so that we may correct our internal records. Thank
> you.
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 21:24:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:29 GMT