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

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

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:41:11 +0900
Message-ID: <4D0F16A7.9010009@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Hello Jonathan,

On 2010/12/17 23:15, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:46 AM, "Martin J. Dürst"
> <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>  wrote:
>> If the TAG or some people on the TAG continue to put forward opinions such
>> as that it may be perfectly okay to transclude an image with img@src without
>> any permission, then this will just continue to hold up progress on the main
>> issue, and risks to discredit the TAG.
>
> I think you are referring to me?

Yes.

> I put this opinion forward once.

Okay, sorry, I was under the impression that it was more than once. 
That's why I was expressing myself too directly on this issue.

> You
> are saying that if I say it again (on www-tag) - and you have no idea
> whether I would at this point, as some water has gone under the bridge

Of course I cannot predict what you are saying in the future.

> - I would risk discrediting the TAG. First, if what you say it true, I
> think I would have to quit the TAG. I wouldn't know how to participate
> in a working group like this one if I didn't feel free to express my
> opinion.

I didn't intend to say that anybody on the TAG should not be able to 
express their opinion, sorry.

> Second, my opinion is that transclusion and the main issue
> are (at the current stage of analysis) inseparable, and it will be
> difficult to even define what "okay" means in this context, much less
> "transclusion", until we're further along.

In my opinion, it's pretty clear for each element@attribute combination 
in HTML, or each other way of using URIs, whether it's "transclusion" or 
"referential linking", and that these two, as e.g. exemplified in a@href 
and img@src, are clearly far apart. At a first cut, if user action is 
needed for dereference (a@href), then it's "referential linking", if 
dereference occurs automatically as part of viewing a page, then it's 
"transclusion".

There may be some edge cases (as a rule, there always are), but if you 
think there indeed are such edge cases (as "inseparable" seems to 
imply), then please bring them up. I'll be glad to try and shoot them down.


> I do appreciate your examples and analysis. Thanks for taking the time
> to help us out.

I feel quite strongly about this issue, sometimes maybe too strongly. 
That's why I'm trying to help, that's why I want the TAG to make 
progress, and that's why I got impatient, sorry again.

Regards,   Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Monday, 20 December 2010 08:41:49 GMT

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