W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Arrested - re: TAG ISSUE-25 deep linking

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:16:10 +0000
Message-Id: <BA40ABA5-F9BC-4B6B-BCB5-957F5F12819F@jenitennison.com>
To: TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
I'd be happy to take a crack at writing a first draft if that would be useful?


On 11 Mar 2011, at 14:56, ashok malhotra wrote:

> +1 Such a document would be very valuable and we would learn a lot in writing it.
> All the best, Ashok
> On 3/11/2011 6:52 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Henry S. Thompson<ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>> It seems to me this approach is fundamentally different, from a Web
>>> Architecture _and_ a copyright perspective, from what
>>> e.g. cyclingfans.com [5] does, which is aggregate information about
>>> live streaming coverage of cycle races, using distant-references.  In
>>> particular, any attempt to describe the channelsurfing.net case as
>>> "just another deep-linking case" is at best a gross
>>> over-simplification.
>> Agreed.
>> Maybe what we need is a document that describes, in neutral technical
>> terms, how and why copying takes place on the Web, and what entities
>> are technically (not necessarily legally) responsible for it taking
>> place in various situations. Perhaps the transclusion/distant
>> distinction reflects a difference in who is responsible for an act of
>> copying.
>> Such an analysis falls squarely in the TAG realm, and does not get
>> involved in legal questions or advice. It just explains how things
>> work (retrieval, caching, downloads, linking, transclusion, frames,
>> scripts, robots, etc.) from the perspective of bits moving around.
>> One thing such a document could explain is the information flow around
>> embedded video, and why its various pieces happen.
>> I bet we would learn something by attempting to assign responsibility
>> (or causality) for each kind of copying event.
>> The copying question is only one aspect of the overall
>> linking-restriction topic, since not all attempts to restrict linking
>> have to do with copying. (I would link to an example but its terms of
>> use prohibit me.) But one thing at a time.
>> Jonathan

Jeni Tennison
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 15:16:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:09 UTC