- From: Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:30:30 -0400
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, whatwg@whatwg.org
On 23/06/2009, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure, and if I don't mind my content (pictures, movies, or fonts I create, > for instance) being viewable in Google's cached view, then I would indicate > this in a CORS header (if CORS could work that way). There are many who > would not want their IP shown in cached view, or who would not want outdated > information (such as loan rates or legal disclosure) shown in cached view. > If they are my resources, then I should be able to indicate whether or not > Google should have the right to republish them. In fact, many > dynamically-displayed resources are currently blocked from displaying > anywhere in which the referrer is not the same site or on a list of approved > sites. A simpler, standardized approach to managing this would benefit many. This is bizarre. Why is this "republishing"? If your ISP goes down and I need the info now, I want a cached view. If I get junk from the cached view, your site just gave me a bad first impression; it does not damage Google, only your own site. And how about Google Translate? Babelfish? -- cheers, -ambrose
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 17:31:08 UTC