- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:31:44 -0500
- To: "'reagle@w3.org'" <reagle@w3.org>, tbray@textuality.com
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
The terms matter. Reference is too overloaded. The use of ambiguous terms is to be avoided. Hypertext links are in a hypertext system and are never citations. They are controls. Ignoring this for the sake of URI definitions creates and compounds confusion just as conflating locators with links does. Whoever taught you that a citation is a hypertext link confused the issues of linking and resolving. Some parts of the web are a bit of a mess because of this. See namespaces. Functionality is at issue in the terms. I agree that education as to functionality is a win-win but you have to determine if the architecture document is the place to do that. It seems to me that is the job of a position paper offered as a service which cites the architecture document et al as the authoritative source for interpreting the intent or rationale for the design. The technology can be used correctly and still violate local laws. Pornography restrictions are an example. A law that states that upon notification by the owner of the property that linking to it is not permitted, therefore remove the link is a reasonable law even if a restriction of the use of the technology within the community governed. First use is as you say, not reasonable and that should be pointed out. Deep linking is not an architectural principle. The Danish court as I understand it is not governing the web architecture. It is governing its application within its jurisdiction. It is possible for it to govern the use of and distribution of properties based on the web architecture and to restrict their use. The lesser evil here is to, as said above, pass a law that governs the behavior of the entities creating the link and I agree, it should be the least restrictive code, and that they are erring by requiring first requesting permission. If failing to do that, they then restrict the distribution, they are still within their rights even if not something you or I would find morally acceptable. The law as written may be flawed in its use of terms, but if you and I can reasonably disagree over citation and hypertext link, can we reasonably expect a body such as the danish court to have more competence? So education is a realistic goal. I contend the architecture document is not the appropriate document for that. It appears to be a narrow issue in a global system document where that document is intended to clarify technical features, not argue legal issues that are local in scope. Lessig stated that many are dissatisfied with retorts the web cannot be governed and that they understand that governing architectural features indeeds governs the web. My analogy to seat belts is that it is perfectly reasonable to pass laws to require manufacturers to provide seat belts (govern the architecture by a feature) and to prescribe their use (govern the behavior of the user). I think it risky to use the architecture document to imply that the technical architecture scopes the law. The response is predictable. Caveat vendor. len -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org] Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:06 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); tbray@textuality.com Cc: www-tag@w3.org Subject: Re: Potential wild-card issue outside W3C: legality of deep linki ng On Thursday 29 August 2002 01:19 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > No they aren't. A citation is not a hypertext link. But some hypertext links are citations. <smile/> Besides, arguing about what is or is not a citation is not the point as I never used that term, I said it is a "reference." > A hypertext link is a control with a dereference > semantic. And the policy to determine what is returned after dereferencing is a service decision based on such things as the referrer log, authentication, and such. The mechanism itself is not the problem, as some erringly think. Encouraging the public, or legal community, to understand that is a win-win for everyone. > It is possible for a local venue to > outlaw linking without permission based on the > nature of the control even though the enforcement > of that is expensive. That is what Lessig points > out with regards to legislation or control > through the architecture. It is the same kind > of law that puts seatbelts and airbags in cars. IMHO, the most efficient, legally grounded, and technically neutral approach is to focus on fraudulent or abusive interaction with the mechanisms and their effects. I don't follow your argument at all. I'm not sure which Lessig argument you are trying to use and I don't see the relevance of this to any theories (public welfare, personal liberty, and strong/weak paternalism) typically associated with seatbelts and airbags. > The W3C should restrict its official statements > to the functionality of the architecture, not > the legality of using it in any local venue. I don't understand what you mean by a local venue. If the presumption is that permission must be sought before the mechanism of linking can be used, that has a massive and global implication. Instead, local policies should be specified locally (in the web service) and the law should address specific abuses. > It is not an architectural issue. You are > overstepping your mandate and your authority > if such statements extend beyond the use of > W3C property rights, in effect, its website. The Web architecture concerns more than just the W3C web site. Regardless, symmetry also permits one to argue that the Dutch court has overstepped its authority and should not be trying to control web architecture <smile/>.
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 14:32:19 UTC