- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:06:07 -0700
- To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "WWW TAG" <www-tag@w3.org>
+1 It is utterly incomprehensible that it could even require clarification like this. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] > Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 10:29 AM > To: WWW TAG > > > Saw it in slashdot: > http://slashdot.org/articles/02/07/05/1431249.shtml?tid=95 - A Danish > court has ruled that deep linking is illegal. This is obviously > architecturally profoundly broken, and furthermore, HTTP provides in the > "referer" field a mechanism to implement a policy to prevent this > happening if somebody for reasons that seem good to them wants to do it. > > I'm wondering if a statement from the W3C Technical Architecture Group > might prove useful input to the debate that is clearly already under way > in the real world outside, something along the lines of > > The architecture of the World Wide Web does not support the notion of a > "home page" or a "gateway page", and any effort in law to pretend > otherwise is therefore bad policy. The publication of a Uniform > Resource Identifier is, in the architecture of the Web, a statement > that a resource is available for retrieval. The technical protocols > which are used for Web interaction provide a variety of means for site > operators to control access, including password protection and the > requirement that users take a particular route to a page. It would be > appropriate to bring the law to bear against those who violate these > protocols. It is not appropriate to use it in the case where > information consumers are using the Web according to its published > rules of operation.
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 16:06:38 UTC