Re: comments on TAG deep linking finding

On Sunday, November 2, 2003, 8:48:02 PM, Daniel wrote:

DW> Hi Tim and all,

DW> Thanks very much for putting together the TAG finding on deep 
DW> linking.[1] The issue continues to be troublesome in various legal fora
DW> so it's good to have a thoughtful, authoritative voice from the 
DW> technical community try to help clarify matters.

DW> I've got a few suggests that would make this document considerably
DW> stronger with what I take to be its intended audience, the legal/policy
DW> world. Two points, one editorial, one substantive:

DW> 1. By the middle of the document you make a compelling case that web
DW> publishers can restrict access to certain resources under their control
DW> using *existing* mechanisms. This is an important point that ought to be
DW>   stressed up front. I dare say it's the thesis of the finding. It would
DW> also help if anyone had any idea why sites don't just do this already.
DW> That would require digging into some of the recent cases.

I agree that the abstract may be the only piece that is read by some
in the legal or policy fields and thus, should summarize the main
points of the thesis.

DW> 2. The finding fails to explain what would be so bad about banning deep
DW> linking. It says that the notion of a homepage is foreign to the web,
DW> but that comes off as sounding a bit odd, given the particular 
DW> importance of homepages in people everyday browsing experiences. This
DW> concept requires better explanation.

"But its obvious" yes, you are correct, it should. It should make
clear the extent of the breakage that would result.

Some examples drawn from non-Web fields would be helpful analogies, I
suspect (Imagine that all books, by law, had a ratchet in the spine
that only allowed them to be opened at page one and the pages turned
one at a time. Finding the right legal citations would be immensely

DW> I'm happy to spend a bit of time with suggesting text if that's useful
DW> but am not sure what your intended publication schedule is.

DW> Thanks,

DW> Danny

DW> [1]


Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 15:01:12 UTC