- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:30:15 +0100
- To: Ed Davies <edavies@nildram.co.uk>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On 8 Nov 2006, at 14:20, Ed Davies wrote: > > Section 2.2 of The use of Metadata in URIs > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31-20061107.html > > incites the manipulation of URLs to obtain access to resources > which has not been specifically authorized. In the UK such > access would be a contravention of the Computer Misuse Act > 1990. I know it's idiotic, but there's case law to support > it. Google for Daniel Cuthbert for a relevant case. To me, unauthorised resources should be protected by Access control mechanism, not by the shape of the url. I suppose case law can be shown to be wrong too. > Questions: > > 1. Should this TAG finding note this point? > > 2. Can a TAG finding define or change the meaning of a URL, > an HTTP access or other protocol element in such a way > as to change the interpretation of the law in a country? > > 3. Should a TAG finding define...? > > This is all rather silly but if the TAG can word this document > in a way that makes it clear that not only is it true that: > >> Still, the ability to explore the Web informally and >> experimentally is very valuable, and Web users act on such guesses >> about URIs all the time. > > but also that it is an implicit part of running a web server > to accept that such experimentation is legitimate then they'd > be doing all of us a favour. > > Regards, > > Ed Davies. > > >
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 17:30:36 UTC