- From: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:40:13 +0100
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Indeed, yet 6 years on the misunderstandings persist. Also, this earlier TAG Finding predates the massive growth in adaptive sites where the representations returned from a URL will vary considerably depending on context. Deep links to such sites are problematic. The sites would not necessarily attempt to deny access via out-of-context linking, but might respond otherwise with an error, a redirection to a better alternative URL, or perhaps an alternative representation of the identified resource. I am not aware of any general guidance on which, if any, of these strategies would be appropriate. There is also the issue of what is appropriate when a page contains references to third-party resources. If the phishing culprit were to directly present/manipulate the logos of the Bank of Webtopia, then perhaps a copyright/trademark infringement might be noted. But if said culprit were to place the manipulations into JavaScript/CSS/etc. and merely reference the images in the markup, then it is the end-user's browser that is doing the infringement. Or is it? (It's a legal question, so perhaps out of scope for the TAG.) Browsers might get clever about spotting these abuses of the Web, but if we *expect* the browsers to be this clever then perhaps the behaviour has to be part of the Web architecture itself. I feel that perhaps a refresh of the 2003 Finding may be beneficial, and perhaps should include an appropriate "sound bite" that would attract broader attention and hopefully drive the message home. ---Rotan. -----Original Message----- From: David Booth [mailto:david@dbooth.org] Sent: 16 October 2009 15:49 To: Jonathan Rees Cc: Rotan Hanrahan; www-tag@w3.org; Thinh Nguyen Subject: Re: URIs, deep linking, framing, adapting and related concerns "Deep Linking" in the World Wide Web TAG Finding 11 Sep 2003: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking.html David Booth On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 09:30 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote: > I think you are mostly asking architectural questions, which I won't > answer right now; I just wanted to touch on the non-technical > question. > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Rotan Hanrahan > <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com> wrote: > > To the TAG members, > > > > Recent discussions with other W3C members once again highlight the general > > mis-understanding of the role of the URI (or URL, to use the term more > > familiar to the wider community). The publication of a URL that identifies a > > third party resource cannot (in any sensible manner) be prevented by that > > third party because the URL is merely the address of a single resource > > within a huge public space. By virtue of placing the resource into the > > public space, the owner of the resource (or the associated intellectual > > property) has effectively agreed to reveal the address and make it “common > > knowledge”. > > > > Some owners of these resources seem to believe that they can legally prevent > > people from uttering Web addresses in public. This would be counter to the > > architecture of the Web, which depends on being able to make such > > references. > > > > This probably seems correct to anyone familiar with the Web. A statement > > from the TAG to this effect reinforcing the open nature of URLs may help > > dispel the misunderstandings about what can and cannot be done with URLs. > > I agree that a statement from someone is desirable. But this is > primarily a legal question, which the TAG is ill equipped to answer. > Putting a URI somewhere is a form of speech and is subject to whatever > local regulations govern speech. For example, trademark law prohibits > uses of a mark that might confuse a consumer, and uttering a URI that > contains profanity, threats, pornography, copyrighted material, state > or personal secrets, etc. would also be subject to law. So the > question is not black or white. As for things like the absurd > http://www.aa.com/i18n/footer/legal.jsp "links to the site", you'd > really have to get an attorney or legal scholar to tell you that you > are violating no law by ignoring what American says. You shouldn't > believe me. > > I would be happy to reinforce a request that W3C make a statement or > FAQ of some kind on the subject. It might be desirable to summarize > statute in a sampling of jurisdictions, and there is some relevant > case law that W3C could point people to. > > Jonathan > > > -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 15:41:21 UTC