W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Deep linking barriers in the UK: The Royal Mail

From: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:27:59 -0400
Cc: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <3C8FB87E-FCE5-43A6-B20E-0FB4A5885C17@jkemp.net>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On Apr 23, 2010, at 9:39 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> On 2010-04 -23, at 15:35, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> 
>> Le 23-avr.-10  04:07, Tim Berners-Lee a crit :
>> 
>>>> What is the reason this is called deep-linking?
>>> 
>>> Well, it has been called that.
>> 
>> Excuse me to insist but I really feel that calling it is tainting it as sin while it really is just a usual form of linking and it should be clear to be a normal right except on "evil sites". I feel that naming it such, from an authority such as the TAG, does justify policy-makers to write such conditions-of-use.
> 
> "Tainting it as a sin"?  I must be missing something.   What is wrong with the word "deep"? as in "not shallow" meaning "not to the highest level of the hierarchy". Can you think of an alternative word for the issue which you would prefer?

I believe that the point is that a link is a link, no matter to what place in a hierarchy -- proposed only by the site owner -- it points. So why do we believe that (or talk as if) there is some hierarchy ("shallow", "deep") implied only by a link? 

Regards,

- johnk
Received on Saturday, 24 April 2010 12:28:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:33 UTC