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

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

From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:21:50 +0200
Cc: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <E447B23F-DD92-451C-9960-71F59D45A569@activemath.org>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

>>>> 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".

Sure. Understood. Indeed, tainting as sin is exaggerated. But this  
issue is still tainting "deep linking practice" as a "special linking  
practice". The special is at the server's conditions-of-use right?

> Can you think of an alternative word for the issue which you would  
> prefer?

Freedom of linking?
Sites disallowing free linking?
Sites with restricted linking?

> (There is, close but not related,  the "deep web" which is the data  
> which is buried behind interactive web pages, and not therefore  
> indexed.)

And indeed this one is very very different.

Le 24-avr.-10 à 14:27, John Kemp a écrit :
> 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?

sounds like a good summary to me.

Received on Saturday, 24 April 2010 20:22:27 UTC

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