- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:21:50 +0200
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@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.
paul
Received on Saturday, 24 April 2010 20:22:27 UTC