W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2011

Re: TAG ISSUE-25 deep linking

From: Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:31:23 +0200
Message-ID: <C9CA590B.A496%daniel.appelquist@vodafone.com>
To: "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org>
Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, "tag" <www-tag@w3.org>
Thanks, Rigo - this is really great feedback!

We do have some documentation of instances in which linking falls outside
the normal user interaction pattern of the Web - in which case I think there
is much more of a gray area. We probably need to be clearer on this point.

Can you give me an example of what you're talking about in ¶3 below?  I want
to make sure we capture it correctly.

Thanks,
Dan

On 12/04/2011 17:19, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

> Dan,
> 
> if we accept that linking is speech, this has several consequences. Surely
> enough, linking itself participates in the protection of free speech. But
> there are also links that do not participate in protection. Namely if we have
> a smoke-screen page that is only there to carry a link to a page with
> otherwise prohibited content. So the assertions in its entirety are to be
> taken into account.
> 
> What we can make clear here is that there would have to be absolutely
> extraordinary circumstances that one would allow a content provider on the web
> to prohibit linking to his content. We should make clear that putting content
> on the web triggers the absolutely common expectation that such content can be
> linked to. It is a TAG statement of relevance to say that linking is a
> socially common, expected and useful behavior on the web and prohibitions by
> (civil) third parties is against all expectations and usages on the Web.
> 
> But I wanted to draw your attention also to the "URI" part of linking. In this
> case, links may be a pure technical issue. In a statement, we may hint to the
> fact that links can be very important for functionality and thus would need
> some privileges, even if some other content at the end of the pointer may not
> be protected.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rigo
> 
> On Tuesday 12 April 2011 16:07:48 Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group wrote:
>> This makes a lot of sense and aligns well with the argument Jeni and I are
>> trying to tease out of the draft document we are putting together on this
>> topic: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/publishingAndLinkingOnTheWeb.html
>> 
>> In essence, it we would like to make the assertion that linking is a form
>>  of speech, and so should be protected in the same way that speech is
>>  protected.
>> 
> 



Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 18:31:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:10 UTC