- From: Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:31:23 +0200
- 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>
- Message-ID: <C9CA590B.A496%daniel.appelquist@vodafone.com>
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. >> >
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 18:31:58 UTC