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

RE: TAG ISSUE-25 deep linking

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:12:29 -0700
To: "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>, 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: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05A07763D0@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
I think this relates to the issue of metadata in URLs, a topic we've discussed at some length.

There are situations where the site/applications designer includes private metadata in the URL itself, yet does not want this private metadata distributed.  Although this is not "best practice" in general, perhaps there are situations where it is necessary, and the "access control" applied is to use a random or unguessable element in the URL itself, or tag it with unique information about the identity or attributes of the accesser, or  make the URLs so generated expire after a relatively brief period of time....

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:31 AM
To: Rigo Wenning
Cc: Martin J. Dürst; Yves Lafon; tag
Subject: Re: TAG ISSUE-25 deep linking

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 Thursday, 14 April 2011 01:13:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:38 UTC