publishing and linking draft


In a quick scan of Publishing and Linking 
and the nature of the "best practices" in it,  I see that most of the recommendations about "best practices" talk about the implication of "legislation", e.g. 

 "Legislation that forbade transformations on illegal material would similarly limit the services that service providers could provide."

I think this confounds a couple of steps that would be better teased apart. I'll give the general case and apply it to this specific instance.

1) Define terms, based on the ordinary practice of the web, the architecture of the web. I think it would be great to take these definitions, once agreed, and publish them separately, integrate them into AWWW and, even, once published, push them into Wikipedia articles and definitions.

2) Examine the  question of "applying administrative or policy controls" to the overall architecture, and the effects and tradeoffs of those controls. 

I think the "best practices" identified in the document could be brought together in a more uniform discussion of the range of administrative or policy controls, and also with the general effects of the application of policy unevenly. I think this is still a technical discussion, that is somewhat independent of how those controls are applied (making things illegal, funding development of tools that allow such controls, etc.)

I think this would be a useful document even if it didn't discuss legislation, and could make findings, e.g.:

"It is impossible to control dissemination of content-based unwanted material, merely by imposing restrictions on service providers offering transformation services, because such services are not able to differentiate wanted form unwanted content. The result would be severely limited services, instead."

Legislation is one of several means of instituting or causing administrative or policy changes, where legal jurisdictions apply their authority to impose policy by making certain actions illegal, subject to fines, criminalization, etc., additional funding, etc. within their jurisdiction. A separate document could use the findings about administrative and policy controls and apply or expand them to cover the specific impact of past or proposed legislation.


"Legislation attempting to restrict distribution of illegal content by penalizing the _transformation_ of illegal material will likely be ineffective except to penalize those offering innovative services."

If there's some agreement as to whether this is a change everyone wants, I'm willing to do a more line-by-line review at the F2F. If we're not agreed on general directions, then we should schedule some time for discussing general directions first.


-----Original Message-----
From: Noah Mendelsohn [] 
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 10:33 AM
To: Jeni Tennison; Dan Appelquist
Subject: URGENT: ACTION-627: Should we review publishing and linking draft at the F2F?

Jeni and Dan:

At our Friday meeting at the end of TPAC 2011 [1] I took:

 ACTION-627: on - Noah Mendelsohn - Schedule very detailed line-by-line review of Pub&Linking draft at January F2F - Due: 2011-12-23 - OPEN

Do we still want to do this? I haven't seen much discussion lately, but if Jeni or Dan can prepare us to do a walkthrough, I'll try and find the time. 
We do need to give TAG members warning ASAP if the draft [3] is to be on the required reading list, as it's substantial. Also, please make sure [3] is the latest version (and if you have time, please fix the broken "Latest version" [4] link in the draft).

Thank you.





Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2011 19:05:19 UTC