 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) I should clarify that "I agree" part. I don't think you have the right to provide embedded links to their images on your own web pages via the <IMG> tag, but IMHO you probably do have the complete legal right to share the URLs of any of the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) It's a complicated grey area, and extremely difficult to legislate properly. ("Embedded" images are really no such thing -- they're still external.) So I hope this is something that can be kept within the realm of courtesy. Luckily, there (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) I'm a huge fan of Ted Nelson's transpublishing and transcopyright philosophies. I home someday they become feasable. --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) They seem feasible now from a technical standpoint. (Overlooking the bandwidth issue for the moment.) The problem is the banner-ad revenue model of the current commercial web -- if you can look at PS: why does HTML just have the IMG tag? Why (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Actually, I believe the IMG tag is obsolescent. IIRC, you are now supposed to use OBJECT for everything. I don't know that it'll let you embed another HTML document, though. You can use inline frames to embed HTML documents, but AFAIK, they're (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) It's not. APPLET is depreciated, but IMG is still around. (...) I'll have to look at mozilla and see if it lets me include HTML. That'd make me happy. (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Because Netscape designers and programmers of the first hour were utterly clueless. The IMG tag was implemented first, and _then_ codified into RFC status. There was at the same time another type of tag for embedding everything in the works at (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Of course. _Most_ Internet standards work this way. The initial standards documents are often descriptions of current in-use procedures. Or at least, a synthesis of such. But yeah, that doesn't mean they weren't shortsighted. :) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Too many things validate as approximately HTML/4.0 compliant for that to be true. Besides, IMG is way too firmly entrenched. I don't think we'll ever root it out, unless we can provide a superior alternative (human nature being what it is, a (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Maybe "obsolescent" was the wrong term. I think I meant depreciated...but I'm not sure if that's right either. (...) I agree. I still use IMG because it's easy and it works on almost all browsers. However, I believe that I read that you are (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Depreciated is what I think you meant, but I looked it up at the w3c, and it's actually not. (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
