 | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
Ben: (...) A website with "click agree pages" that can be bypassed by something as simple as a bookmark are defect, and nobody in their sane mind would ever admit having seen such a "click agree page". The world wide web works by URL's, and it is a (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
(...) One reason is that it could possibly by-pass any relevant disclaimers that the owner of the web site puts on the front page. Are you still bound to the agreement made when you click "I agree" if you never see that page? Ben Roller (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
Matthew: (...) Nice to hear that the web can continue to work in the US too. Why do you write that it may be impolite to link directly to a page? I find it most impolite _not_ to link directly to the relevant page. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
(...) Excellent. Thanks for posting this! --Todd (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
Well, I for one am glad to see this: (URL). While it may be impolite, linking to something deep within a website is not illegal. (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek) !
|
