Subject:
|
Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:39:03 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
240 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> > - it could be only one frame out of a complete frameset...
>
> That is a part of the error in the FRAME construction.
how so? should I put in every page in every frameset a check to make sure I'm
still within it? I'm not sure I understand what you mean here...
> > what about you abusing someone server for them? if I make
> > a lego DB, and have all the images just linked from
> > lugnet, I'm taking advantage of Todd's disk space and
> > bandwidth, just to save my own. That might increase his
> > costs. I don't think one should do such a thing without
> > permission.
>
> The question is when it is abuse...
>
> Todd has the images on his server because he want people to
> see them, but he also (very reasonably) wants a bit of
> credit for the service he is doing us.
>
> Currently the only practical way he can get that credit is
> by having the images shown on his pages (and that can be
> handled technically).
>
> Inlining other people's images is currently
> misrepresentation of copyright (direct links to other's
> images could also be viewed that way).
what about using up their bandwidth?
> Generally I try to keep people informed of which of their
> resources I link to, but if people asked/forced me to only
> link to their home page, I would probably remove all my
> links to their site.
I'm not saying it's never ok - in a lot of cases, deep linking is fine. But
you can't always assume it's ok.
:)
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
| Dan: (...) The HTML construct with the FRAMESET and FRAME elements is a serious mistake that Netscape forced unto W3C even though it doesn't fit with the design of the web. (...) I don't feel the least bit bad about using peoples bandwidth, and I (...) (24 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
| Dan: (...) I disagree! (and I think we will have to leave it at that) (...) That is a part of the error in the FRAME construction. (...) Then I will consider to drop the "probably". (...) The question is when it is abuse... Todd has the images on (...) (24 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
