5 ms·
I don't think that is what rsync is talking about at all. I read it to mean that instead of using a specific hyperlink, that you could use a collection of Engli
by relkor 11y ago
I don't think that is what rsync is talking about at all. I read it to mean that instead of using a specific hyperlink, that you could use a collection of English words that would allow some hypothetical computer system to locate the same resource. Reading rsync's linked article,
>> Consider also that it would be trivial for a programmer of a web
browser to alter the behavior of the browser such that a normal text
link that points to a file determined to be a picture would result
in the actual picture being displayed - exactly as it would have been
if an inline link were being used.
Further, it would also be trivial to rewrite the browser to display the
picture in question given an english sentence on the web page that
described the address of the picture, thus prompting this (as yet)
imaginary web browser to, once again, display the picture.
>> The important point is that the behavior of any given web browser
as relates to the use of links (inline or otherwise) is in fact
completely arbitrary. Therefore the prohibition of one kind of
linking over another not only demonstrates a failure to grasp how
the underlying technology works (and could be made to work) but also
represents a legal precedent that would require constant maintenance
and revision to remain relevant.
- roel_v 11y agoRight, so a different form of describing hyperlinks? Just changing the form doesn't matter. I've said this many times on HN: 'law is not a closed rule-based system like computers are'. Besides, I'm not sure what 'free speech' has to do with anything. For starters we have such a thing only in the abstract in the EU; secondly, there are many, many exceptions to 'free speech' that neuter all 'absolutist interpretation of free speech' based ideas like this one.