4 ms·

> Not sure what link you mean. <https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Weaving/Overview.html https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Weaving/Overview.html> seems

by cxr 4y ago

> Not sure what link you mean. <https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Weaving/Overview.html https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Weaving/Overview.html> seems fine to me. That's not the book. That's just a (scant) page about the book (with a few broken outbound links). > The book itself isn't on the web So you do understand what I mean. > I don't think TBL has ever said that _all_ information/text would be on the Web So you don't understand what TBL meant. The Web includes everything. Whether it's "on" the Web in the sense of being readily served up by a functioning piece of software that responds to requests with the full contents or not is another matter (but it is supposed to have a URL even if the answer is "not"—as in "not currently available").

WillAdams 4y ago
I'd thought that that aspect of the web went out the door when URL was changed from meaning: Universal Resource Locator to Uniform Resource Locator Do you have a quote where TBL indicated that _all information/text would be on the Web? I don't see why a page indicating the existence of a physical book isn't adequate, nor why a text has to be available online when there's no workable mechanism for compensating the copyright holder --- the inability to work up such a mechanism was why Ted Nelson's Xanadu never got anywhere. The problem with URL as Universal Resource Locator is that where a file is stored does not match to how it should be searched for (hence the original web directory pages, and the reason search engines are the primary interface for finding anything on the Web) --- moreover, few people are formally trained as librarians, and aren't inclined to name and organize and store things in formal hierarchies so as to facilitate that.
- cxr 4y ago
  > there's no workable mechanism for compensating the copyright holder You don't think copyright holders make money on their works?
  - WillAdams 4y ago
    Not for stuff placed on the Web in a simple and universal fashion --- otherwise there wouldn't be systems such as Patreon and Ko-fi.
    - cxr 4y ago
      I don't understand what you're saying. Patreon, which exists and permits "stuff placed on the Web" to be accessed upon payment, either works or it doesn't. HTTP additionally has a whole range of standardized 4xx status codes related to authorization—notably 402 Payment Required, but also 401 Unauthorized and 403 Forbidden. Similarly, subscriber-only podcasts exist. Either people are getting paid for stuff (which would necessarily imply that it's possible), or they aren't.
      - WillAdams 4y ago
        My point is that there's no imprimatur for placing copyright material on the Web and then automatically paying the owner of the copyright --- without that, there should be no de facto expectation that a copyrighted document exist on the Web which is what I understood you to be specifying.

by cxr 4y ago

WillAdams 4y ago

I'd thought that that aspect of the web went out the door when URL was changed from meaning: Universal Resource Locator to Uniform Resource Locator Do you have a quote where TBL indicated that _all information/text would be on the Web? I don't see why a page indicating the existence of a physical book isn't adequate, nor why a text has to be available online when there's no workable mechanism for compensating the copyright holder --- the inability to work up such a mechanism was why Ted Nelson's Xanadu never got anywhere. The problem with URL as Universal Resource Locator is that where a file is stored does not match to how it should be searched for (hence the original web directory pages, and the reason search engines are the primary interface for finding anything on the Web) --- moreover, few people are formally trained as librarians, and aren't inclined to name and organize and store things in formal hierarchies so as to facilitate that.

cxr 4y ago
> there's no workable mechanism for compensating the copyright holder You don't think copyright holders make money on their works?
- WillAdams 4y ago
  Not for stuff placed on the Web in a simple and universal fashion --- otherwise there wouldn't be systems such as Patreon and Ko-fi.
  - cxr 4y ago
    I don't understand what you're saying. Patreon, which exists and permits "stuff placed on the Web" to be accessed upon payment, either works or it doesn't. HTTP additionally has a whole range of standardized 4xx status codes related to authorization—notably 402 Payment Required, but also 401 Unauthorized and 403 Forbidden. Similarly, subscriber-only podcasts exist. Either people are getting paid for stuff (which would necessarily imply that it's possible), or they aren't.
    - WillAdams 4y ago
      My point is that there's no imprimatur for placing copyright material on the Web and then automatically paying the owner of the copyright --- without that, there should be no de facto expectation that a copyrighted document exist on the Web which is what I understood you to be specifying.