Re: a campaign for real hyperlinks

Brian <usenet3 (AT) julietremblay (DOT) com.invalid> wrote

One way might be to have a logo that web authors can put on a page,
the logo would mean:

* the site owner pledges to keep the article on the URL

The logo would mean squat. If you succeeded in getting any momentum to
this idea, every webmaster would put the logo on their site. But
they would be no more likely to follow through with the logo than they
are now without it.

Some would some wouldn't, not everyone is cynical.

--
Pif Paf

Brian wrote:

Pif Paf wrote:

[attribute snipped by Pif Paf]

One way might be to have a logo that web authors can put on a
page, the logo would mean:

* the site owner pledges to keep the article on the URL


Brian wrote:
The logo would mean squat. If you succeeded in getting any
momentum to this idea, every webmaster would put the logo on
their site. But they would be no more likely to follow through
with the logo than they are now without it.

Some would some wouldn't, not everyone is cynical.

If "some wouldn't," then the scheme falls apart. It only works if the
logo *guarantees* that there will never be a 404 returned for a url
that once produced a document of some sort.

Nothing can be guaranteed on the web though. If you see the W£C logos,
this doesn't necessarily mean the page validates. Something like this had
to go on trust alone, with like-minded people banding together. Don't be
so cynical. Can I believe this:
<http://www.tsmchughs.com/site/accessibility> on your site? Yes,
considering the look of the site, and the CSS I saw getting to that page,
I think I can. Had I seen the suggested no-404 image I would also trust
that.

--
Matt


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

<uk.net.web.authoring , Brian , usenet3 (AT) julietremblay (DOT) com.invalid>
<10e97c21qtq1864 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>
<Thu, 01 Jul 2004 19:25:44 -0400>

Something like this had to go on trust alone, with like-minded
people banding together.

There's nothing wrong with like-minded people banding together. It
spawns new ideas all the time. My point is, band together to educate
others about not breaking links. The badge idea is just a distraction
from the goal.

Like minded my arse - until somebody trys to set themselves up as some
sort of all seeing guru that starts to see themselves as a mystic being
who has visions of what the net should look like .

Its a pile of shit before it even gets started and most people know it .

Somebody elses ego trip can only ever be other peoples yawn .

A good example of this used to be the arseholes on
freeserve.webspace.authoring who deemed themselves as experts on what a
website should or shouldnt look like and only they knew best .

Fact is most of their own websites looked bloody awful and even to this
this day continue to do so because they are so far up their own arse
they dont know shit from shinola .

Wouldnt it be wonderful if everybody just accepted the net was freedom
of expression and lived with it ..... or would that spoil the fun of it
all :-))


--
www.smtpemail.co.uk

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:24:49 -0400, Brian <usenet3 (AT) julietremblay (DOT) com.invalid> wrote:

Pif Paf wrote:

[attribute snipped by Pif Paf]

One way might be to have a logo that web authors can put on a
page, the logo would mean:

* the site owner pledges to keep the article on the URL


Brian wrote:
The logo would mean squat. If you succeeded in getting any
momentum to this idea, every webmaster would put the logo on
their site. But they would be no more likely to follow through
with the logo than they are now without it.

Some would some wouldn't, not everyone is cynical.

If "some wouldn't," then the scheme falls apart. It only works if the
logo *guarantees* that there will never be a 404 returned for a url
that once produced a document of some sort.

Perhaps there could be a provison that if the page goes away,
others linking to it are allowed to mirror it.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)