[thelist] More Smart Tags

[Bruce Heerssen]

aardvark wrote:

>>From: <martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com>
>>
>>I'm wondering whether the more effective legal avenue
>>is one of intellectual property - the right to not have your IP
>>changed by a third party without your permission.
>>
>
>what's being changed?  your content?  your code?  no, just the 
>presentation... and guess what, all browsers affect the presentation 
>anyway, based on rendering quirks and rules...
>
>MS parses coded into MSHTML, which you'll see if you save your 
>web page from IE... NN shows rendered pages when you view 
>source... hell, there are sites like pornolizer that completely re-
>write your content... and somehow, those are so far safe from IP 
>lawsuits...
>

I would argue that smart tags do indeed change the content of the site. 
The argument is semantic to be sure, but valid none the less. Smart tags 
make an addition to the site. An addition that the author may not 
approve of. But I think you can never really seperate presentation from 
content because the presentaion is part of the content.

Sites like the pornolizer (which I've never actually seen, sounds fun :) 
clearly do not change the content of your site because the user never 
actually goes to your site to see that content in it's original context. 
The difference here is that you have to go to those sites and give them 
a url to 'translate'. This clearly falls under parody and fair-use, 
 IMO. There is no ambiguity as to the authenticity of the content. With 
MS's smart tags, third parties may change the (apparent) content of a 
site without the site owner's knowledge or permission, and (possibly) 
without the user's knowledge or permission. The user is not necessarily 
given a chance to view the site author's work in a context chosen by the 
author.

>
>where is HTML clearly covered by IP?  this isn't part of my point, 
>but i'd like to see some documentation on that since everything i've 
>seen says HTML is too generic to be covered by IP...
>
I think that Martin is referring to the content of a website rather than 
the structural markup. I could be wrong.

>
>and those aren't links, those are highlights inserted by the browser 
>with meta-content... yes, it's reserve from which it draws the URLs 
>is unfortunate in its MS-ness, but hey, what did you expect?  
>
And the difference to the user is? None. Therefore the content is 
altered in it's orgininal context.

>
>would Netscape not use Netscape sites if they didn't have to?
>
Of course they would. And MS should continue to link to MS sites in it's 
browser, but not on the page. There's nothing wrong with branding, per 
se, but keep it where it belongs and make damn sure that it is clearly 
recognizable as such.

>
>well, they aren't adding links, they are highlighting words... 
>however, if that META tag were strictly opt-in (instead of opt-out), 
>this would all be moot... so we should be focusing on that, 
>instead...
>
Agreed. Although I do wonder about the possibility of abuse, 
particularly by smaller players.

>
>i don't give a rat's ass about fugly, but knowing how you can control 
>them via CSS is a very good question... how can you ensure they 
>aren't confused with other parts of your design?  that the colors 
>don't mix oddly, that the overall usability isn't affected?  having to 
>add custom CSS attributes would suck, but perhaps it will take the 
>properties from <a>?  we don't know yet, but we should be asking 
>that instead of bitching about how we all hate MS...
>
Fugly may not matter for every site, but for some, such as art sites and 
designer showcases, it clearly does. Having their sites marked up with 
ugly add-ons could significantly detract from a site's visual 
effectiveness. As you know, it is entirely possible to design sites that 
are attractive in very nearly every browser ever made. And anyway, ugly 
is relative.

Usability is an issue, though not much of one, I suspect. I have yet to 
see anything in the documentation that implies that impaired 
functionality would result from the use of smart tags.

Finally, I don't see this thread as MS bashing. Just normal outrage at 
an invasive technology from a company known to be less than even handed. 
I hope that MS is paying close attention to this thread and others like 
it. Perhaps they will find another way to do this.

-Bruce