Quote:
|
The only thing I find difficult or off the wall about those is the URL thing but it is entirely possible to be compliant with that if needed.
|
Keep in mind that any techie will tell you that there are many variations on any given URL. For instance,
http://www.domain.com/members/pic1.jpg could also be expressed as:
-
http://domain.com/members/pic1.jpg
-
http://www.domain.com/members/../members/pic1.jpg
-
http://www.domain.com/members/pic%31.jpg
-
http://www.domain.com/members/%70%69%63%31%2e%6a%70%67
...and so on. Now, I'm not saying that anyone's likely to be busted for not listing every equivelant URL, just that it is *impossible* to comply with the letter of the proposed regulations. Show me your list of URL's that a file appears at, and I will show you a URL that you've missed.
Would that kind of trickery hold up in court? Hopefully not. But it's a bad law when you can't possibly be in compliance and have to hope that the courts will accept a good faith effort.
Cheers
-b