Content deleted Content added
Add more content about voluntary implementation and legal concerns |
m Add archive URL for dead link |
||
Line 27:
The project has generated considerable online debate, in the search,<ref>[http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060922-104102 Search Engine Watch article] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070127201118/http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060922-104102 |date=27 January 2007 }}</ref> content<ref>[http://shore.com/commentary/newsanal/items/2006/200601002publishdrm.html Shore.com article about ACAP] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061021020607/http://shore.com/commentary/newsanal/items/2006/200601002publishdrm.html |date=21 October 2006 }}</ref> and intellectual property<ref>[http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=408&res=1280_ff&print=0 IP Watch article about ACAP]</ref> communities. If there are any common themes in commentary, they are
# that keeping the specification simple will be critical to its successful implementation, and
# that the aims of the project are focussed on the needs of publishers, rather than readers. Many have seen this as a flaw.<ref name="douglas"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/
== See also ==
| |||