Revision as of 08:21, 2 July 2011 edit 87.183.179.181 (talk) No mentioned agreed-upon measure for "better". ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:26, 5 July 2011 edit undo 82.35.247.199 (talk) →ACAP and search engines: exalead no longer a search engine, leaving Acap without recognition. Next edit →
Line 18: As an early priority, ACAP is intended to provide a practical and consensual solution to some of the rights-related issues which in some cases have led to litigation<ref>[http://www.out-law.com/page-7427 "Is Google Legal?" OutLaw article about Copiepresse litigation]</ref><ref>[http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/comment/0,,2013051,00.html Guardian article about Google's failed appeal in Copiepresse case]</ref> between publishers and search engines. ~~Only~~No ~~one~~public search ~~engine~~engines recognise Acap. Only one, [[Exalead]], ~~has~~ever confirmed that they will be adopting ~~ACAP.~~the standard<ref>[http://www.exalead.com/software/news/press-releases/2007/07-01.php Exalead Joins Pilot Project on Automated Content Access]</ref>, but they have since ceased functioning as a search portal to focus on the software side of their business. ==Comment and debate==

Automated Content Access Protocol: Difference between revisions