Automated Content Access Protocol: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:09, 16 March 2019

Revision as of 17:28, 3 October 2019

Line 10:

|first=Stuart

|date=March 18, 2008

|website=

|publisher=iTWire

|access-date=March 11, 2018

|quote= }}</ref> No progress has been announced since the remarks in March 2008 and Google,<ref>[http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/improving-on-robots-exclusion-protocol.html Improving on Robots Exclusion Protocol: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog]</ref> along with Yahoo! and MSN, have since reaffirmed their commitment to the use of [[robots.txt]] and [[sitemaps]].

|archive-url=

|archive-date=

|dead-url=

|quote= }}</ref> No progress has been announced since the remarks in March 2008 and Google,<ref>[http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/improving-on-robots-exclusion-protocol.html Improving on Robots Exclusion Protocol: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog]</ref> along with Yahoo! and MSN, have since reaffirmed their commitment to the use of [[robots.txt]] and [[sitemaps]].

In 2011 management of ACAP was turned over to the [[International Press Telecommunications Council]] and announced that ACAP 2.0 would be based on [[ODRL|Open Digital Rights Language]] 2.0.<ref>[http://www.iptc.org/site/Home/Media_Releases/News_syndication_version_of_ACAP_ready_for_launch_and_management_handed_over_to_the_IPTC IPTC Media Release: News syndication version of ACAP ready for launch and management handed over to the IPTC] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110715223737/http://www.iptc.org/site/Home/Media_Releases/News_syndication_version_of_ACAP_ready_for_launch_and_management_handed_over_to_the_IPTC |date=15 July 2011 }}</ref>

Line 43 ⟶ 39:

|url=http://the-acap.org/FAQs.php#faq6

|title=FAQ: What about existing technology, robots.txt and why?

|date=

|website=ACAP

|publisher=

|access-date=March 11, 2018

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180308070121/http://www.the-acap.org/FAQs.php#faq6

|archive-date=March 8, 2018

|dead-url-status=nolive

|quote= }}</ref> that ''robots.txt'' is no longer sufficient. ACAP argues that ''robots.txt'' was devised at a time when both search engines and online publishing were in their infancy and as a result is insufficiently nuanced to support today’s much more sophisticated business models of search and online publishing. ACAP aims to make it possible to express more complex permissions than the simple binary choice of “inclusion” or “exclusion”.

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.