I think this is an unclear aspect of the terms--either interpretation could be "correct."
On Jan 26, 5:03 pm, Andrew Leach <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 26, 8:50 pm, Brian P <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't think there's a > > difference between HTML and PDF; what's important is if the file is > > displayed in a web browser. > > Er... there is a difference! A PDF file starts with the text %PDF; an > HTML file doesn't. Obviously PDF and HTML are different formats. Does Google care if your site uses HTML or XHTML? They are different! Not as different as HTML and PDF, but again we're talking about differences in file format, not differences in how the file format is viewed. They only state that they want it in a web browser, not that the web browser must receive the page as (X)HTML. > > > Most people use a web browser plugin to > > view PDF downloads. > > There you are. The plug in is Acrobat Reader (or whatever), it's not > the browser. I wonder if you consider Flash content to be not in a browser. If I go to a site that uses Flash, I don't consider those elements to be "outside" of the browser, but of course it requires a plugin to view. Again, IANAL, and I also see your point here. I'm just saying that my point is not an unreasonable interpretation. It would require more legal interpretation of the terms (perhaps from a judge setting a precedent) to determine the correct interpretation. Of course Google could always update the terms to decide this one way or the other. > > Andrew -Brian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
