I think most of the lawyers will lag the technological evloution and are as such comparable to those with the intention of suing Google for indexing content on their sites that could have been blocked in robots.txt and / or .htaccess.
Imagine a multidestination link with, a text box, a video, related sites, all opening in new windows simultaneously. Then combine these links with links from more than one soure depending on content, that is sematics. The combinations are endlesss.
Related post:
SEO content / links: XML driven sites, Web 1 and Web 2.
With an exponentional growth of sites and pages on the web there should be no problems to find jobs for lawyers. Should we all reeducate ourself from webmasters, marketing consutants, designers, programmers etc. to lawyers? There are simply not enough lawyers in the world to cover the potential
lawsuits.
Well-formed, valid and accessible code should be implemented where you know how to and have time to do it with no additional costs. The motive of online business is to maximize profit where one element is cost. In the digital age, time is definitely money.
I prefer freedom to create good content with the simplest possible model and that is not always unidirectional links produced by (X)HTML markup.
Note this was not an argument against valid and accessible markup, since my standpoint should be clear on that subject.
Scroll through the posts if you are in doubt.
Here is a standard.
How many follow that standard?
Note: A free maximum can not be lower than a restricted. The highest mountain in the world mesured from
sea level is
Mount Everest. If you are restricted to Europe, it is
Mont Blanc.
Conclusion:
Ceteris paribus, free profit maximization compared to one where you are r
estricted to make your site well-formed, valid and accessible can never be higher if you take
additional time costs into account. Note that I wrote ceteris paribus, so other indirect effects like a better page etc. that surfers will vist and link to more often are ruled out.