Re: RFC: Multi-Owner Maintenance robot (MOMspider)

Dave_Raggett <dsr@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Mail folder: WWW Talk Oct 93-present
Next message: Gisle.Aas@nr.no: "Re: International Document Server Support"
Previous message: David Koblas: "International Document Server Support"
In-reply-to: Roy T. Fielding: "RFC: Multi-Owner Maintenance robot (MOMspider)"
Reply: Lou Montulli: "Re: RFC: Multi-Owner Maintenance robot (MOMspider)"
Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: RFC: Multi-Owner Maintenance robot (MOMspider) "

From: Dave_Raggett <dsr@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-id: <9312061540.AA05582@manuel.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Multi-Owner Maintenance robot (MOMspider)
To: fielding@simplon.ics.uci.edu
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 93 15:40:56 GMT
Cc: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.36.1.1]

> <!ELEMENT HEAD - -  ( TITLE?  & ISINDEX?  & NEXTID?  & LINK* 
>                              & BASE?     & OWNER?   & EXPIRES? )>
> <!ELEMENT OWNER - -  CDATA    -- Alias name for document owner -->
> <!ELEMENT EXPIRES - -  CDATA  -- Expiration date in RFC850 format -->

Your suggestion for a multi-owner maintenance robot (MOMspider) seems
a good one, and I like the idea for making the owner and expiry date
part of the document HEAD. I never did like the <LINK REL="MADE" HREF=...">
notation. Perhaps we ought to stipulate the OWNER should be an email address?

When viewing a document with markup errors, or broken links, who should
the reader  mail - the author or the admin staff, e.g. www-admin@host?
The author may want responsibility, or the document may have been produced
automatically. Perhaps we should use an additional attribute, what do you
think?

I will be happy to include this in the revised HTML+ spec - so long
as there isn't vociferous feelings against the idea on the net.

Dave Raggett