Re: RFC: Multi-Owner Maintenance robot (MOMspider)
montulli@stat1.cc.ukans.edu (Lou Montulli)
From: montulli@stat1.cc.ukans.edu (Lou Montulli)
Message-id: <9312081716.AA21574@stat1.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Re: RFC: Multi-Owner Maintenance robot (MOMspider)
To: fielding@simplon.ics.uci.edu (Roy T. Fielding)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 93 11:16:02 CST
Cc: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
In-reply-to: <9312080443.aa03028@paris.ics.uci.edu>; from "Roy T. Fielding" at Dec 8, 93 4:43 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL2]
>
> Lou Montulli <montulli@stat1.cc.ukans.edu> writes:
>
> > <Link Rel="made" href...> does not preclude the use of indirection.
>
> It doesn't preclude anything, nor does it provide the author with any
> guidance for consistency (i.e. the field names do not make sense). Further,
> there is a significant semantic difference between the OWNS relationship
> (described in Tim's reply) and the MADE relationship.
I don't care if its OWNS or MADE. (actually I wanted OWNER a year ago
when this was first discussed) But we should discuss this and
implement it as a standard up front rather than hacking in a
quick solution. The "OWNS" information is exactly what every browser
needs to provide a direct channel between the user/viewer and the
person(s) responsible for the information.
>
> > There are many other uses for the owners address than just MOMspider
> > so hideing the owners address inside a comment when a defined structure
> > for that information already exists is foolish.
>
> First of all, comments are not hidden -- they can be seen in the source.
> Second, it is important to provide a means of indirection AND stating the
> expected use up-front so that future tool-writers can avoid assuming that
> it is an e-mail address and, if necessary, take advantage of the alias
> feature. Third, of course it's foolish -- that is the nature of a kludge.
They are for all intents and purposes hidden from the browser so they
are hidden. There is no reason to put this info in a comment when
link exists. Browsers will ignore link attributes that are unknown.
>
> > Also, the EXPIRES information you are looking for already has a
> > predefined method definition. The information is passed back as
> > an HTTP header that looks like "Expires: DATE".
>
> It exists as an HTTP header but there is no defined means for providing
> that information to the server for HTML files. Thus, some form of
> HTML element is needed.
>
There are a thousand ways of doing it besides a header within the HTML
file. You could use a database system, cap files, lookup tables, etc.
Putting it in the HTML file is resonable, but only if the _server_
parses out the info and sends it as the "Expires:" header.
:lou
--
**************************************************************************
* T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F K A N S A S *
* Lou MONTULLI @ Ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu *
* Kuhub.cc.ukans.edu ACS Computing Services *
* 913/864-0436 Ukanvax.bitnet Lawrence, KS 66044 *
* UNIX! Cool! I know that! Jurassic Park - The Movie *
**************************************************************************