Re: RFC: Multi-Owner Maintenance robot (MOMspider) (Lou Montulli)
From: (Lou Montulli)
Message-id: <>
Subject: Re: RFC: Multi-Owner Maintenance robot (MOMspider)
To: (Roy T. Fielding)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 93 11:16:02 CST
In-reply-to: <>; from "Roy T. Fielding" at Dec 8, 93 4:43 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL2]
> Lou Montulli <> 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.

  *           T H E   U N I V E R S I T Y   O F   K A N S A S              *
  *         Lou  MONTULLI @                           *
  *                     ACS Computing Services *
  *     913/864-0436        Ukanvax.bitnet             Lawrence, KS 66044  *
  *             UNIX! Cool! I know that!  Jurassic Park - The Movie        *