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

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Oct 93-present
• Next message: Jim Davis: "Re: comments on HTTP draft of 5 Nov 93"
• Previous message: Steve Waterbury: "Re: HTML(+)-editor available?"
• In-reply-to: Lou Montulli: "Re: RFC: Multi-Owner Maintenance robot (MOMspider)"

To: Lou Montulli <montulli@stat1.cc.ukans.edu>
Cc: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: RFC: Multi-Owner Maintenance robot (MOMspider) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 Dec 1993 11:16:02 CST."
             <9312081716.AA21574@stat1.cc.ukans.edu> 
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1993 10:40:59 -0800
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@simplon.ics.uci.edu>
Message-id: <9312081041.aa19368@paris.ics.uci.edu>

> Putting it in the HTML file is reasonable, but only if the _server_
> parses out the info and sends it as the "Expires:" header.

Isn't that what we've been talking about?

Look, let's put this issue to rest.  I will hack my local server to
read the HTML headers for (as per Dave's suggestion) something like:

<OWNER name="AliasName" email="owner@domain.edu" href="http:/People/owner.html">
<DATE created="date1_in_rfc850_format" expires="date2_in_rfc850_format">

and have the HTTP headers spit out as:

Owner: name="AliasName"; email="owner@domain.edu"; href="http:/People/owner.html"
Created: date1_in_rfc850_format
Expires: date2_in_rfc850_format

for the first version of MOMspider.  Once we have a working example,
we can decide exactly what to call the headers and whether to use
Link: instead of Owner:.


....Roy Fielding   ICS Grad Student, University of California, Irvine  USA
                   (fielding@ics.uci.edu)