Re: Suggestion: URL string-search syntax

Stephen D Crocker <>
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 23:06:07 +0200
Message-id: <>
Precedence: bulk
From: Stephen D Crocker <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: Suggestion: URL string-search syntax 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Let me announce I'm interested in this problem as well.  We're working
on a system for replication of files across organizational boundaries,
and one obvious application is distribution of web documents to
alleviate hot spots and long distance queries.  We need URLs that are
relative, and we also need a way to check whether two documents are
the same.  (Actually, there's even more to the problem.  Time-outs are
probably needed for a wide set of scenarios and intermediate
distribution agents are needed for other scenarios.)


 |  Steve Crocker                      | Voice: 301-854-6889           |
 |  Trusted Information Systems        | FAX:   301-854-5363           |
 |  3060 Washington Road (Route 97)    |-------------------------------|
 |  Glenwood, MD  21738                | Internet:     |

> Reply-To:
> Sender:
> From: (Gavin Nicol)
> To:      Multiple recipients of list <>
> Date:    Sun, 29 May 1994 22:21:02 +0200
> Subject: Re: Suggestion: URL string-search syntax
> Willem says:
> >The URL,URI,URF,URN etc discussion is becoming extremely critical in my
> >opinion, and its time there is some movement through IETF or other channels..
> I must agree with you. This problem is hurting not only the WWW but also
> CORBA and other groups. One bad thing about the WWW is that you cannot
> do an equivalency test on documents/objects. All we have is "if they have
> the same name, then they are the same". This leads to one shortcoming of
> the WWW: that even if a document of the same content resides on a local
> web server, if the URL' points to Botswana, that is where it will be 
> copied from. Without some for of equivalency test, doing anything about this
> (like tracking documents/versions) is impossible. Perhaps we should try to
> generate some suggestions for the IETF? I feel that this is a *hard* problem
> though...
> nick