Re: meta information

"Jon P. Knight" <>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 10:19:22 +0200
Message-id: <Pine.3.05.9406020956.A25601-b100000@suna>
Precedence: bulk
From: "Jon P. Knight" <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: meta information
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
On Thu, 2 Jun 1994, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > And about indexing... anybody who's interested in these problems should
> > probably try to follow the discussions about URC's on the
> > mailing list.
> Is that a person or a mail robot?  It did not respond to my request yesterday.
> Is that discussion archived on the web?

Try: <>

> The META element is not a hack.  It was proposed 6 months ago as a valid
> addition to HTML+ (now HTML 3.0).  The "header" attribute was added two
> months ago when it became clear that not all metainfo is desirable as
> headers.  It was designed to provide a useful function within the limits
> imposed by the hack we call HTML (which, by any measure, is a damn good hack).

Put me down in favour of the current META element proposal.  I know of at
least one project where its use is almost certain (the alternative being
comments which I consider to be a *real* hack).  Its a great way to play
with indexing engines and put out new headers without hacking all the servers
to bits.  It gets my vote.


Jon Knight, Research Student in High Performance Networking and Distributed
Systems in the Department of _Computer_Studies_ at Loughborough University.
* Its not how big your share is, its how much you share that's important. *