Re: meta information

"Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 10:19:22 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <Pine.3.05.9406020956.A25601-b100000@suna>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
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
> > uri-request@bunyip.com 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: <http://www.acl.lanl.gov/URI/archive/uri-archive.index.html>

> 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

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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. *