Re: meta information

Jon P. Knight (J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk)
Thu, 2 Jun 1994 09:10:58 +0100 (BST)


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. *