W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

RE: Any interest in automatic link-updating?

From: Erik Aronesty <earonesty@montgomery.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 07:19:04 -0700
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Montgomery%l=EXCHANGE_SERVE-960716141904Z-240@sf-exch-2.montgomery.com>
To: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1129
nice thing about that is that the checking is done on somebody else's
Internet time.  unfortunately, I wouldn't want my client to waste my
hard earned money telling your server about some link.

a more reasonable standard might be


1. Checks for the "Referer" header
2. If it is available it writes the URL of the request, as well as the
Referer in a ADVISE FILE


1. Reads the ADVISE FILE...at a time when connection activity is low


----begin session----
ADVISE /your-referring-resource HTTP/1.X
Invalid-Resource: http://myserver/mybadurl
Valid-Resource: http://myserver/mygoodresource
----end session----

3. if Valid-Resource is not available ..it is left blank

4. if the server replies with a "405 -Method Not Available" ...it is
recommended that your server keep an "ADVISE N/A CACHE" .... and wait
some time before bugging that out of date machine again.

>From: 	James Marshall[SMTP:jsm@crl.com]
>Sent: 	Monday, July 15, 1996 4:56 PM
>To: 	Vance Huntley
>Cc: 	http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>Subject: 	Re: Any interest in automatic link-updating?
>I see I wasn't very clear in my first post-- let me apply some Windex: 
>Given the current HTTP standard, I don't see how to update a link the
>first time any user follows it; the best method I know is for the
>server to keep checking all links in its resources, and update those
>are obsolete.  It would be more efficient (and more immediate) to
>update a
>link the first time someone discovers it's obsolete, instead of
>all links periodically.  Sort of like interrupt-driven versus polling. 
>If you know a way to do this with the current HTTP standard, then I'm
>one being dense (and please let me know how) (I mean how to do it, now
>The scheme I'm talking about involves adding or modifying an HTTP
>to let any client SUGGEST to a server that a link in a resource needs
>updating.  The server is then expected to test the link with a HEAD
>request, before actually updating the link.  This suggestion mechanism
>allows anyone to notify any server that a link needs updating, while
>preventing unauthorized changes (the security concern that Dave Morris
>Dave!) brought up in his note). 
>Does this make more sense? 
>James Marshall
>> I agree that updating broken links is a useful feature in a web server. 
>> But why does this need to be addressed in the standard?  Is this really 
>> anything more than a useful utility for webmasters  ( as opposed to a 
>> client-server communication issue which must be addressed in the 
>> standard )?
>> Apologies in advance if I'm just being dense :-)
>> ------------
>> Vance Huntley
>> vance@webgenesis.com --- 607.255.8499
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 1996 07:28:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC