- From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
- To: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Cc: jg@zorch.w3.org, Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>, 'Gisle Aas' <aas@a.sn.no>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>, "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, John Franks wrote: > In fact, I would find an argument to make it mandatory persuasive. I wouldn't be happy about any change to http which made analysis of the content of a file mandatory. We should not demand that servers analyze HTML. And in current practice, my experience as the designer of a search tool is that titles are used to provide meaningful captions on browser screens not sumarize the document content which would be useful for search engines. I haven't looked at the mime spec so it may already agree with me ... but if HTTP were to include a header relating to title or document content it should be clearly a document description which might be provided by a server and might (NOT mandatory) be provided by content analysis or meta data stored by the server external to the document. It should not be directly specified as being a particular element of a particular content type. Dave Morris
Received on Friday, 19 July 1996 12:33:08 UTC