W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: Indexing non-HTML objects

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 17:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: Andrew Daviel <advax@triumf.ca>
Cc: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>, Robots List <robots@mail.mccmedia.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970502173416.4195D-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3202

On Fri, 2 May 1997, Andrew Daviel wrote:

> > It would probably be better to try for a new HTTP header instead. Then a
> > server could send something like:
> > 
> > Metainfo-Location: URL/URI
> Well, yes. But Link exists and has some recommended uses (toc, help) in 
> HTML3.2 which people are starting to use. Link + rel/rev seemed to make 
> sense.

Yes, but as has been already pointed out, the LINK is a subpart of
the HTML and thus doesn't provide for describing arbtrary www content,
in the case of this thread, for purposes of representing the arbitrary
www content in a suitable fashion for indexing.

Transparent Content Negotiation would provide the ideal infrastructure via
which the URL/URN/URI identified resource listed in the proposed metainfo
header could have the appropriate variant delivered based on the 
specific needs of a particular indexing service. Then some content
could have multiple descriptive documents for indexing purposes if the
publisher so chose.

Dave Morris

NB.  Of course, this new header would be delivered in a HEAD response so
the index-bot could efficiently determine if the unrecognized content had
and indexable content form associated with it as meta information.
Received on Friday, 2 May 1997 17:44:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC