Re: Meta Tag Draft - New version.

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Thu, 21 Dec 1995 21:38:14 -0500


Message-Id: <m0tSxN8-0002TvC@beach.w3.org>
To: S.Cox@solo.ned.dem.csiro.au (Simon Cox)
Cc: www-html@w3.org, darran@ned.dem.csiro.au, pchopra@garnet.bmr.gov.au,
Subject: Re: Meta Tag Draft - New version. 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Dec 1995 10:07:38 +0800."
             <v02120d00acffb4ae2166@[192.149.36.135]> 
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 21:38:14 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <v02120d00acffb4ae2166@[192.149.36.135]>, Simon Cox writes:
>
>I'm quite concerned about this discussion.
>
>I'm afraid that I'm only medium competent in understanding the
>arcana of HTML, HTTP, URL vs URI, etc etc, (so am liable to
>attract the odd "newbie" flame) but I have a current job to do
>which critically depends on some sort of resolution to these discussions.

I understand that you need this issue resolved. I don't understand
why you need the rest of the world to agree with whatever solution
you come up with. Just do something that meets your needs.

Folks all over the globe have deployed local indexing schemes
based on META. Check out MOMSPIDER, for example.

In fact, I'm sure lots of folks on this list have little perl
ditties that do all sorts of magic indexing and such, right folks?

Standardization might be nice, but until we see something that we can
all agree on, experimentation and local deployment is the thing to do.

Dan