Re: Round 2: moving HTTP 1.0 to informational

Benjamin Franz (snowhare@netimages.com)
Tue, 9 Jan 1996 09:45:31 -0800 (PST)


Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 09:45:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Round 2: moving HTTP 1.0 to informational 
In-Reply-To: <9601091621.AA12841@zorch.w3.org>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960109092350.3599A-100000@ns.viet.net>

On Tue, 9 Jan 1996 jg@w3.org wrote:

> 	Alta Vista is the answer, now what is the question...
> 
> 	http://altavista.digital.com/, search on "urn archives",
> immediately gives the right answer....
> 			- Jim
> 

And the question is, "How do you get a list of over 6000 documents and 
three copies of the same email from Jim in your inbox?"

You are going to have to be a *LOT* more explict in what you are trying 
to say. I have no inclination to read 6000+ documents to find the one you 
might have had in mind. Exactly why do you feel URNs are relevant to my 
suggestion that it ought to be possible to be able to submit POST 
method using explicitly specified inline text as the hot link instead of 
'Big Buttons' (which is the way every graphical brower on earth seems to 
handle INPUT="SUBMIT")?

If you were instead referring to the 'anti-caching' section of my article 
(a little quoting is a *good* thing) - unimplemented document 
identification schemes are useless for solving the practical problem of 
'how do I keep AOL and Mosaic from screwing up shopping baskets with 
their broken caching'.

-- 
Benjamin Franz