W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Proposed issue: site metadata hook

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:19:49 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90B14@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <seairth@seairth.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Seairth Jacobs [mailto:seairth@seairth.com]
> Sent: 11 February, 2003 17:45
> To: www-tag
> Subject: Re: Proposed issue: site metadata hook
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Repeating a post I made [1], you could use OPTIONS 
> to accomplish
> such a thing.  No need for additional verbs. 

Well, what about MPUT and MDELETE (and likely MUPDATE)?

So even if you could make it work the same as MGET, you'd
only have part of the puzzle...

> However, these approaches require at least two hits on the 
> server.  While
> this may be fine for favico or P3P (from the client 
> perspective), I wonder
> if you will be able to convince crawlers, bots, etc. to give up the
> robots.txt file.  From their perspective, any of these solutions would
> double the amount of time it would take to do their job.  

MGET wouldn't. One single call to the server based on the site URI
(<scheme>://<authority> portion).

> This could be even
> worse if they have to process something like RDF just to find 
> a URI to a
> robots.txt-like file.  I think that any effort that would require this
> additional work by those programs would fail before it even started.

Right. Two or more steps is too much.

> Would it be possible to use OPTIONS along with a new series of
> content-types?  For instance, suppose there was a 
> "metadata/favico" and
> "metadata/robots".  

Preferably not.

Cheers,

Patrick


--
Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com
 
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 11:19:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:16 GMT