- 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
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