Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )

> <subject scheme="KidCode"></subject>


> attack. This also allows FTP and other URLs to be accomodated without
> forcing them to change their software or naming system. Of course, it
> would have a performance impact on all direct URL accesses.

Also important, yes.

> I think that the URC mechanism is the right way to implement something
> like KidCode. (Of course, as primary author of the URC spec I would say
> that, wouldn't I? :-) Seriously, I do think that it is the right technical
> approach. However, there is no way to ignore the fact that URNs and URCs
> are not deployed yet.

I don't think there's any reason that once URC/URN stuff like this starts 
to get widespread that a URL with KidCode.12 in it couldn't translate to
 <subject scheme="KidCode">12</subject> internally.

> KidCode in the expectation that URNs and URCs will be ready soon, than to
> try to mandate how all publishers have to make their URLs. Anyway, I am

What's with this "all publishers"?  KidCode is specifically for 
publishers who want to notify parents that their stuff isn't suitable for 
children, or who want to notify parents it *is* suitable for children.

> not so sure the KidCode syntax is going to work well on Windows-based
> servers where an 8.3 name constraint has to be met.

Actually, if you look, it's cunningly devised with that limitation in 
mind. You just don't get to list the tags after the age if you insist on 
using a DOS-based server. Otherwise it works fine, including for FTP.

> I have to revise the SOAP portion of the requirements draft anyway, so I
> will recast it to be more, dare I say, explicit about KidCode uses.  ;-)
> When that is done I will send the fragment to the URI and WWW talk lists.
> That should be Thursday or so.

I look forward to it!  -Darren

Received on Monday, 19 June 1995 17:54:39 UTC