Re: Agent-mediated access, kidcode critiques, and community standards

Jim Conklin (
Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:43:39 -0500

Message-Id: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:43:39 -0500
To: (Ted Hardie)
From: (Jim Conklin)
Subject: Re: Agent-mediated access, kidcode critiques, and community standards

 Ted's comment triggered a wonder as to whether it might be reasonable to
have this processing done by the server instead of the client, by having
the client send a selection criterion that the server would compare to the
selection info for the material requested before returning that material.
In order to handle those servers that don't implement such a scheme and
return the material regardless of the selction criterion, servers that
implement would have to return (in addition to the material requested) a
conformance indicator to let the client know that the material returned was
compliant with the selection criterion.


At  4:04 PM 6/20/95 -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
>        I certainly agree that the labeling we are discussing is quite
>different from setting up a robot exclusion standard, and that the
>hits against an /audience.txt would be extensive.  Several things
>could be done at the browser level to minimize the impact (by checking
>headers for changes before retrieving the text of /audience.txt, for
>example).  No matter what is done to speed things, though, there is no
>doubt that adding this extra step would slow browsers, since they
>would need to do a retrieval and parse the text before getting actual
>data.  Presumably, those using browsers to screen based on
>audience.txt would be willing to put up with the extra time.