Message-Id: <199506211441.KAA21463@info.cren.net> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:43:39 -0500 To: email@example.com (Ted Hardie) From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jim Conklin) Subject: Re: Agent-mediated access, kidcode critiques, and community standards Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org 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. Jim 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.