- From: R. Martin Roscheisen <rmr@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 11:33:35 -0700
- To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)
- Cc: bede@scotty.mitre.org, rmr@cs.stanford.edu, rating@junction.net, uri@bunyip.com, www-talk@www10.w3.org
>> You cannot assume that a content provider will be willing to carry >> ratings by others. > >True, but if they do offer them, why not consider them, with due caution? Of course, if some content server coincides with a rating/meta server, then they will be considered in the same way. The question is how this should affect the design. Version A says, let's define two separate protocols, one to outside rating servers, one to rating servers coinciding with the document server. Version B says, let us define one protocol, and then some implementers might do certain optimizations by bundling this and that request into one network access. I personally prefer version B; it seems to be cleaner design, and it also avoids tying the rating protocol into http more than it is necessary (Note that we might use CORBA for this protocol with advantage, or how about a object request protocol to MSN, ...;-). >Daniel LaLiberte (liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu) Cheers, - RMR
Received on Tuesday, 27 June 1995 14:31:19 UTC