W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > January 1997

Re: Base

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 04:38:45 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970122213910.006937a8@pop.intergate.bc.ca>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
At 01:44 PM 22/01/97 -0700, Dave Hollander wrote:

>Forgive me for diverting the attention of the group. I intended the 
>discussion about base merely as an example of the issues that Elliot 
>has so clearly articulated.

Well sorry, Dave, but I don't think this issue should be un-raised.  I went
to bat for a clearer interpretation of BASE quite some time ago back when
HTML-WG was still kind of useful; the discussion at that point taught me
that there is no consensus as to what the specs mean and how this should
be used; thus in the HTML world, it is de fact broken.

At the time I was a robot writer and my robot was looking for help in
de-duping, i.e. how many slightly-variant mirror copies of the Jargon file
do you really want to index?  But beyond this narrow interest, I then
believed, and still do, strongly, that it would be useful for there
to be a standard way for an object to assert "Here is the canonical
address which I request to be used in retrieving the object you are now 
reading".  Use in hot-lists and by crawlers being just two obvious 
applications.  I think this would be a highly useful, cheap-to-specify, 
easy-to-implement item to put in XML-LINK.

Any reason not to do this? - Tim
Received on Thursday, 23 January 1997 07:47:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:06 UTC