W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2009

Re: conneg, HTTPbis, and generic resources (status check)

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 12:35:04 -0500
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <ED21D60F-42F2-4CFD-9B25-73056CBABB63@w3.org>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>

On 2009-11 -25, at 10:50, Larry Masinter wrote:

>> I read in the tag minutes ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Aug/0067.html
>    masinter: That was the original conception when ....
> I said more, but I talk faster than anyone can reasonably keep up  
> with. The "..." ellipses were paragraphs. But was there some issue  
> with what was minuted?
> # Content Negotiation on languages
> Yes, using content negotiation for language selection interferes  
> with page ranking.

Depending on whether the search engine is aware of the various  
language-specific resources through metadata about them.   If that is  
the case, then the the kudos of all the related pages is merged and a  
dingle entry can be presented to the user.

> Presumably you mean "by Google". Whether the same is true for any  
> other search engine is unclear, but I suppose other search engines  
> are forced to reverse engineer Google's page ranking in the same way  
> that browsers are forced to reverse engineer Internet Explorer.

No, they compete to make them better. There is no reason to copy  
Google's faults.
If they can find a more relevant page then more power to them.

>  Should there be standards specifying what parts of URIs search  
> engines should or should not pay attention to, or whether they  
> should index content-negotiated pages?

No, there should be standards for metadata explaining what is going on.

Received on Saturday, 5 December 2009 20:28:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:31 UTC