Re: Auxiliary header for HTML (was "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?")

Paul Lindner (lindner@arcwelder.micro.umn.edu)
Fri, 9 Dec 1994 10:11:52 -0600 (CST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Eric S. Raymond: "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?"
Previous message: Joe Sewell: "Auxiliary header for HTML (was "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?")"
In reply to: Joe Sewell: "Auxiliary header for HTML (was "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?")"
Next in thread: Eric S. Raymond: "Re: Auxiliary header for HTML (was "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?")"
Reply: Eric S. Raymond: "Re: Auxiliary header for HTML (was "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?")"

Joe Sewell sez:
.
.
. I like the idea. Actually, having a "Longer-Version-At" might be good as
. well as an "HTTP-Version-At" ... not all HTTP versions are necessarily
. longer versions. :) Or the "See-Also" or "More-Info" ideas another list
. subscriber mentioned.
.
. Now THIS is an idea I can get excited about.

HTTP-version-at: is a poor name, especially since you can get
HTML pages via ftp, gopher, etc.

A better header would be:

Current-Version-At: <URL:xxxx>

Then, you could put any URL you wanted in there, or, in the
future a URN that would resolve into the closest URL mirror.

-- 
 | Paul Lindner | lindner@boombox.micro.umn.edu   | Slipping into madness
 |              | Distributed Computing Services  | is good for the sake
 | Gophermaster | University of Minnesota         | of comparison.
///// / / /    /////// / / / /  /  /  /   /      //// / / / /  /  /  /   /

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]