> Why do you guys think that my proposal is not as flexible as Henk's?
> It seems to me that they are the same in terms of flexibility, i.e.:
>
> URL: url "meaningful text"
>
> and
>
> meaningful text: url
>
> have the same content and flexibility. I can easily convert from one
> to the other.
As I understand things, these headers are proposed to be in the FAQ
(Auxilary?) header. There or in the mail header, it doesn't matter.
Archive-name: fax-faq/GammaLink
Posting-Frequency: Bi-monthly
Last-modified: 199y-mm-dd
Version: a.b.c
If you have the 'Meaningful-Text:' headers there, there is no way of
distinguising them from the other, non-URL, headers. The only way of
distinguising them is to define only specific headers.
With the URL: url "meaningful text", this problem does not appear.
> For example, the Pine FAQ could have these auxiliary headers:
>
> Official_FAQ_Location: <URL:http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/> "University
> of Washington"
> Related_Info: <URL:http://www.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Electronic_Mail/Pine/>
> "Yahoo's Computers and Internet:Software:Electronic Mail:Pine"
You have to define which headers are allowed. Maybe it is a good idea
to allow only a few specific headers, like the two above and maybe an
Author-Home-Page: header. I won't argue with that, but it is NOT flexible.
If you want to be able to have any type of link it should be used
with one and only one header, like "URL:". The format of the header
line is another thing. There would be no problem in having:
URL: "Official FAQ Location:" <A HREF="http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/">
"University of Washington"</A>
URL: "Related Info:" <A HREF=http://www.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Electronic_Mail/Pine/>
"Yahoo's Computers and Internet:Software:Electronic Mail:Pine"</A>
This format is SMTP compatible an requires extremely little
conversion job for Web archives, since it is basically pure HTML.
So, to decide if the URL: or the "Meaningful-Text:" headers should be
used, you will first have to decide if you want the FAQ maintiner to:
(a) Be able to put in any info, or
(b) if it should be restricted to only a few specific headers.
(c) You could also have a set of specific headers, and an
"Other-URL:" headers for the rest.
Do NOT allow any header.
My vote definitely goes with (a).
> * Any text would be acceptable for the Meaningful_Auxiliary_Header
> and the "meaningful link name."
This is not acceptable. A header is recognised by the header-text and
not by any text IN the header. The SMTP type of headers used here are
a stroke of genius in design. They are easy to find, you just get the
part between the start of the line and the "<colon><space>"
separator. Don't break this design.
> * The Meaningful_Auxiliary_Header will be a string of characters
> without white space - spaces between words are replaced with
> underscores. This will make auxiliary headers similar to
> regular headers.
1. Regular headers are defined by the header text. Yours are not.
2. Regular headers use "-", not underscores.
-- Lennart Regebro: lennart@bump.traffic.is Moderator of comp.os.netware.announce: cona-request@stacken.kth.se Object-Fax technical support: techsupp@traffic.is Home page: http://www.traffic.is/~lennart/
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved