> Just the other day I realized, therefore, that the right thing to
> use might be a single, generic header after all, and if there are
> 73 things you'd like to point at, to put pointers to all of them
> (suitably annotated, of course) in the one page that the generic
> header points at.
>
> [Obviously, this works for links that *people* would want to
> chase, but not nearly as well for links that automatic tools
> want to pick up.]
I like this idea, a lot. It's the most flexible, the most easily
adapted to differing needs. I might support two "standard" headers,
something like "FAQ-URL:" and "Maintainer-URL:", but five or six is
getting a bit out of hand.
Granted, this would make it more difficult for automatic tools to
collect different sorts of URLs. I'm not sure just what the solution
is there; but as a separate but related point, I'll mention that at
least a worm wouldn't have any trouble with the added level.
-- - Pam Greene, Former Lurker Ferret Central<http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users/pgreene/central.html>
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved