httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dirk.vanGulik" <Dirk.vanGu...@jrc.it>
Subject Re: META revisited
Date Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:49:10 GMT

Well just a few observations on EQUIV; because this kind
of html/http specific interaction troubles me deeply.

	1. it is an HTML TAG
	2. it gets described the HTML specs
	3. it gets used in a page context
	4. under control of page authors
	5. mod_headers _always allowed the
	   site admins to add any header they
	   like.

So, in concept, IMHO it is a tag for authors to be send out
to clients; deliberately outside the http protocol stream 
managed by the webmaster/site admin. I.e. they are in different
admin/responsible realms.

Optionally a webmaster _can_ deceide to excert some control
over the stuff the authors put on; and deceide on ways to
ensure that this is kept up to date.

So I would be

	AGAINST automaticlly moving the authors EQUIV tags
	into HTTP headers

	IN FAVOUR of giving a site admin some control to do
	this automatically if he wants to; perhaps coordinating
	this with the authors in an environment where such is
	possible.

But IMHO in such an environment a bit of perl and mod_headers
give the admin plenty of control.

Dw.


> Jason Clary wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > A long, long time ago, I brought up the question of HTTP-EQUIV META tags. I
> > > was told at the time that this is a client-side thing. However, this does not
> > > appear to be the case. Firstly, the HTML 3.2 spec clearly says that this tag
> > > should be used by servers, and secondly, Netscape at least do not process it
at
> > > the client end (as far as I can tell).
> > > 
> > > Standards-wise, this is somewhat unfortunate - should this really be in the
> > > HTTP spec? Anyway, the question is, does anyone have any views? Should we
> > > support this?
> > 
> > 
> > Everything I've read about META tags (including the nice book Webmaster
> > which is part of the Nutshell series from O`eilly) seems to say that
> > the web server SHOULD parse META tags and add the contained entities
> > to the headers.
> > 
> > Personaly I think this is incredibly stupid as it would require all
> > pages to be parsed for META tags.
> 
> That's true no matter who parses them (and don't forget proxies!). And META
> is a HEAD field, so the whole page doesn't need to be parsed. And we could
> make it configurable.
> 
> > 
> > Hmm, does the new ssi support setting of extended headers fields?
> > Maybe having an "alternative" would be acceptable.
> 
> Not from the point of view of having portable HTML, but that may not matter so
> much for this particular task.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ben.
> 
> -- 
> Ben Laurie                Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435  Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
> Freelance Consultant and  Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
> Technical Director        URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
> A.L. Digital Ltd,         Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
> London, England.          Apache-SSL author
> 


Mime
View raw message