Re: A Proposal for a New Standard in HTML 3.0

Albert Lunde ([email protected])
Wed, 12 Apr 1995 10:22:02 +0500

Albert Lunde wrote:
> 2) If you want to use a distributed scheme for classifying content
> of the Internet, it may be more productive to have "good" sites
> (for some defintion of good) carry some "seal of approval" than
> ask other sites to label themselves "bad". A list of "seals of
> approval" need not reside on the sites themselves, but could
> be offered up by third partiies.
>
> 3) I _think_ that the URC scheme under development by the URI
> working group, was considered as a means of offering this
> kind of document meta-information as well as other characteristics.

Some citations related to this:

The general idea of Seals Of Approval "SOAPs" as a means of
indicating any sort of review/annotation of Internet content (not just
censorhip), is discussed in conjunction with URCs in the
Internet Draft:

"URC Scenarios and Requirements"

ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-uri-urc-req-01.txt

The authors of this document seem to be serving it up in several formats
at:

http://www.acl.lanl.gov/URI/Scenarios/

The IETF home page for the URI working group can be found at:

http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/html.charters/uri-charter.html

Pointers to related material can be seen at:

Michael Mealling's URI page

http://www.gatech.edu/iiir/iiir.html

The Whois and Network Information Lookup Service (wnils) working group:

http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/html.charters/wnils-charter.html

The W3O UR* page:

http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/Addressing/Addressing.html

-- 
    Albert Lunde                      [email protected]