# Re: Agent-mediated access, kidcode critiques, and community standards

Darren New (dnew@sgf.fv.com)
Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:40:25 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Avi Harris Baumstein: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Previous message: Ronald E. Daniel: "FWD: SGML URC spec comments (4/4)"

    Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:40:25 +0100

    From: Darren New <dnew@sgf.fv.com>

    Subject: Re: Agent-mediated access, kidcode critiques, and community standards

    To: Martijn Koster <m.koster@nexor.co.uk>

    In-Reply-To: <9506202125.AA02977@www10.w3.org>

    Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9506201739.A6918-0100000@sgf.fv.com>

> first of all thanks for your summary, and for putting the
> discussion back into a constructive sphere.

Ditto.

> My suggestion of using a KidCode HTTP header didn't provoke much
> response, while I think it has some advantages: the user gets the
> choice,

Choice of what?

> it scales, it can be added to exisiting code easily,

Only if you own the source to the server. What about all the people
running netscape's server (who I don't think get the source, tho I may be
wrong). What about all the sites on netcom?

> scales,

You said that. ;-)

> doesn't require a third party infrastructure, and will be quite easy
> to establish as a standard since it is a simple extension to http.

Well, given we can't even get over this hump, what to put in the header
is still going to take work, or someone would already have done it. :-)

Seriously, I think it is important that protection apply to FTP as well.
I see many public providers whose web links point into FTP addresses;
i.e., there are many ISPs whose web sites are built entirely in their FTP
space. *I* think it's important because our stuff is accessible via FTP as
well as WWW. :-) I imagine the people making entire internet packages
(internet in a box, etc) would be happy to put the same code in FTP as in
WWW. It also has the advantage that you don't fetch 200K of dirty picture
only to be told you can't have that. You could even imagine a browser in
KidCode mode not even making hotlinks on the page for the eeevil pictures.

--Darren

- Next message: Avi Harris Baumstein: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Previous message: Ronald E. Daniel: "FWD: SGML URC spec comments (4/4)"