🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 30 Oct 96 16:23:12 GMT, in article
     <846692592snz@bobsh.demon.co.uk> Bob@bobsh.demon.co.uk
     "Robert. S. Harris." wrote:

..
RH> When I used to use the Lynx servers and used the [p]print/[m]mail-to
RH> options, the returned messages had this original URL as subject line,
RH> to ensure that the source of the page was always known.
RH> Would it be a good idea for the HTTP command to add this information
RH> into the specified or deduced output file, something in the form of a
RH> comment like - 
RH>         <!source: www.someware..com/path/filename.html>

Yes, I think something like this would be good.  Someone
just as picky as I am but more knowledgeable will
perhaps be along shortly to tell us that isn't legal
HTML comment.  I think it needs more than just an '!'
to make a comment, something to do with HTML being
derived from SGML.  I'm also uncertain whether it's
legal to have it at the start of the doc, even before
the <html> tag, however, for simplicity I'd probably
do it that way anyhow.  Pragmatically, I suspect most
browsers won't care.

Advice please, anyone?

RH> This would have the secondary benefit that this line would exist,
RH> even if the actual page failed to arrive, this would show which
RH> failed and provide the line for possible inclusion in a further attempt.
RH> 
RH> The first problem with this approach would be avoiding doing this to
RH> binaries, but this would be most useful when done just for received .HTMs.

I think I'd vote for not having this feature as the default, but
being invoked by the presence of an extra param in the command,
much like the other options.  What to call it?  Perhaps 'label'?
Or 'origin'??  Or???

I would hope it would be implemented so that its presence/absence
would apply line by line, but doing something like

        http @htm.lst label

would label all the files retrieved via htm.lst.

Or perhaps
        http @htm.lst label=*.htm

would label only the .htm files.  Hmm, this is starting to
be a bit ambitious.  Currently it's already way over the first version's
2K, so perhaps bells & whistles are inappropriate.

RH> I hope this idea meets with general approval by the user base of this

Meets with my appro, but I'm likely to be _very_ busy until
Xmas.  Anyone who wants to draft some code, but doesn't have
the compiler, I'll review and hack it in if you want.

RH> version, it would make the good, better!.

Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase Web crawler, eh!
Still, thanks.  I'm very appreciative of comments like that.
Sorry time is so short at present.

The other thing I'm hoping Santa (or someone here) will bring
me is a tool to trace Winsock calls.  I'd like to know a lot
more detail of what Netscape et al say to the world to work
their magic, and I think my two choices are to monitor the
conversation or buy a major shareholding in Netscape.  Which
is it to be, Santa?

--
John Washington