Re: who/what uses robots.txt
admin@superhot.com
Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:15:43 -0700
At 01:56 PM 11/22/96 -0800, you wrote:
>m.koster@webcrawler.com (Martijn Koster) writes:
>
>> At 2:40 PM 11/21/96, Erik Selberg wrote:
>>
>> >Of course that leaves things that an author considers a "bar" an out
>> >not to follow a standard, even if other folks consider it a "foo."
>>
>> But at the end of the day we cannot force authors to follow the
>> standard even if they themselves would agree it is in fact a foo.
>>
>> So you haven't really lost anything.
>>
>> You can only get so far with a BNF -- the rest has to be gentle (?)
>> persuasion :-)
>
>ah, but it's far easier to persuade when you can say "See, you fit our
>clear definition of a Foo, support our standard" versus "I think
>you're a foo, even though you do not, so support our standard."
>
>Better get it right the first time then always patching holes that
>people weasel out of.
>
>-Erik
>
Can this be a rational, cogent voice I hear above the din...? Wow. I guess
sooner or later *oganization* sprouts spontaneously from any chaotic system,
given enough time...
admin
_________________________________________________
This messages was sent by the robots mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail
to robots-request@webcrawler.com with the word "unsubscribe" in the body.
For more info see http://info.webcrawler.com/mak/projects/robots/robots.html