[238] in World Wide Web
Re: activites listing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christina Diete DeMello)
Tue May 3 09:43:09 1994
To: www@MIT.EDU, web-request@MIT.EDU, webmaster@MIT.EDU
Date: Tue, 03 May 94 09:42:55 EDT
From: Christina Diete DeMello <cdemello@MIT.EDU>
>> ..and 2) do we
>> maintain a single top page of activities and/or servers that both
>> web and www point to -- this is where I see the biggest conflict in
>> terms of layout. These are independent issues
>
> Ah, I think I see how this started now... Yes, this second thing is
> something that I think we'll have to deal with soon. Someone start a
> different thread on it, though, ok? :-)
Ok, so this is a different thread. I suggest that we discuss this new
thread in the www discuss meeting (on charon), via www@mit.edu, though
I'm sending this initial messages to both web.mit.edu and www.mit.edu
maintainers.
So the question is: Do we maintain a single top page of activities
and/or servers that bother web and www point to, or do we continue to
each do our own thing. The suggestions brought up thus far are:
o SIPB should maintain an activities page, and I/S should
maintain an "Other Information Servers" list.
pros: it takes the load off of each group in terms of having
to maintain pages. SIPB is a student group, and
seems like a logical choice for maintaining a list
of activities
cons: the layouts of the pages on each server are fairly
different, and pointing to a page on another
server which does not look the same may confuse
people. Activities does NOT just include students
groups.
o SIPB should continue to maintain a listing of activities
with WWW home pages, and the list on web.mit.edu
will continue to incorporate those entries as well
as other on-line information activities may have
pointers to.
pros: www and web have different intended audiences to some
extent, and this will allow each server to maintain
a constant layout throughout their pages. The www
page currently is almost all home pages, and will
require less work than having to add all the techinfo
links.
cons: Each server will be maintaining its own version of the
document(s), which means more resources/duplicated
effort to some extent.
I would really like to hear other peoples thoughts on this issue.
---Christina
