How the archive treats URIs

Gordon Mohr gojomo at
Thu Apr 24 21:58:59 PDT 2003

If you really think something is worth retention in "the archive",
you're supposed to include the article text. It's part of the list 
ethos. Do as the host does. See for example Rohit's lament...

C'mon, the real Jeff Bone old-timer would know that... even though 
the message referenced above came during your hiatus. 

So who are you, really? 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Bone" <jbone at>
To: "Gregory Alan Bolcer" <gbolcer at>
Cc: <fork at>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 8:15 PM
Subject: How the archive treats URIs

> On Thursday, Apr 24, 2003, at 16:33 US/Central, Gregory Alan Bolcer 
> wrote:
> > Hey Jeff,
> >  You realize that if you just cut and paste the
> > URL it doesn't actually get stuck in the archive right?
> I just checked, and either (a) Greg's wrong, or (b) I misinterpreted 
> the comment, Greg's telling me that the representation of the URI 
> doesn't get transcluded.  If (b) well, duh, Greg, I didn't think that.  
> I was just wiring up links for PageRank and future link topology-based 
> tools. :-)  I realize I might've confused Greg w/ the Slashdot comment; 
>   my intent wasn't to get the *content* into the archive to avoid 
> /.-effect, merely to get the links in place for Google's eventual 
> benefit...  the comment was offered as a warning to folks that the 
> links might not work due to congestion from /.
> In case there's any residual confusion --- simple URI strings in a text 
> mail message to the list are transformed by mailman (what we use here) 
> into an <a> element when rendered as HTML.  So you can have your cake 
> and eat it to, which is what I thought until Greg rattled my cage.
> $0.02
> jb

More information about the FoRK mailing list