Re: A Proposal for a New Standard in HTML 3.0

Albert Lunde (
Wed, 12 Apr 1995 10:22:02 +0500

Albert Lunde wrote:
> 2) If you want to use a distributed scheme for classifying content
> of the Internet, it may be more productive to have "good" sites
> (for some defintion of good) carry some "seal of approval" than
> ask other sites to label themselves "bad". A list of "seals of
> approval" need not reside on the sites themselves, but could
> be offered up by third partiies.
> 3) I _think_ that the URC scheme under development by the URI
> working group, was considered as a means of offering this
> kind of document meta-information as well as other characteristics.

Some citations related to this:

The general idea of Seals Of Approval "SOAPs" as a means of
indicating any sort of review/annotation of Internet content (not just
censorhip), is discussed in conjunction with URCs in the
Internet Draft:

"URC Scenarios and Requirements"

The authors of this document seem to be serving it up in several formats

The IETF home page for the URI working group can be found at:

Pointers to related material can be seen at:

Michael Mealling's URI page

The Whois and Network Information Lookup Service (wnils) working group:

The W3O UR* page:

    Albert Lunde