Quick reply
Please see http://www.pradeepkumarxplorer.com/YogaSequence.txt. Its
what i as a blogger typed in. I tried to Create an HTML and stopped
because of some mistakes
half way through as it was tiring and time consuming to search and
markup. Even using browser extensions, Creating an HTML out of this
manually can take enough time to be discouraged. I am saying i want
what can be computationally done at the server side done at the server
side. If intelligent software has already been Created as browser
extension, then it has to be available reused
in the server side.
Quoting valdis.kletnieks@xxxxxx:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 07:13:42 -0600, pradeep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
What i proposed is when user types httpi://www.pradeepkumarxplorer.com
the information served by pradeepkumarxplorer.com httpd tunnels
through another
httpi that could be any solution server side scripting that shows the
viewer of the information with additional links suggested by the WWW
Brain.
1) No definition of "WWW Brain".
I dont accept your answer. WWW and software has evolved with
Artificial intelligence
big companies like google use Artificial intelligence. I would say i
dont have to
define it for engineers. Its Intelligence of Artificial intelligence i
am meaning.
You have to answer me as a WWW user and not just an engineer.
2) If anything, the Web is already *full* of "You may also like..." links
added by the server side. Quite obviously:
2a) they don't need an httpi:// to insert them
2b) they aren't very expensive to insert
2c) There's browser extensions to *remove* these
3) Therefor, the proper place for adding "additional links" is
obviously at the
user browser end - and there's extensions that will do this sort of thing
without need of an 'httpi://' protocol definition
This is like saying to buy whats needed for my home, i have to enter
five markets
instead of one supermarket. WHo enforces that one Supermarket has soy
milk, orange juice, cornflakes, cheese and eggs. If i have to visit
more than one more market to satisfy my shopping needs, then its
inefficient. I as a WIndows Personal computer android user have
supported the companies that manufacture and market them so i have a
right to demand that they ship efficient solutions and httpi is more
efficient than browser extensions.Does IETF enforce any such, then
they have to enforce this implementation and all httpd services tunnel
through httpi.
If these additional hyperlinks are something that's to be under user control,
it's a matter for the browser creators to add a configuration options or
way for an extension to interact and do the searching. And that will
be different
for Chrome, or Firefox, or Edge, or a MacOS or iOS browser and thus
not an IETF issue.
The User can always search more, if intelligent profiling can show me
what i want
in the first place, then its a better user experience.
For a worked example:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/highlight-to-search/floipahigmmkfhkoapmnijnlnboniglg?hl=en
Highlight the text on the page, and it will go a Google search for
more info. No httpi:// needed.
You'll have to explain what problem you're trying to solve that isn't
already solved. In addition, you need to explain why a new on-the-network
protocol (which is what the IETF does) is needed, when it's already been
demonstrated to be doable without any new protocols or anything else
that is done by the IETF.
Again, its the same market / supermarket analogy. If i have to enter
five different markets to purchase my eggs, cheese, coffee, soy milk
and chocolate then it solves the problem but in a dump and inefficient
way.
This saves thousands of hours and possibly millions of dollars for
website Creators from manually hypertexting their files using whatever
tools like Hypothesiser or many browser extensions available.
Not really. A site that insists on adding their own links will still
add their
own links, no matter what the user signals. Remember - if your "www brain"
extension is able to find keywords in the page and add additional links,
the web server can *also* do the same thing without an httpi:// - and so
can the user's browser (and probably better, because the user's browser
can query a site like Google that can make better suggestions because it
knows what previous queries the user has done...)
Yes, but this is for websites that dont add their links. This is
consolidation of intelligent searches in one place httpid or httpd
tunneling through httpi.
WHat i proposed in my second draft is a switch on the server side that
prevents an unauthenticated user from seeing any information and
authentication means
First off, if it's a switch on the server side, it's a server
configuration issue,
not an IETF issue. The way to specify that switch, and how it works, will
be different for Apache, or ngnix, or IIS, or Squid, or anything else that
is functioning as a web server or proxy.
No its not configuration issue. I want it enforced that WWW servers
are mandated to have the option of allowing only authenticated users
to be served information. I am saying Solaris should not be allowed to
ship if it does not have that Option.I am a website publisher for last
14 years and till todate i dont know who views my website and they are
exploiting me and have harmed me and trying to kill me to exploit the
WWW subscriber help. This is insider fraud by companies like facebook.
I have Created something unique and definitely usable by millions. If
you look at my facebook page http://www.facebook.com/lugimwidnaus only
one likes it but i have had thousands of viewers
http://www.pradeepkumarxplorer.com/2016/regions.txt. Its a
misreprsentation by organised crime. ANd i have had no solution from
cyberauthorities who might have tools to find out who is accessing my
website as they are partner to it for money. I dont need that headache
if i can enforce it using my WWW server. I used shared hosting and its
something my ISP has to provide in control panel. This enforcement is
to fight cybercrime.And that IETF should take a serious role in. If
not which organisation can i propose projects to.
Why is facebook and google 500 Billion dollar companies and me not
being able to get even a single email from a viewer or subscriber help
and have no income and has to depend on a mother at the age of 48. I
am Ubermens and an Ex SUN employee. This is serious crime that has
destroyed my life.I am saying facebook and google cannot do whatever
they want. My Ex company seeded Google. I have no income from them nor
Options enough to publish and not care about subscriber help given to
me while i was employed in SUN. Someone is claiming i am wealthy and
continuing the theft and now they want to get away with it and they
would influence IETF not to approve my draft.
They have attacked me using my mother and her relatives in palakkad
who are not my society as an adult. I should be in New age california
with yogins and softwares.Instead i am stuck in palakkad ,only
information about me is in my own website and i cannot hold
accountable who has enjoyed my website guidance and journals.The
viewers are not putting links in their website about my website. I am
operating publsihing my website as an individual and a clever harmful
community is claiming it as their creation and exploiting me.IETF did
not accept my whois email proposal either. IETF is a place where
engineers from many companies work together to comeup with usable safe
efficient internet. They have not delivered a SafE internet.
And the user *SHOULD NOT* (in the RFC sense) be specifying information
to override the server's decision.
Again - there's absolutely nothing stopping the server from doing
whatever sort
of authentication it wants to, and there's no need for IETF action.
IETF has to enforce either only authenticated users access WWW or
allow a choice of both anonymous and authenticated. I have no problems
with private surfing but it should be the choice of the publisher and
not the browser.
Webservers
can already do sufficient authentication - and a case can be made
that it's not
the IETF's job to specify that authentication.
The short summary - you're not going to get an IETF list to discuss either
draft until such time as you show that it's something that is an
IETF issue to
deal with. And given that both drafts address things that have already been
done without any IETF action, it's unlikely you'll be able to show that the
IETF needs to do anything.
I am saying IETF should enforce companies to role out products that
prevent cybercrime. efcc.nigeria.org@representative among three more
emails have spammed
me and extorted money from me and had me almost killed me and
destroyed my website.
They are funded by the anonymous criminals viewing my website and has
taken the money from viewers who can pay or from companies that i have
been involved in the past.
I would say a WHOIS email registry implemented and EMail services only
forwarding
emails from authenticated users would have prevented me recieving such SPAMs.
I dont get SPAMMED in pradeep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or
pradeepkumarxplorer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, if they are not SPAM the
clever thieves has made me work 14 years and extorted few billions
dollars of cash and now they want me to die in India.An email registry
and modifications to email software can definitely prevent SPAM and
that i think an organisation like IETF should enforce.
but someone from ietf.org has deleted my email pradeep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and
i had to use my other email pradeepan88@xxxxxxxxxxx. There's no way
to say in
internet that pradeep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and pradeepan88@xxxxxxxxxxx are the
same individual thats me
1) The deletion may be a hint that somebody at the IETF doesn't want
to hear from
you because your mails aren't related to the IETF.
Pradeep Kumar Xplorer
