Re: Internet draft for 'file upload' feature proposal

Larry Masinter (
Thu, 10 Nov 94 20:03:31 EST

Liam Quin writes:

> Please use `HTTP Client' if that's what you mean; if you specifically
> intend to exclude editors or non-interactive software from using your
> proposed protocol, I wonder if you could explain why?

I am reluctant to use the term "http client" since I think that HTML
FORMs are independent of whether the form was obtained by gopher, ftp,
http, or mail. I don't mind talking about "www client" instead of "www
browser", but I think that you could just as easily say that "SoftQuad
HoTMetaL PRO is able to act as a www browser".

I *do* mean to exclude non-interactive software. I don't think HTML
FORMs make very much sense in any non-interactive situations.
Certainly, a HTML editor should have some way to construct new forms,
but the proposal is indeed oriented toward someone actually
interacting with the form, not editing it.

> Also, I am not happy about using the term www-form-data to be HTML
> specific. What should SoftQuad Panorama -- an SGML-based tool -- do?
> Since it's a WWW browser, can it simply send SGML instead of HTML and
> assume the server can deal with it??

I don't see that "www-form-data" says anything about it being
restricted for use with HTML. I imagine you could use it with any DTD
that included a <FORM> tag that included an ACTION and INPUT and
TEXTAREA inputs.

I was reluctant to try to reserve multipart/form-data as a registered
MIME type, and thought restricting it might make sense. However, I
don't think the MIME type for the form data is a critical element of
the proposal.