Re: HTML-WG digest 108
Gavin Nicol (gtn@ebt.com)
Sun, 23 Jul 95 08:24:14 EDT
>Regardless of the HTTP protocal and the MIME header, a file
>sits on the disk. An authoring program will create and edit
>it and the server will send it. Something must tell these
>programs about the encoding, if only to get the correct one
>into the MIME header and get the correct glyphs on the
>screen. The browzer receiving the file will have the MIME
>header. The file when downloaded, lacks this information.
True. With this in mind, I think we came to the conclusion that
another file format is required. We tentatively gave this file a .mim
or .mime extension. Basically, what it does is puts the HTML into a
file *with the MIME headers* (ie. it'd look much like the body of an
HTTP response). End of that problem.
I have been thinking about this quite a lot recently. The MIME-SGML
working group is getting close to having a workable solution to
wrapping SGML up in MIME, and it might be worthwhile making sure we
have no compatibility problems with it. In addition, I'm still not
really convinced that MIME is the best, or even the most convenient
format.
>Another issue I see debated in this digest is the trend towards
>hard and specific formatting in HTML. SGML did not specify
While I agree that HTML is breaking away from the mainstream SGML
thinking, I'm less worried about it now. The reason? Well, with
SGML browsers starting to appear, anyone who doesn't like it can just
use SGML.