Re: Paul Burchard on HTML 2.0 FORMs

• Mail folder: html-archive
• Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Paul Burchard on HTML 2.0 FORMs "
• Previous message: Murray Maloney: "Re: IETF Attendance"
• In-reply-to: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Paul Burchard on HTML 2.0 FORMs "
• Reply: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Paul Burchard on HTML 2.0 FORMs "

Date: Mon, 11 Jul 94 17:35:04 EDT
Message-id: <94Jul11.143128pdt.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Reply-To: html-ig@oclc.org
Originator: html-ig@oclc.org
Sender: html-ig@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@oclc.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-ig@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: Paul Burchard on HTML 2.0 FORMs 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Implementation Group (Private)

Perhaps, given the incompleteness of SCRIBBLE and AUDIO, that perhaps
they should be taken out of the 2.0 specification?

I'm thinking of some generalization where you say, instead of
type="AUDIO", do:

  <input type="interactive"
        content="audio/basic">

to request gathering audio data interactively, and instead of
type="SCRIBBLE", you do:

  <input type="interactive"
        content="image/gif image/jpeg">

to request gathering an image interactively.

Finally, of course, I would want to wedge in something like

  <input type="file" content="image/* audio/*">

where the input desired was something that was presumably prepared
offline and inserted as a file selection rather than interactively
generated.