Re: Accept: Client Profile

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jul-Oct 1993
• Next message: Lou Burnard: "Ignoring unknown tags+attributes"
• Previous message: Roy Smith: "Re: Need help unsubscribing"
• In-reply-to: Fred Williams: "re: Accept: Client Profile"
• References: Fred Williams: "re: Accept: Client Profile"

Message-id: <AgQ6qSAB0KGWQLUUA9@holmes.parc.xerox.com>
Date: 	Mon, 16 Aug 1993 22:33:18 PDT
Sender: Bill Janssen <janssen@parc.xerox.com>
From: Bill Janssen <janssen@parc.xerox.com>
To: janssen@parc.xerox.com, fwilliam@ccs.carleton.ca (Fred Williams)
Subject: Re: Accept: Client Profile
Cc: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
In-reply-to: <9308170012.AA04715@superior.YP.nobel>
References: <9308170012.AA04715@superior.YP.nobel>
Status: RO

Excerpts from ext.WorldWideWeb: 16-Aug-93 re: Accept: Client Profile
Fred Williams@ccs.carlet (778)

> My comments are based on the Mail to www-talk by Tony
> Sanders ( sanders@bsdi.com ) dated Aug 11/1993 `MIME Types for HTTP'
> which had included richtext and HTTP within the text type but
> allocated TeX and LaTex to the application type.

As I say, the experiments with richtext have not been uniformly
applauded by people with naive mail-readers.  There's no reason to
suppose that text/HTML would do any better (worse, probably, because
more of the semantics of the document are contained in the mark-up).

> It seems to me that because both TeX and LaTex contain the entire
> readable text, bounded by formatting, as does HTTP and richtext that
> the intent of the document could be derived even if it was not
> rendered.  

Yes, but this is not sufficient criteria to place it under 'text'. 
Postscript, after all, or a GIF image of the printed page, contains
enough information that the intent of the document *could* be derived
even if it is not rendered.  It just may be arbitrarily difficult.

Bill