Re: Accept: Client Profile

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jul-Oct 1993
• Next message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: anchors with the same name"
• Previous message: Dave_Raggett: "Re: Aliasing in HTML+"

Errors-To: sanders@bsdi.com
Errors-To: sanders@bsdi.com
Message-id: <9308171553.AA01488@austin.BSDI.COM>
To: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: Accept: Client Profile 
In-Reply-To: Fred Williams's message of Mon, 16 Aug 93 20:12:17 EDT.
Errors-To: sanders@bsdi.com
Reply-To: sanders@bsdi.com
Organization: Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 10:53:20 -0500
From: Tony Sanders <sanders@bsdi.com>
Status: RO

> I do agree that certain formats are not understandable unless they are
> rendered.  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.
> 
> 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.  
text/richtext is an official MIME type so we have no choice.

Anything that's not official MIME is arbitrary as far as I'm
concerned.  Most browsers will probably end up trying to display
anything they don't understand in plaintext anyway.

I would be happy to move text/html to application/html
if we agree that's where it should go (which is really up
to the MIME people since the plan is to register it as an
official type).  The reason I put it under text/ is because
it looks a lot like richtext.  The reason I put TeX and
troff under application is because I've seen other people
use them that way.

--sanders