Re: Toward Closure on HTML

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Stan Letovsky: "Re: Toward Closure on HTML "
• Previous message: Vinay Kumar: "Re: Toward Closure on HTML"
• Maybe in reply to: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Toward Closure on HTML "
• Reply: Stan Letovsky: "Re: Toward Closure on HTML "

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 17:54:58 --100
Message-id: <9404051544.AA16929@ulua.hal.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Toward Closure on HTML 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1138

In message <199404050611.GAA03210@threejane>, Marc Andreessen writes:
>
>No no no a thousand times no absolutely not.  This is completely out
>of the question and conflicts severely with current practice.

I don't think so. I've seen lots of pages that say "You'll need a WWW
client that understands forms to use this..." I think current practice
most certainly does include the notion of labelling forms-using pages
as such.

>  Making
>forms a "separate document type" would grievously wound WWW as it now
>exists.

How so?

An HTTP client, for example, is requried to handle HTML. If we make
forms part of HTML, then all HTTP clients will have to grok forms. I
suggest that forms should be an optional feature. A client should
send:

	Accept: application/html-form

to announce that it groks forms.

>If you don't see this, please look harder.

Ok. :-)

>Likewise for inlined images.

I misspoke on inlined images. There's nothing wrong with the IMG
element. But I think we need a way to combine image/gif data and
text/html data into one transaction. But that technique is not
ready for standardization yet. That's what I meant.

Dan