Re: Toward Closure on HTML

"Daniel W. Connolly" <>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 17:54:58 --100
Message-id: <>
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
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

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

	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.