Re: FORM ENCTYPE=multipart/www-form (was: Toward closure on HTML)

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Jay C. Weber: "Re: FORM ENCTYPE=multipart/www-form (was: Toward closure on HTML)"
• Previous message: William M. Perry: "Re: FORM ENCTYPE=multipart/www-form (was: Toward closure on HTML)"
• Maybe in reply to: William M. Perry: "Re: FORM ENCTYPE=multipart/www-form (was: Toward closure on HTML)"
• Reply: Jay C. Weber: "Re: FORM ENCTYPE=multipart/www-form (was: Toward closure on HTML)"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 19:20:37 --100
Message-id: <9404061717.AA21949@dragget.hpl.hp.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: dsr@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Dave Raggett <dsr@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: FORM ENCTYPE=multipart/www-form  (was: Toward closure on HTML)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 693

Jay,

My thoughts on a multipart/related format for forms are to start with
an SGML based encoding for most fields and to use additional parts
as needed for data which doesn't fit neatly into the SGML scheme, e.g.
audio, pen input (as JOT), and file data. This way you normally just
see one part.

The next step is to define the SGML DTD for form contents and to
specify the naming scheme for referencing data in other parts.
The SGML ID notation springs to mind here.
--
Best wishes,

Dave Raggett

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Laboratories,           +44 272 228046
Bristol, England                        dsr@hplb.hpl.hp.com