Re: Versioning HTML at the server (was Re: Netscape v NCSA, Progress?)

Tony Sanders (
Tue, 25 Oct 1994 15:40:19 +0100

Kee Hinckley writes:
> o Accept-inline:
> That should handle the issue of inline jpeg, as well as future
> possibilities such as structured graphics, postscript, epsf and rtf.
No need. The browser should simply send the appropriate standard Accept:
headers when it requests the inline data.

> o An extensions specification.
> This is most important for the HTML, although again it could apply
> the rest. So then you might have a browser that supported (this
> isn't a syntax, it's a concept) HTML/2.0+IMG_ALIGN/1.0+MAILTO/1.0

> scripts, but it doesn't really do much otherwise. So now you need
> to think about server smarts.
Which is where you get into problems with the above scheme. What's wrong
with giving each unique type a unique name (i.e. x-mozilla-html) That's
much easier than trying to make a server understand all kinds of different
pieces and how they might fit together (can you say AI).

> on the fly and then cached). Ditto for inline images. This is
> kind of multi-part alternative where I send them the right alternative
> and just that alternative.
That's what Accept: is supposed to be for.

> P.S. My last message to this list somehow had all the Mime headers
The frigging mail software at CERN screws up the headers. Geez,
it's been months and months, can't someone *please* fix this.
Pretty please?