Re: Content-Type for HTML 3.

Dan writes:
| In message <199507282207.QAA05513@yellow.nmt.edu>, Benjamin C. W. Sittler write
| s:
| >What should the content-type: header for HTML 3 be?
| 
| >text/html; level=3
| 
| This agrees with:
| 
| "Toward Graceful Deployment of Tables in HTML"
| http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/table-deployment.html
| 
| which is the closest thing to a spec on this issue. I have had
| no negative comments on this syntax.

But it doesn't deal with Deprecated and Recommended versions of
an HTML DTD (we have them in 2.0), and you note:

Open Issues
   
   Detailed Instructions
          We need another document detailing how to this soluion is
          implemented with the CERN and NCSA servers, using the multi
          feature, and CGI conversion scripts. Volunteers?
   
   HTML 2.5, i.e. 2.0 + tables?
          Should we suggest that browser implementors who wish to support
          tables, but not the rest of the 3.0 spec should specify
          level=2.5 in their Accept: headers?

   x-html until 3.0 spec is published?
          Since there is no published HTML 3.0 spec, should information
          providers use text/x-html; level=3 rather than text/html;
          level=3?
  
So while "text/html; level=3" may be said to agree with this document,
that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.  I'm not saying it isn't,
only that the issue is far from solved.  As Benjamin is using the
DTD in  draft-ietf-html-specv3-00.txt  , which uses Deprecated and
Recommended, as well as Obsoleted, what is he to do wrt those 
variants?  Punt in favor of a doctype decl that indicates more clearly
what version of this DTD is involved?



Regards,

-- 
Terry Allen  (terry@ora.com)   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
Editor, Digital Media Group    101 Morris St.
			       Sebastopol, Calif., 95472

A Davenport Group sponsor.  For information on the Davenport 
  Group see ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/davenport/README.html
	or  http://www.ora.com/davenport/README.html

Received on Friday, 28 July 1995 18:42:49 UTC