Re: Inline code a mistake?

Murray Altheim (murray@spyglass.com)
Sun, 28 Apr 1996 15:54:38 -0500


Message-Id: <v02110100ada98a9cb6d8@[140.186.34.50]>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 15:54:38 -0500
To: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
From: murray@spyglass.com (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: Inline code a mistake?
Cc: www-html@w3.org

>At 02:54 PM 4/26/96 -0700, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
>>Um, are we talking about code designed to display as code (syntax coloring)
>or encoded data
>> designed to be processed separately (.hqx and .zip files), or code meant
>to be *run* upon receipt?
>> Clarification needed...
>
>I think we are talking about the latter two, which should (in my opinion),
>definately be in their own files, where they can be validated, downloaded
>and processed separately from the document itself, (just as you would
>validate, download and process a GIF or JPEG separately from the document
>itself).

For clarification, I'm dealing with code that shows up in the document
while being edited (a "master copy"), but which gets processed and modified
upon export to the http server. This would similar to methods used in
documents produced by a database or other application, and is not meant as
the downloadable format of documents located on a server.

The idea of marked sections as an HTML content negotiation mechanism still
needs to be discussed, but obviously should be in its own thread.

Murray

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
     Murray Altheim, Program Manager
     Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
     email: <mailto:murray@spyglass.com>
     http:  <http://www.stonehand.com/murray/murray.html>