Re: W3C Working Draft: HTML predefined icon-like symbols

T. Joseph W. Lazio (lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu)
Fri, 12 Jan 1996 11:45:18 -0500


From: "T. Joseph W. Lazio" <lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 11:45:18 -0500
Message-Id: <199601121645.LAA29526@ism.tn.cornell.edu>
To: macarthr@w3.org.bert@w3.org
Cc: w3c-tech@w3.org, www-talk@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <9601092144.AA28707@www18.w3.org> (message from Karen MacArthur on Tue, 09 Jan 1996 16:44:37 -0500)
Subject: Re: W3C Working Draft: HTML predefined icon-like symbols


 One question about these predefined symbols,
<URL:http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-wwwicn>:

 Both &binhex.document; and &uuencoded.document; are defined.  Is
there a reason not to have a more general description, like
&encoded.document;?  I can see at least one pro and con:

	Con:  Lazy authors, or those who didn't know any better, might
	      use &encoded.document; without telling the reader how it
	      was encoded.  Also automatic directory indexing software
	      might not be as informative.

	Pro:  More general, if another encoding mechanism becomes
	      popular, another entity doesn't have to be added.  

Also, if a suitable name was chosen, couldn't encrypted documents be
described by this entity as well?

-- Joseph