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

Scott E. Preece (preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com)
Fri, 12 Jan 1996 13:31:23 -0600


Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 13:31:23 -0600
From: preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
Message-Id: <199601121931.NAA08422@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
To: lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu
Cc: macarthr@w3.org.bert@w3.org, w3c-tech@w3.org, www-talk@w3.org,
In-Reply-To: "T. Joseph W. Lazio"'s message of Fri, 12 Jan 1996 11:45:18 -0500
Subject: Re: W3C Working Draft: HTML predefined icon-like symbols

   From: "T. Joseph W. Lazio" <lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu>

|    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: ...
---

Yes, it would definitely be useful to have a generic &encoded.document,
for the reason you cite - there will always be new encodings.  On the
other hand, it is definitely also useful to have specific icons for
common existing encodings.  They're not mutually exclusive; we should
have both.

scott

--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
internet mail:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com