Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 21:36:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709080136.VAA00218@melange.gnu.ai.mit.edu> From: "Joel N. Weber II" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org In-reply-to: <email@example.com> (Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no) Subject: Re: stupid multiple definitions for the TYPE attribute Does the HTML group think that HTTP should have a header called "Content-Style-Type"? Probably not IMHO. I think that the content-type header is reasonable, though. I do think that the window-target HTTP header (am I remembering the name correctly?) really violates the layering. If not, I regard <META http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css"> used as a way of indicating information about the document that is to be used in any context, for documents that may never be transferred over any mechanism called HTTP, specifying something that HTTP protocol machinery should not need to care about, as a layering violation; the "name=" should be used whenever the HTTP header is not an intended consequence. I think I agree with you on this. A cleaner way would probably be to have a content-type attribute on every element, and have it inherit (s othat you can set it on the HTML or BODY tag). But I suspect that it's too late to change this.