Re: LINK TYPE=override/type

Neil St.Laurent (neil@bigpic.com)
Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:53:22 -0600


Message-Id: <199801222245.PAA00544@underworld.bigpic.com>
From: "Neil St.Laurent" <neil@bigpic.com>
To: igraham@smaug.java.utoronto.ca (Ian Graham)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:53:22 -0600
CC: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: LINK TYPE=override/type

> that an author may want to process or view the resource by some
> mechanism other than the browser's default handling for the given
> type, is no argument for using TYPE to arbitrarily override the 
> server's information..

That is nice for HTTP, but HTML has no necessity to be delivered over 
HTTP, other protocols don't provide content type, and if TYPE is 
there it would be nice to have a consistant model.

> Indeed, one can just as easily argue for HTTP overriding TYPE -- 
> suppose I update a single stylesheet so that it now corresponds to 

I would say that since document standards are going to change more 
rapidly than architecture standards it makes sense to provide the 
document with the override capability.
 
__  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __
 Mortar: Advanced Web Development      <http://mortar.bigpic.com/>
 Neil St.Laurent                     <mailto:stlaurent@bigpic.com>
 Big Picture Multimedia                            +1.403.265.8018