Re: LINK TYPE=override/type

Rob (wlkngowl@unix.asb.com)
Sat, 24 Jan 1998 01:20:00 -0500


Message-Id: <199801240624.BAA08357@unix.asb.com>
From: "Rob" <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
To: Bill Bereza <bereza@pobox.com>, www-html@w3.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 01:20:00 -0500
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980123133956.15463A-100000@mariner.cris.com>
Subject: Re: LINK TYPE=override/type

On 23 Jan 98, Bill Bereza <bereza@pobox.com> wrote:
> [..]
> So, if TYPE and Content-Type mismatches are an error, than TYPE goes
> from being barely useful to outright dangerous. There's no way that
> an HTML authour is going to always be able to be sure that TYPE will
> match Content-Type. If this error can result in the browser blowing up,
> or some other non-specified action, than it would be safest to avoid the
> use of TYPE altogethor.

Dangerous? Blowing up a browser? That's done already by authors 
publishing pages with too many multimedia objects and buggy Java applets.
 
Protecting authors from themselves by ignoring the TYPE attribute is no 
solution to vendors' inability to make a crash-proof browser.

Rob
 

-----
"The word to 'kill' ain't dirty    | Robert Rothenburg wlkngowl@unix.asb.com
 I used it in the last line        | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl
 but use the short word for lovin' | http://www.wusb.org/mutant
 and Dad you wind up doin' time."  | PGP'd mail welcome (ID 0x5D3F2E99)