W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > January to February 1996

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

From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 13:31:21 -0600
Message-Id: <199601121931.NAA08419@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, www-html@w3.org
   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
Received on Friday, 12 January 1996 14:31:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:19 GMT