- From: Mike <mike@mykanjo.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:56:03 +0000
Joshua Cranmer wrote: > Mike wrote: >> The benefits? Oh I don't know.. a markup language that supports the >> transfer protocol it runs on?! > Who says you have to serve HTML over HTTP? I see it served via email > (and newsgroups), local filesystems, and FTP on a regular basis. > Indeed, making HTML depend on HTTP-specific features sounds like A Bad > Idea? (and if you retort XMLHTTPRequest, let me point out that I > personally would have objected to injecting HTTP specifics into that > interface, had I been around during the design phases). > > To follow your arguments to the logical conclusion, HTML would have to > have special attributes to deal with circumstances within email > messages, specific attributes to handle certain filesystem-specific > abilities, or quirks of the FTP protocol. I think you'll find such a > position untenable; ask yourself then, why limit it to HTTP? > I wouldn't limit it to that, but I don't have the time or inclination to investigate other applicable protocols that suffer equally poor support in HTML. If you can evidence this the same way I have for Accept headers in HTTP; let me know - I'll champion that too if it makes you feel better! :) Regards, Mike
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 08:56:03 UTC