- From: Jim Davis <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:08:29 PDT
- To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
At 01:05 PM 7/27/98 PDT, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > ... According to the rules HTML should have been >application/html since it is not ascii text... I am puzzled why you say that. RFC 2046 section 4.1 says, of the text media type 'In the absence of appropriate interpretation software, it is reasonable to show subtypes of "text" to the user, while it is not reasonable to do so with most nontextual data. Such formatted textual data should be represented using subtypes of "text".' It seems to me HTML fits the criteria of being 'reasonable' to show to a user who lacks suitable interpretation software. Perhaps I very retro here, but I still edit HTML with Emacs, which displays only ASCII (sometimes Latin-1). I suppose by the same token the XML generated by WebDAV is also meaningful even without interpretation software, after all the WebDAV specification is full of examples which are supposed to be meaningful to humans. I am still confused about the distinction.
Received on Monday, 27 July 1998 21:09:45 UTC