- From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 21:37:04 -0400
- To: "Jim Davis" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, <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 RFC 2046 was written long after the decision was made. Tim was told to use application/html on various grounds but did not see any reason to break the installed base. As Larry points out HTML 4.0 now has imperative scripting gunk thrown in, the point is however that once you step beyond flat ascii plaintext people start saying application/*. The real problem is that the taxonomic classification is not quite as appropriate as it might appear. Phill
Received on Monday, 27 July 1998 21:40:20 UTC