Re: commments on techniques doc.

Nir Dagan wrote:
> Some comments on the latest techniques document dated 16 of March:
> 2.7 content negotiation.
> I think one should use both content negotiation and
> include links to alternative versions.
> Content negotiation determines the default format served,
> but
> 1. a user may prefer French to English, but may still prefer
>    to have access to both versions.
> 2. User agents may not support content negotiation well and the
>     format served to the user may be not the optimal one.

I'll raise this with the WG.
> 2.8 Automatic page refresh.
> First the sentence:
> "Developers cannot predict how must time a user will
>  require to read a page;"
> The word "must" should read "much".

> Second, the term "server side redirect" is incorrect and misleading. Both
> in "META refresh" and in HTTP status code 301 the server provides to the
> user agent information about the new location and
> the user agent is making a new request.
> The differences are:
> 1. Using HTTP headers vs. markup in the "entity body".
>   Using HTTP headers is prefrreable because:
>   it reduced internet traffic, and download time, it may by
>   applied to non-HTML documents, it may be used by agents who
>   requested only a HEAD request (e.g. link checkers)
> 2. giving information on the nature of the redirect.
>  Returning status codes of the 30x type provide
>  information such as moved permanently or temporarily etc.
>  that cannot be given with META refresh.
> Thus, I propose to recommend to use the appropriate HTTP status code
> rather than recommending the usage of "server side redirects".

I'll incorporate your proposal.
> 3.7 Image maps.
> The following text is confusing:
> "Image maps are created with the MAP element (available in
> HTML 4.0 and 3.2). HTML allows two types of image maps: client-side
> (the user's browser processes a URI) and server-side
> (the server processes click coordinates)."
> MAP is used only in client side image maps.
> Indeed later in the text the example which intends
> to be one of a server side image map uses a client
> side one, which ofcourse adds to the confusion.

> 3.8 applets and object.
> I can't see why the recommendation using EMBED / NOEMBED for
> an applet. authors concerned with backward compatibility with browsers that
> do not support OBJECT should use the deprecated
> APPLET element, which is a part of the specs for exactly this purpose.
> One may consider using EMBED for some other object, say an MPEG video.
> However in this case one should also supply a DTD with which people who
> follow the recommended technique may use to validate their documents.
> In addition, the EMBED example has an IMG element with no alt text.

Thank you, I'll raise this with the WG.

 - Ian

Ian Jacobs ( 
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814

Received on Monday, 22 March 1999 15:41:14 UTC