- From: Mike Meyer <mwm@contessa.phone.net>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 16:32:42 PST
- To: www-html@w3.org
> From: Walter Ian Kaye <walter@natural-innovations.com> > > At 4:12p -0400 08/29/97, Jordan Reiter wrote: > > At 7:09 PM -0000 8/29/97, Walter Ian Kaye wrote: > > >At 9:36a -0400 08/29/97, jptxs wrote: > > > > At 05:04 PM 8/28/97 -0700, Walter Ian Kaye wrote: > > > > >How about some sort of "geek code" (but not as geeky) where we > enumerate > > > > >what the page uses, something like: > > > > > > > > > > Level 0: does not use > > > > > Level 1: optional > > > > > Level 2: required > > > > > Y: yes/true > > > > > N: no/false > > > > > *: any > > > > > > > > but how well would something like this degrade... > > > > > >It's meant for disclosure to *humans*. Displayed on the page as content. :) > > > > Hmmm... I think I've actually seen this before. I think it's commonly > > parsed as > > "This web page best used with [Netscape (2.0, 3.0, 4.0); Internet Explorer > > ]"! > > Oh, you missed my intention completely. :/ > > It's meant to be a sort of "Get Info" about what to expect from a site, > so people will know whether it's worth enduring. Visible metadata, sorta. > Maybe it is too geeky after all... ;) Gee, I think the "Best viewed with ..." icons are an EXCELLENT guide to what to expect from a site, and whether or not it's worth enduring :-). <mike
Received on Friday, 29 August 1997 19:41:10 UTC