- From: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 21:06:30 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "'HTML'" <www-html@w3.org>, "'Style'" <www-style@w3.org>
> >If it's text/plain, the UA shouldn't "honor" any HTML markup in it ...
>
> So, HTML markup in plain text files is dishonorable. Well, if the
> text can't be inserted inline and parsed then it's pretty useless
> as a client-side include.
*Text* shouldn't be parsed. When we declare something as "text/plain", the
UA should take us at our word and render it as such. On the other hand, if
we declare an OBJECT of type "text/html", then it should be parsed -- we
just *said* so by specifying "text/html".
It's not that HTML markup in "text/plain" is dishonorable, it's just that it
wouldn't be parsed as "text/html" because it's *not* "text/html". You could
put markup in a "text/plain" document, but it should show up as "text/plain"
with the markup fragments displaying as plain text renditions of said
"markup".
I don't see how it's useless as a client-side include mechanism. The key
here is *what* you want to include: text or markup.
And we still need a way in CSS to specify the various types that can appear
in OBJECT, unless I'm missing something that's already there. For example,
something like:
<style type="text/css"><!--
OBJECT text { color: black; background: "bg.gif" font: 9pt courier
monospace }
OBJECT png { background: transparent }
OBJECT html { color: green; background: white }
OBJECT xml { color: maroon; background: white }
/* These last two could, of course, be overwritten
by the LINKed, embedded or inline styles in the
documents themselves
*/
--></style>
/Jelks
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 1998 02:34:13 UTC