- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:15:19 -0400
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- CC: www-qa@w3.org
"Sean B. Palmer" wrote: > > I've published a short article:- > > http://infomesh.net/2001/10/dothtml/ > > I'm just noodling on something TimBL wrote about ".html" file extenisons > being counter to persistence axioms. I'm not sure I can totally defend the > ".html" position, and I still go to great lengths to avoid file > extensions... but enjoy the note anyway. Sean wrote: > Even the W3C use ".html" extensions, and even when you chop the file > extension off of one of their URIs, you can still reach it at the same > location with the file extensions. This means, due to the W3C persistence > policy, that the W3C have agreed to maintain these documents with their ".html" > file extensions. Up to now, .html has been the only game in town for document markup. For image formats, we typically leave off the extension. Now that SVG is a Recommendation, we'll probably start publishing several versions of an image, so that you get the best format your browser supports. - Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 21:17:33 UTC