- From: Michael Seaton <bseaton@pobox.com> <bseaton@pobox.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 17:48:02 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Thomas Reardon <thomasre@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "'wmperry@spry.com'" <wmperry@spry.com>, "'Gavin Nicol'" <gtn@ebt.com>, "Chris Wilson (PSD)" <cwilso@microsoft.com>, "'knoblock@worldnet.att.net'" <knoblock@worldnet.att.net>, "'www-style@w3.org'" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Thomas Reardon wrote: > Are there alternate solutions to this problem that work with the loads > of existing content out there now? Thats the problem with growing a > spec organically, there's all that existing-use. its not a W3C problem, > its an Internet problem. > > I agree that Netscape and for that matter Microsoft should have just > eaten the bullet and accepted that downlevel browsers would see crud on > these tags (SCRIPT and STYLE), but the sense of the community that I've > read so far is that this is too painful. One solution is to use linking rather than embedding. In the case of style sheets, this is already possible via the <LINK rel=stylesheet> mechanism. I also understand that Netscape originally intended to include an optional SRC attribute for <SCRIPT>, which would have made it possible to store scripts in a seperate file, but was unable to include this in Navigator 2.0 due to production deadlines. (I am unsure whether or not this was incorporated into later releases.) > -Thomas Reardon > Microsoft -- Michael Seaton(mseaton@pobox.com)
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 1996 17:48:42 UTC