- From: Terry Allen <terry@ora.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 09:00:57 -0700
- To: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>, connolly@beach.w3.org, www-talk@w3.org
- Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Re SGML tools, we found one that respected the limits in the SGML decl awhile ago. OLIAS? I agree the limits (like capacities) aren't useful, but that's something to tell to ANSI, where I understand SGML revision efforts are rooted. --- Forwarded mail from Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com> Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 11:49:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 11:53:22 -0400 From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com> To: connolly@beach.w3.org Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, www-talk@w3.org In-Reply-To: <199509011222.IAA32732@beach.w3.org> (connolly@beach.w3.org) Subject: Re: bad-idea-of-the-day: Inline data as URL scheme? Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org X-Mailing-List: <www-talk@w3.org> archive/latest/1714 X-Loop: www-talk@w3.org Sender: www-talk-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: www-talk-request@w3.org Precedence: list Dan says: >Er... this limit is (a) not a good idea, (b) not enforced except >in things like SGMLS. I think it should go away (or become 999999, >at least). I agree with (a) most emphatically, but (b) is false. I remember testing the limits on many browsers about 7 months ago, and found that all had limits (some smaller than 1024), and some even crashed when the buffers overflowed. Does anyone have new information? --- End of forwarded mail from Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com> Regards, -- Terry Allen (terry@ora.com) O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. Editor, Digital Media Group 101 Morris St. Sebastopol, Calif., 95472 A Davenport Group sponsor. For information on the Davenport Group see ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/davenport/README.html or http://www.ora.com/davenport/README.html Current HTML 2.0 spec: ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-html-spec-05.txt
Received on Friday, 1 September 1995 12:01:59 UTC