W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > January to February 1996

Re: W3C Working Draft: HTML predefined icon-like symbols

From: T. Joseph W. Lazio <lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 11:45:18 -0500
Message-Id: <199601121645.LAA29526@ism.tn.cornell.edu>
To: macarthr@w3.org.bert@w3.org
Cc: w3c-tech@w3.org, www-talk@w3.org, www-html@w3.org

 One question about these predefined symbols,

 Both &binhex.document; and &uuencoded.document; are defined.  Is
there a reason not to have a more general description, like
&encoded.document;?  I can see at least one pro and con:

	Con:  Lazy authors, or those who didn't know any better, might
	      use &encoded.document; without telling the reader how it
	      was encoded.  Also automatic directory indexing software
	      might not be as informative.

	Pro:  More general, if another encoding mechanism becomes
	      popular, another entity doesn't have to be added.  

Also, if a suitable name was chosen, couldn't encrypted documents be
described by this entity as well?

-- Joseph
Received on Friday, 12 January 1996 11:45:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 20 January 2020 16:08:19 UTC