[9591] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: W3C Working Draft: HTML predefined icon-like symbols
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott E. Preece)
Fri Jan 12 14:54:37 1996
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 13:31:21 -0600
From: preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
To: lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu
Cc: macarthr@w3.org.bert@w3.org, w3c-tech@w3.org, www-talk@w3.org,
www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: "T. Joseph W. Lazio"'s message of Fri, 12 Jan 1996 11:45:18 -0500
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
From: "T. Joseph W. Lazio" <lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu>
| 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: ...
---
Yes, it would definitely be useful to have a generic &encoded.document,
for the reason you cite - there will always be new encodings. On the
other hand, it is definitely also useful to have specific icons for
common existing encodings. They're not mutually exclusive; we should
have both.
scott
--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801
phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550
internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
