[9592] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: W3C Working Draft: HTML predefined icon-like symbols
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (T. Joseph W. Lazio)
Fri Jan 12 15:58:45 1996
From: "T. Joseph W. Lazio" <lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 11:45:18 -0500
To: macarthr@w3.org.bert@w3.org
Cc: w3c-tech@w3.org, www-talk@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <9601092144.AA28707@www18.w3.org> (message from Karen MacArthur on Tue, 09 Jan 1996 16:44:37 -0500)
Reply-To: lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
One question about these predefined symbols,
<URL:http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-wwwicn>:
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
