[6282] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: What's the standard for non-standard extensions?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian L. Mogensen)
Fri Oct 21 14:33:33 1994
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 19:27:54 +0100
Errors-To: postmaster@www0.cern.ch
Errors-To: postmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: mogens@CS.Stanford.EDU
From: "Christian L. Mogensen" <mogens@CS.Stanford.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
> Is it legit for me to do something like this?
> <UImetainfo> html code </UImetainfo>
>That simplifies my parsing code, makes other tools available to
>me, etc. But of course it's non-standard. Also, these aren't
>extensions that I would anticipate being of any use to anyone
>else.
Didn't <META CONTENT="foo"> get defined at some point?
(Did that discussion ever reach closure?)
The accepted (least frowned upon) method of embedding meta info
is to use
<META CONTENT="name=value">
or similar schemes.
I guess you can use
<META CONTENT="<start>">content<META CONTENT="</start>">
except for the fact that certain commonly used browsers barf
on angle brackets in quotes.
This leads to all sorts of problems with embedding meta info - basically
you have to URL escape everything to stop the browser parsers from
going ga-ga.
Christian "web-head"
