[6466] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Deploying new versions [Was: Versioning HTML at the
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gavin Nicol)
Tue Nov 1 10:53:03 1994
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 16:41:58 +0100
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: gtn@ebt.com
From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
>If
> > Content-type: text/html; version=3.0
>won't work, then what is left aside from providing HTML documents
>with a document type declaration (<!DOCTYPE line) and making
>clients figure out the version after fetching the document
>(rather wasteful if they can't render it)?
Seems to me that if something is broken, it needs to be fixed.
Why support something so obviously wrong? Bugward combatibility
can be taken too far, especially on something so dynamic as
the WWW.
I would say that if a new browser (Mosaic, Mozilla) was released
at about the same time the servers were updated, then the
problem would largely be solved: people would update.
