LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG Archives

HTML-WG Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave HTML-WG
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Re: Comments on BiDi in HTML/i18n draft
From: Gavin Nicol <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Tue, 21 May 1996 16:45:17 GMT
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (46 lines)



>Your point is well taken, however, in my view, the most authoritative
>source for information about a document is the document itself, hence
>the order of perferences that I list. 

Define document for me, and I may agree. I think that a "document
object" is comprised of "the informational unit and associated meta
data". I do not see that the meta data should, or even can reside
inside the informational unit.

A good example of the distinction I'm trying to draw is between
attributed, and non-attributed file systems. Attributed file systems
allow meta-data to become part of the object *without* being *in* the
object itself. In this repect, I think most people will agree that the
type system of the Mac filesyetem is far better than the DOS
filesystem typing.

>I have a hard time seeing WebMasters configuring their site to send
>the proper charset information.  The servers aren't there, tools
>aren't there, and WebMasters' time is a real premium.  

Well, Apache gives a method (the *.asis file) for doing this, and I
proposed something like it (the *.mim) type as a simple way of doing
it. 

Still, this is a good point. The current tools are broken, and need to
be fixed. I have ranted on about this for quite some time now, and get
a feeling that most people are apathetic at best.

>I say: let the document authors worry about supplying the proper
>charset information.  The way to do this is by using the <META> tag.
>Hack or not, it is a good idea. 

Anything that is unreliable and hampers adoption of more robust
solutions is not a good idea.
 
>In any case, this argument is somewhat moot, since I've never
>experienced getting charset information in an HTTP header.  In our
>implementation we can go either way.

You will. I think that the first round of HTTP 1.1 servers will be
much better at respecting the standard.




Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main HTML-WG Page

Permalink



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager