Rohit
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 23:04:28 -0500
From: Scott Anguish <sanguish@digifix.com>
Subject: Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENT: .htmld format
To: khare@CALTECH.EDU
Reply-to: sanguish@digifix.com
Message-id: <199502070404.XAA22844@digifix.com>
X-Envelope-to: khare@cco.caltech.edu
MIME-version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2)
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <199502070222.SAA10416@xent.caltech.edu>
> We need some serious input on encoding schemes for upper ISO-Latin-1.
>
> Should we standardize on .htmld or .html for the wrapper extension?
>
>
.htmld
no point in confusing the 'wrapper concept impaired'.. someone
assuming a .html wrapper is a flat file could get messy..
I'd like to modify NCSA and CERN to look for .htmld as an option if
.html is not found for a file..
> The HTML used MUST CONFORM TO:
> * HTML2.0 document structuring conventions
> - no <BLINK> tags or obsoleted tags (<XMP>)
> - valid <HEAD> elements
> - HTML2.0 entities
> * HTML3.0 entity maps for upper characters and foreign languages
> - What about Symbol font?
> - What about NeXTSTEP encoding fallbacks?
>
Forbidding the use of the <netscape> tags seems extreme....
> The Component Data, if provided SHOULD CONFORM TO:
> * GIF or XBM inlined images
> * 8-bit mu-law voice audio
> * Future applicable WebStep standards for document description
>
Inline jpeg should be supported, as well we should keep a close eye on
the gif-24 replacement that is currently being worked out in comp.graphics and
elsewhere.
> StepWise .htmld does not support the "one-document" guideline,
> but is strictly conformant.
>
Pedantic, but its Stepwise... :-) Us NEXTSTEP users must be picky
about that capitalization.