Re: html and htmld tiffs

Scott Anguish (sanguish@digifix.com)
Mon, 6 Feb 95 22:57:30 -0500

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Rohit Khare: "Re: html/ vs .htmld"
Previous message: Rohit Khare: "Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENT: .htmld format"
Maybe in reply to: Dave Anderson: "html and htmld tiffs"

> I would contend that there should be ONE icon for both "html" and
> "htmld" documents. In fact probably even just one extension ("html").
> Afterall, why does the user of such a document need to be confronted
> (accosted?) with the fact that one happens to be a flat file while
> the other is a file package (I assume that is the distinction).
> This can easily be determined by a launching HTML editor/viewer.
> Right?
>

HTML needs to be movable to other platforms, and having a
directory called blah.HTML being mistaken for a file could be
bad....

Next message: Rohit Khare: "Re: html/ vs .htmld"
Previous message: Rohit Khare: "Re: REQUEST FOR COMMENT: .htmld format"
Maybe in reply to: Dave Anderson: "html and htmld tiffs"