> We could come up with a set of URL auxiliary headers that people
> would use depending on their needs. Here's a proposed set:
>
> Hypertext-version: <URL:...>
> Plain-text-version: <URL:...>
> See-also: <URL:...>
I'd prefer that we don't have a proliferation of different headers, but
focus on 1 (or at most 2 or 3). Otherwise one could go a little overboard
with "Hypertext-version", "Plain-text-version", "RTF-version",
"Microsoft-Word-Version", etc, etc, etc. Labelling different kinds of
documents is best done with MIME Content-Types, of which there is already
an extensive registry. If labelling was important, I'd suggest something
like the following:
ABCXYZ: <URL:...>; text/html
ABCXYZ: <URL:...>; text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ABCXYZ: <URL:...>; text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
That specifies a HTML version, a plain text English version, and a plain
text Japanese version, where "ABCXYZ" is whatever header name we agree
upon.
But I personally am not sold on such labelling. I believe that HTTP
already has mechanisms for telling the client what format the document is
in, and choosing from alternatives. Duplicating that might not be a good
idea. It also starts to intersect with what MIME does. If one is going
to use MIME conventions, one should use them properly, rather than through
some auxillary header hack. IMHO of course.
Cheers,
Rhys.
-- Rhys Weatherley, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. E-mail: rhys@fit.qut.edu.au "net.maturity is knowing when NOT to followup"
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved