proposed new tag: IMGMarc Andreessen (marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu)Thu, 25 Feb 93 21:09:02 -0800Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Tony Johnson: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Previous message: Bill Janssen: "Re: xmosaic experience"Next in thread: Tony Johnson: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'd like to propose a new, optional HTML tag:IMGRequired argument is SRC="url".This names a bitmap or pixmap file for the browser to attempt to pullover the network and interpret as an image, to be embedded in the textat the point of the tag's occurrence.An example is:<IMG SRC="file://foobar.com/foo/bar/blargh.xbm">(There is no closing tag; this is just a standalone tag.)This tag can be embedded in an anchor like anything else; when thathappens, it becomes an icon that's sensitive to activation just like aregular text anchor.Browsers should be afforded flexibility as to which image formats theysupport. Xbm and Xpm are good ones to support, for example. If abrowser cannot interpret a given format, it can do whatever it wantsinstead (X Mosaic will pop up a default bitmap as a placeholder).This is required functionality for X Mosaic; we have this working, andwe'll at least be using it internally. I'm certainly open tosuggestions as to how this should be handled within HTML; if you havea better idea than what I'm presenting now, please let me know. Iknow this is hazy wrt image format, but I don't see an alternativethan to just say ``let the browser do what it can'' and wait for theperfect solution to come along (MIME, someday, maybe).Let me know what you think.........Cheers,Marc--Marc AndreessenSoftware Development GroupNational Center for Supercomputing Applicationsmarca@ncsa.uiuc.edu--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Tony Johnson: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Previous message: Bill Janssen: "Re: xmosaic experience"Next in thread: Tony Johnson: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGTony Johnson (TONYJ@scs.slac.stanford.edu)Thu, 25 Feb 1993 23:13 PDTMessages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl: "Re: xmosaic experience"Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->I'd like to propose a new, optional HTML tag:>> IMG>>Required argument is SRC="url".>>This names a bitmap or pixmap file for the browser to attempt to pull>over the network and interpret as an image, to be embedded in the text>at the point of the tag's occurrence.>>An example is:>> <IMG SRC="file://foobar.com/foo/bar/blargh.xbm">>>(There is no closing tag; this is just a standalone tag.)I have something very similar in Midas 2.0 (in use here at SLAC, and due forpublic release any week now), except that all the names are different, and ithas an extra argument NAME="name". It has almost exactly the samefunctionality as your proposed IMG tag. e.g.<ICON name="NoEntry" href="http://note/foo/bar/NoEntry.xbm">The idea of the name parameter was to allow the browser to have a set of"built in" images. If the name matches a "built in" image it would use thatinstead of having to go out and fetch the image. The name could also act as ahint for "line mode" browsers as to what kind of a symbol to put in place ofthe image.I don't much care about the parameter or tag names, but it would be sensibleif we used the same things. I don't much care for abbreviations, ie why notIMAGE= and SOURCE=. I somewhat prefer ICON since it imlies that the IMAGEshould be smallish, but maybe ICON is an overloaded word?>Browsers should be afforded flexibility as to which image formats they>support. Xbm and Xpm are good ones to support, for example. If a>browser cannot interpret a given format, it can do whatever it wants>instead (X Mosaic will pop up a default bitmap as a placeholder).I was proposing to use the file extension (.xbm above) to tag what format theimage was in, but with the intention that in future, when HTTP2 comes along,the same format negotiation technique would be used to access images.Xbm and Xpm sound resonable to me, but do they sound reasonable for non-Xbased applications??While we are on the subject of new tags, I have another, somewhat similar tag,which I would like to support in Midas 2.0. In principle it is:<INCLUDE HREF="...">The intention here would be that the second document is to be included intothe first document at the place where the tag occured. In principle thereferenced document could be anything, but the main purpose was to allowimages (in this case arbitrary sized) to be embedded into documents. Again theintention would be that when HTTP2 comes along the format of the includeddocument would be up for separate negotiation.An alternative I was considering was:<A HREF="..." INCLUDE>See photo</A>I don't much like adding more functionality to the <A> tag, but the idea hereis to maintain compatibility with browsers that can not honour the INCLUDEparameter. The intention is that browsers which do understand INCLUDE, replacethe anchor text (in this case "See photo") with the included document(picture), while older or dumber browsers ignore the INCLUDE tag completely.Comments?????Tony--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl: "Re: xmosaic experience"Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGTim Berners-Lee (timbl@www3.cern.ch)Fri, 26 Feb 93 14:04:55 +0100Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Tony Johnson: "Handling + in document searches"Previous message: Kim Peter Nyberg: "re: xmosaic experience"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Jim Davis: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I had imagined that figues would be reprented as<a name=fig1 href="fghjkdfghj" REL="EMBED, PRESENT">Figure </a>where the relation ship values meanEMBED Embed this here when presenting itPRESENT Present this whenever the source documentis presentedNote that you can have various combinations of these, and ifthe browser doesn't support either one, it doesn't break.A see that using this as a method for selectable icons means nestinganchors. Hmmm. But I hadn't wanted a special tag.Annother way would be to declare an entity with SYSTEM attributegiving the URL and then invoke that entity, but that would mean anextendable entity dictionary which is not currently needed.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Tony Johnson: "Handling + in document searches"Previous message: Kim Peter Nyberg: "re: xmosaic experience"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Jim Davis: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGJim Davis (davis@dri.cornell.edu)Fri, 26 Feb 1993 10:07:34 -0500Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Peter Lister, Cranfield Computer Centre: "patch to exec from httpd"Previous message: Tony Johnson: "Handling + in document searches"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I like the functionality of Marc's proposal. (I am indifferentto the syntax, so long as we get a standard.) While I daresaythat HTPP2 and Mime will oneday achieve the same power and more,I like the idea of getting it soon.Note that Tim's proposal<a name=fig1 href="fghjkdfghj" REL="EMBED, PRESENT">Figure </a>is less general, since it can only be used inside anchors. (MaybeI don't understand it, though... do you have to click on theanchor, or does PRESENT mean that it is "automatically" clicked?If so, what happens to the text between the A and /A ?As I understand it, I can use Marc A's scheme for inline pictures(which might be big) or icons in anchors.As for specifics of Marc A's proposal, two comments1) why have SRC instead of HREF?2) It would be nice if there was a way to specify the content type,e.g.<IMG HREF="http://nsa.gov/pub/sounds/gorby.au" CONTENT-TYPE=audio/basic>But I am completely willing to live with the requirement that I specifythe content type by file extension. It's good enough for me.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Peter Lister, Cranfield Computer Centre: "patch to exec from httpd"Previous message: Tony Johnson: "Handling + in document searches"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGMarc Andreessen (marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu)Fri, 26 Feb 93 13:29:45 -0800Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "re: xmosaic experience"In reply to: Jim Davis: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jim Davis writes:> As for specifics of Marc A's proposal, two comments>> 1) why have SRC instead of HREF?Because I wanted to avoid overloading HREF -- doesn't really makesense in this context, I don't think.> 2) It would be nice if there was a way to specify the content type,> e.g.>> <IMG HREF="http://nsa.gov/pub/sounds/gorby.au" CONTENT-TYPE=audio/basic>>> But I am completely willing to live with the requirement that I specify> the content type by file extension. It's good enough for me.Actually, in Mosaic this will be possible by doing something like:<A HREF="http://nsa.gov/pub/sounds/gorby.au"><IMG SRC="myimage.xbm></A>Simple.....Marc--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "re: xmosaic experience"In reply to: Jim Davis: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGTim Berners-Lee (timbl@www3.cern.ch)Fri, 26 Feb 93 18:12:45 +0100Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Jay C. Weber: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: info.cern.ch from rs6k"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 10:07:34 -0500> From: Jim Davis <davis@dri.cornell.edu>>> I like the functionality of Marc's proposal. (I am indifferent> to the syntax, so long as we get a standard.) While I daresay> that HTPP2 and Mime will oneday achieve the same power and more,> I like the idea of getting it soon.>> Note that Tim's proposal>> <a name=fig1 href="fghjkdfghj" REL="EMBED, PRESENT">Figure </a>>> is less general, since it can only be used inside anchors.No ... it is just that the thing is seen as a type of link ratherthan something totally new. Note that in the Microsoft world thework "Link" always mean "embed the thing referred to here" --this explains much of the confusion when explaining W3 to windowsusers.If you consider that often the reader (rather than the author) mightwant to chose which figues are expanded inline rather than put in aseparate window, and also that the reader (rather tham the author)might want to chose whether related things are PRESENTedautomatically or not, then the use of <A> with switches looksmore appropriate. As Tony points out, an advantage is that it willbe handled relatively well by browsers which can't do it orold ones which don't understand it.> (Maybe> I don't understand it, though... do you have to click on the> anchor, or does PRESENT mean that it is "automatically" clicked?You didn't quite but you do now. yes ... PRESENT meansCONSIDER-THIS-CLICKED.> If so, what happens to the text between the A and /A ?It is replaced by the object because of the EMBED relationship.> As I understand it, I can use Marc A's scheme for inline pictures> (which might be big) or icons in anchors.If you allow an image, then suppose we also allow some content whichincludes anchors with x,y coordinates within the image. Then thedocument can intercept mouse clicks and allow hypergraphicsI don't want to change HTML now if I can help it, until it has goneto RFC trackTim--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Jay C. Weber: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: info.cern.ch from rs6k"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGMarc Andreessen (marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu)Fri, 26 Feb 93 13:32:09 -0800Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Jay C. Weber: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Jay C. Weber: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tim Berners-Lee writes:> I don't want to change HTML now if I can help it, until it has gone> to RFC trackI absolutely agree in all cases -- my purpose in suggesting IMG isthat things are reaching the point where some browsers are going to beimplementing this feature somehow, even if it's not standard, justbecause it's the logical next step, and it would be great to haveconsistency from the beginning -- so that when HTML2 comes along,we're all still in lockstep.....Cheers,Marc--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Jay C. Weber: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Jay C. Weber: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGJay C. Weber (weber@eitech.com)Fri, 26 Feb 93 10:28:38 PSTMessages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Eelco van Asperen: "Re: patch to exec from httpd"Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Jay C. Weber: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------While images are at the top of my list of desired medium types in aWWW browser, I don't think we should add idiosyncratic hooks for mediaone at a time. Whatever happened to the enthusiasm for using theMIME typing mechanism? I made a concrete proposal a few months ago,where HREFs can point to other parts in a MIME multipart (and therebyto an "external-body"), and I've seen a similar idea recently regardingembedding media clips in a "simplemail" format. Don't we want totake on something like this in HTML2?Jay---------------------------------------------------------------------Jay C. Weber weber@eitech.comEnterprise Integration Technologies weber@cis.stanford.edu459 Hamilton Avenue, Suite #100 (415)617-8002Palo Alto, CA 94301--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Eelco van Asperen: "Re: patch to exec from httpd"Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Jay C. Weber: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGJay C. Weber (weber@eitech.com)Fri, 26 Feb 93 14:00:12 PSTMessages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: ebina@ncsa.uiuc.edu: "Re: xmosaic experience"Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Pei Y. Wei: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> From marca@wintermute.ncsa.uiuc.edu Fri Feb 26 11:12:42 1993>> Yup. BTW, someone mentioned ``what happened to MIME'' -- this isn't a> substitute for the upcoming use of MIME as a standard document> mechanism; this provides a necessary and simple implementation of> functionality that's needed independently from MIME.Wait a minute -- let's temporarily forget about MIME, if it clouds theissue. My objection was to the discussion of "how are we going tosupport embedded images" rather than "how are we going to supportembedded objections in various media".Otherwise, next week someone is going to suggest 'lets put in a newtag <AUD SRC="file://foobar.com/foo/bar/blargh.snd">' for audio.There shouldn't be much cost in going with something that generalizes.Jay---------------------------------------------------------------------Jay C. Weber weber@eitech.comEnterprise Integration Technologies weber@cis.stanford.edu459 Hamilton Avenue, Suite #100 (415)617-8002Palo Alto, CA 94301--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: ebina@ncsa.uiuc.edu: "Re: xmosaic experience"Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Pei Y. Wei: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGPei Y. Wei (wei@xcf.berkeley.edu)Fri, 26 Feb 93 17:37:29 -0800Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Previous message: Bill Janssen: "Re: xmosaic experience"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------To: marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu, timbl@nxoc01.cern.chSubject: Re: proposed new tag: IMGCc: davis@dri.cornell.edu> > Tim Berners-Lee writes:> > I don't want to change HTML now if I can help it, until it has gone> > to RFC track.>> Marc wrote:> I absolutely agree in all cases -- my purpose in suggesting IMG is> that things are reaching the point where some browsers are going to be> implementing this feature somehow, even if it's not standard, just> because it's the logical next step, and it would be great to have> consistency from the beginning -- so that when HTML2 comes along,> we're all still in lockstep.....Yup, yup... Since this is becoming an issue, I might as well mentionthat viola too has a number of bitmap tags, but for a DTD other than HTML,because it'd be a mess to mix such things with the current HTML. At thispoint, HTML should stay stable.Yup, we obviously need to agree upon the namings, etc, from the start,or it's gonna be a sincere pain to converge later... I don't have anyparticular preference for the names/syntax, as long as there is someaccounting for the format used (not by file extension, but preferablyby using MIME format identifiers).-Pei--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Previous message: Bill Janssen: "Re: xmosaic experience"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGTim Berners-Lee (timbl)Sat, 27 Feb 93 16:49:48 METMessages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Willem van Leeuwen: "Re: patch to exec from httpd"Previous message: Pei Y. Wei: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Dave_Raggett: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ok, so for HTML2 let's have something for inclusion.I don't see any reason to limit it to images. Likeit could be more text or whatever.SGML does provide an official way of doing this folksand even if Dan C ain't here to round us up we maybeought to stick to the track. It might have some usefulspinnoffs like people assuming that any SYSTEM attribute,instead of being a "system defined" path for anentity, would be a URI.How about<!ENTITY ICON6 SYSTEM "http://blah..">&ICON6;Tim BL--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Willem van Leeuwen: "Re: patch to exec from httpd"Previous message: Pei Y. Wei: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Dave_Raggett: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGDave_Raggett (dsr@hplb.hpl.hp.com)Mon, 1 Mar 93 9:29:50 GMTMessages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Sheaffer Gad: "Reading news via WWW browsers"Previous message: Willem van Leeuwen: "Re: patch to exec from httpd"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> While images are at the top of my list of desired medium types in a> WWW browser, I don't think we should add idiosyncratic hooks for media> one at a time. Whatever happened to the enthusiasm for using the> MIME typing mechanism? I made a concrete proposal a few months ago,> where HREFs can point to other parts in a MIME multipart (and thereby> to an "external-body"), and I've seen a similar idea recently regarding> embedding media clips in a "simplemail" format. Don't we want to> take on something like this in HTML2?True indeed! I want to consider a whole range of possible image/line arttypes, along with the possibility of format negotiation. Tim's noteon supporting clickable areas within images is also importantDave Raggett, HPLabs--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Sheaffer Gad: "Reading news via WWW browsers"Previous message: Willem van Leeuwen: "Re: patch to exec from httpd"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGMarc Andreessen (marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu)Mon, 1 Mar 93 13:05:08 -0800Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: putz.parc@xerox.com: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Previous message: Edward Vielmetti: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"In reply to: Dave_Raggett: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Bill Janssen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dave_Raggett writes:> True indeed! I want to consider a whole range of possible image/line> art types, along with the possibility of format negotiation. Tim's> note on supporting clickable areas within images is also importantActually, maybe we should think about a general-purpose proceduralgraphics language within which we can embed arbitrary hyperlinksattached to icons, images, or text, or anything. Has anyone else seenIntermedia's capabilities wrt this? It's one of their most impressivecapabilities, actually.Something like a cross between PostScript and CGM might work...actually, maybe we should just use one or the other, and add theextensions we need for the links. Also we'd want to make sure thatit's completely editable.Cheers,Marc--Marc AndreessenSoftware Development GroupNational Center for Supercomputing Applicationsmarca@ncsa.uiuc.edu--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: putz.parc@xerox.com: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Previous message: Edward Vielmetti: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"In reply to: Dave_Raggett: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Bill Janssen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGBill Janssen (janssen@parc.xerox.com)Mon, 1 Mar 1993 14:55:57 PSTMessages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Nathan Torkington: "Internal links"Previous message: Bill Janssen: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"In reply to: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Thomas A. Fine: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Excerpts from ext.WorldWideWeb: 1-Mar-93 Re: proposed new tag: IMG MarcAndreessen@ncsa.uiu (884)> Actually, maybe we should think about a general-purpose procedural> graphics language within which we can embed arbitrary hyperlinks> attached to icons, images, or text, or anything. Has anyone else seen> Intermedia's capabilities wrt this? It's one of their most impressive> capabilities, actually.Other systems to look at which have this (fairly valuable) notion areAndrew and Slate. Andrew is built with _insets_, each of which has someinteresting type, such as text, bitmap, drawing, animation, message,spreadsheet, etc. The notion of arbitrary recursive embedding ispresent, so that an inset of any kind can be embedded in any other kindwhich supports embedding. For example, an inset can be embedded at anypoint in the text of the text widget, or in any rectangular area in thedrawing widget, or in any cell of the spreadsheet. Each ``embedding''consists of some direct information which specifies the display area ofthe embedded information, and a pointer to the actual data object(actually, in most current usage the embedded data object is directlycontained, but references do in fact work).This business about embedding the display information is interesting, asit seems to contradict the standard separation of data and display sopervasive in Andrew. In Andrew text, embedded insets are thought of assingle characters in rather strange fonts, so the rectangular areainformation tells the text display widget the size of the ``character''.Similarly for embedded insets in the drawing widget.Bill--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Nathan Torkington: "Internal links"Previous message: Bill Janssen: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"In reply to: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Thomas A. Fine: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGThomas A. Fine (fine@cis.ohio-state.edu)Mon, 1 Mar 93 15:21:36 -0500Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Bill Janssen: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Here's my opinion.The best way to do images in WWW is by using MIME. I'm sure postscriptis already a supported subtype in MIME, and it deals very nicely withmixing text and graphics.But it isn't clickable, you say? Yes your right. I suspect there isalready an answer to this in display postscript. Even if there isn'tthe addition to standard postscript is trivial. Define an anchorcommand which specifies the URL and uses the current path as a closedregion for the button. Since postscript deals so well with paths, thismakes arbitrary button shapes trivial.Let's call this specially modified postscript HTPS. Until HTPS becomessome sort of standard, every copy of HTPS should include a piece of codethat asks the interpreter if it knows about the anchor command, and ifit doesn't it will substitute in a null command.As far as implementation, this is easy, though not necessarily trivial.Ghostscript already provides the ability to bind arbitrary functions tomouse events. It shouldn't be too horrible to set up anchor to keepa table of button paths, and have mouse clicks call a function that looksup what button they are in.Let me point out that it wouldn't be hard to make such a system dealwith html too. Many people already have code that converts html topostscript.tom--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Bill Janssen: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGTim Berners-Lee (timbl@dxcern.cern.ch)Tue, 2 Mar 1993 23:25:51 +0100Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Edward Vielmetti: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------HTTP2 allows a document to contain any type whichthe user has said he can handle, not just registered MIMEtypes. So one can experiment. Yes I think there is a casefor postscript with hypertext.I don't know whether display postcript has enough.I know Adobe are trying to establish their own postscript-based"PDF" which will have links, and be readable by theirproprietory brand of viewers.I thought that a generic overlaying language for anchors(Hytime based?) would allow the hypertext and the graphics/videostandards to evolve separately, which would help both.Let the IMG tag be INCLUDE and let it refer to an arbitrarydocument type. Or EMBED if INCLUDE sounds like a cpp includewhich people will expect to provide SGML source code to beparsed inline -- not what was intended.Tim BL--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Edward Vielmetti: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGTim Berners-Lee (timbl@dxcern.cern.ch)Tue, 2 Mar 1993 23:25:51 +0100Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Edward Vielmetti: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------HTTP2 allows a document to contain any type whichthe user has said he can handle, not just registered MIMEtypes. So one can experiment. Yes I think there is a casefor postscript with hypertext.I don't know whether display postcript has enough.I know Adobe are trying to establish their own postscript-based"PDF" which will have links, and be readable by theirproprietory brand of viewers.I thought that a generic overlaying language for anchors(Hytime based?) would allow the hypertext and the graphics/videostandards to evolve separately, which would help both.Let the IMG tag be INCLUDE and let it refer to an arbitrarydocument type. Or EMBED if INCLUDE sounds like a cpp includewhich people will expect to provide SGML source code to beparsed inline -- not what was intended.Tim BL--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Edward Vielmetti: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Reading news via WWW browsers"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Re: proposed new tag: IMGGuido van Rossum (Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl)Sat, 13 Mar 1993 11:56:26 +0100Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]Next message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "binary file access via Mosaic"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->We're not prepared to support INCLUDE/EMBED at this point; it raises a>number of nasty issues that are quite separate from the idea of>inlined images. For example, what happens if one EMBEDS a document>that in turn EMBEDS the first document? Oops.I would consider this an error of the author that needs to be detectedto protect the browser. It only requires maintaining a stack ofnested EMBEDS.>Aside from this, I'm>not sure I see the point in allowing arbitrary EMBED's for things like>chunks of texts: this is a hypertext system, after all, and it ought>to be possible to get the functional effect of an EMBED by using an>ordinary link. Right?Some other hypertext systems do this, in a sense: in Guide there are,apart from real GOTO stype hyperlinks, also "folds" (I think they arecalled) which are sort of embedded documents that you can open andclose. The advantage in certain situations is that opening a foldretains more context than following a link. It feels like using anoutline processor, which is rather pleasant (for certain kinds ofinformation).--Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam <Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl>PS. I keep hearing about supporting MIME. Is there consensus on theform this should take? (I remeber getting in an unpleasant fight withDan Connolly about this once -- BTW is he still with us?)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: proposed new tag: IMG"Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "binary file access via Mosaic"Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "proposed new tag: IMG"