I am thinking that this is kind of the wrong way of doing such things like this (although HTTP as a protocol is OK for this kind of things; there are things tha

I am thinking that this is kind of the wrong way of doing such things like this (although HTTP as a protocol is OK for this kind of things; there are things that HTTP is bad for, but this isn't one of them). Accept-Length and Title seem like they can be reasonable (and can be potentially used for any file, even implementations that do not otherwise support KyuWeb might or might not still implement them). I think it should be better for Markdown responses to specify the variant of Markdown being used if available, as a MIME type parameter; e.g. CommonMark uses "text/markdown;variant=CommonMark". (This would potentially improve compatibility among non-KyuWeb clients, I guess.) (Although, I think there are many problems with Markdown, and that is also true of HTML.) I think that the way of finding wrapped Markdown files using HTML comments isn't very good. My proposed ways are: * Using <link rel="alternate">, which is standard and is compatible with common web browsers. * My proposal of new HTML attributes "application", "feature", and "wraptype", which is not standard but it is compatible with common web browsers. (I do have some files using some of these features, though.) * My proposal of a new HTTP response header "Interpreter", which is not standard and is not compatible with existing web browsers. I would want to make known my ideas and propose that hopefully can be standardized and implemented, since it would be much cleaner than the existing mess. (Although if you are worry about older browsers, then there is consideration such as needing to add something such as a "Accept-Headers" request header, which the server is allowed to ignore if it always gives "Interpreter" responses anyways or if it does not have any.)