Re: default return is "text/html"?
Rick Troth (troth@rice.edu)
Mon, 18 Jul 1994 09:39:46 -0500 (CDT)
> @ I mean, come on. What's so hard about tacking on ".html"
> @ to any file it serves-out? That's just one way to eliminate the
> @ ambiguity. There are others.
>
> This would be bad. Then a file such as say "my_text" would be served out
> as "my_text.html" when it isnt, if Im reading the above correct.
You're not. I meant "tacking on .html" as a data maintainer
operation. Ie: "what's so hard about naming the file such that the
server will know explicitly that it's to be interpreted as HTML".
Thus the server could label it so in the header with maximum confidence.
> Isnt this where the <!DOCTYPE...> comes in? ...
>
> I would think that key things to look for would be:
>
> <!....> Any of <!--, <!DOCTYPE etc...
> <HTML> obvious
> <HEAD> Some people miss the <HTML>
> <BODY> ditto
> <H1> A lot of people here seem to start docs this way
These are all fine too. No problem.
> Paul
>
> .--------Paul Wain ( X.500 Project Engineer and WWW Person at Brunel)---------.
> | Brunel WWW Support: www@brunel.ac.uk MPhil Email: Paul.Wain@brunel.ac.uk |
> | Work Email (default): Paul.Wain@brunel.ac.uk (Brunel internal extn: 2391) |
> | http://http2.brunel.ac.uk:8080/paul or http://http2.brunel.ac.uk/~eepgpsw |
> `-------------------So much to fit in, and so little space!-------------------'
--
Rick Troth <troth@rice.edu>, Rice University, Information Systems