On Sat, 2007-01-13 at 19:07 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Hi, > > Thijs Kinkhorst, le Sat 13 Jan 2007 18:48:16 +0100, a écrit : > > > Note: it would be great to see this in Etch, because else we would > > > have to wait quite a long time until the release of Lenny and seeing > > > webmasters using it... > > > > If this is the goal and this is a good idea, it should be implemented > > upstream. I see that you've reported an upstream report about it, I > > think it's best to await what upstream's response about this is. > > The problem is that upstream seems to consider that such issue should > rather be handled by distributions, or even administrators. Upstream does not talk about distributions. I subscribe to their argument that if there's no predefined listings for any mime type, adding one for .brf would require very convincing arguments why it's different. > The latter > possibility would be unfortunate, as I explained in the apache bts: > > « Why I'm asking this to be the default for brf files is that people who > run websites which propose .brf files will probably _not_ be skilled > enough for knowing that to let visitors read them very easily, they > should add the mime.types entry and the charset entry (remember that > their area is accessibility, not computer administration). » This would go for any specialistic file type to be added. And building an accessible website requires technical skills aswell... Thijs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part