[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: fixhrefgz unnecessary when fixing web-browsers in the correct wayR

On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Jim Pick wrote:

>We shouldn't be changing the way browsers work.  

That is what I have been saying all the way...

>Most browsers follow the HTTP/1.0 or 1.1 standard - including Netscape -
>and I don't think it's smart to develop a "debian-specific" HTTP
>protocol extension -- that's what you are suggesting, in essence.

No I was just thinking the position taken by others to the bitter end.

>I really only see two possible outcomes to this debate:
> 1) Store HTML files uncompressed and don't munge the links
>       - all web browsers will work, no web server required
>       - wasteful of disk space (particularily for large
>         documentation packages, like the Java JDK docs,
>         or info-style "books") - note that these types of
>         documents tend to be monolithic, so they could be
>         put into separate optional documentation packages
>       - the system administrator could use a compressed
>         filesystem like e2compr to conserve disk space

That would definitely be best.

> 2) Store HTML files compressed and munge the links with a tool
>    like fixhrefgz
>       - Lynx and Netscape work with no web server required (I think)
>       - other web browsers will work, if they use a web server
>         such as boa, or a web server and dwww
>       - currently, at least on my system, not a single documentation
>         package with .html.gz files has had the links fixed so that
>         it works when browsing directly from the filesystem (and I
>         maintain two of those packages, oops - even worse the jdk1.1
>         docs have compressed and uncompressed files - arrrgh)
>       - it's extra work for the developers, and error prone too
>       - I think Lars was advocating this, and I was too

This wont work as we already have said again and again. You are modifying
the HTTP protocol with this and creating a new .html.gz extension in
essence. And sometimes the web browser will get those files compressed and
sometimes not.

>Christoph seems to be advocating:
> 3) Store HTML files compressed, and don't munge the links
>       - Lynx (and others) might work without a web server if they
>         were modified
>       - Netscape wouldn't work without a web server
>       - other web browsers will work, if they use a web server
>         such as boa, or a web server and dwww

I only advocated this as a compromise. I am for #1. And I would go further
and abolish all compression everywhere. Compression should only be done if
its transparent for all apps (e2compr or zlib?). I have seen so many
broken packages because of manpage compression etc etc. The clean solution
would be to stop this once and for all.

--- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ ---

Reply to: