Re: fixhrefgz unnecessary when fixing web-browsers in the correct wayR
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> This is a non-standard extension of the http protocol!
I support your idea of using a WWW server for documentation, but you're
saying wrong things and making people be angry with you.. =)
The HTTP protocol DOESN'T rely on extensions. No HTTP compliant WWW
browser decides what to do with a file looking in the extension. Think
about a cgi program returning an html file and another cgi program
returning a GIF (counters do this).
The facts about having a WWW server are (IMO):
* It isn't slow. We need just a small binary called by inetd, as heavy
* It's safe. The debian docs could be accessed through a
non-standard port... and this port could be restricted for use from
localhost only (tcpd, xinetd, a check in the binary...).
* It's clean. The upstream doc's wouldn't be touched/patched.
* It's a *lot* more flexible. Think of this: The server could check if
some document exist in the local host, and if it doesn't it would
issue a redirect to the document location in the WWW. It could even
use HTTP features to check if a newer version than the local one
exists and fetching it, and thus maintaining an updated local version.
* It's small. This system would be smaller than 100kb.
* It doesn't use resources when it isn't running (since it's started
* It's network friendly. Somebody could easily browse documentation in
other machines (telling the server to accept non-local connections
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .