[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, 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
as `cat'.

  * 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
    from inetd).

  * It's network friendly. Somebody could easily browse documentation in
    other machines (telling the server to accept non-local connections

Nicolás Lichtmaier.-

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: