Re: fixhrefgz unnecessary when fixing web-browsers in the correct wayR
>>>>> On 29 Jun 1997 22:40:45 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> said:
Manoj> I may be missing the point but ...
>>> "Karl" == Karl M Hegbloom <karlheg> writes:
Karl> The gzipped files are served as application/x-gzip, and an
Karl> entry in "/etc/mailcap" tells the browser how to uncompress it
Karl> prior to display rendering. The protocol isn't changed at all.
Manoj> If we ask for a file (that is, if the link points to the
Manoj> x.html.gz, then you are right, the mailcap stuff should
Manoj> work. If, however, the link points to x.html, and there _is_
Manoj> no x.html, just x.html.gz, than mailcap does *not* give us
Manoj> the data. Is this not the problem?
Manoj> The server, however, can do this, as people have pointed
Another consideration (and please point out if I'm wrong here).
Sending the file as application/x-gzip will in many cases work
correctly, but that doesn't necessarily mean the web browsers will
then go on to parse it as html. They may very well treat it as plain
text (since they never get the indication that this is actually an
html document in disguise).
@James LewisMoss <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Blessed Be!
@ http://www.dimensional.com/~dres | Linux is cool!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .