Re: fixhrefgz unnecessary when fixing web-browsers in the correct wayR
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Jim Pick wrote:
> I really only see two possible outcomes to this debate:
Thanks for this nice summary!
Christoph convinced me, that solution 2) is not acceptable. Thus I removed
it from the list of options.
> 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
> 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
A lot of people issued objections against 1) since this would waste disk
So, how many people here have objections against 3) ?
Note, that since "deity" will also have a "CGI frontend", it is really a
good idea to have a very simple web server in the base system. This web
server could easily be used for serving the documentation, too.
-- Christian Schwarz
PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
CS Software goes online! Visit our new home page at
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .