On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 11:03 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2012-08-26 19:55:49 +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > > Now obviously there's a small border; I guess IETF's idea is: > > "Can it be exectued/interpreted directly or by some interpreter? Then > > application/*" > > Or compiled & executed, I suppose. Well of course,.. but everything compiled is binary,... so for those cases it's never questionable that it cannot be "text/" > But what if the intent is to display the source (with specific style), > not to run it? Uhm... yeah that's the confusing point of the whole: MIME-Types never question what's the intent of the content! You don't have specific mime types for e.g. a PDF for the cases it should be displayed or printed. The same applies for (script) source code, on whether it shall be executed or opened in some editor, debugger or e.g. doxygen. It's a matter of the user agent, to show a list of possible ways to handle a MIME time and a matter of the user to select what he wants. Not a matter of the server (who sets the mime type). Of course you _could_ use the system that way: The browser does HTTP negotiation and sets a type on whether he want's to edit a file, or execute it. But that would not only be stupid (why should the server have to know about this?) but also an abuse of the intention of HTTP negotiation. Cheers, Chris.
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature