Re: html files not named .html

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Oct 93-present
• Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Comments of HTML+ draft"
• Previous message: Ari Luotonen: "Re: CERN httpd and libwww 2.14 released"
• In-reply-to: Tony Sanders: "Re: html files not named .html "

Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 13:59:16 +0100
From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@www3.cern.ch>
Message-id: <9311171259.AA00544@www3.cern.ch>
To: sanders@bsdi.com
Subject: Re: html files not named .html 
Cc: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Reply-To: timbl@nxoc01.cern.ch

>Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 16:58:26 -0600
>From: Tony Sanders <sanders@bsdi.com>
>
>> > http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Protocols/HTTP/Body.html sez:
>> >     The data (if any) sent with an HTTP request or reply is in a  
format
>> >     and encoding defined by the object header fields, the  
default being
>> >     "plain/text" type with "8bit" encoding.
>...
>> This is what Lynx does.  Unfortunatly since Xmosaic doesn't do  
that
>> I get complaint after complaint about how Lynx is screwed up  
because
>> it renders what they think is fine (because it works in Xmosaic)
>> into crap.
>> (Perhaps the default should be changed since all of the Mosaic  
browsers
>> seem to default to text/HTML.)
>
>Maybe Tim will change it.  Tim, what do you think?
>
>--sanders

What server now sends back an HTTP1.0 reply with no Content-Type  
field?  Seems like a difficult thing to do specially.
The only case I can see is when one wants to dump error messages
etc onto the line, in which case plain text is probably more
appropriate.  It also happens to be the default for mail,
so one can use the same MIME+WWW parser for both. Which is useful.

Tim