Re: Generalising inlined images
robm@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Rob McCool)
X-Delivered: at request of secret on dxcern.cern.ch
Message-id: <9310070343.AA06822@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
From: robm@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Rob McCool)
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 22:43:16 -0500
In-Reply-To: Tony Sanders <sanders@bsdi.com>
"Re: Generalising inlined images" (Oct 6, 2:41pm)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: sanders@bsdi.com
Subject: Re: Generalising inlined images
Cc: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
/*
* Re: Generalising inlined images by Tony Sanders (sanders@bsdi.com)
* written on Oct 6, 2:41pm.
*
[....]
* I think hacking <INC> into the server is a bad idea. I've mentioned this
* before. If you do that then you have really created a new type and it
* should be filename.hacked-html instead of filename.html to make it
* clear that it's not HTML. Then format negotiation would convert
* text/x-hacked-html to text/html if required (and when browsers start
* support <INC> They will just Accept: text/x-hacked-html).
*/
I put the INC stuff in because it seemed like a useful feature. It was not
one of my more popular decisions around here. I didn't make it an additional
type since I was not aware that the INC tag would be of any value to the
browsers.
I'm starting to wonder what exactly this feature is used for that is not
better satisfied another way, since:
1. Parsing every HTML file adds overhead to the server
2. The only applications I have seen are things like including the date
(which should be in the protocol) and Charles Henrich's weather server.
So my main question to those who want this support in the server is, what do
you use it for?
--Rob