Re: HTML icon set was: Additions to the CGI archive

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jan 94-present
• Next message: dolesa@smtp-gw.spawar.navy.mil: "Compiling XMosaic 2.1 under A/UX"
• Previous message: Martijn Koster: "Redirection: "Location" or "Uri" ?"
• In-reply-to: frans van hoesel: "Re: HTML icon set was: Additions to the CGI archive"

Message-id: <9401062033.AA05047@dxmint.cern.ch>
To: hoesel@chem.rug.nl (frans van hoesel)
Cc: nikos@cbl.leeds.ac.uk, www-talk@dxcern.cern.ch
Subject: Re: HTML icon set was: Additions to the CGI archive
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jan 1994 18:02:12 +0100." <9401061702.AA00941@Xtreme>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 1994 20:33:05 +0000
From: Martijn Koster <m.koster@nexor.co.uk>

frans van hoesel wrote:
> why not forget about the icons completly...
> permanent type of cache: simply a list of URL of wich the contents 
> can be found on local disk.

This doesn't solve the problem, you could end up with lots of

	http://some.machine/gifs/file.gif
	http://some.oher.machine/icons/file.gif
	...

on your disk. 

Dave Ragget wrote:
> We are all waiting impatiently for URN's as the long term
> solution for this. 

URN's are a good idea, but in order for a browser to map a URN to an
internal image you still need to define a set of URNs for "standard" icons. 
So we might as well do that with URL's, which are here now, and use
URN equivalents when they arrive. Or am I missing something?

-- Martijn
__________
Internet: m.koster@nexor.co.uk
X-400: C=GB; A= ; P=Nexor; O=Nexor; S=koster; I=M
X-500: c=GB@o=NEXOR Ltd@cn=Martijn Koster
WWW: http://web.nexor.co.uk/mak/mak.html