Re: Additions to the CGI archive
guenther.fischer@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de (Guenther Fischer)
From: guenther.fischer@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de (Guenther Fischer)
Message-id: <9312231720.AA07648@flash1.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de>
Subject: Re: Additions to the CGI archive
To: m.koster@nexor.co.uk (Martijn Koster)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 18:20:55 +0100 (MET)
Cc: www-talk@dxcern.cern.ch
In-Reply-To: <9312221625.AA10171@attila.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de> from "Martijn Koster" at Dec 22, 93 03:56:18 pm
Reply-To: guenther.fischer@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1269
>
> > in the next release of NCSA httpd the directory indexing will be overhauled
> > and with that a default icons directory of/icons/ will be included in the
> > standard distribution.
>
> But then they still need to be transferred. I would prefer to see a set
> of magic URL's specified in the HTML+ spec for a number of images such as
> folder, menu, file, bin file, text file etc.
>
> We can either adopt Mosaic's image names, or define a new set.
> If people are unhappy with the messing with the http URL name space,
> why not use a new URL scheme internal:image/folder or something?
>
If we get an well defined icon set this should be a feature for clients
and servers. I put the iconlib to the server for clients who don't have
it. Clients who have the "standard" library don't need transfers.
What do you mean with internal:image/folder?
Means internal: a ressource the client must have. This is a very hard
decission. I think the way to define it as feature is better.
As a document writer I'll be sure the client see what I mean ...
~Guenther
PS: Happy Christmas and a Happy new year www-talkers!
--
Name: Guenther Fischer
Institute: TU Chemnitz, Universitaetsrechenzentrum
Phone: 0371 668 361
mail: fischer@hrz.tu-chemnitz.de