Re: Local program execution in WWW browsers

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Joe English: "Re: Local program exection in WWW browsers "
• Previous message: David Parker: "Image Maps on the Mac"
• Maybe in reply to: Bert Bos: "Re: Local program execution in WWW browsers"
• Reply: burchard@geom.umn.edu: "Re: Local program execution in WWW browsers"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 18:58:26 --100
Message-id: <9404151654.AA14055@kesser.cisl214>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: sg04%kesser@gte.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: sg04%kesser@gte.com (Yechezkal-Shimon Gutfreund)
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Local program execution in WWW browsers
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 2427

] Would probably be better if this were generic enough that all clients
] could use it.   Actually, since we're talking about commuication
] between applications, it may not be portable to MS-Windows or Macs but
] at least we can make it UNIX portable.

I have seen a press blurb about DEC and Microsoft working toward a merge
of OLE and CORBA. But I have no details.


] >Invocation of Accessories
] >
] >Applications can be thought of as client side CGI scripts. Thus a
] >rudimentary way of implementing accessory invocation would be: 
] >
] >   <A AREF=accessory.ext>Generic Accessory</A> 
] >
] >However, one would prefer not to specify an actual file, but rather a
] >MIME type which would then be mapped via the .mailcap file to the
] >accessory. This would allow one to create documents that specify a
] >generic type of accessory, and allow the user (via the .mailcap) to
] >choose the version of the accessory that he/she wishes:
] >
] >   <A AREF=accessory/x-html-editor>HTML Editor</A> 
] >
] >The .mailcap entry for this could be: 
] >
] >   accessory/x-html-editor HTML-ED.exe 
] 
] I guess I don't get what exactly would be in the file "accessory.ext"
] that would be of type "accessory/x-html-editor".  More abstractly, I
] don't see how anything except the program itself can be an object of
] that type.  Though there should be consistent names for these if
] things are done this way, I don't really think MIME content-types are
] suited to this.  What would it mean if I mailed you a message with
] this content-type?  What would go in the body?
] 

The concept here is that I want a mapping from the reference of
the accessory (which the creator of the HTML document is specifying)
to the the actual accessory, which the client-user prefers.

That is, HTML document authors would indicate a generic accessory.
I do not want him to be able to provide explicit references to
a particular accessory. (e.g. George Phillip's solution). Instead
I want to specify a type of accessory, and specify the explicit
binding in the .mailcap file.

However, I do hear your point about mailing a message with this content-type.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yechezkal-Shimon Gutfreund		 	   sgutfreund@gte.com [MIME]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA     ftp://ftp.gte.com/pub/circus/home/home.html
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=