[gopher] Re: Item Type Suggestions

["M. van Dijk" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I thought that you meant that the
mimetype would
be mandatory, but as I now understand it this is not the case. Way to go..
my fears
have vanished. :)

Mark

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: gopher-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gopher-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens
Cameron Kaiser
Verzonden: dinsdag 22 juli 2008 14:59
Aan: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: [gopher] Re: Item Type Suggestions

> > >
gopher://gopher.site.invalid/9(image/tiff)/pictures/venusdekilometro.tif
> > 
> > Does this mean that we have to look up the mime-type for each file? What
if
> > you don't know it? Also, wouldn't this make it harder to give links to
other
> > people? I'm not really at peace with these things - mime-types and all
that
> > just aren't my cup of tea.
> 
> It would make them longer, yes. However, the idea here is only to use the
> MIME type for ambiguous or unspecified types. A client that is type-aware
only
> uses the MIME type if it's provided, and falls back on the itemtype
otherwise.
> A client that doesn't know about MIME types just sees the 9.

I should also add that specifying the MIME type in this scheme would be
totally optional. You could have a regular menu and for the one troublesome
file in there that does not neatly fit into an existing item type, *then*
you could add a MIME type. And like I say above, it won't break any clients.
Only the server has to know/deal with it.

-- 
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/
--
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com *
ckaiser@xxxxxxxxxxxx
-- "Now you're playing with POWER!"
-------------------------------------------