Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: gopher: July 2008:
[gopher] Re: Item Type Suggestions

[gopher] Re: Item Type Suggestions

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: <gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gopher] Re: Item Type Suggestions
From: "M. van Dijk" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:27:44 +0200
Reply-to: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx

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. :)


-----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

> > >
> > 
> > Does this mean that we have to look up the mime-type for each file? What
> > you don't know it? Also, wouldn't this make it harder to give links to
> > people? I'm not really at peace with these things - mime-types and all
> > 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
> uses the MIME type if it's provided, and falls back on the itemtype
> 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:
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * *
-- "Now you're playing with POWER!"

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]