Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 17:17:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@wired.com>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: Content-type negotiation: thoughts and code
In-Reply-To: <9503140106.AA02685@volterra>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD.3.91.950313171411.23952a-100000@get.wired.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Robert S. Thau wrote:
> FWIW, the problem Brian was having here is that there's no way to get
> the server to process includes in a document which it believes to be
> of type text/x-html3.  (Brian, did I get that right?)

Yes - though the thought that "text/html; level=3" might work has crossed 
my mind.  Time to try it, since that's the W3C position on what 
HTMl 3.0 documents should be typed as.

> Unfortunately, the only ways I can see out of this are somewhat ugly 
> --- either generalizing XBITHACK so it will direct the server to
> process world-X files of *any* text/* MIME type, or add yet *another*
> magic MIME type (and also educate XBITHACK about text/x-html3).
> 
> (I dislike the former because I have a sneaking distaste for the
> XBITHACK --- if people like it, fine, but I don't like the thought of
> a server which effectively requires it if people are going to make
> maximum use of its features.  Unfortunately, that leaves the new magic
> MIME type).
(as I mentioned in private mail)

What about a directive in srm.conf to the effect of:

ServerSideParse text/html
ServerSideParse text/x-html3
ServerSideParse text/html; level=3

By the way, rst has won the monthly Bill Perry Emacs-W3 Award for the 
shortest average feature-suggestion-to-working-implementation elapsed 
time.  

	Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@hotwired.com  brian@hyperreal.com  http://www.hotwired.com/Staff/brian/