httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: .asis handler isn't driven
Date Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:08:52 GMT
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 3:43 PM


> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 11:02:46AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > Although I have no clue what the proper solution to this, I'm kind
> > of sure that if we are choosing based off file size, that is wrong.
> > There is no correlation between file size and actual content size
> > (think of a php-file versus a static file).  The only thing I could 
> > think of is a preference directive like so:
> 
> The original purpose of content negotiation was to select the highest
> quality and smallest transfer size image that a browser supports for
> an in-line image.  Size does matter.

Of course it does - but not in contrast to serving 6000 bytes of static
data against 1000 bytes of interpreted script.

> > Prefer html shtml php jsp cgi
> 
> We don't need another config directive.  All of these used to be special
> mime types, but somebody decided it was better to define them as handlers.
> Well, all we have to do then is add them to the mime type table (or as
> a separate table) and score them higher in negotiation.

++1 --- Mime configuration would be much more effective in solving this
entire class of 'problems', as I pointed out, even for the .asis issue.
We suggest by-mime-type in some places, and caution against it in others.

Which is it people?  Do we 'endorse' by-mime-type, or by-handler.

I've always been partial to the former.


Mime
View raw message