An MGET proposal for HTTP

ts ([email protected])
Mon, 31 Oct 1994 15:02:00 +0100

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: CyberWeb: "Finding WWW specs, docs,.."
Previous message: Jim Davis: "Re: Deploying new versions [Was: Versioning HTML at the"
In reply to: Chris Lilley, Computer Graphics Unit: "Re: An MGET proposal for HTTP"

> If you take the view that they don't, then the optimisation that Guy speaks
> of is reasonable. Although what his scripts do with, say
>
> text/html, text/plain, image/*
> or
> text/html, text/plain, */*
>
> would be interesting to discover. On the other hand, does that mean that a
> client that sends
>
> GET document.whatever HTTP/version
> Accept: text/html, text/plain, image/gif
>
> is going to be happy getting a rasterised image of the page as a GIF?
>

Actually this script check only "image/gif" and send a clickable map
(ISMAP). It don't check "*/*" (or "*") because all browsers (I think) send
this Accept type and I don't want send a GIF image to see the magic word
"<IMAGE>" and can't use it.

Guy Decoux

Next message: CyberWeb: "Finding WWW specs, docs,.."
Previous message: Jim Davis: "Re: Deploying new versions [Was: Versioning HTML at the"
In reply to: Chris Lilley, Computer Graphics Unit: "Re: An MGET proposal for HTTP"