[11567] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: obeying the protocol
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Connolly)
Thu Apr 6 13:45:25 2000
Message-Id: <38ECC982.BA7F4061@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 12:29:38 -0500
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
Cc: www-talk@w3.org, onank@kanald.com.tr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
"William F. Hammond" wrote:
>
> Usal Onan KARAGOZOGLU <onank@kanald.com.tr> writes to www-talk@w3.org
> on Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:10:08 +0300:
>
> > What does the extension *.stm stand for? And what does it do?
>
> Suffixes have NO MEANING across the network. Most end-user clients
> (i.e., browsers) offer a page-information function so that a user can
> determine the content-type of an item served through http.
>
> That topic is, in fact, not appropriate for this list.
>
> But perhaps it *is* appropriate for me, with slight change of topic,
> to complain about a user client (which I happened to find on a piece
> of hardware purchased new three months ago) disregarding the http
> content-type header in favor of what it perceived as a "suffix" in a
> url.
This is, unfortunately, explicitly documented design of a very
popular implementation:
"One problem with this is that some browsers sniff the document
irrespective of MIME-type and display the content if it looks like
HTML according to some heuristic[InetSDK], Appendix A."
[InetSDK]
Internet Client SDK, December 19, 1997, Microsoft Corporation "
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-xh-19980511
Hmm... they don't keep appendix A there any more.
http://www.microsoft.com/msdn/sdk/inetsdk/help/itt/monikers/appendix_a.htm
hmm... actually, they do service that address, but in a strange way...
let's see if I can find the new documentation...
"The Internet Client SDK section has been moved as a result of our
recent
redesign."
-- http://msdn.microsoft.com/redirs/inetsdkredir.asp
I don't see "Appendix A" listed in that guide. I give up; maybe they've
stopped documenting that practice... who knows... maybe they've even
stopped doing it in more recent software releases!
> Never trust an SGML/XML vendor whose web page is not valid HTML.
oops...
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML
parser.
Line 68, column 63:
... cs.uci.edu/FoRK-archive/" ADD_DATE="902127218"
^
Error: there is no attribute "ADD_DATE"
-- http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gotta fix that right away...
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
