[6448] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
An MGET proposal for HTTP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ts)
Mon Oct 31 09:50:47 1994
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 15:47:24 +0100
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: decoux@moulon.inra.fr
From: ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
> 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
