The true is that I wrote. If you dont believe me, I recommend you to check the archive of this mailing list. This was not my fault. Not only I found this error many other people had the same problem with IE 6.0 SP1. I fighted with generation of PDF the content for a day after I realize that the extension must be .pdf or it will not work!
This is why I told you about the fine theory and the cruel reality. :-D Antonio Gallardo. Kjetil Kjernsmo dijo: > On Saturday 09 November 2002 21:33, Miles Elam wrote: >> Antonio A. Gallardo Rivera wrote: >> >Kjetil Kjernsmo dijo: >> >>On Thursday 07 November 2002 23:57, Tony Collen wrote: >> >>>However, later I realize that using file extensions is "bad". >> >>> Read http://www.alistapart.com/stories/slashforward/ for more info >> on this idea. >> > >> >I know about that. The theory is fine, but in the real world... Are >> > you tried to open a PDF file without the .pdf extension with MS IE >> 6.0 SP1? > > No, I have barely touched IE since 3.0. > >> > It does not work. MS IE relays mainly on the extension of >> > the file to open a pdf file. > > What?!? What you're saying is that IE is ignoring the content-type? > That's just incredibly silly... > >> How we can address this? I already >> > know that Carsten and Mathew in his book dont recommend the use of >> extension and I agree. But how we can tell MS Internet Explorer >> about that? >> >> PDF isn't IE's normal method of receiving information (ease of use >> with Acrobat aside). If you specifically want the PDF >> representation, specify *.pdf. If what you want is the resource, then >> you aren't asking specifically for PDF. If all you have is PDF and >> PDF is the only representation, then having your URL specify that you >> are serving PDF hurts no one and corrupts no URLs. > > Yes it does! What representation is chosen should only depend on the > Accept header, and what the UA should do with a file it receives should > have nothing to do with the filename whatsoever, it should be based on > the Content-Type-header in the response, solely. It's been a while > since I read the HTTP 1.1 spec, but IIRC, it is pretty clearly spelled > out there. It should only depend on the MIME-type. On the server and > client sides, separately, how it is done is of no concern of anybody, > but that the client depends on what file extension the server uses has > to be a violation of the spec, again IIRC. > > During content negotation, an extensionless URL should be responded to > with 200 if the server has a representation which is acceptable > according to the client's Accept*-headers, with a Location-header > saying where to find the best file, and that file may well have a .pdf > extension. If no appropriate representation is found, the server should > respond with 406. > > </rant> > > Cheers, > > Kjetil > -- > Kjetil Kjernsmo > Astrophysicist/IT Consultant/Skeptic/Ski-orienteer/Orienteer/Mountaineer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Homepage: http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Please check that your question has not already been answered in the > FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faq/index.html> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please check that your question has not already been answered in the FAQ before posting. <http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/faq/index.html> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
