From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
