On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:59:27PM +0000, Mark Wainwright wrote: > >> Thanks for the reply. Just to be explicit -- is "experimental" a > >> euphemism for "unimplemented", or is there some other reason why I > >> couldn't make it work? > > > not-fully-implemented. I've spent some time on it, have used it to upload > > files to a couple of html validators. For text files, it's probably ok > > (some minor issues), but for binary files it uses mime encoding, which > > both isn't 100% complete, and not all hosts recognize it. > > Then I'm still not clear why I couldn't use it, since I presume a CSS > file or an HTML file (I tried the W3's HTML validator too) are in the > relevant sense text files. But in both cases the server gave an error > clearly showing it didn't think it had been sent a file at all. > > Is there for example some peculiarity to the form in which one should > type the file name?
not really - offhand, the only problems I can see would be when using a full pathname, the server might see that and get confused. Generally I've uploaded using files in the current directory. In the most recent patch, I had to add a content type since w3c's validator didn't accept plain text any longer. -- Thomas E. Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
