On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:37:38PM +0000, Martin Bazley wrote: > The following bytes were arranged on 29 Jan 2011 by Harriet Bazley : > > > Unfortunately not all elements of a web page are necessarily loaded > > from levels subsidiary to the actual HTML file. > > Well, yeah, duh. > > The structure I'd find useful would be something like this: > > !Appname > !Appname.www/example/org/uk > !Appname.www/example/org/uk.index/html > !Appname.www/example/org/uk.images.pic1a/gif > !Appname.www/example/org/uk.thumbs.pic1a/gif > !Appname.www/another/site/com.public.pics.big.screen/jpg > !Appname.!Run (Filer_Run <Appname$Dir>.www/example/org/uk.index/html)
The reason that it is not this is to maintain compability with file systems that only support 10 characters. We already decided at the hack weekend that we couldn't be bothered to support these systems any more (after all, we don't support anything older than RISC OS 4.02 anyway.) The idea we actually had was to delegate filenaming for this to the front ends, so they can deal with their local OS's own bizarre file system conventions. Under UNIX, and possibly RISC OS, this would probably contain enough information for a human to identify the file's source, as well as a unique ID. > That way, filename conversion would simply be a matter of replacing > "http://"; with "file:///<Appname$Dir>/", and relative URLs wouldn't need > changing at all. It requires more thought than this, especially given it has to be portable. > All the same, I get the distinct impression that the only way that would > ever happen would be if I implemented it myself. This is likely. > (Which I would, if > NetSurf wasn't written in this mysterious indecipherable language called > 'C'...) It clearly isn't indecipherable, given millions of people are able to read and write it quite happily :) If it were written in BASIC, you'd have something approximately as useful as WebsterXL. ie, not at all. B.
