on 10/3/2000 7:55 AM, "Rolf Veen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just another idea. In our template engine we use standard extensions (*.htm,
> *.txt, *.xml) so that the engine can return the corresponding MIME type. The
> focus is on the base language (text / HTML / XML ...), not on the template
> language. That is very usefull, at least in our case: we can return a
> text/plain document for example. Mapping is done by putting templates in
> specific directories. This is not incompatible with a specific file
> extension; just put the right mapping in web.xml.
That doesn't make a lot of sense here in this case given that mime type is
not determined by the server, it is defined by the application. For example,
a .vt/.vm/.wm file could easily return *anything* that falls under any mime
type.
I also have a problem with this because if we ever have an IDE for Velocity,
then in a GUI environment I want my users to be able to double click on the
file and have it open in the IDE.
I also have a problem with this because I don't like the idea of overloading
suffix based mime types. A .vt/.vm/.wm file is NOT a .html file even if it
only returns .html after having been processed. Another example of this is
that you don't have a .xml as a .html file.
So, I vote -1 on the above and I vote +1 on changing it to .vt AFTER an
analysis is done of any other suffixes that match .vt. I don't want to run
into the WebMacro problem of .wm == Windows Media Format...LOL.
-jon
--
http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
