----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: files extension - a radnom thought
> 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.
Hear hear! Very soon Microsoft will use up all available extensions ;-)
Frank
