Date: Fri, 4 Jun 93 15:08:13 +0100
From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@www3.cern.ch>
Message-Id: <9306041408.AA03326@www3.cern.ch>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: URLs and types: concentrate on FTP
> From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 02:02:46 PDT
>
> The data format of a file can only, in the general FTP
case,
> be deduced from the name, normally the suffix of the
name.
> This is not standardised. The transfer mode (binary or
text)
> must in turn be deduced from the data format. It is
> recommended that conventions for suffixes of public
archives
> be established, but it outside the scope of this paper.
>
> So, I'm trying to say: I don't like this. Give a way to include the
> data format in the FTP links. Don't require it. Strongly recommend
> that, except perhaps for a few well-known suffixes, data formats
> should be included. It will make browsers more reliable. It will
make
> more kinds of things accessible, that don't have standard suffixes
but
> might have well-defined MIME types.
No, I don't like it either but that is life with FTP. A new notation
can't solve the existing problem. (That is just ONE reason why
HTTP).
This is the crux: Where do 99.9% of FTP URLs actually come from?
FTP directory listings. And FTP directory listings don't have type
information. The URLs in Warchie come from Archie which comes from
FTP directories. The rules of the FTP world are, you have to guess
the type. We can't change the rules at this stage.
If you do in fact have a local convention of which suffixes
corresepond to which content-types, then you can tell your HTTP
server about it. But your FTP server won't want to know.
Tim