Mail Archives: opendos/1997/03/27/19:53:53
>
>On 27 Mar 97 at 11:15, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, yeep wrote:
>
>> Yes, I must agree. Due to the popularity of the WWW, and of the
>> GUI browsers that are out there, I recommend that all future
>> online documentation for OpenDOS (or anything else for that
>> matter) be distributed as HTML. A normal browser could read it
>> then. The only thing that really needs to be thought about is
>> how the compression/decompression of the HTML is going to work to
>> save space. The browser will probably have to be modified to
>> accept a type something like:
>>
>> Content-type: octet-stream/html-zip
>>
>> Or something like that. Then UNZIP is called transparently and
>> the page is viewed.
>>
>> What does everyone else think?
>
>Hmmm. Well, the problem with HTML is that an html "document" really lives
>in several files, due to all the graphics and stuff. Apart from that, it's
>a fine markup language; we will need a standard covering the exact means of
>compressing an entire HTML document into a .zip - the name of the
>root html file in the .zip should be index.htm, filenames should be 8.3
>for legacy reasons (people won't be seeing the filenames used in the .zip
>anyway, so pretty LFNs aren't really necessary).
Keeping the files in the archive (which I personally think should be
.tgz, not .zip, since more platforms support .tgz than .zip) in 8.3 is a
good idea, but I think a "directory" file should be included with full
LFNs, in case the user wants to browse the archive manually or
selectively, or wants to maintain the files. (it's a lot easier to tell
what a file is when it has a LFN :)
Jason
--
Jason Daniels -- bd733 AT rgfn DOT epcc DOT edu
http://www.trailerpark.com/phase2/fireside/index.htm
Paradox #218: "Saying 'I'm very modest' isn't."
Commodore 64 forever!
- Raw text -