W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: .wu format

From: Matthew Smith <matt@kbc.net.au>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:51:30 +0930
Message-ID: <3F0949AA.6040203@kbc.net.au>
To: Lauke PH <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
CC: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Hi All

>>I am finding web pages that end in .wu anyone know what software
>>produces this?
>>
 > In theory, the extension for webpages can be arbitrary, as long as
 > your server is configured to send out the correct MIME type for a
 > certain file. I keep threatening to change some pages at work
 > to .chicken just to prove the point...

What Patrick says is very true; I produce most of my pages through Perl 
programmes and have (in the past) used any number of "non-standard" 
suffixes; for instance, if we had the domain foobar.com, I would have 
the starting page as foobar.com which would have a URI of 
http://foobar.com/foobar.com - sad really ;-)  With the Apache Web 
server, provided that you define .com (or .wu) as being a Perl (or 
whatever) file:
AddHandler cgi-script .com	[or .wu]
...and you set the DirectoryIndex to be foobar.com, this is what will be 
picked up by default.

When it comes to CGI programmes (not in the DocumentRoot directory), you 
can have whatever extension you like since they are completely ignored - 
at least in a Unix-ish environment.  [It's up to the programme to send 
the correct MIME type rather than trying to work it out from the file 
extension.]  You could even have a Perl programme tagged as .php, .cf or 
.asp...

Conclusion: You can't be 100% sure about what is producing a Web page 
from the file extension.  If you're concerned with accessibility, you 
should be looking at the CONTENT rather than the means by which it is 
produced.

Cheers

M

-- 
Matthew Smith
Kadina Business Consultancy
South Australia
http://www.kbc.net.au
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 06:21:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:10 GMT