Re: LINK TYPE=override/type

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Neil St.Laurent wrote:

> As long as the author has some way of providing the Content Type then 
> I have no problem with the HTTP header being taken as correctly.  And 
> I do indeed prefer to see exisitng naming structures maintained.
>  
> Character set is important since currently there is no standard file 
> extension to indicate a Unicode encoding...

There doesn't need to be one. You just need to define an extension the
*server* recognizes as indicating it. The actual extension used is
completely irrelevant - only that the server knows to map it to the type
you want. 

> I may have to look at Apache to see how it does its resolution and 
> may suggest to the server developers I know to adopt soemthing 
> similar.  But a standard in this respect would be great! 

The user setting the Content Type under Apache is easy as long as the
server is setup to allow it. Put this in an .htaccess file (if your
server is configured to allow the user to use it to set file types)
or in the server's srm.conf configuration file:

AddType 'text/html; charset=UTF-8' utf8

Or put

"text/html; charset=UTF8"       utf8

in the mime.types file.

(Restart the server so it will use the changed values)

You now have UTF-8 html for any file ending in '.utf8'.

I just tested these using Apache 1.2.5, so I *KNOW* they work.

Or if you just don't have access to the server configuration at all,

<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">

in your document (this is logically equivalent to the Content-Type HTTP
header).

There is no shortage of ways to tell browsers of document types.

-- 
Benjamin Franz

Received on Friday, 23 January 1998 16:57:09 UTC