In <200003191426(_dot_)JAA00925(_at_)hesketh(_dot_)net> "Simon St.Laurent"
<simonstl(_at_)simonstl(_dot_)com> writes:
At 08:17 AM 3/19/00 -0500, Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
If you go the "application/xml; Content-Feature=foobar" route, you're
DONE. You don't have the added support handy, it just drops to
wherever you configured Mozilla to pass the stuff. The grounds that
"its possible" here is that it's tagged as 'application/xml', which
should be sufficient for tagging that it's possible. This is actually
*less* work to make work under Mozilla, at the expense of *not* passing
along a hint to Notepad/XMLSpy/whatever that it's a *FOOBAR* xml, not
just a generic xml.
Rereading this paragraph raises further questions about the value of
Content-Feature in my mind. Less work under Mozilla, but not working with
applications outside of a particular transaction framework (HTTP in this
case) seems like an enormous overall loss to me.
Just a naive question here.
If your system sees "application/xml" and has been configured to hand it
off to a program "XML" (you can certainly configure Mozilla in that way)
does the "XML" program get to see the complete message, including the
Content-Type header (or does it just get to see the body).
Because it "XML" gets to see the full Content-Type header, then you just
make XML a shell script that examines the Content-Type header, spots the
foobar and calls the foobar handler or, alternatively, if it doesn't see
the foobar (or doesn't have a foobar handler to hand) then it calls the
REAL (generic) xml handler.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Web:
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5