home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Collection of Internet
/
Collection of Internet.iso
/
infosrvr
/
dev
/
www_talk.930
/
001143_brian@eitech.com _Tue May 18 01:58:45 1993.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1994-01-24
|
2KB
Return-Path: <brian@eitech.com>
Received: from dxmint.cern.ch by nxoc01.cern.ch (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
id AA29094; Tue, 18 May 93 01:58:45 MET DST
Received: from lks.lks.csi.com by dxmint.cern.ch (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)
id AA04590; Tue, 18 May 1993 02:19:50 +0200
Received: from eitech.eitech.com by lks.lks.csi.com (5.65/6.930123)
with SMTP id AA14622; Mon, 17 May 93 19:19:15 -0500
Received: from hewey.eitech.com by eitech.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA05566; Mon, 17 May 93 17:14:52 PDT
Date: Mon, 17 May 93 17:14:52 PDT
From: brian@eitech.com (Brian Smithson)
Message-Id: <9305180014.AA05566@eitech.com>
To: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: Is HTTP necessary??
Cc: p.lister@cranfield.ac.uk
Oops. I didn't finish the thought before mistakenly delivering the message! :-(
Let me try that again...
"Peter Lister, Cranfield Computer Centre" writes:
> HTML is great, but is HTTP worth it? I'm want practical details, so
> don't send me philosophical waffle or flame me for being a traitor
> to WWW, cos I'm not.
Here's a practical detail, one which pushed me over the edge to setting
up an http server for internal uses. I wanted to be able to refer to
documents (via hyperlinks) which were rooted somewhere, rather than having
to do a lot of messy stuff like "href=../../../foo/bar.html". I found it much
easier to use "href=http://host.domain/foo/bar.html". It can also be
a lot easier to maintain.
One could use ftp instead of http, but http is a bit more permissive about
following symbolic links (e.g. outside of ~ftp, for example).
-Brian