🚀 go-pugleaf

On Saturday, in article <883833096snz@wash.demon.co.uk>
     john$@wash.demon.co.uk "John Washington" wrote:

> On Friday, in article <883677104snz@grempc.demon.co.uk>
>      Graham@grempc.demon.co.uk "Graham E Kinns" wrote:
> 
> ..
> GK> >BTW, Graham, since most visitors will
> GK> >be using 8.3 filenames, how about using .htm instead of the more
> GK> >purist .html?
> GK> 
> GK> Because I can remember when .html was the norm?  As long as the server
> GK> presents it as text/html, it's a client-specific issue, shirley? :)
> 
> But the client then has to alter the relevant links in docs it
> downloads, else offline browsing doesn't work.  And as further
> docs are downloaded in later sessions it would need to search
> files already downloaded to adjust those links too.  A SMoP, but
> more than I fancy trying in any client I might write; your
> Airplane Mileage May Vary, shirley?             :-)

What are you using to fetch the pages and browse them ?  All of the DOS 
"browsers" I've tried handle .html in the same way that the DOS 
retrieval agents do - they knock off all suffix letters after the third. 
Navigation between pages works seamlessly. The only way I can see your 
problem arising is if you fetch and save under the DOS convention and 
view under something else.

> Actually the best way to tackle this IMO, is to write a proxy
> server that keeps track of the real URLs and the corresponding
> local filenames.  However, until all of us have one of those
> handy...

Collect the pages and view them under the same convention. Zero cost and 
available now :).

Ian.
-- 

  |  Ian Smith             |  "The Moving Finger writes;
  |  ian@isis.demon.co.uk  |   and, having writ, Moves on."