Subject:
|
Re: [MODEL] Boogie.dat
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:33:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4771 times
|
| |
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpien@NOSPAM.ctp.com> writes:
> Todd Lehman writes:
> > "Larry Pieniazek" <lpien@NOSPAM.ctp.com> writes:
> > >
> > > Well, then I must be seeing things, because I could SWEAR it
> > > used to work that way. The CGI filename is interposed now,
> > > where before it used to be some random
> > > name that ended in .dat...
>
> <snip interesting algorithm guess>
>
> Maybe, but how would it know to choose .dat as an ending? I repeat, that is
> what it was doing, OR, I was hallucinating (not out of the realm of
> possibility).
Because somewhere on your system there is a mapping:
application/x-ldraw -> .DAT
or perhaps there is a pair of mappings
application/x-ldraw <-> LDLITE.EXE
.DAT <-> LDLITE.EXE
and the browser is treating them as transitive...?
To be sure, there is no code on the server sending out a .dat filename. It
only sends:
Content-type: application/x-ldraw
then regurgitates the data.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: [MODEL] Boogie.dat
|
| Todd Lehman writes: <SNIP> (...) It's more of an A --> B --> C where A = mime content application/x-ldraw, B = .DAT file type, C = registered application for filetype B. Also file naming definitely seems to be something that the client handles. On (...) (28 years ago, 23-Oct-98, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: [MODEL] Boogie.dat
|
| (...) <snip interesting algorithm guess> Maybe, but how would it know to choose .dat as an ending? I repeat, that is what it was doing, OR, I was hallucinating (not out of the realm of possibility). ++Lar ======== Posted via the LUGNET discussion (...) (28 years ago, 23-Oct-98, to lugnet.cad)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
