Re: a WebCGM question

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 03:26 AM 8/5/01 +0200, Dieter Weidenbrueck wrote:
>Lofton,
>
>I also believe that this is part of the MIME type definition. Since there is
>no other way from the outside to detect the MIME type than the extension it
>must be .cgm.

I agree that it is a practical requirement.  But I am trying to determine 
if it is a testable assertion, i.e., are there testable statements anywhere 
that can be used to justify a MetaCheck conformance test (on URI contents)?

It seems that the best that MetaCheck could do is:  if ".cgm", then analyze 
the fragment per WebCGM rules.  Else, ignore the URI (a viewer would 
probably give it back to the browser for further processing.)


>BTW, the latest version of the BHO (to be released within a week or so) will
>allow for specification of additional extensions in a config file.

This is a good approach.

>So then
>.bin could be handled by the BHO, and it would be up to the plugin to check
>whether it is a cgm or not.

Another example might be .ctx, the common extension for clear text -- so 
that you can get the BHO invoked for easy-to-write test files.

-Lofton.