Re: a WebCGM question

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 05:21 PM 8/6/01 +0200, Dieter Weidenbrueck wrote:
>[...]
>somewhere there should be a precise description of the MIME type...

Yes, I'm sure it could be found with some searching.

> > 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.)
>A viewer would not even see the URI in this case since the browser makes the
>decision (e.g. IE) what the MIME type is, and then passes it on to the
>appropriate (and registered) handler for this MIME type.

We are probably in agreement.  But just to clarify, I am referring to the 
contents of the 1st parameter of the 'linkuri', which is in a WebCGM 
instance, so the CGM viewer is already running.  Couldn't the viewer 
exercise the option to process the request, if it recognized it as a CGM -- 
e.g., "#<fragment>" (different object in this CGM) or 
"[...]someOther.cgm#<fragment> (another CGM)?

(This option might have some down sides, such as not getting the request 
into the browser "BackForward" stack?)

In other cases, the CGM viewer would necessarily hand it off to the 
browser, for browser handling as you indicate.

>The browser gets it either from the Windows registry or from some private
>registry (Netscape). Here is where you specify an extension and then the
>handler for this extension.

Yes.

-Lofton.