Re: [dev] Suckless operating system

I wish modern filesystems would allow some way of identifying a file type
besides in the filename. It seems like that would make things more straight
forward.

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95_AT_gmail.com>wrote:

> On 6/14/10, Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57_AT_fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > On 14 Jun 2010, at 22:35, Ilya Ilembitov wrote:
> >>
> >> So, here is my question. If we take only modern and active projects,
> >> how standard are they? Suppose, we have a browser engine that
> >> implements only the current standards (OK, may be some legacy
> >> standards, but no IE or other tweaks), will we still be able to use
> >> 95% of the web?
> >
> > Probably, but why? There's nothing suckless at all about the standards
> > coming out of the w3c. I don't know much about rendering html but I
> > recently made a web server, and while I started out with the noble
> > intent of supporting standards, before I was done I just had to
> > declare http 1.1 schizophrenic and delusional!
> >
> > Consider this: Out of web browser and web server, which one has to
> > examine the data in order to render it, and which one is just reading
> > it from the disk and dumping it down a pipe? Which one's resources are
> > at a premium, and which is mostly idling between fetching web pages?
> > With those two questions in mind, can someone please tell me what the
> > w3c were collectively smoking when they made content-type mandatory in
> > http 1.1? If that isn't enough argument, it's actually impossible to
> > set content-type correctly from file extension. No-one really tries
> > and I very much doubt they ever did, but that didn't stop the w3c from
> > making it mandatory. Idiots.
> setfattr(1). File extensions are just a historical misunderstanding (where
> people confused presentation with semantics). IMO they should mostly
> be used to give unique names to binaries, sources and configuration
> files with a similiar base name.
> > "Schizophrenic" actually refers to a less serious problem, but still a
> > bizarre one. Dates are provided in headers to guide caching, very
> > useful in itself but the date format is about as long-winded as it can
> > get and it's US-localised too. With that in mind, why are chunk length
> > values for chunked encoding given in hex? That's not even consistent
> > with the length value of content-length, which is decimal. And what
> > titan amongst geniuses decided it was appropriate to apply chunked
> > encoding to the http headers?
> Granted, decimal vs hex inconsistency is plain weird. But nobody is
> forcing you (as a httpd implementor) to actually use (chunked) trailing
> headers, though it´s a different story for clients.
>
> --
> kv,
> - Bjartur
>
>

-- 
Matthew Bauer