comment on

The excellent replies above quite satisfactorily answer the question asked.

But the question itself strikes me as a bit odd, in an age when mislabeled or unlabled internet content should probably be regarded as suspect/undesireable/dangerous.

OP's test for existance tells the name (and -- in some cases -- the nominal file.typ) of the target of the link. The answers above tell how to find out the actual type of file whether or not (OP's case) an extension is provided on the server.

OTOH, were one to rely on a browser, clicking a mislabeled link might provide perhaps as little info as "binary" (try this on a MSWord doc mislabeled as doc.foo, with FF under linux); perhaps misleading info on the actual type (content) of the file (try opening a .pdf mislabeled as an .xls, under w32).

Is there an X/Y problem here or am I missing some reasonable basis for the question?

In reply to Re: LWP::Simple to judge the url by ww
in thread LWP::Simple to judge the url by sarvan

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


We don't bite newbies here... much
	PerlMonks