Re: Solution to the CGI message trap

From: Rodent of Unusual Size (Ken.Coar@Golux.Com)
Date: Sat, Aug 08 1998

Message-ID: <35CC4DFB.48F31EC1@Golux.Com>
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 09:09:15 -0400
From: Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.Coar@Golux.Com>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <>
Subject: Re: Solution to the CGI message trap

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> The CGI problem of accepting (returning 200 OK) to arbitrary methods is a
> very serious problem and we need a solution urgently in order to be able to
> extend HTTP beyond GET, HEAD, PUT, and POST.
> Currently, you can't even do a DELETE and know that it works even if you
> get 200 OK back which means that neither HTTP/1.1, nor DAV nor Mandatory
> can be used reliably.

I must be missing something here.  CGI allows the script to return
whatever status it likes, so why wouldn't a script return one
appropriate to the success/failure of the operation it was asked to

As far as DELETE goes, how would CGI even get involved?  DELETE is
instructing the server to delete the resource identified by the URI,
not return it -- so if the URI identifies a script it's not going to
be invoked, and so CGI doesn't enter into it.


Looking at your examples I still don't see the problem based upon my
statement above, so I must definitely be missing something.  I can't
see why a DELETE transaction would be cached at all, particularly
since 2068 says they mustn't be.  But then I'm not really up on the
proxy and caching issues; I'm just weighing in here because CGI is

FWIW, some of us *are* working on formalising CGI/1.1 and designing CGI/1.2;
see <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/cgi/>, such as it is.  (Beware, that
server will be going down Monday for about a week as it relocates.)
If there's something CGI can/should do for this, please let us know
so we can discuss and possibly include it.  The mailing list is closed
for anti-spam, so don't send anything to it without subscribing..

#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar                    <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Group member         <>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://WWW.Dummies.Com/