Re: Solution to the CGI message trap

From: David W. Morris (dwm@xpasc.com)
Date: Mon, Aug 10 1998


Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 23:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>, ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980809234745.619C-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
Subject: Re: Solution to the CGI message trap 



On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> Other than that, I'd have to say that I don't care whether a DELETE
> does or does not have an effect on a broken CGI script.  Obviously
> the person installing that script hadn't intended it to be subject
> to deletion via HTTP, and the person running the agent that performed
> the DELETE action obviously didn't have a clue as to what they were doing.
> It is this type of disconnect that the protocol should just punt on and
> simply rely on outside human action to resolve the problem.
> 
>   [Note: For a WebDAV server, a real DELETE on the CGI script would
>    be on a different URL than that used by existing GET/POST references,
>    so this won't be an interoperabilty problem in general.]

This would be exactly my point ... if a new method is sent to a server
which doesn't support the application which uses the new method, so what?
Brain dead client application gets what it deserves ... a brain dead
response.

Dave Morris