W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > July to August 1995

Re: test of new Location header usage

From: Andrew McRae <mcrae@elmer.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 07:53:56 -0400 (EDT)
To: lilley <lilley@afs.mcc.ac.uk>
Cc: www-talk@w3.org
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950809074213.20389A-100000@elmer.harvard.edu>
Hi.
On Wed, 9 Aug 1995, lilley wrote:
> I presume your intent by outputting Status:200 is to generate a header? But 
> the headers are generated by the server, not the script.

The CGI specification says: 

   [ From <URL:http://hoohoo.ncsa.uiuc.edu/cgi/out.html> ]
] Any headers which are not server directives are sent directly back
] to the client. Currently, this specification defines three server 
] directives: 
   [...]
]         Content-type
   [...]
]         Location
   [...]
]         Status
]
]        This is used to give the server an HTTP/1.0 status line to
] send to the client. The format is nnn xxxxx, where nnn is the 3-digit 
] status code, and xxxxx is the reason string, such as "Forbidden".

The spec does not say anything about the issue at hand: what a server
should do when given both a Location: and a Status: header by a CGI
program. 

(Just a little rant:)
Honestly, I'm grateful to those who put in the work to produce the CGI
specification. Thank you all. But I get really worried by documents which
call themselves "specifications" and yet repeatedly say things like
"Examples of the command line usage are much better demonstrated than
explained." That's appropriate for a tutorial, but it's utterly hopeless
for anything that's supposed to be definitive. 

Cheers,
Andrew.
--
Andrew McRae  <andrew_mcrae@harvard.edu>
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 1995 07:55:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:18 GMT