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

Re: test of new Location header usage

From: ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 14:18:27 +0200
Message-Id: <199508091218.OAA21291@moulon.inra.fr>
To: lilley@afs.mcc.ac.uk, andrew_mcrae@harvard.edu
Cc: www-talk@w3.org
> 
> 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. 
> 

 Only historical reason : the first spec (CGI 1.0) defined only `Content-type'
and `Location'. `Status' was added for CGI 1.1

 I don't know why you want add a status code, when Location imply a code 302.

Guy Decoux
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 1995 08:21:01 GMT

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