W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > November to December 1995

Re: CGI???

From: David Robinson <drtr1@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 18:39 GMT
Message-Id: <m0tHxbS-000DJKC@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk>
To: C.J.Adie@ed.ac.uk
Cc: drtr1@cus.cam.ac.uk, www-talk@w3.org
Chris Adie <C.J.Adie@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Yes, there are certainly CGI implementations in use right now which don't use
> stdio streams - for example, CGI scripts using Visual Basic (which has no
> concept of stdin/stdout), or scripts implemented as DLLs.  DLLs don't use
> environment variables either.  This is not perversity, it is just that those
> mechanisims are not appropriate to these types of script.
>
> I believe it is very important to keep the CGI standard as general as
> possible.  The standard should not include *any* reference to implementation
> details of how the server identifies and communicates with the CGI program.
> Separate platform-specific specs should do that.  So, avoid
> implementation-specific terms like "environment variables", and call them
> (say) "CGI variables" instead. 

I disagree. a CGI `specification' wouldn't be much of a specification if it
didn't allow a programmer to write a working program based on it.

From a practical standpoint, a separate platform-specific spec seems pretty
pointless when, for example, the Unix-specific spec is only 9 lines of text.

 David Robinson.
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 1995 13:39:38 GMT

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