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

Re: CGI???

From: Chris Adie <C.J.Adie@ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:19:58 +0000
Message-Id: <9511221018.AA29881@www10.w3.org>
To: David Robinson <drtr1@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: www-talk@w3.org
David Robinson <drtr1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Chris Adie <C.J.Adie@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > ...
> > 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.

That is arguable - splitting a specification into system-independant and 
system-dependant parts is not uncommon.

> 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.

That is because CGI was developed for UNIX systems.  I'm not going to fight 
hard for the UNIX-specific spec to be physically in a separate document; 
however I do believe the CGI spec should define the semantics of CGI variables
and CGI data i/o in a non-implementation-specific way.

In fact, your spec very nearly achieves this.  When talking about data
input/output from the CGI script, you say "Unless defined otherwise, this
will be via the `standard input' file descriptor."  Why not use the same 
form of words for CGI variables?

Regards,

Chris Adie                                   Phone:  +44 131 650 6773
Edinburgh University Computing Service       Fax:    +44 131 650 6552
James Clark Maxwell Building                 Email:  C.J.Adie@ed.ac.uk
Kings Buildings
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom            
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 1995 05:18:13 GMT

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