W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > November to December 1996

Re: HTTP header suggestion/request

From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 05:37:02 -0800 (PST)
To: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-talk@w3.org, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961108053155.12245A-100000@ns.viet.net>
On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, MegaZone wrote:

> Once upon a time David W. Morris shaped the electrons to say...
> >The risk could be minimized by not allowing path information in the
> >value. The UA would 'know' the root path or prompt the user..
> 
> That would be my choice.  But I wanted to open the option.
> 
> >to cgi scripts, it may be possible to include a realistic file name
> >as part of the URL ... for example, we use a url of the form:
> >   http://xxxx/export/zwexport.zwe
> 
> The problem is this:
> 
> You have a form, say 'download'.
> 
> That form has one ACTION.  On that form you can check a box to download
> code.tar, code.tar.Z, or code.tar.gz.  The user picks the option they want
> then submits the form to the CGI.  Since the form has one ACTION only one
> CGI can be called, and since there are 3 possibly names putting an extension
> on the ACTION will be wrong for any 2 of them.
> 
> I've explored this one already.  This is a real world situation today.
> 

Code 302. Issue a redirect from the script to the final file. That is what
most sites that do this do. There is no real reason to feed it out of the
script itself. This also allows you to try to load balance download sites
if that that is desirable. 

-- 
Benjamin Franz
Received on Friday, 8 November 1996 08:37:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:20 GMT