Re: CGI in HTTP standards documents

>   Just for clarity, Larry, are you saying that the discussion 
>of the subject of CGI as it relates to the persistent session 
>draft is off-topic on this list? 

>   And if so, is all discussion of CGI in relation to HTTP off-topic 
>on this list? 

We've already established what our milestones are, as set out in our
charter. Those milestones include HTTP/1.0 and 1.1, and not CGI.

Based on this, my reading is that things that try to specify how CGI
should behave are probably out of order, but things that explain how
HTTP should behave in the face of services that are implemented with
technology like CGI are probably in order.

I don't think I have (or would want) the authority to set boundaries
around our discussion in the sense of cutting people off; I'm just
trying to guide us into concentrating on the highest priority items.

It's not inconcievable that HTTP-WG might have taken on CGI, if it
weren't that we were at a crisis stage. But the risks associated with
not getting 1.1 out *soon* are very high.

Focus. Thanks.


Received on Thursday, 22 February 1996 19:21:30 UTC