- From: David Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:15:02 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 9:50 PM -0500 3/25/97, lee@sq.com wrote: >It's true that they don't pass the parameters to the CGI script in >a separate variable, if that's what you mean, but they don't swallow >them either. That's what I meant by no "special support". No help. The server does not parse it, and depending on which versions of the RFCs you read, parameters are legal in different places -- so you are really no better off than hacking URL paths or any other form of URL mangling. The point I was making is that parameters qualify as reserved syntax, but they don't really have a standard implementation or working practice that lets one recycle code or user experience -- they've been used (differently) by a very few products of the many out there. I'm not arguing that they get trashed, just that the common practice that tells me where to look for parameters (and commonly available code to do it for me) is lacking almost everywhere. Most CGI packages that I've seen don't even have code to parse parameters (never mind that they are not put in a single consistent place by the server). You have to either re-parse the URL yourself, or check the path and the wuery serpately so see if anything that looks like a parameter is there. And with the new draft, you even have to look at multiple places in the path part! It doesn't sound _practically_ interoperable, even though the information is not lost. >Lee _________________________________________ David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams --------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 1997 10:52:46 UTC