Howdi, > Damn, I should just keep my mouth shut when I'm distracted by a rebooting > server and preparations for a presentation. Sorry.
must be important to be working this late! ;-) > >how does it go... "The best thing abuot the standard environment is that > >there are just soooo many to choose from." > > isn't there just one CGI standard when you get down to the nuts 'n' bolts > of it? not really, afaik there's no real 'standard' as such. there's an RFC, but with a name like 'request for comment' even that can hardly be called a standard! ;-) even rfcs as a defacto 'standard approach' to internet systems often allow for liberal application of developer interpretation by adopting terms like 'should' and 'may' instead of 'must' and 'will' and it seems to me that it's why we end up with such a variety of platform dependent software problems - like how we use (or don't use) cgi variables. > Vendor implementations extend the CGI standard (and some don't quite > implement the standard correctly - IIS and PATH_INFO!). SERVER_PORT is > about the only environment variable you can rely on to determine whether > the request is secure (though, I would check for 443 rather than 80). maybe they do extend the basic functional specs, but the value of extending any loose definition is questionable - other than (as is usually the M$ case) to lock the developer into a 100% microsoft solution! ;-) and that path_info is not the only one - can't remember the details now, but i'm sure that one project i worked on some time ago demonstrated to me that between different servers there are many MANY differences between not only what the cgi variables names are, but also what values they return. as kurt vonnegut used to say, "so it goes" cheers! ;-) --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
