> 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 a specification from NCSA, old but still there (www.w3c.org/CGI). Whether the NCSA spec is considered a standard is something else. I'd presumed that yes would be the answer, though maybe I'm wrong.
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.
wouldn't an environment variable reference be damn cool, with listings of popular web servers and extensions to web servers and supported environment 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).
in my hurried posting I failed to note that this only checks if the request is secure if you know that requests coming through port 443 are secure.
btw, I promise to be a good boy and think before hitting reply in future
Mark
--- 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
