On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:10 PM, John Found <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, my exact opinion is that as long as most web servers allow it, there > is nothing wrong in compression the data by the CGI script. But IMHO, such > behavior is half step beyond the CGI specification and can be qualified as > a "common practice", having its roots probably in Apache project. > AFAIR, when CGI was commonplace (the mid/late 1990's) no webserver had the ability to automatically compress output/throughput. i don't recall seeing that ability until sometime around 2000. (That doesn't mean it didn't exist, though, just that i didn't run into it in my own Apaches.) Also, FYI, the communication between the web server (http server) and the > CGI script is not by HTTP protocol. > It is by CGI protocol, that resembles, but is still different from the > HTTP protocol. In that context, the CGI script is NOT a http server and the > web server is not a http proxy between the CGI script and the web browser. > FWIW, i disagree. You say yourself that communication between server and CGI process is not via HTTP, but that the client/webserver communication is (and the remote client, then, implicitly cannot talk directly to the CGI script). Ergo, the web server is a go-between (i.e. proxy) for the CGI script. The CGI's output is (or should be) opaque to the web server (and thus the CGI must be free to compress/mutilate it however he likes). -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
