Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> Right, that's it then. Anyone want to join me in trying - again -
> to get the CGI 1.1 behaviour formalised in a real spec, and work
> toward 1.2? Roy thinks there's probably not much chance of going
> through the RFC process, since it's an application protocol and not
> a network one, but I'm up for trying anyway. I haven't been in
> touch with David about it yet, either, but something just pushed
> this over the top..
>
> I know a lot of people think CGI is kinda lame, and has poor
> performance, and possesses other drawbacks as well. For all that,
> it's awfully popular. Just because NCSA did something a particular
> way doesn't mean we can't try to advance it - I think Apache's in a
> position to do it. mod_socgi (son of CGI)..
>
> Anyone else interested in joining a crusade?
As time permits, yes...
Cheers,
Ben.
--
Ben Laurie |Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant |Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd, |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England. |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache
|