httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] for 1.3: Last-Modified from scripts
Date Thu, 14 Aug 1997 22:47:27 GMT
Is it really worth reviving the standard though?  CGI is really crude ... 
but I guess it gets the job done in a portable way.  If the standard is
revived to do this then the CGI should probably be required to emit a
specific header token as the first header... to indicate that it is
speaking CGI/1.2 or whatever the protocol would be. 

I could see CGIs wanting to do ETag stuff since they've got a fair bit
more flexibility with it over Last-Modified.  But I still think anyone
going to that effort is probably better off using mod_perl or writing an
apache module. 


On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:

> Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > CGIs certainly don't implement HTTP/1.1.  So it's really our
> > responsibility (should we want it) to deal with their Last-Modified and
> > ETag headers.  But this is admittedly a very low priority problem.  I just
> > noted it as a deficiency in our API.
> There was a brief discussion about this on http-wg recently - it'd be
> nice if CGIs could indicate what version of HTTP they are doing. And
> know about I-M-S queries, and ETags. It's almost worth reviving the CGI
> I-D to fix it.
> Cheers,
> Ben.
> -- 
> Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435|Apache Group member
> Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472|
> and Technical Director|Email: |Apache-SSL author
> A.L. Digital Ltd,     |
> London, England.      |"Apache: TDG"

View raw message