Message-ID: <33F94BDC.E3AE2251@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:31:40 +0100
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Organization: A.L. Digital Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Revivification of the CGI 'spec'
References: <97081821431193@decus.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

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