Re: Semicolon's for all

Tony Sanders <sanders@BSDI.COM>
Message-id: <199312312304.RAA20773@austin.BSDI.COM>
Subject: Re: Semicolon's for all 
In-Reply-To: Charles Henrich's message of Fri, 31 Dec 1993 17:15:19 EST.
Organization: Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1993 17:04:10 -0600
From: Tony Sanders <sanders@BSDI.COM>
Content-Length: 1180
> Im amazed at the massive pushback at adding something that wont break anything,
> even when CGI is still in its infancy.  What happens in a year when folks want
> to add something and CGI is well entrenched?

#1 It *DOES* break things, it breaks things that people will want to do in
   the future, it's a kludge and it's not orthogonal with the rest of the
   system; that's why I'm against it.

#2 You have not presented a single valid case for ';' being part of the
   CGI spec and we have presented several arguments against it.

   Server side includes are *NOT* part of the CGI spec and would require
   seperate consideration.  Perhaps Rob will address this issue.
   This *is* a good point, and something that needs to be addressed but
   it doesn't affect CGI (not directly anyway).

> Of course, if your running on a RS/6000 with lots of memory (as I am) spawning
> and executing are virtually instantaneous as its all out of ram, and nothing
> ever hits the disk or network.
> It is rediculus that to serve up documents I must spawn a huge scripting
> language to emulate a server (which I already have running!).
Do I detect a contradiction here? :-)