Re: revised CGI/1.0 specification

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Oct 93-present
• Next message: Markus Stumpf: "Some comments on http protocol draft"
• Previous message: Dave_Raggett: "Re: Future browsers..."
• Maybe in reply to: Rob McCool: "Re: revised CGI/1.0 specification"
• Reply: Rob McCool: "Re: revised CGI/1.0 specification"

Subject: Re: revised CGI/1.0 specification
From: Markus Stumpf <stumpf@informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
To: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Date: 	Tue, 23 Nov 1993 15:27:14 +0100
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL6]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 988       
Message-id: <93Nov23.152719mesz.311437@hprbg5.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>

Hoi folx,

I am really unhappy about the term "gateway" in the spec.
I cannot see any possibilities to use it as a *real* gateway.

I'd like the possibility to receive something like
    GATE prot://hostname:port/some_more_info
    [ followed by some protocol specific info ]
The "gateway" could then make a connection to the host/port, send the
protocol specific info it received from the client and simply gate the answer
back to the requestor.
I cannot imagine how this would be possible with the current spec.
Therefor I'd prefer a name like CSI "Common Script Interface" or something
like that.
I am sorry to say that I don't have any "on the fly" proposals to be added
to the spec to allow for a "real gateway" behaviour as I understand it :-(
However, besides that I think the spec is really useful and needed.

	\Maex
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
 Markus Stumpf                        Markus.Stumpf@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE