Re: More CGI Comments (John Franks)
From: (John Franks)
Message-id: <>
Subject: Re: More CGI Comments
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 09:26:02 -0600 (CST)
In-reply-to: <9401070152.AA20069@hotsand.dacsand> from "" at Jan 6, 94 08:52:12 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 842       
According to
> 3) Because of (1), (2) and my general preferences of arranging files, I find it would be
> much easier to identify executables on the server side by being able to use a server
> defined suffix (notwithstanding the previous arguments against this) for these files
> (e.g., .cgi).  
> Rich
> ----
> Rich Brandwein
> AT&T Bell Labs

Despite, having been vigorously involved in the "previous arguments 
against this", I nevertheless am implementing exactly this in the 
gn server.  I finally decided that this is the least of several evils.
The winning argument for me was that this is the simplest scheme 
for server maintainers to understand which is also consitent with the
current CGI standard.

John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University