Re: HTTP problem or Mosaic problem?

Bob Denny <>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 21:17:04 +0200
Message-id: <>
Precedence: bulk
From: Bob Denny <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: HTTP problem or Mosaic problem? 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Chameleon - TCP/IP for Windows by NetManage, Inc.
X-Mailer: Chameleon - TCP/IP for Windows by NetManage, Inc.

On Thu, 16 Jun 1994 19:57:13 +0200  Paul Everitt wrote:
> [...]
>However, I want to see if I understand [my] proposal: will subsequent 
>messages to the cgi-bin "object" go through the httpd?  This would allow 
>a good deal of piggy-backing on the HTTP work, primarily in security.

Well, the idea is a gleam in my eye at present. All I wanted to point out is 
that, in my opinion, HTTP is NOT the place to keep state. I think it should be 
kept at a higher level. I agree that HTTP seems to be a good vehicle for 
providing the "request-response" service to whatever the higher-level service 

If you take HTML out of the picture, HTTP is a useful, flexible service that can 
be used for lots of things. Once state gets into the picture, many of HTTP's 
potential uses disappear. You could argue that new uses appear, but then you 
could argue that making FTP stateless would make it useful in new ways as well.

If you look at what's sitting there in the CGI interface, particularly the 
"extra header" support in CGI/1.1, it leaves open the possibilities of layering 
all sorts of stuff on top of HTTP, which would be used to provide a 
"request-response" service to the application layer. 

    -- Bob