Status: -> Progress:

George Phillips <phillips@cs.ubc.ca>

Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
Next message: John Price-Wilkin: "CGI scripts; passing variables"
Previous message: Chris Lilley, Computer Graphics Unit: "Re: filetype extensions "
Reply: Paul "S." Wain: "Re: Status: -> Progress:"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 03:20:53 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <8187*phillips@cs.ubc.ca>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: phillips@cs.ubc.ca
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: George Phillips <phillips@cs.ubc.ca>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Status: -> Progress:
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

I recently sent some browser patches that allow a server to send
status updates while working on a lengthy request (like an archie search).
I know of at least two people who are using them, but I forgot that
CGI/1.1 uses a "Status:" header already.  While the interaction between
the two is not technically a problem (since one could only expect nph-
scripts to utilize my Status: properly), I think it would be best to
avoid confusion and use "Progress:" as the header for lengthy request
status updates.

Does anyone see a problem with this?  I should hope that the changeover
of the installed base will be easy enough.

For a little background, telnet to www.cs.ubc.ca on port 80 and type

GET /test-status HTTP/1.0<CR><LF><CR><LF>

and I think you'll get the idea.  Or check out the www-talk archive.