Hmmm, the problem I was considering was that I believed gopher could not
support arbitrary types returned by a script. From what I just read of the
GN documentation, it seems that GN supports it. In the interests of script
simplicity perhaps we should make a variable such as PROTOCOL_URL_PREFIX
which contains http:// or gopher:// etc.
* I don't understand what you mean by 2 copies. Wouldn't the Accept: headers
* live in HTTP_ACCEPT and not be duplicated in REQUEST_EXTRA_HEADERS?
What I mean is that I don't support placing ALL of the headers in a
variable, I would support only putting the unknown ones there. Sorry that
* At any rate, I think this argues in favour of "npa-". No worries about
* environment variable space or what should or should not be passed to
* the script while giving CGI/1.1 writers the power to do anything. I
* agree that passing the first line is not necessary, just the headers
* on down.
* Did you have any particular reason why you don't want "npa-"? Seems like
* it would fall out of the NCSA httpd code quite nicely if you don't pass
* the first "method url" line. I certainly think script writes would
* like to see "npa-".
Actually, currently it doesn't if you consider user authentication,
especially PGP/PEM. I don't know how it fits into the other servers.
It's curious that you would like to see protocol independence (in URL
returns), but want to introduce a completely HTTP-dependent feature into
CGI/1.1. How does npa- fit into gopher CGI execution? (John?)
My main problem is that I feel that this doesn't fit well into CGI, and
would better fit into a different protocol for actual server modules
instead. One of the things I'm working on for httpd 2.0 is extensive
modularity: a well documented API as well as an external interface for
installing custom methods for doing access control, virtual->physical
translation, etc. This is where I believe such functionality belongs, since
it is cleaner (both documents and scripts could have custom access control),
at it doesn't further pollute an already HTTP-biased specification.
Comments? John, Ari, Tony?