Wiggins d Anconia wrote: > > > > On Thursday, Nov 6, 2003, at 18:55 US/Pacific, R. Joseph Newton wrote: > > > "NYIMI Jose (BMB)" wrote: > > > > > >> One reason to not use CGI.pm: > > >> > > >> An important concern today in the integration architecture > > >> is to provide a means to support different type of clients. > > >> Unfortunately CGI.pm will not fulfill the increasing > > >> requirements to support clients expecting other format than HTML. > > >> Such clients can be palm top computers, mobile phones > > >> or other device that enables client access. > > > > > > Hold it! We are talking about CGI work and the Web. The web > > > is defined as the set links that connect html pages to each other. > > > For other programming or iInternet communication tasks, you certainly > > > would find other functionality more appropriate. > > [..] > > > > actually, if we want to be pedantic, CGI ( common gateway interface ) > > as opposed to say 'computer generated images' - is a set of 'rules' > > about how a "web_server" will broker deals with other code. It will > > set up certain envrionmental variables, and pass information to > > that code in a given manner. It will of course 'return' anything > > sent to it over STDOUT to the original caller. > > Thank you for putting this so eloquently, to back it up with the most > simple example of all though.... remember images, that a majority of web > sites use these days, are distributed over that very protocol right > under our noses! There is a realization to make here that some of us > have become so used to the "it just works" model of web development that > we even begin to think of things such as images that come down over that > same big pipe as actually being part of the actual page, rather than a > completely separate request/response/session! Even if we aren't talking > about all those web service things, this is the best reminder that what > travels over HTTP need not be HTML-esque. > > http://danconia.org
I'd suggest that you both rered the post I was responding to. I wasn't suggesting that any single MIME type or protocol should be the exclusive concern of CGI activity. What I am saying is that rools that can't handle html or other standard protocols for http exchange should not dictate standards for delivery or processing of Web content. Let the telecoms develp content for their own disposables. Cell phones are great for transmitting voice, and even for storing and managing voice messages. Likewise, palmtops can be handy tools for the emerency capture, in electronic form, These are the roles for which these instruments are ergonomically suited. What do they have to do with processing of serious Web-based content.? Just because the marketing-slime of the telecom industry latch onto the work of serious thinkers and try to bathe in the aura of illusory "progress", does that mean we should adjust to accomodate them? Not unless they [ie the telecoms and the multinational belly-crawlers who finance them] are paying me. There is plenty of real work to be accomplished without supporting the illusion of usefulness for products that are shoddily made and intentionall designed to hit the landfill within a year of purchase. If somebody wants to interact with Web content I create, they can damn well sit down in front of a real screen. If the folks who make those throw-away Crickets want achannel for their toys to connect to, they can contract with me privately, then I will start looking at solutions specialized to their proprietary garbage. Joseph -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
