Hi, > I think if we change from having a generated cgi, to having a static > ready to go script, then we can in fact have more than one of these. > Almost all of the things that are currently substituted there would > be better done with CSS today - which really leaves us only the most > fundamental conflict of simplicity (and obvious security) vs greater > versatility to deal with.
Static CGI script is already possible. Since htags generates CSS based hypertext by default, you can provide static CGI script (and CSS file if needed). > We can provide both a very simple script and a more complex one as > examples, and the user can select whichever they find more appropriate > to their particular needs. The packages can provide a default config, > if they use the complex one, which makes it the equivalent of the simple > and safe one in its initially installed form. I agree about the point that many CGI scripts should exist. However, each script should be released by the author under his responsibility. Complex scripts tends to have security holes. > We three cannot guess all the things that people might find useful to > add to this. But we can provide good examples for them to begin their > modifications from. And accept the good ideas to further share. I think that the specification of a system is what the author should press it against the users. There is no specification that satisfies everyone. So, 'good examples' also cannot satisfies everyone. -- Shigio YAMAGUCHI <[email protected]> PGP fingerprint: D1CB 0B89 B346 4AB6 5663 C4B6 3CA5 BBB3 57BE DDA3 _______________________________________________ Bug-global mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-global
