Bob, > I fail to see how writing code with errors is somehow CGI.pm's fault No its not. But I'll tell you one thing, people who depend so heavily on CGI.pm generally have a good understanding of how to use CGI.pm, but have less understanding of what is really going on. Me personally, I want to know what's really happening. And once I get to that point, not only can I become more efficient, but I can make better decisions for my own application. You see, just like sterio-typing can frequently be incorrect (because it uses blanket statements), CGI.pm is not the most efficient and for that matter appropriate for many situations.
> Except that that's not RFC2616-compliant, while CGI.pm's output is So what exactly is the RFC2616 compliant content type? You know its funny, but it seems that so many who stick up for CGI.pm so strongly are quick to say that CGI.pm is doing things right and that it does them better, but they seem to purposely avoid giving the actual solution. It seems to me that our way of life (freedom and prosperity) came about from people thinking for them selves and from innovation, learning and continued drive to improve what was given us. I do a little system admin on the side, and I've come to find that learning the actual conf files is such a boon over simply using the GUI app. So much understanding has come and it takes me to a more advanced level. Many times I can discover a problem, or have understanding of the underlying problem when coming across things I don't expect. In my mind programming is the same. I want to know what's going on, so I can make a wise and educated decision of how to approach it. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Showalter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 8:39 AM Subject: RE: Displaying Problems > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:26 AM > To: Kyle Babich; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Displaying Problems > > > Kyle, > Well, I'd start by printing an actual content type > instead of depending on CGI.pm for that: > --------------------------------------- > print "content-type: text/html\n\n"; Except that that's not RFC2616-compliant, while CGI.pm's output is. Most browsers will accept this, but you still shouldn't generate it. > ... > Then I would HIGHLY recommend that you not depend on > CGI.pm so heavily. I would suggest you > print out your own html, then you can see exactly what it is > displaying and know what to change. I fail to see how writing code with errors is somehow CGI.pm's fault. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
