Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

[Alan Gutierrez]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Adam Turoff wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 11:33:13AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > Ziggy, are you interested in this idea enough (at all?) to stick a note
> > about the 'header' function into the RFC? Or should I RFC it separately?
> 
> Adding headers() to the core language (or a similar pragma that is 
> automagically invoked by cgi) would make more sense to me.  I'd be in
> favor of a new RFC.  Adding it into cgi sounds like we're on the
> road to spontaneously reinventing CGI.pm...
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^

You are probably finding that CGI.pm is huge for a reason. Because
Frist-Class/easy-to-write CGI requires more than form posts and headers.

This header functionality is application specific and does not belong in
the core any more than the socket stuff which seems to be on its way
out. I don't see why this has be implemented in the core in C.

Once again, if core means core modules, and as a part of cgi.pm or
headers.pm or some such I am not concerned. And a switch for tainting
and inclusion of this module sounds peachy. No core.

Alan Gutierrez