develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from April 2000

[ID 20000409.001] perlfaq9: Location: versus URI: CGI header

From:
Alan J. Flavell
Date:
April 9, 2000 10:21
Subject:
[ID 20000409.001] perlfaq9: Location: versus URI: CGI header
Message ID:
Pine.GHP.4.21.0004091845540.10937-100000@hpplus01.cern.ch

This refers to the perlfaq9 that's distributed with 5.6.0, which in
this regard is substantially the same as in the previous version.

There seem to be a couple of discrepancies in this, of which
the specific point I'm addressing here is the claim made here:

 =head2 How do I redirect to another page?

 Instead of sending back a C<Content-Type> as the headers of your
 reply, send back a C<Location:> header.  Officially this should be a
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^
 C<URI:> header, so the CGI.pm module (available from CPAN) sends back
 both:

There have been several discussions of this point in recent months on
comp.lang.perl.misc, but no-one seems to be able to find any
authoritative grounds for this claim - which seems to have surfaced
late in 1995 in relation to CGI.pm, and been religiously copied
thereafter, but which I have been unable to find mentioned in any
other context - outside of Perl - where the CGI is discussed.  

So, the claim that the URI header is the "official" one and that
Location: is obsolete/obsolescent seems to be found only in the Perl
FAQ9 and in the documentation for CGI.pm (and in answers that are
based on one or the other), but to have no basis in any of the
currently valid specifications for the CGI and for HTTP.

For background please feel free to check this copy of a posting to
c.l.p.m, <Pine.GHP.4.21.0004091506180.10937-100000@hpplus01.cern.ch> :  

http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/cgiperl2.html

Prompted by earlier discussion on c.l.p.m, which addressed this and
other points about FAQ9, I had put together - with the help of the
other participants of the usenet group - some suggestions for
revision, which are presented as briefly as seemed possible, together
with an excessive quantity of supporting background detail, at

http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/perlcgifaq.html

As I already remarked, I'm not trying to force my particular style on
anyone - these are only suggestions, but I _would_ like the facts to
be straightened out, one way or another.  The suggestions were
favourably received by several of the respected regulars on c.l.p.m,
but don't actually seem to have been taken up anywhere yet.  

I've now been advised by two of those regulars to make a submission
myself as a perlbug, and this is it. 

Any advice on whether I should raise the other couple of points
(about relative paths and about newline representations) as
separate documentation bugs, please?

best regards






nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About