Re: uh oh -- halp!

Erik Ostrom (eostrom@mcs-server.gac.edu)
Thu, 9 Sep 1993 08:21:05 (CDT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Reed Wade: "nesting tags in html"
Previous message: Dave_Raggett: "Re: Status of Tables in HTML+?"
In reply to: Marc Andreessen: "Re: uh oh -- halp!"
Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: uh oh -- halp!"

> HTTP0
> has served us well and is ideal for what it is (very simple, very
> lightweight, and very easy to build shell scripts around -- my
> proposed partial upgrade situation described above should leave those
> qualities intact)

Wait, I don't understand. HTTP0 is just Gopher plus some extra
characters, right? That is, the Gopher request

<obscure_path_name>

and the HTTP0 request

GET <obscure_path_name> HTTP/1.0

are functionally equivalent.

Yes, there are good reasons for wanting a protocol that is very
simple, very lightweight, and very easy to build shell scripts
around--but given that we have one already (with a far wider installed
base), I don't understand why we need to maintain an extra one.

Next message: Reed Wade: "nesting tags in html"
Previous message: Dave_Raggett: "Re: Status of Tables in HTML+?"
In reply to: Marc Andreessen: "Re: uh oh -- halp!"
Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: uh oh -- halp!"