[5267] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: forms question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel W. Connolly)
Mon Aug 22 22:15:56 1994
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 20:53:48 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
In message <Pine.3.89.9408221131.A17327-0100000@brazos.is.rice.edu>, Rick Troth
writes:
> I can't express this strongly enough without using wording
>that would alienate some people:
>
> hidden fields are awkward at best
>
> "overloaded paths" in the URL are bad
Could you give some evidence? I thought hidden fields were a pretty
good idea? What are the pitfalls? Are they real technical issues,
or a result of *@#$#@$ broken implementations? What's wrong with
"overloaded paths"? (what are "overloaded paths"?)
> Recommend putting state information and other optional
>parameters after a (yet to be implemented on some servers)
>semi-colon ";" and before the question mark "?".
I am completely lost. Why does it matter whether the ';' goes before
or after the '?' ? Is this a CGI-BIN interface issue? A broken client
issue? A broken server issue?
Dan
