[23153] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 5374 Volume: 10
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Sat Aug 16 21:06:10 2003
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Sat, 16 Aug 2003 Volume: 10 Number: 5374
Today's topics:
Re: "goodbye little kiddie" from uri (Tad McClellan)
Re: "goodbye little kiddie" from uri <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Re: "goodbye little kiddie" from uri (Sam Holden)
Re: "goodbye little kiddie" from uri <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Re: and why can't I do my own CGI? <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Re: and why can't I do my own CGI? (Randal L. Schwartz)
Re: and why can't I do my own CGI? <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
ASCII Art JAPH <spamblock@junkmail.com>
Re: ASCII Art JAPH <spamblock@junkmail.com>
Re: CGI is not so hard <wsegrave@mindspring.com>
Re: CGI is not so hard (Tad McClellan)
Re: CGI is not so hard (Tad McClellan)
Re: CGI is not so hard (Si Ballenger)
Re: CGI is not so hard <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Re: CGI is not so hard <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Re: CGI is not so hard <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Re: CGI is not so hard <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Re: CGI is not so hard (aka ? the Platypus)
Re: CGI is not so hard <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
CGI.pm & MSIE box model valid-till-end-Aug@dpw.clara.co.uk
Re: file upload in cgi <REMOVEsdnCAPS@comcast.net>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:21:00 -0500
From: tadmc@augustmail.com (Tad McClellan)
Subject: Re: "goodbye little kiddie" from uri
Message-Id: <slrnbjt4hc.bku.tadmc@magna.augustmail.com>
Hudson <scripts_you-know-the-drill_@hudsonscripting.com> wrote:
> yeah, well...tell the regulars here
Nobody tells the regulars what to do, not even the other regulars.
It is regulated by peer pressure, not by dictate.
> not to name call and put people down at the
> drop of a hat.
You provided a profound measure of justification, it was *not*
at the drop of a hat.
You can't see what you did that made them mad, and you can't see
what is wrong with your code. The regulars can see both.
And we'd share it all with you if we thought you might listen.
It just might be that these experts really are expert, and that
there is something going on here that you are missing. If you
can identify the something, you'd have an opportunity to
learn something at other's expense.
You seem determined that there is no "something", and that the
one untrained person is the right one, and that the several
professionals are the wrong ones.
A well-developed sense of logic will go a long way toward a
smooth programming experience. You need to work on yours a bit.
Your script kiddie code was broken on multiple levels and you
insisted publically that it was "OK".
There are lots and lots of lurkers reading here, and the regulars
do not want them taking such foolishness seriously, so it must
be marked as such by a followup.
Steering people away from opening themselves up to cracker exploits
is a community service.
Encouraging them to be cracked is not.
You tried to lead readers astray, the regulars fixed that.
Who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in that scenario?
--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
tadmc@augustmail.com Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:34:28 -0700
From: hudson <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Subject: Re: "goodbye little kiddie" from uri
Message-Id: <c4qtjvc6e7t1ks4klsa4a9bi0sj7ebpi8e@4ax.com>
>Your script kiddie code was broken on multiple levels and you
>insisted publically that it was "OK".
stop with the insults, please....I am writing code for my own
enjoyment and to learn, not to please you or be dogmatic. I am sure
Larry Wall was writing and learning for his own enjoyment when he
developed Perl. Hacking is a good thing, and it is the sign of
stagnation when the dogma sets in.
>There are lots and lots of lurkers reading here, and the regulars
>do not want them taking such foolishness seriously, so it must
>be marked as such by a followup.
What is foolish about learning and having fun. And surely I can learn
to parse CGI without the CGI.pm....I think you are going over the top
here. And the only way I am going to learn is by doing and making a
few mistakes.
>Steering people away from opening themselves up to cracker exploits
>is a community service.
And stiffling creativity sucks.
>Encouraging them to be cracked is not.
If you don't understand what you are doing by learning, you will not
get it...
>You tried to lead readers astray, the regulars fixed that.
You are coming to conclusions I don't agree with.
>Who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in that scenario?
From my point of view, you are the bad guy and I am the good guy.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Aug 2003 00:02:09 GMT
From: sholden@flexal.cs.usyd.edu.au (Sam Holden)
Subject: Re: "goodbye little kiddie" from uri
Message-Id: <slrnbjthg0.5ta.sholden@flexal.cs.usyd.edu.au>
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:34:28 -0700,
hudson <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com> wrote:
Damn you Tad for pushing this past my killfile....
>>Your script kiddie code was broken on multiple levels and you
>>insisted publically that it was "OK".
>
> stop with the insults, please....I am writing code for my own
> enjoyment and to learn, not to please you or be dogmatic. I am sure
> Larry Wall was writing and learning for his own enjoyment when he
> developed Perl. Hacking is a good thing, and it is the sign of
> stagnation when the dogma sets in.
You can't see the difference between criticism of your *code* and
personal insults?
Programming is not a good career choice, in fact it is not a good choice
of hobby, for you. Code is always criticised, code which is brilliant
and correct except for one small aspect will be criticised for that
aspect. Correctness and clarity is what programmers want and they *want*
criticism of the code from other programmers in order to improve their code.
You can't learn if you aren't told what is good and bad. If you interprete
criticism of bad code as an insult then you are not going to learn.
>>There are lots and lots of lurkers reading here, and the regulars
>>do not want them taking such foolishness seriously, so it must
>>be marked as such by a followup.
>
> What is foolish about learning and having fun. And surely I can learn
> to parse CGI without the CGI.pm....I think you are going over the top
> here. And the only way I am going to learn is by doing and making a
> few mistakes.
Again, the *code* is what it begin talked about. Using that *code* is
foolish. The *code* is broken, the *code* is buggy, the *code* shouldn't
be used.
Claiming the *code* is good is foolish. I guess it could be malicious, but
ignorance is assumed over malice.
>
>>Steering people away from opening themselves up to cracker exploits
>>is a community service.
>
> And stiffling creativity sucks.
It isn't creative to write buggy code. Creativity doesn't usually
show itself when implementing a protocol specification. Mind numbing
tedium is the order of the day, in that domain, which is why programmers
use things like modules - so that someone else who is hopefully has more
domain knowledge then them will do all the tedious work.
>
>>Encouraging them to be cracked is not.
>
> If you don't understand what you are doing by learning, you will not
> get it...
You aren't doing the things people do when they are learning. Taking the
advice of experts in the field is the obvious thing to do. Trying to
understand what they are saying instead of taking everything as a personal
insult.
>
>>You tried to lead readers astray, the regulars fixed that.
>
> You are coming to conclusions I don't agree with.
You aren't the expert in the domain of perl or HTTP or SOAP. The people
who have more expertise in those areas disagree with you (in the area of
their expertise).
"tried to lead readers astray" does not imply any act of malice or
intention. It implies ignorance - something you have displayed in vast
quantities.
>
>>Who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in that scenario?
>
> From my point of view, you are the bad guy and I am the good guy.
And your point of view is irrelevant to everyone else. You are either
amazingly stupid, amazingly ignorant, or just another (relatively poor)
troll.
I suspect a bit of each.
See, that was a personal insult. Notice, how it is different than what
Tad was saying (which was about the code or results or methods and not
the person).
Anyway, I must work out a way to get slrn to overweigh Tad's positive score
with your negative score...
--
Sam Holden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:35:10 -0700
From: hudson <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Subject: Re: "goodbye little kiddie" from uri
Message-Id: <9tttjvgjpt307f5vieqc5dnt0fgvd8eser@4ax.com>
>And your point of view is irrelevant to everyone else. You are either
>amazingly stupid, amazingly ignorant, or just another (relatively poor)
>troll.
Sam...your post is so full of hate, I am not even going to bother to
read it. Please do me a favor and keep me on your kill file. Thank
you.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:23:08 -0700
From: hudson <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Subject: Re: and why can't I do my own CGI?
Message-Id: <hlptjvk1811mvs8n4tlrijulnk2caskjlj@4ax.com>
>Nothing appears to be hard for you. So what do you want from this group?
>If things are really that simple but you nonetheless consult the group
>for help, perhaps they are still too tall an order for you.
>
bah....I just thought this was the "abuse me please" channel. anyway,
as other people have mentioned before, this group does seem a bit
dogmatic on certain topics
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:47:59 GMT
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
To: scripts@hudsonscripting.com
Subject: Re: and why can't I do my own CGI?
Message-Id: <abcae74fb1d648d39a12e62885899d30@news.teranews.com>
>>>>> "hudson" == hudson <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com> writes:
hudson> bah....I just thought this was the "abuse me please" channel. anyway,
hudson> as other people have mentioned before, this group does seem a bit
hudson> dogmatic on certain topics
s/dog/prag/, please. :)
We say what we say only because most of us have been around the block
a few times, gotten burned on bad practices, and are now passing along
good practices.
Hand-coding instead of using a well-established module is fine in the
privacy of your own cube, but don't post it on the net, or expect to
be applauded for it.
Now, if you had said instead "I've studied all of CGI.pm, and read
the bug log, and understand why each feature is there, and now
I've written something that does everything CGI.pm does and better,
and is more secure and faster", you'd get a hella lot respect.
Instead, you poo-poo the work that has happened before you in terms of
portability, usability, and security, and therefore practicality.
That will earn you no respect here. That's an immature programmer (of
any age) talking who thinks they know more about programming than we
know they know. :)
The most important thing to know (at least in this industry :-) is
that YOU DON'T KNOW why someone else did something, until you look.
Presumption that you know is the kind of arrogance that causes shuttle
tanks to blow up, moon capsules to explode mid-way to the moon, and
ice damage to break up shuttles on reentry.
You're being given some good advice here... and it's consistent. It's
not just a few people. You walk into a discussion area and get a
consistent prodding to not reinvent a wheel you don't fully
understand. Your best plan at this point is to at least understand
why we're all saying that at the same time!
But, if you won't follow that advice, the best next advice is don't
post any more code, because you seem to be unable to handle the
feedback that a professional programmer gets and gives. No point
subjecting yourself to that here.
I've been writing code for over three decades. I still learn
something every day by looking at other people's code. Don't be so
close-minded so early in the cycle.
print "Just another Perl hacker,";
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:04:17 -0700
From: hudson <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Subject: Re: and why can't I do my own CGI?
Message-Id: <8ivtjv49ntm4dnh0tncciv3vsrukq2dq7o@4ax.com>
I think you are very wrong here in what you are saying. I just came to
say...hey...there are not really a lot of examples of using soap with
perl without the module and bam! I got slammed.
And using soap via IO::Socket is so easy. So I posted up my little
piece of code and people started calling me names.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:46:17 -0700
From: "David Oswald" <spamblock@junkmail.com>
Subject: ASCII Art JAPH
Message-Id: <vjt2k8kc7cu8d3@corp.supernews.com>
This won't impress Abigail or any of the other greater and lesser gods, but
it was fun for me to create and think through as a novice. It's an ASCII
Art "Just another Perl hacker."
For it to look like it should, it needs to be executed under an environment
with a fixed-width font, and the screen height can't be less than 24 rows,
or it will scroll off.
This is just a learning experience for me, a for fun tinkering. But please
do comment so that I can learn technique, areas for improvement, etc. Let
me know what you think.
Without further adieu:
for(qw$f29970i425010i429110i521210i2c8110
629979ed10i9652192420if6521f6c10i9a52192420i929119e520
7ed9i924ai76c9i124ai1e5a70
9c894fe0i925a2121ife5813e0i925a2121i92994f21$){print$/;for(split"i"){$o=unpa
ck("b*",pack("h*",$_));$o=~tr/10/# /;print"$o$/";}}
Not sure how the code will come through on your screen, but if you cut and
paste be sure not to add or delete whitespace. For example, .....i2c8110
629979ed10i... (notice the space which should be there). If it turns out
to not be cut-n-pastable through Usenet due to my using *cough* Microsoft
software to send this post, just look for it on www.perlmonks.org under
ASCII Art JAPH.
Enjoy!!!
Dave
--
DJO
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:02:48 -0700
From: "David Oswald" <spamblock@junkmail.com>
Subject: Re: ASCII Art JAPH
Message-Id: <vjt3jadachgv9e@corp.supernews.com>
It looks like the lousy MS newsreader I use inserted whitespace in the wrong
places as I pasted the code below. I've re-done it. This time for it to
work, manually join the lines of code together into one line with no
whitespace seperating the segments. That ought to yield executable code.
Sorry for the inconvenience...
"David Oswald" <spamblock@junkmail.com> wrote:
> This won't impress Abigail or any of the other greater and lesser gods
[respect implicit], but
> it was fun for me to create and think through as a novice. It's an ASCII
> Art "Just another Perl hacker."
>
> For it to look like it should, it needs to be executed under an
environment
> with a fixed-width font, and the screen height can't be less than 24 rows,
> or it will scroll off.
>
> This is just a learning experience for me, a for fun tinkering. But
please
> do comment so that I can learn technique, areas for improvement, etc. Let
> me know what you think.
>
> Without further adieu:
>
for(qw$f29970i425010i429110i521210i2c8
110 629979ed10i9652192420if6521f6c10i
9a52192420i929119e520 7ed9i924ai76c9i
124ai1e5a70 9c894fe0i925a2121ife5813e
0i925a2121i92994f21$){print$/;for(split"i"){
$o=unpack("b*",pack("h*",$_));$o=~tr/10/# /
;print"$o$/";}}
Again, just paste each line at the end of the previous line with no
whitespace between and it should execute fine for you as a perl -e '......'
or within a file.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 14:02:50 -0500
From: "William Alexander Segraves" <wsegrave@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: CGI is not so hard
Message-Id: <bhlva9$moa$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>
"Hudson" <scripts_you-know-the-drill_@hudsonscripting.com> wrote in message
news:g21tjvc490kalgkg9trhcrj79s8g96drjc@4ax.com...
<snip>
> read (STDIN, my $input, $ENV{'CONTENT_LENGTH'});
> my @kv = split (/&/, $input);
> for my $kv (@kv)
>
> etc....that's not just grabbing an environmental varible?
Hmm. Are you not aware that '&' (as a separator) is deprecated?
This is just one of the reasons why rolling your own parser is not a good
idea. You might search for
sub parse_params {
in a recent (non-broken) copy of CGI.pm to see how it's done.
FWIW, I shudder to think of what your next few lines of code would have
been.
Bill Segraves
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 14:50:23 -0500
From: tadmc@augustmail.com (Tad McClellan)
Subject: Re: CGI is not so hard
Message-Id: <slrnbjt2nv.bjf.tadmc@magna.augustmail.com>
Hudson <scripts_you-know-the-drill_@hudsonscripting.com> wrote:
>>> You use environment varibles to grab the input from the form.
>>
>>Huh? Certainly not for POST.
>
> read (STDIN, my $input, $ENV{'CONTENT_LENGTH'});
> my @kv = split (/&/, $input);
> for my $kv (@kv)
>
> etc....that's not just grabbing an environmental varible?
No, that is not just grabbing an environmental varible (sic).
It is also reading input from stdin.
--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
tadmc@augustmail.com Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:22:39 -0500
From: tadmc@augustmail.com (Tad McClellan)
Subject: Re: CGI is not so hard
Message-Id: <slrnbjt4kf.bku.tadmc@magna.augustmail.com>
Hudson <scripts_you-know-the-drill_@hudsonscripting.com> wrote:
> OK, sorry...just the guys that are jumping on me
If you are rude, you might expect rudeness in return.
Top-posting is seen as rude here.
Please don't top-post unless you _mean_ to be rude.
[snip TOFU]
--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
tadmc@augustmail.com Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:22:11 GMT
From: shb*NO*SPAM*@comporium.net (Si Ballenger)
Subject: Re: CGI is not so hard
Message-Id: <3f3ead1a.147289300@news.comporium.net>
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:22:39 -0500, tadmc@augustmail.com (Tad
McClellan) wrote:
"Begging the question is what one does in an argument when one
assumes what one claims to be proving." ;-)
>Top-posting is seen as rude here.
>
>Please don't top-post unless you _mean_ to be rude.
>
>--
> Tad McClellan SGML consulting
> tadmc@augustmail.com Perl programming
> Fort Worth, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:06:45 -0700
From: hudson <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Subject: Re: CGI is not so hard
Message-Id: <rmotjvop5q7iqslrk48nnlkmeq9ije086m@4ax.com>
>If you are rude, you might expect rudeness in return.
>
>Top-posting is seen as rude here.
>
>Please don't top-post unless you _mean_ to be rude.
geez...Tad, sorry, but I only found out this morning that top posting
is rude
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:08:41 -0700
From: hudson <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Subject: Re: CGI is not so hard
Message-Id: <sqotjv0ne0pl1i11j3m5rcplun7i21bvpb@4ax.com>
>"Begging the question is what one does in an argument when one
>assumes what one claims to be proving." ;-)
>
ahhhh....maybe that's my whole trip...I'm begging the question and
setting up straw men to knock down....hehe
actually, I just wanted a little discussion on soap via http
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:12:18 -0700
From: hudson <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Subject: Re: CGI is not so hard
Message-Id: <tuotjv0dtc59r9jqvo4rklv2jcvu1dd59p@4ax.com>
>Hmm. Are you not aware that '&' (as a separator) is deprecated?
this is just code for fun and is working fine for me...but I guess
code for production has to have higher standards
>This is just one of the reasons why rolling your own parser is not a good
>idea. You might search for
>
> sub parse_params {
>
>in a recent (non-broken) copy of CGI.pm to see how it's done.
thanks, that is an interesting tip
>FWIW, I shudder to think of what your next few lines of code would have
>been.
maybe something like:
$my_system_vanishes = `$kv{untainted_value}`;
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:14:15 -0700
From: hudson <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Subject: Re: CGI is not so hard
Message-Id: <b5ptjvc67ugnf8eht3152obke1fjef0ir0@4ax.com>
>> read (STDIN, my $input, $ENV{'CONTENT_LENGTH'});
>> my @kv = split (/&/, $input);
>> for my $kv (@kv)
>>
>> etc....that's not just grabbing an environmental varible?
>
>
>No, that is not just grabbing an environmental varible (sic).
>
>It is also reading input from stdin.
OK...so I confused stdin with an environmental varible (TM)
can't I still be a Perl hacker, even if I don't know all the terms ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:51:45 GMT
From: "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dformosa@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
Subject: Re: CGI is not so hard
Message-Id: <slrnbjtkd3.6cf.dformosa@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 02:09:15 -0700, Hudson
<scripts_you-know-the-drill_@hudsonscripting.com> wrote:
> ok...I have really had it with this group...I think this is lame that you all
> don't know http or cgi or soap and can only think in modules.
Thats the advantage of modules. They abstract away the complexict and
the knowlige of a subject. I don't have to have deep knowlige of Soap
or cgi because I can make use of the highly skilled persons knowlige
that has been embedded into the module.
Internally perl follows the unix tool box principal. But rather then
tieing progams together with pipes, we tie modules together with glue
code.
> what kind of programmers are you all? geez......!!
Perl programers.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:00:18 -0700
From: hudson <scripts_you_know_the_drill_@hudsonscripting.com>
Subject: Re: CGI is not so hard
Message-Id: <cbvtjv8ntrrnt8m32ckkq3gb6f0r0qv4vq@4ax.com>
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:51:45 GMT, "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)"
<dformosa@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 02:09:15 -0700, Hudson
><scripts_you-know-the-drill_@hudsonscripting.com> wrote:
>
>> ok...I have really had it with this group...I think this is lame that you all
>> don't know http or cgi or soap and can only think in modules.
>
>Thats the advantage of modules. They abstract away the complexict and
>the knowlige of a subject. I don't have to have deep knowlige of Soap
>or cgi because I can make use of the highly skilled persons knowlige
>that has been embedded into the module.
yes...but it is so cool to know soap or http and it is really pretty
simple...just read one or two RFC's and something about soap and then
you can interface all you want via IO::Socket
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:48:06 +0100
From: valid-till-end-Aug@dpw.clara.co.uk
Subject: CGI.pm & MSIE box model
Message-Id: <NiG7HfFWaqP$Ewft@nildram.co.uk>
Sent this to c.i.w.a.c but didn't get any replies (perhaps all
MSIE-philes there!). It's also relevant here as it concerns a perl
module.
Using CGI.pm with default settings generates xhtml with an XML
declaration at the top of page. This apparently puts MSIE 6 into quirks
mode (emulating MSIE 5.x) which has a broken box model.
Unfortunately I have to allow users with this 'browser' to access my
pages, so my choices are:
1) allow MSIE 6 to wreck the precise positioning,
2) fudge the css using Tentek's hack,
3) load CGI with the '-no_xhtml' switch (produces HTML 4.01)
4) write the dtd stuff manually without an XML declaration
Alternatively I can try separating the padding and border attributes.
Currently I have:
input.textbox {
padding: 3px 4px;
border: 1px solid #bdcebb;
}
I don't specify a textbox height here, as MSIE and the Mozilla-class
browsers interpret this differently, such that forcing the height so
that MSIE 5.x (and 6 in quirks mode) displays correctly makes it much
too large for Mozilla. So I have a separate style sheet specifying
'height: 22px' for MSIE 5 & 6, which I would rather not do.
My preferred option would be to switch off the XML declaration in CGI.pm
but retain xhtml and add the charset back using a meta tag. Is it
possible to switch off the XML declaration? Or are there better options
I have missed?
--
RA Jones
ra(dot)jones(at)dpw(dot)clara(dot)net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 14:25:09 -0500
From: "Eric J. Roode" <REMOVEsdnCAPS@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: file upload in cgi
Message-Id: <Xns93D99CD04DFCAsdn.comcast@206.127.4.25>
Hudson <scripts_you-know-the-drill_@hudsonscripting.com> wrote in
news:nc1tjvsuc08277etqkkdhdf4d5oj64rqf3@4ax.com:
>> The style you used is called "top-posting", or "jeopardy-style", and
>>is considered impolite. You will note that nearly no experienced person
>>on usenet uses this style. That's not because they're all a bunch of
>>conformist snobs; it's because, over the years, people have gfound that
>>this style works best for most communication on usenet, and it is thus
>>considered polite.
>>
>>FYI.
>
> thanks for the advice...I guess it is kind of like writing in all caps is
> considered shouting ;-)
>
Exactly. :-)
--
Eric
$_ = reverse sort $ /. r , qw p ekca lre uJ reh
ts p , map $ _. $ " , qw e p h tona e and print
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
the single line:
subscribe perl-users
or:
unsubscribe perl-users
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V10 Issue 5374
***************************************
