Re: [OT] Re: CGI Programming in C on Xitami Web Server
From: Default User (first.last_at_boeing.com.invalid)
Date: 07/01/04
- Next message: Default User: "Re: (OT) English language question"
- Previous message: Dan Pop: "Re: [OT] Re: memcpy() vs. for() performance"
- In reply to: Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: [OT] Re: CGI Programming in C on Xitami Web Server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 16:32:11 GMT
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
> Well, I apologize if I misinterpreted your comment, but here's what
> I saw:
>
> * The OP posts a query about C and HTTP.
Ok.
> * I answer the C part, and point out that the HTTP part is also fine.
> * kal says, "That 'Content-Type: ...' line seems out of place..."
Yes.
> * You (Brian) say, "Why is that?", which I gather to mean you either
> honestly don't know HTTP and want to start a conversation about
> it in comp.lang.c, or else you know kal is wrong and are just
> yanking his/her chain.
You're saying my commentary was vague. Fair enough. There was obviously
a third explanation, I could have been yanking his chain in an on-topic
manner. "Out of place" can have multiple meanings, one being "doesn't
belong" another being "in the wrong location". The output as a result of
the perfectly topical C program shown, looked good excepting the other
newline I expected, but of course the standard has nothing to say about
what an implementation must do with a newline. That's a QOI issue.
> * I respond, tongue-in-cheek, that the line is out-of-place because
> here in comp.lang.c we do not discuss HTTP, and further discussion
> ought to be taken elsewhere (as I'd already said, three messages
> upthread).
Well, I didn't get much tongue-in-cheek from it.
> * You respond, seemingly with a straight face, that you *still*
> don't see anything wrong with the HTTP, and imply that you still
> want to keep talking about HTTP in comp.lang.c.
I didn't comment on the HTTP. I commented on the text output, it could
have been "Mary Had a Little Lamb" for all I cared. This was my
objection, you assigning things to me that I didn't say.
> * I reply to you, explaining the joke, and explaining *explicitly*
> that HTTP is not and has never been topical here. I acknowledge
> that maybe you know HTTP, in which case you have nothing to worry
> about, or maybe you don't, in which case you should read a tutorial
> if you're interested.
Whether I know HTTP or CGI or anything else is beside the point, as I
already told you, because I wasn't commenting on it.
> * You take offense, apparently because you think *I* think you were
> the OP (or maybe kal, I'm not sure). You seem to know that HTTP
> is not topical here.
Why am I supposed to get your jokes when you don't get mine? I explained
mine to you as well.
> It ought to satisfy you that I say kal was wrong, the OP and I were
> right. If not, you're welcome to read a book on your own. I'm going
> back to C programming now.
I haven't the slightest care (in this newsgroup) whether that was a
proper response header or not. I care about the output from the program.
I hope you understand now that what annoyed me was you claiming (and did
it again in this post) that I said things I didn't. Read carefully what
exactly I said at each point.
Brian Rodenborn
- Next message: Default User: "Re: (OT) English language question"
- Previous message: Dan Pop: "Re: [OT] Re: memcpy() vs. for() performance"
- In reply to: Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: [OT] Re: CGI Programming in C on Xitami Web Server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
