This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phrase "This/Apache creates a small, ..." in section "More details" needs clarification. Toni Stoev ( talk) 17:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Also stumbled over this. Even if it were English, it would still be confusing what is being referred to. 86.12.165.129 ( talk) 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a point of clairification. Is Apache an instance of a CGI program? And how does GCI handle SSI? Newbie questions, I know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.98.66 ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 June 2005
I have submitted the article HTTP cookie for peer review (I am posting this notice here as this article is related). Comments are welcome here: Wikipedia:Peer review/HTTP cookie/archive1. Thanks. - Liberatore( T) 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain what this is? Also, is it CGI-bin or CGI-BIN? Thanks!
The directory is actually named "cgi-bin". Unix file names are case-sensitive, and all-lower-case is used for most names. 69.87.200.113 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The abstract of the article is longer than the article itself. What should remain in the abstract, and what should be moved? Superflyguy 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The http://www.example.org/wiki.cgi link is not up to date any more, sorry :(
Twice now I've seen people use AWB to "clean up" the article, mostly removing underscores from links to articles such as mod_perl, etc. These underscores are part of the names and should not be removed. Everybody says "mod_perl"; almost nobody says "mod perl". - furrykef ( Talk at me) 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a pathetically too-little article for such an important tech subject. How about some actual sample protocol details etc? 69.87.200.113 14:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. The article spends more time talking about shortcomings and alternatives than about CGI. There is also some wankery in there about how the trade off is the software engineer's decision to make. At least there are some external links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.128.198.190 ( talk) 23:55, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
I have provided an answer in What is Common Gateway Interface (CGI)? - Stack Overflow that I think makes things much more clear. I will try to update this article with the material from that answer. Sam Tomato ( talk) 23:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I've just removed the following links from the "see also" section. If they are considered appropriate for the article (which I doubt) then they should be in "external links" not "see also".
Davorg 11:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
WAHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.91.241 ( talk) 14:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Does it mean that a website running CGI scripts will access remote computers? ~ R. T. G 23:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
RFC 3875 is not the CGI spec. It is an informational article by two authors from the Apache Software Foundation that attempts to define CGI more formally. It is a common misconception that every RFC document is (or was) a standard. That is far from true. See RFC 1796 for an explanation. RFC 3875 can be considered a standard only if most CGI implementors agree to adhere to it. If you have seen any statements by implementors, please cite them. It looks like the closest thing to the CGI spec is the original CGI/1.1 spec at NCSA which is cited by nearly everyone. — Alexander Konovalenko ( talk) 13:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The link to the NCSA "spec" appears to be broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.20.4 ( talk) 07:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think Java Servlet/JSP, Microsoft ASP, PHP and other technologies should be referenced as more advanced solutions to the problem that CGI came to solve. 212.179.92.170 ( talk)
Can anyone help out? Most of the links to the historical spec documents seem to be 404s. The same is true if you visit the w3c site, their links to external documents are also broken. CecilWard ( talk) 09:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Par. 1:
Par. 3:
-- Doru001 ( talk) 10:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Not true anymore. 84.73.74.190 ( talk) 12:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/common-gateway-interface. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NortyNort (Holla) 10:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that some or much of the material in the "Purpose of the CGI standard" section do not describe the purpose of it.
The current first paragraph is a general description of HTML with server-dependent implementation details that are better described elsewhere.
The current third paragraph says: one thing the script would need to know is whether the user is logged in and, if logged in, under which name That is misleadingly vague and not helpful.
The section then proceeds to describe query strings that also are best described elsewhere.
I have added content to that section but not removed content. Sam Tomato ( talk) 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I recall that there was a widespread security issue introduced by a bug in a CGI example script in (I think) the NCSA reference server somewhere between 1993 and 1996 that allowed code execution on the server with the permission of the web server user id. This was a new class of vulnerabilities on the web, and that script was perhaps the first widespread example of the same. I think this is notable enough to get a section. Does anyone remember the name of the the offending script?
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phrase "This/Apache creates a small, ..." in section "More details" needs clarification. Toni Stoev ( talk) 17:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Also stumbled over this. Even if it were English, it would still be confusing what is being referred to. 86.12.165.129 ( talk) 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a point of clairification. Is Apache an instance of a CGI program? And how does GCI handle SSI? Newbie questions, I know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.98.66 ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 June 2005
I have submitted the article HTTP cookie for peer review (I am posting this notice here as this article is related). Comments are welcome here: Wikipedia:Peer review/HTTP cookie/archive1. Thanks. - Liberatore( T) 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain what this is? Also, is it CGI-bin or CGI-BIN? Thanks!
The directory is actually named "cgi-bin". Unix file names are case-sensitive, and all-lower-case is used for most names. 69.87.200.113 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The abstract of the article is longer than the article itself. What should remain in the abstract, and what should be moved? Superflyguy 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The http://www.example.org/wiki.cgi link is not up to date any more, sorry :(
Twice now I've seen people use AWB to "clean up" the article, mostly removing underscores from links to articles such as mod_perl, etc. These underscores are part of the names and should not be removed. Everybody says "mod_perl"; almost nobody says "mod perl". - furrykef ( Talk at me) 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a pathetically too-little article for such an important tech subject. How about some actual sample protocol details etc? 69.87.200.113 14:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. The article spends more time talking about shortcomings and alternatives than about CGI. There is also some wankery in there about how the trade off is the software engineer's decision to make. At least there are some external links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.128.198.190 ( talk) 23:55, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
I have provided an answer in What is Common Gateway Interface (CGI)? - Stack Overflow that I think makes things much more clear. I will try to update this article with the material from that answer. Sam Tomato ( talk) 23:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I've just removed the following links from the "see also" section. If they are considered appropriate for the article (which I doubt) then they should be in "external links" not "see also".
Davorg 11:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
WAHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.91.241 ( talk) 14:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Does it mean that a website running CGI scripts will access remote computers? ~ R. T. G 23:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
RFC 3875 is not the CGI spec. It is an informational article by two authors from the Apache Software Foundation that attempts to define CGI more formally. It is a common misconception that every RFC document is (or was) a standard. That is far from true. See RFC 1796 for an explanation. RFC 3875 can be considered a standard only if most CGI implementors agree to adhere to it. If you have seen any statements by implementors, please cite them. It looks like the closest thing to the CGI spec is the original CGI/1.1 spec at NCSA which is cited by nearly everyone. — Alexander Konovalenko ( talk) 13:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The link to the NCSA "spec" appears to be broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.20.4 ( talk) 07:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think Java Servlet/JSP, Microsoft ASP, PHP and other technologies should be referenced as more advanced solutions to the problem that CGI came to solve. 212.179.92.170 ( talk)
Can anyone help out? Most of the links to the historical spec documents seem to be 404s. The same is true if you visit the w3c site, their links to external documents are also broken. CecilWard ( talk) 09:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Par. 1:
Par. 3:
-- Doru001 ( talk) 10:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Not true anymore. 84.73.74.190 ( talk) 12:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/common-gateway-interface. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NortyNort (Holla) 10:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that some or much of the material in the "Purpose of the CGI standard" section do not describe the purpose of it.
The current first paragraph is a general description of HTML with server-dependent implementation details that are better described elsewhere.
The current third paragraph says: one thing the script would need to know is whether the user is logged in and, if logged in, under which name That is misleadingly vague and not helpful.
The section then proceeds to describe query strings that also are best described elsewhere.
I have added content to that section but not removed content. Sam Tomato ( talk) 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I recall that there was a widespread security issue introduced by a bug in a CGI example script in (I think) the NCSA reference server somewhere between 1993 and 1996 that allowed code execution on the server with the permission of the web server user id. This was a new class of vulnerabilities on the web, and that script was perhaps the first widespread example of the same. I think this is notable enough to get a section. Does anyone remember the name of the the offending script?