Re: CGI versus CGI::* modules

CGI has generated XHTML compliant code for years. Are you using a really old version?

I see two good reasons to use CGI instead of something else. One, if you're using its HTML-generation functions in a large codebase, it might not be worth switching. Two, if you want to pass in a blessed filehandle and have it read data from there instead of STDIN, many of the replacements don't handle that correctly.

(Yes, this is a plea for tachyon to release CGI::Simple 0.07 soon! :)

Comment on Re: CGI versus CGI::* modules Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: CGI versus CGI::* modules by tachyon (Chancellor) on Aug 02, 2003 at 10:05 UTC
CGI-Simple-0.071 Ran out of excuses. Don't ask why 0.071 (read Changes). Thanks once again for the patch even if it took a rather long time to apply it. Its got your blessed glob patch, p3p support, a minor unicode bugfix, 0 val cookie fix and some mod perl upload fixes. cheers tachyon s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print	[reply]